Question 'bout Talbot Chainsaw

Is the Talbot Chainsaw a melee weapon? Or just a "Unique weapon"? That is, can I add some kind of damage just like the others melee weapon? Thanx. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

francoi...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Is the Talbot Chainsaw a melee weapon? Or just a "Unique weapon"? > That is, can I add some kind of damage just like the others melee > weapon? It is not a melee weapon, since it doesn't say "melee weapon". You can add damage to it with, say, Mass Reality, since it boosts all your weapons. You could not increase its damage with Lucky Blow, however, since Lucky Blow is only usable with a hand strike or melee weapon strike. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote in message <39AFA6C3...@white-wolf.com>... >It is not a melee weapon, since it doesn't say "melee weapon". >You can add damage to it with, say, Mass Reality, since it >boosts all your weapons. You could not increase its damage with >Lucky Blow, however, since Lucky Blow is only usable with a >hand strike or melee weapon strike. So a situation in which Werewolf Pack could have become marginally useful (aka Talbot's and Ambrosius combo) has been officially nixed. Apparently, the WerePaper Pack Activist Garoup needs to hire a better lobbyist...

In article <_v_r5.330692$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>, Mike Ooi <sh...@texas.net> writes >Apparently, the WerePaper Pack Activist Garoup needs to hire a better >lobbyist... Werewolf Pack was an astoundingly bad card. I am surprised someone ever thought of it, to be honest. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

In article <_v_r5.330692$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Ouch... I think "the card say so" is a weak argumentation...V-tes and Jyhad are so filled of misprints that some thinking is a must. Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the Talbot's is not ? LSJ is the V-tes rep. nevertheless... Akaisuisei [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8os94o$qv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, akais...@my-deja.com writes >Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the >Talbot's is not ? Neither Talbot's Chainsaw nor Chainsaw were melee weapons. It certainly seems intentional. Were one or the other to be a melee weapon, it would be possible to argue for a mis-print. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 01:22:43 GMT, akais...@my-deja.com wrote: >Ouch... I think "the card say so" is a weak argumentation...V-tes and >Jyhad are so filled of misprints that some thinking is a must. >Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the >Talbot's is not ? Gas-Powered Chainsaw, released in SABBAT, not V:TES or Jyhad, shouldn't be a melee weapon either. No matter how hard you hit someone with a chainsaw, it's the chain rotating that does the damage, so it shouldn't benefit from any strenght bonuses. As James Coupe said, neither Talbot's nor the original Chainsaw were listed as melee weapons - and probably for good reason. "The card says so" is the very basis of any CCG, by the way. If there's no good reason to alter what the card says, then it shouldn't be changed. Even though Gas-Powered Chainsaw ought to be a non-melee weapon, it doesn't significantly affect the game that someone can play Torn Signpost and strike with it for 5 -- so nothing gets changed. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 01:22:43 GMT, akais...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >Ouch... I think "the card say so" is a weak argumentation...V-tes and > >Jyhad are so filled of misprints that some thinking is a must. > >Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the > >Talbot's is not ? > > Gas-Powered Chainsaw, released in SABBAT, not V:TES or Jyhad, > shouldn't be a melee weapon either. No matter how hard you hit > someone with a chainsaw, it's the chain rotating that does the damage, > so it shouldn't benefit from any strenght bonuses. As James Coupe > said, neither Talbot's nor the original Chainsaw were listed as melee > weapons - and probably for good reason. I agree that the original 2 are not melee weapons, and were printed that way intentionally, and should stay that way 'cause "fixing" them is not worth the confusion and extra errata. However, I think that the designation of "melee weapon" on "gas powered chainsaw" is a good thing, and, in retrospect, probably would have been a good thing on Chainsaw & Talbots as well (both being rather underpowered). The fact that all the chainsaws (including "gas powered") are not based on hand damage (unlike almost all other melee weapons since the V:tES revisions) limits them very much. Thus, you cannot use any chainsaw in combo with Fists of Death, or Torn Signpost, or inherent hand damage bonuses, or Ritual Challenge, or Depravity. Sure, with Gas-Powered you can manage a "Lucky Blow" or with Potence you could play Undead Strength and potentially boost it indefinitely with Increased Strength, but your options are far more limited than with Hand-Damage-based weapons. A chainsaw is a very heavy weapon, and it depends on some pressure as well as its rotation. It would be odd, I think, to argue that strength is COMPLETELY irrelevant to its effective use in hand to hand combat. Strength is merely LESS relevant than it would be for a bastard sword. Such a situation is simulated by having both weapons designated as "melee", but only the bastard sword based on hand-damage. In the original Jyhad set, Bastard Swords and similar melee weapons were not based on hand-damage, and could only benefit from those strength bonuses that effected melee weapons. Therefore, the designers decided that Chainsaws were not melee weapons at all, in order to simulate the lesser effect of strength. Then the V:tES set further boosted melee weapons by basing them on hand damage, leaving the poor chainsaws far behind. The Sabbat set finally allowed the GP chainsaw to catch up a little bit by designating it a "melee weapon" but not basing it on hand damage. > "The card says so" is the very basis of any CCG, by the way. If > there's no good reason to alter what the card says, then it shouldn't > be changed. Even though Gas-Powered Chainsaw ought to be a non-melee > weapon, it doesn't significantly affect the game that someone can play > Torn Signpost and strike with it for 5 -- so nothing gets changed. Well, actually you CAN'T do that, because Torn Signpost do not boost melee weapons unless they are based on hand damage. Other things that you cannot do are strike more than once in a combat (apparently the things run out of gas REAL fast). Compare a bastard sword (which costs the same). You can continue to strike with it on subsequent rounds, and it benefits from multiple strikes as well. The Gas-Powered Chainsaw needed to be a melee weapon, if only so it would not COMPLETELY suck in comparison with a bastard sword. As it is, the GCP is better only if you are certain you will not have any hand damage, additional strikes, or additional rounds of combat. Incidentally, Talbots chainsaw DOES benefit from multiple strike per round, which might seem odd for a chainsaw. But it is hard to complain of lack of realism when dealing with an obviously supernatural artifact. -- John Whelan

In article <_v_r5.330692 $t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > Apparently, the WerePaper Pack Activist Garoup needs to hire a better > lobbyist... I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd like to know what (house) rules people use to make cards like Werewolf Pack or Dartmoor interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8otcv9$v58$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Our house rule for Werewolf Pack is that they are immune to hand damage instead. Dartmoor we use as is. Is anyone using house rules for Oxford University, Ravnos Cache, Grand Tempel of Set? [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Ooi <sh...@texas.net> wrote in message news:agus5.335056$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com... > >> I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd > >> like to know what (house) rules people use to > >> make cards like Werewolf Pack or Dartmoor > >> interesting. > > >Is anyone using house rules for Oxford University, Ravnos Cache, Grand > >Tempel of Set? > > In Austin, we use these cards extensively. The backs of them, I mean, for > our Austin Expansion cards. > Hrm... I use Submachine Guns for proxies... I'd just like to defend Grand Temple Of Set. It's pretty much like any other card that you need to defend. Yes, it's a target, but as part of a deck with decent intercept (which is hard to do with "pure" Setites, but _easy_ with aus/pre or aus/obf, which crosses over with Setites well) it's a nice toy. Influence your prey's vampires? Especially the one with all that cool _stuff_ on it? Valuable. It's certainly not in the same wallpaper category as Oxford U.... Mark Shanewood Prince of Minneapolis (who _likes_ stealing vampires)

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 17:33:15 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <s9s4rssn5skkjduel...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Talbot's is FAR from underpowered - rather, it's horribly overpowered, > >I would say that it's far from overpowered because: Well, overpowered with limitations, if that makes any sense. Once you solve >>you have to figure out how to >>apply the damage on every one of your untaps. this problem, you are in possession of one of the nastiest weapons in the game - and it comes with a built-in Rush. It's not BROKEN, just very, very good. >and would cite a noted Jyhad player who declared that, when it was in >play: > >>you are on a slow spiral to >>oblivion Well, you ARE. The 30-Arms Dealer deck, for example, will eventually run out of Arms Dealers to apply the damage to. I have a version that uses multiple Restorations to drop blood back into the vampires, and eventually I will run out of Restorations. I have another version that uses Embraced Tremere and the Chantry (the "yo-yo" method), but eventually either you'll run out of blood, pool, or Embraces (when people get tired of watching you bounce, and intercept their hunt). But just because you're on the way down doesn't mean you can't make sure everyone else goes with you, and then you come back up (by eventually killing the bearer of Talbot's with its own damage). =) The only deck that avoids this is the Ambrosius deck, and that requires an awful lot of Ambrosius to make sure you get him BEFORE you get the Chainsaw. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure there's any way to fish through your library and locate a retainer, so it really depends entirely on luck of the draw. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8otibs$49k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Oxford University is quite good really. Use it to vote-push your weenie Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool back by Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO. IME Ravnos cache works OK too, so does Acquired Ventrue assets. i've never had the guts to build a Grand Temple deck but i think that might turn out to be quite a good card in a Tzimisce/Setite or possibly Setite/!Toreador intercept/combat deck deck [with the Goth band]. As for the Werewolf pack, it's true they are shit in constructed deck but they make nice blockers in sealed deck, and dartmoor is MARGINALLY worthwhile in a Tier of Souls kinda deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p2tb6$h9l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well. IME Ravnos cache works > OK too, How's so? It's only worth it if you spend more than 4 pool on weapons and even then you still risk someone burning it before. While it's not totally useless, I don't think it's worth including in deck. Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one is useless! so does Acquired Ventrue assets. i've never had the guts to build > a Grand Temple deck but i think that might turn out to be quite a good > card in a Tzimisce/Setite or possibly Setite/!Toreador intercept/combat > deck deck [with the Goth band]. Well even if you have intercept to block and all I think it's still a bit too risky and a very expensive tactic. Both prey and predator would be interested in burning the temple, hard to have enough of minions to block them both. > > As for the Werewolf pack, it's true they are shit in constructed deck but > they make nice blockers in sealed deck, and dartmoor is MARGINALLY > worthwhile in a Tier of Souls kinda deck. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Oxford University is quite good really. Use it to vote-push your > weenie > > Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool back by > > Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO. > > We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well. Interesting, another reason not to play with a cl. It creates wallpaper cards > IME Ravnos cache works > > OK too, > > How's so? It's only worth it if you spend more than 4 pool on weapons > and even then you still risk someone burning it before. While it's not > totally useless, I don't think it's worth including in deck. Combine it with Mass Reallity, and it becomes quite scary > Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one is > useless! Unless you use it as the basis for a Goodnight Sweet Prince/Possession deck, where you Goodnight Sweet Prince your own crypt and then using superior necromancy, pull the vampire into your ready region for free. Hope this helps. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p355o$pop$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > Oxford University is quite good really. Use it to vote-push your > > weenie > > > Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool back by > > > Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO. > > > > We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well. > > Interesting, another reason not to play with a cl. It creates > wallpaper cards But CL also make you use cards you normally wouldn't, and prevents real dull and boring strategies based on very few cards. I'd say that without CL, you naturally have even more wallpaper cards. > > > IME Ravnos cache works > > > OK too, > > > > How's so? It's only worth it if you spend more than 4 pool on weapons > > and even then you still risk someone burning it before. While it's not > > totally useless, I don't think it's worth including in deck. > > Combine it with Mass Reallity, and it becomes quite scary Well I could use a Horrid Reality instead, or Castle Heidelburg (that has other good uses too), or simply pay for the equipment like normally (only if you equip a whole lot it's worth it, and as I said you risk to have it burned before so). > > > Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one > is > > useless! > > Unless you use it as the basis for a Goodnight Sweet Prince/Possession > deck, where you Goodnight Sweet Prince your own crypt and then using > superior necromancy, pull the vampire into your ready region for free. Hmm that was a new one =) I never thought about using it on your own ccrypt. It does make some strange deck though, requiring ravnos with necromancy and then mix in some camarilla princes...not sure it's worth that heh. But ok, it could be fun to try out =P [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:27:18 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >But CL also make you use cards you normally wouldn't, and prevents real >dull and boring strategies based on very few cards. I'd say that >without CL, you naturally have even more wallpaper cards. Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the one you just mentioned. Simply put, however, if someone wishes to be dull, let them - they only hurt themselves. One-trick pony decks tend to die when someone counters the trick. A deck with 20 Governs and 20 Lost in Crowds tends to fail miserably when you quit blocking it, or if you start bouncing bleeds, or if you start using 2nd Tradition or Enhanced Senses.. you get the idea. Or if you Rush it and beat up its vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4ucarsk9pjlke7mf8...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will play and thus make a counterstrategy for a 20 Governs deck for example. We also allow repeated actions since we have a CL. There cna be tons of arguments for and against, but I think every playgroup should be allowed to play as they think is the best. Nobody in our playgroup has ever wanted a change and there's another playgroup in the city next to ours that also play by the same houserules as we do. That totals about 25 people. We're all happy about how it's now. I think a great benefit with CL is that you know how many cards you need to collect as well. For example there's no point in getting more than 4 of a rare, so if someone gets a 5th he'll trade it away, which allows the newbies to get a chance to trade for some nice cards. And I think it feels just generally good to have a limit as to how many cards you need to collect, or worry about getitng played. The major point is that anyone can win with a deck based on only a few cards, I think it's a quite lame tactic to be frank. It doesn't require much of skill and makes the game really boring for the others. As I said, since people change their decks constantly here you cannot really counter it either, because if you try to and he's changed thedeck, your own deck might not be all that good anymore. And I think also that you should make a deck as you feel like playing it, and not contruct one only because "you have to counter someone else's", how fun is that? There's arguments that with a CL you can still get around it by using 4 Rampage and 4 Arson for example, that has the same effect. Well while this is true, they're not exactly the same, Rampage requires potence for example, and if you try go Earth Meld and Majesty combo it's the same thign. It DOES affect your deck negatively to have to throw in a lot of skill cards ot make the combo work etc. Most importantly however, is that of the truly great cards, there's no similar cards (like immortal grapple) so for these you can only have 4. Same goes with Temptation of Greater Power etc etc. But as I said, every playgroup should go for what they feel is thebest. This is what we feel is the best solution for us. My 2 cents, cantila [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p5pnj$p9a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I forgot to say that we have two exceptions to the 4 CL rule. With skill cards and the card Corruption we have no CL. As for Corruption I think it's obvious why, and as for the skill cards, we figured that you usually only use more than 4 of a skill card if you want to include a discipline that very few of your vampires has, and it meaks it a lot more fun to be able to try out Gangrels with Serpentis for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:01:07 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <4ucarsk9pjlke7mf8...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: Again,... >> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the >> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple >> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for >> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the >> one you just mentioned. >Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we >meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will So does ours. We build, rebuild, and throw out weekly. >play and thus make a counterstrategy for a 20 Governs deck for example. each deck should have a counter for bleed, vote, and combat. If you choose not to include such a counter in your deck, then you shouldn't be surprised if you get rolled by a deck type. Some people (myself included) take that risk in some decks. But if you have a counter for bleed decks, what does it matter what bleed cards they use? >We also allow repeated actions since we have a CL. There cna be tons of >arguments for and against, but I think every playgroup should be >allowed to play as they think is the best. Nobody in our playgroup has Nobody will ever try to force you to play in any way you don't want to. However, I will happily try to convince you that you are missing out on the full enjoyment of the game by playing with a CL. >ever wanted a change and there's another playgroup in the city next to >ours that also play by the same houserules as we do. That totals about >25 people. We're all happy about how it's now. I think a great benefit And that's 25 people who, if they ever happen to show up to a tournament, will be violently surprised by the difference in decks and deck styles, and may choose never to show up to a tournament. I will GUARANTEE some of those people would be just as happy with NCL, once they fully understood the whole situation. >collect, or worry about getitng played. The major point is that anyone >can win with a deck based on only a few cards, I think it's a quite >lame tactic to be frank. It doesn't require much of skill and makes the Again, look at the archived discussions - the actual facts are opposite to what you are stating here. I won't go through it all again, but suffice it to say that NCL does not preclude skill - far from it, since now the trick is not to put too MANY of the same cards in and screw yourself. >game really boring for the others. As I said, since people change their >decks constantly here you cannot really counter it either, because if >you try to and he's changed thedeck, your own deck might not be all >that good anymore. It's a skill in deck-building you acquire - to make your deck functional against enough varied types. Right now, your decks are all functional against each other because nobody can do *anything* consistently, so everyone has a "toolbox" - some bleed, some combat, some intercept, probably some vote too. >There's arguments that with a CL you can still get around it by using 4 >Rampage and 4 Arson for example, that has the same effect. Well while It would be mindless to include as many as 4 of either card in any deck. Someone who wants to look at a handful of Arson with no locations on the table is free to, of course. >this is true, they're not exactly the same, Rampage requires potence >for example, and if you try go Earth Meld and Majesty combo it's the >same thign. It DOES affect your deck negatively to have to throw in a However, it's very easy to use 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations, 4 Propaganda, 4 Media Influence, 4 Enchant Kindred, and 4 Intimidation, all of which are +bleed cards at inferior Presence. It's also easy to use 4 Govern, 4 Scouting Mission, 4 Condition, 4 Threats, 4 Bonding, 4 Lost in Crowds, 4 Faceless Night, 4 Cloak the Gathering, and 4 Spying Mission with the Malkavians. And if you want, you can use 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown, and 4 Catatonic Fear, for 12 S:CE cards. Or 4 Earth Meld, 4 Rapid Change, 4 Form of Mist, for another 12. Card limits are easily bypassable. AGAIN, please go read the archive before posting arguments. >with Temptation of Greater Power etc etc. But as I said, every >playgroup should go for what they feel is thebest. This is what we feel >is the best solution for us. Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS. And the discussions here will assume a no-card-limit environment, and playing under NCL will help you understand the points of view better. Not to mention that frankly, you'll end up having more fun. In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding. Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again unnecessarily? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <pkscrssn1rss8260b...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:01:07 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> > wrote: > > >In article <4ucarsk9pjlke7mf8...@4ax.com>, > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Again,... > > >> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the > >> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple > >> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for > >> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the > >> one you just mentioned. I really don't have time for that, and I've sene most arguments on other sites anyway. > > >Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we > >meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will > > So does ours. We build, rebuild, and throw out weekly. So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties and I throw in 15 Psyches, then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other deck next time. > > >play and thus make a counterstrategy for a 20 Governs deck for example. > > each deck should have a counter for bleed, vote, and combat. If you > choose not to include such a counter in your deck, then you shouldn't > be surprised if you get rolled by a deck type. Some people (myself > included) take that risk in some decks. But if you have a counter for > bleed decks, what does it matter what bleed cards they use? The 20 Governs were just an example that you gave and that I picked up. A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power, cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example is Immortal Grapple, do I really have to explain this further to make you understand? ;-) There's plenty of cards that you want to have more than 4 of and where there are no other similar cards providing the same effect like the various bleed cards. > > >We also allow repeated actions since we have a CL. There cna be tons of > >arguments for and against, but I think every playgroup should be > >allowed to play as they think is the best. Nobody in our playgroup has > > Nobody will ever try to force you to play in any way you don't want > to. However, I will happily try to convince you that you are missing > out on the full enjoyment of the game by playing with a CL. And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course. Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where people with the most money can make the best decks. Not everyone has enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties... > > >ever wanted a change and there's another playgroup in the city next to > >ours that also play by the same houserules as we do. That totals about > >25 people. We're all happy about how it's now. I think a great benefit > > And that's 25 people who, if they ever happen to show up to a > tournament, will be violently surprised by the difference in decks and > deck styles, and may choose never to show up to a tournament. I will > GUARANTEE some of those people would be just as happy with NCL, once > they fully understood the whole situation. > Thing is that we're in Swedne and there's no official VKEN tournamnets here. Some of us has played in tournaments at gaming convents and I assume they played by the official rules, since these people never suggested we use no CL obviously they didn't like that playstyle better. There IS a reason as to why the rule of no repeated actions was made for example, to prevent the real cheesy strategies. And that's what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :) For example, all combat decks I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is that? Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that might be something you can't afford. > >collect, or worry about getitng played. The major point is that anyone > >can win with a deck based on only a few cards, I think it's a quite > >lame tactic to be frank. It doesn't require much of skill and makes the > > Again, look at the archived discussions - the actual facts are > opposite to what you are stating here. I won't go through it all > again, but suffice it to say that NCL does not preclude skill - far > from it, since now the trick is not to put too MANY of the same cards > in and screw yourself. > > >game really boring for the others. As I said, since people change their > >decks constantly here you cannot really counter it either, because if > >you try to and he's changed thedeck, your own deck might not be all > >that good anymore. > > It's a skill in deck-building you acquire - to make your deck > functional against enough varied types. Right now, your decks are all > functional against each other because nobody can do *anything* > consistently, so everyone has a "toolbox" - some bleed, some combat, > some intercept, probably some vote too. You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. But the point with CL is not to prevent stealth or bleed decks, that's obviosuly an important flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of Pander). The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP deck, but that's like saying you should fight violence (which is bad) with violence... (which funnily enough is what the arguments about gun laws in USA basically is about, but that's another story). If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10 IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? And just because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less efficient against other types of decks. I also think that CL forces a more variety of card use, so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do else, at least not as often. > > >There's arguments that with a CL you can still get around it by using 4 > >Rampage and 4 Arson for example, that has the same effect. Well while > > It would be mindless to include as many as 4 of either card in any > deck. Someone who wants to look at a handful of Arson with no > locations on the table is free to, of course. This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL does punish you (in this case you get punished by being forces to have potence), so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this kind of card. > > >this is true, they're not exactly the same, Rampage requires potence > >for example, and if you try go Earth Meld and Majesty combo it's the > >same thign. It DOES affect your deck negatively to have to throw in a > > However, it's very easy to use 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations, > 4 Propaganda, 4 Media Influence, 4 Enchant Kindred, and 4 > Intimidation, all of which are +bleed cards at inferior Presence. Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card. And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to buy for. > > It's also easy to use 4 Govern, 4 Scouting Mission, 4 Condition, 4 > Threats, 4 Bonding, 4 Lost in Crowds, 4 Faceless Night, 4 Cloak the > Gathering, and 4 Spying Mission with the Malkavians. > > And if you want, you can use 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown, and 4 Catatonic > Fear, for 12 S:CE cards. Or 4 Earth Meld, 4 Rapid Change, 4 Form of > Mist, for another 12. Card limits are easily bypassable. > > AGAIN, please go read the archive before posting arguments. > > >with Temptation of Greater Power etc etc. But as I said, every > >playgroup should go for what they feel is thebest. This is what we feel > >is the best solution for us. > > Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post > arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up > again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed > for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS. You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL. Like the no repeat action tenet (that we don't use). And the > discussions here will assume a no-card-limit environment, and playing > under NCL will help you understand the points of view better. Not to > mention that frankly, you'll end up having more fun. I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 Legacy of Pander. It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new decks). > > In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding. > Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have > said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again > unnecessarily? =) As I said, I don't have the time, and you enedn't reply if you don't want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're happy in our group why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken, why fix it? I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied...if you have 8 IG's you could always have one more. If you have 4 now, then you know there's no point to try get more. I think CL really helps to make people try out different clans. I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players here has a few clans that they almost always play. Of our 25 people nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck really effective. Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... I have most cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either. Yet I spent a LOT of money on this game, at least $750 in total. > > -- Derek > Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta > [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the > available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple > discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for > V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the > one you just mentioned. > > Simply put, however, if someone wishes to be dull, let them - they > only hurt themselves. One-trick pony decks tend to die when someone > counters the trick. A deck with 20 Governs and 20 Lost in Crowds > tends to fail miserably when you quit blocking it, or if you start > bouncing bleeds, or if you start using 2nd Tradition or Enhanced > Senses.. you get the idea. Or if you Rush it and beat up its > vampires. > > -- Derek > Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta > I think that as cantila, I have never been into an actual discussion about card limits, and sincerely, I don´t think that because other people have expressed their opinions widely about CL in the past, we (me and cantila and whoever wants to, for example) just should read the archives and never express our own opinions. I have read some articles in favor and against CL and I have my own opinions that may want to share with all of you on the newsgroup, and I appreciatte and have a lot of interest in cantila (and everybody) opinions, in fact, he made me even more confident in my CL preference. A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a hard thing to do. Thus, the CL makes you not to worry of getting million copies of a single card, you just care to get the CL and that´s all. That way I can modify my decks many, many times, even if I have only 3 inmortal grapples, or 4 Torn Signpost, or a couple Scorpion Sting (I can see a powerful Gangrel deck with 8-10 Scorpion stings, I have never seen 4 of those together). And myself, as cantila, didn´t spend few money on this game. > > It's a skill in deck-building you acquire - to make your deck > functional against enough varied types. Right now, your decks are all > functional against each other because nobody can do *anything* > consistently, so everyone has a "toolbox" - some bleed, some combat, > some intercept, probably some vote too. > What?? I can´t believe that you have ever discussed about this before. So that´s your opinion on decks that use CL, decks that just can´t do anything "consistently". Well, if you think that cantila and his 25 group of people know nothing about playing with NCL with this affirmation you state that know even less of playing with CL. Here we have made up tons of decks that do many things very consistently, and not just the easy Malk deck full of stealth and bleed, many other decks that had a specific objective and did their job fairly well. And more important of all, we had made many, many decks that also do MANY things and very consistently. It´s also very interesting and effective to play with decks that can bleed, hit hard in combat and do politics. Why not? What do you do around there? You just play with bleed only decks, political only decks and combat only decks? My friend, how boring that must be. >> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post >> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up >> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed >> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS. > Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no cards to use. How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8 times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card. I would need to get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable one). Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order a couple boxes to Potomac distribution, you sure don´t care about having 10 or 20 DO, because you just have them, but I think that if we want to get more and more people onto this awesome game we should not let the game rely on having many of copies of hard to find cards, because then people would need to invest more money and more time, and what we try here is to have fun and enjoy ourselves. Well, having said that, I have to state that as my preference stays with CL, I for sure do not think that people who play with NCL are not getting the "real taste of the game" or are doing cheesy strategies, they just enjoy playing in a different way than I do, and if I ever have a chance to play with them I will try to beat them with my Card Limited deck just to see how different they are, and if I get creamed all the time, I´ll still be happy and will try to improve my deck construction skill and my playing skill. And if I get enough cards in my collection I will make up a NCL deck to play with them. Let´s have fun and enjoy this great game Darkelf

In article <8p69p3$dno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties Which could be (mostly) done with 4 Majesties, 4 Catatonic Fears and 4 Staredowns. >and I throw in 15 Psyches, >then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other >deck next time. Variable. If you aren't certain of being able to kill someone in one round, Psyches will provide useful backup to go in again (say you find damage prevention a problem). If you want to cycle more combat cards, 1 Pysche! will let you go for another few combat cards. If you want to press, it's useful. If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful. >And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that >fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course. >Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where >people with the most money can make the best decks. You need to read all the previous posts on xCL, because you're not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Who wins in a situation where I have 27 Bewitching Orations and 1 Awe, and the money player has 500 Bewitching Orations and 5 Awe? Oh look, the rich player has more of a rare card. >Not everyone has >enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties... So play an entirely different deck that doesn't care about Majesty. If you just avoid combat altogether, his 20 Majesties are pointless. >And that's >what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :) You need to read previous arguments on this, you're not saying anything new. Malkavian Stealth and Bleed is not hampered at all under CL. It is hampered under NL, because you can defend against it better. Fact. >For example, all combat decks >I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, Look harder. >how fun is >that? Plenty fun. Not everyone is playing those decks, and you have all sorts of things you can do. What would you do? Deny people access to 12 copies of IG when you can still have 12 sources of Combat Ends in a deck (Majesty, Staredown, Catatonic Fear). Personally, I'd rather not try and play a combat deck and have someone play 12 S:CE against me. How fun is that? >Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use >other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully >replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that >might be something you can't afford. A lot of people find Increased Strength a very playable alternative. >You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you >say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick >the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a >dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. You cannot make any other deck as dedicated. People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop cheese. If that's why you're playing with xCL, you haven't examined the situation clearly enough. > But the point with CL is not >to prevent stealth or bleed decks, You said it was about no "cheesy stuff". Malk S&B often features under a definition of such. >that's obviosuly an important >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of >Pander). Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are defeatable, and have holes to be exploited. Except, under xCL, you are not allowed to have enough of those counters. You're not allowed all your S:CE counters because you can't have enough IG. You're not allowed enough vote counters, because you can't have enough Delaying Tactics. You're not allowed enough bleed bounces, because you can only have 8 in Dominate and only 4 in Auspex. Auspex, under NCL, has a very good bleed defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot, because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs. >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP >deck, You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against any vote deck. Building a specific counter deck is a pointless exercise. You need a good amount of defence against a deck, along with a decent deck as well. You can defend against politics, you can defend against bleed, you can defend against combat. If you don't, you'll be dead, CL or no CL. >If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw >in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10 >IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what NL means. There are plenty of other viable defences against many other sorts of combat decks, and S:CE won't work against all of them. Leather Jacket won't work against all of them. Flak Jacket won't work against all of them. Dodge won't work against all of them. You put in what is right for your deck. And 10 Leather Jackets would be a bloody stupid choice for such a deck. >And just >because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less >efficient against other types of decks. You surely put combat defence in an xCL deck? Do you just stand there not being able to defend at all? >I also think that CL forces a >more variety of card use, That's the point of it. It doesn't force no "cheesy stuff". >so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do >else, at least not as often. That might be because the cards are bad cards, or inappropriate to your deck. You try and argue against NL, but say you'd put 10 Leather Jackets in the above deck. It's an utterly stupid thing to do, and no serious NL player would even think of doing such. The idea of maxing out on one or two cards always seems to come from the anti-NL camp, and not from people with NL experience. <4 Rampage - 4 Arson> >This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL >does punish you Erm, what? >(in this case you get punished by being forces to have >potence), >so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this >kind of card. Indeed. If you don't need 8 of a kind of card, you're unlikely to put that many in under NL. NL simply allows you access to the cards you do want. It doesn't force you to take 10 of them, like you seem to be suggesting. >Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM >gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead >of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent >soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card. Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop the cards being powerful. Most cards in the game are balanced, currently. >And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in >quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to >buy for. There are other ways around S:CE, and you can suit your deck to whatever your resources allow, for instance, playing a political deck instead. Going and buying a few boxes of Jyhad (which are cheap) is one way to get a half-dozen Immortal Grapple. >You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has >been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL. No, errata exists to balance cards regardless of number in a deck. >Like the no >repeat action tenet (that we don't use). That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak Drives in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon you. >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 >Legacy of Pander. It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten. Playing Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives you a good chance against many vote decks. Vote lock isn't solely generated via Legacy of Pander, you know? If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's 10 Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in the game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of Praxis Seizures make the game any more "fun"? >It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the >player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and >then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new >decks). If a deck has no way to defend itself against politics, it will die when it sits next to politics. If a deck has no way to defend itself against bleed, it will die when it sits next to bleed. If a deck has no way to defend itself against combat, it will die when it sits next to combat. These are facts. You should consider what defences your deck has when you build it. So, you know you're not going to sit next to 10 Legacy of Pander. Do you put no vote defence in? Vote lock can be achieved via other means. If you need to "prepare yourself" against a specific deck, you are playing badly - and the reason you need xCL to balance decks is because you're playing badly, not because NL is broken. It sounds like you're not putting *any* vote defence in at all. LoP can be badly screwed by generic vote defence, and if you don't put any of that in, well, that's your own fault, not the fault of NL or LoP. Or another vote deck. >> In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding. >> Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have >> said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again >> unnecessarily? =) > >As I said, I don't have the time, If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should anyone else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments that have gone before you, with nothing new to add? >and you enedn't reply if you don't >want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're >happy in our group Please, be happy in your group. If you can't be bothered to show people here the common decency of reading up on a debate before trying to sound clever in it, don't bother. You just go over old ground and introduce nothing new at all, which helps no-one. >why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love >the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken, >why fix it? What do you do if I sit down with a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed deck? 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it, with a decent deck still there. That is broken. What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's very different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been ever since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES. "We don't abuse card limits in our group, so they're alright." That just doesn't stand up. Card limits can be abused. NL has no abusive decks, to my mind, as the situation currently stands, even though some decks - LoP and ToGP are causing people some grief at the moment. ToGP will do nothing against massive blood gain, really. >I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need >ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied Once you get beyond a stupid number for a deck, you're satisfied. You might also want to have several decks on the go at once, so you can lend them to people, so you can't share cards between decks. >I think CL really helps to make people try out >different clans. Erm, what? You can play as many clans as you want under NL. > I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players >here has a few clans that they almost always play. Look harder - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, search for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that have been refuted a hundred times before. A lot of people have favourite clans, but I've seen people try all sorts of things. And there is *nothing* making people shift clans by the presence or absence of card limits. >Of our 25 people >nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to >that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah >deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had >to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck >really effective. It takes very little expense or effort to get a lot of IGs. Buy a couple of boxes of Jyhad. Put up a few notices on a trading site. What's that, half an hour's work? > Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare >card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy >rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... Oh, but 4 is *that* much different to 5. Right. How do you cope with the new player who wants to put more presence vote modifiers in his deck but can't, because he only owns 1 Awe but you own 5? But he has 10 Bewitching Orations and you won't let him. And the rich player doesn't win? Yeah, right. > I have most >cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare >card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either. So, you have 3 Awes, newbie player doesn't. Shucks, I guess he just can't play an effective politics deck - which he could if you'd let him put more than 4 Bewitching Orations in. But, for some reason, you decide to punish him for not being rich, where NL said "Yep, we're cool with you playing 10 of that common card, instead of 4 common and 4 rare". And NL has shown time and time again that decks with many, many commons in them do very well indeed. If you *want* to play a deck with mostly rares, you can do that too - but a common deck won't fall down just because it's common. It'll fall down because it's badly made. [ quoted text not captured ]

"cantila" wrote: > I really don't have time for that, and I've sene most arguments on > other sites anyway. Argh. I start reading again after about a year, and the first thing I see (almost) is a CL thread? ...sigh... I'm going to try to make this concise, yet pointed, so that we can cut this thread to a minimum. > The 20 Governs were just an example that you gave and that I picked up. > A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power, > cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example > is Immortal Grapple, do I really have to explain this further to make > you understand? ;-) There's plenty of cards that you want to have more > than 4 of and where there are no other similar cards providing the same > effect like the various bleed cards. This is the difference in CL versus NCL mentalities. CL thinks that it's bad to be able to play IG more than X times, and NCL thinks it's a crime that there either isn't any redundancy, or that you *can't* play something more than X times. > And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that > fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course. A good portion (dare I say majority?) of the people here started out playing or were vociferously in favor (Peter?) of CL at one point. Pretty much every one of those people has changed their mind after playing NCL for a while. > Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where > people with the most money can make the best decks. Not everyone has > enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties... Okay, maybe the problem is not that IG is rare, but that Majesty is uncommon? You're attacking the problem from the wrong end with CLs. Anyone can make a really good Malkavian S&B deck with *just* commons. Even under 4CL. What you can't do is make any number of good combat decks or a wide variety of really weird decks. For example, the 7+ Raptor deck wouldn't work... http://www.waste.org/~xian/geek/jyhad/freak/raptor.html > For example, all combat decks > I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is > that? Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use It depends on what you're playing for, and how you define "fun." I often play to amuse myself with weird combinations, but I still try to win. For lots of people, winning is "fun." The object of the game *is* to win. The purpose of the game is to have fun, otherwise, you probably shouldn't be playing in the first place...but the two should be compatible. It seems that under CL, there's pressure to have "fun" at the cost of attempting to win the game through a common strategy. > other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully > replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that > might be something you can't afford. You're missing the point again. If I *want* to play a deck with 60 TS and nothing else, with just weenies with Potence, then I should be able to do it. I won't win a whole lot, but don't you think that I should learn that on my own? I'll be easy prey for a long time until I get a clue, or someone that's tired of me being a quick Victory Point will tell me. > You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you > say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick > the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a > dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. But the point with CL is not I think the point was that if you're *not* playing an S&B deck, you end up playing with a little bit of everything...if you play S&B, you're fine. If you play anything else, you have to include intercept or votes, because they're your best defense against S&B, because you can't build a good combat deck that can deal with it... > If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw > in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10 > IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? And just You shouldn't. That would be silly. You should include a couple of maneuvers (say 4 or 5) and have the remaining strikes be S:CE. > because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less > efficient against other types of decks. I also think that CL forces a What other decks do you need to use S:CE against? Gangrel? Perhaps...though maneuvers generally work okay too... > more variety of card use, so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do > else, at least not as often. And what if the other cards don't have the effect you're looking for? What if I want to build a Setite deck based around getting into combat and stealing blood? Serpentis & Celerity? Can't do it under CL... > As I said, I don't have the time, and you enedn't reply if you don't > want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're > happy in our group why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love > the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken, > why fix it? If you're happy with it in your group, no one is trying to force you to change it. Just please, please, please don't try to convince the newsgroup that it is the best way to play, or that playing NCL is bad or cheesy or wrong. Most of the discussion here is based on tournament play, or working towards tournament play, so the offical rules are discussed. Please feel free to post decks or whatever, and mention that you play with a CL, and people will take that into account when reviewing them... > I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need > ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied...if you have 8 IG's you > could always have one more. If you have 4 now, then you know there's no I think 8 IG is about the most I'd ever need... > point to try get more. I think CL really helps to make people try out > different clans. I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players > here has a few clans that they almost always play. Of our 25 people People tend to gravitate toward clans that have discipline combinations they like. Not that this is always a good idea. In my case, for instance, I happen to really like Thaumaturgy. This causes me endless amounts of pain trying to get a Tremere deck to work. I should actually go back and tweak my decks before playing this weekend, but I probably won't have the time... Anyway, most of the players on this newsgroup have experimented with most or all of the clans, and have had the time to decide which clans/discipline combinations best fit their play style. > nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to > that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah > deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had > to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck > really effective. Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare Nah. Jyhad cards are cheap. Not to mention, if you have 25 players (I wish we had that many...) the collective pool should be big enough that you can trade amongst yourselves a whole lot. If you really wanted 12 IG for the week, you could surely find enough or do temporary trades or something... Xian -- resurrected jack-booted thug www.waste.org/~xian/jyhad/

In article <39b6c459@news>, Darkelf <darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> writes >A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the >availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we >have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a >hard thing to do. Rare cards aren't inherently more powerful. You don't need rare cards to compete. Rare cards offer, nine times out of ten, more "powerful" but more "corner-case" cards. >What?? I can´t believe that you have ever discussed about this before. So >that´s your opinion on decks that use CL, decks that just can´t do anything >"consistently". Well, if you think that cantila and his 25 group of people >know nothing about playing with NCL with this affirmation you state that >know even less of playing with CL. How are you stopping me playing 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown and 4 Catatonic Fear? You don't have enough sources of anti-S:CE. >Here we have made up tons of decks that >do many things very consistently, Not by NL standards. >Why not? What do you do around there? You just play >with bleed only decks, political only decks and combat only decks? My >friend, how boring that must be. And you assert that we know nothing of xCL. *sigh* >Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in >your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able >to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no >cards to use. You can play NL with as many cards as you want. Indeed, many of the best NL decks have less than 6 copies of many cards. You don't need more or different cards for NL. That's the point. >How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8 >times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card. You don't. You look at the cards you have and you make a deck around them. >I would need to >get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable >one). Why? You could borrow them from a friend. You could buy a few from someone. You could choose to play with proxies in a friendly game. You could buy some boxes of Jyhad, and get a few in there. You could play Jyhad On-Line. > Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy >my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order >a couple boxes to Potomac distribution, You don't need to order a couple of boxes "each week", at all. A couple of boxes of Jyhad is plenty to make a workable deck. Just because you don't have the cards to make the NL deck you really, really want to doesn't mean you shouldn't play NL. It just means you have to temper your dreams with reality. You can't play a deck with cards you don't have, even under xCL. It's no different. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:34:45 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <pkscrssn1rss8260b...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> AGAIN, >> Again,... >> >> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through >the >> >> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple >> >> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate >for >> >> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including >the >> >> one you just mentioned. > >I really don't have time for that, and I've sene most arguments on >other sites anyway. No, you haven't, because you keep quoting incorrect arguments and putting forth weak reasons that have already been answered. If you wish to be deliberately obtuse, that's fine, but I'd advise not mentioning too much about card limits then. >> >Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we >> >meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will >> >> So does ours. We build, rebuild, and throw out weekly. > >So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties and I throw in 15 Psyches, >then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other >deck next time. You're not SUPPOSED to know what kind of deck the person is playing. If someone has 15 Majesties, what are they going to do if they never get into combat? They'll be able to do NOTHING, that's what. NCL enforces itself. A deck with 15 Majesties in it is expecting to sit next to a bunch of people trying to beat it up. If you don't block them, they'll just hand jam on Majesty and end up bleeding for 1 in a vain attempt to get you to let them cycle their hand. This is also a good answer to a stealth bleeder. >The 20 Governs were just an example that you gave and that I picked up. >A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power, >cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example *sigh* You know, I played against Legbiter's Temptation of Greater Power deck multiple times recently. It's a good deck. It is NOT the be-all end-all of decks. There are numerous ways to defeat it. It is a very strong card, but if you think the deck is boring, all I can say is that you've never really seen it played. There are a lot of things it has to do BESIDES use "temptation of greater power" just to make itself go. >is Immortal Grapple, do I really have to explain this further to make >you understand? ;-) There's plenty of cards that you want to have more >than 4 of and where there are no other similar cards providing the same >effect like the various bleed cards. Which is exactly the argument for no-card-limits. Immortal Grapple, a rare, is worthless against Fake Out, a common card, since you cannot IG someone at long range. If you notice, IG decks are not winning tournaments left and right. They aren't even doing -that- well. Is it because perhaps that 12 IG's isn't any guarantee of victory, and card limits are just holdovers from the Magic days? Hmm.. COULD BE. >> Nobody will ever try to force you to play in any way you don't want >> to. However, I will happily try to convince you that you are missing >> out on the full enjoyment of the game by playing with a CL. > >And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that Wrong. I tried it, and it was boring. I couldn't ever make a deck that did what I thought it would, because it was always drawing up something OTHER than what I needed right then. The thought of producing a 3-card combo more than once or twice was a laugher. It was basically a toolbox that bled a little, fought a little, intercepted a little, and had some combat defense too. Which is boring when everyone else's deck does the same thing, and reduces the game to luck of the draw. >fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course. I have, oddly enough, 4 Fists of Death. Not that having 20 would do me any good, since I can't think of a single reason to put 20 Fists of Death in a deck. Can you? Of course not. I can't think of a reason to put any more than 8 in a deck, myself. That only lets me play 8 combats. Do you think there will be more than 8 combats in a game? >Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where >people with the most money can make the best decks. Not everyone has >enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties... First, you don't need IG to beat Majesty decks. There are plenty of other ways to beat a deck with 20 Majesties, and if you build your deck well and play well, you won't even have to worry about a deck showing up with 20. You won't even have to specifically allow for a deck with 20 Majesties - it can be a COMPLETE SURPRISE to you, and if you've built your deck properly you won't have a problem. Second, you can build a perfectly adequate deck with nothing more than common and uncommon cards from Jyhad. You can sweep a table with it, in fact. Against all the other horrible, horrible "NCL" decks. This has been SHOWN, REPEATEDLY, in the archive I attempted to get you to read.. >> And that's 25 people who, if they ever happen to show up to a >> tournament, will be violently surprised by the difference in decks and >> deck styles, and may choose never to show up to a tournament. I will >> GUARANTEE some of those people would be just as happy with NCL, once >> they fully understood the whole situation. > >Thing is that we're in Swedne and there's no official VKEN tournamnets >here. Some of us has played in tournaments at gaming convents and I Ah, so there ARE tournaments, since some of you have played at conventions right? What if others wanted to play? >assume they played by the official rules, since these people never >suggested we use no CL obviously they didn't like that playstyle >better. There IS a reason as to why the rule of no repeated actions was >made for example, to prevent the real cheesy strategies. And that's >what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :) For example, all combat decks You are, of course, very wrong. You would know this if you had read the archive. NCL is not about cheesy stuff, it's about INCREASING the variety of decks you can build, since you don't have to end up just filling in slots randomly in your deck. >I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is >that? Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use You should keep looking then, because there was just an Assamite deck posted here recently. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a TS/IG deck put out here for public review. I can't remember the last time I played a deck with Torn Signpost in it, and I play a LOT of combat decks. Probably a couple months ago. The TS/IG set is just one way to do combat. >other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully >replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that >might be something you can't afford. With a 4CL, the guy with all the rare cards still wins, because he can get the rare cards (Catatonic Fear, Staredown) that do things he wants, and the poor players are stuck with just 4 Majesties. If you're curious, I have 1 Catatonic Fear. >You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you >say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick >the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a >dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. But the point with CL is not But you said you were trying to prevent boring decks? I don't know, a deck with 24 Presence bleed cards in it is still a deck with 24 bleed cards, whether they're all Social Charms or they're 4 of each. "Oh no, sometimes he's going to gain a pool while bleeding me, or maybe sometimes he'll only bleed me for 2 instead of 3! Maybe sometimes it will tap a minion too!" Sorry, it's just the same damn thing. >to prevent stealth or bleed decks, that's obviosuly an important >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of >Pander). The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. And in addition to "preventing" these decks, it also prevents a great deal of variety that could otherwise be had. >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP >deck, but that's like saying you should fight violence (which is bad) >with violence... (which funnily enough is what the arguments about gun >laws in USA basically is about, but that's another story). The LoP deck does as well as it does because Rob Treasure is playing it and he is a very skilled player, not because it is inherently broken. It has a number of weaknesses, which he takes great pains to play around. Not the least of these weaknesses is... +1 intercept. Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are actually a threat. Or if a Rush deck had been sitting near him. What if a fast bleed deck was behind him? What if some voters were influenced out early on, so he couldn't gain vote lock? All of these things could be problems for his deck, and all are fairly common strategies to see in a tournament. >If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw >in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10 >IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? And just If you are worried about IG, I suggest throwing in 10 Fake Outs instead. Nice, common card, you should have about 20-30 sitting around easily. Of course, then you will get killed by a gun deck, but these are the little tradeoffs you make when building a deck. S:CE beats guns, and loses to IG, which loses to guns with maneuvers. See the rock-paper-scissors here? This is balanced, as opposed to letting someone use 12 S:CE strikes just because they have a bunch of rare cards that S:CE as well, and the poor guy who can't afford Sabbat can only use 4 Majesties. >This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL >does punish you (in this case you get punished by being forces to have >potence), so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this >kind of card. But your examples were all wrong. Below, I show 4 ways you can easily get around a CL and produce a deck that, if I were to play it in your group, you would LOUDLY decry as boring and cheesy. So a CL does not prevent cheesy decks. >> However, it's very easy to use 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations, >> 4 Propaganda, 4 Media Influence, 4 Enchant Kindred, and 4 >> Intimidation, all of which are +bleed cards at inferior Presence. > >Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM I don't think someone who has just put the 12 cheapest Presence vampires in his crypt is going to care about what the superior is of each card. He's just going to bleed you every turn, and if you block, play one of his 12 S:CE cards, or maybe a Dodge instead for variety. Since you can't have more than 4 Deflections, or 4 Telepathic Misdirections, you can't just bounce his bleeds and are going to have to block him over and over. But since he ends combat so much, you're never going to hurt his vampires, and eventually he will oust you. If he adds 4 Misdirections and 4 Mind Numbs as well, he will oust you VERY quickly, as you won't even be blocking very much. With only 4 Wakes and 4 Forced Awakenings in your deck, you are at a severe disadvantage, unless of course you play the Gangrel... but wait, that's what CL was supposed to prevent, having to be one specific thing to stop a specific deck! Oh shit, CL doesn't do that after all, does it? >gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead >of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent >soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card. There just aren't that many "power rares" in V:TES. Temptation of Greater Power is strong, but it requires an enormous amount of work to make go. Legacy of Pander is strong, but sit it next to an intercept deck or a good combat deck and it will explode gloriously. Immortal Grapple is strong, but Fake Out will keep you out of range. >And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in >quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to >buy for. OK, repeat after me: You Do Not Need IG To Defeat an S:CE Deck. You only need that many IGs if you want to beat it up with Potence. But to avoid being ousted by the deck, it's enormously simpler and doesn't require any rare cards at all. Please name me a strategy that you NEED a rare card to beat? >> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post >> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up >> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed >> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS. > >You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has >been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL. Like the no >repeat action tenet (that we don't use). One extra rule, "no repeat actions", is not "numerous". And 4 Majesties is just as painful to deal with as 12, when a player bleeds you, untaps when you block, and bleeds you again. Just because it only happens 4 times in a game doesn't make it any better. >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 >Legacy of Pander. It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the >player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and >then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new >decks). of course, if you add defense against votes to your deck, what do you care how many vote cards he has in his hand? What if your defense is just bringing out vampires with titles? What if you intercept any votes you don't like? What if what if what if... See, the CL just blinds you to strategies and counterstrategies. It doesn't encourage you to REALLY think. >As I said, I don't have the time, and you enedn't reply if you don't >want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're I will not permit you to disseminate incorrect information unchallenged. Therefore, I will respond. >happy in our group why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love >the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken, >why fix it? CL is, however, broken, as much as you'd like to think otherwise. >I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need >ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied...if you have 8 IG's you This is, of course, not true. I am MORE than satisfied with the vast majority of my collection, including the number of rares I have. There are only a few cards I wish I had more of, and those are the ones I only have 1 or 2 of. >could always have one more. If you have 4 now, then you know there's no >point to try get more. I think CL really helps to make people try out >different clans. I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players >here has a few clans that they almost always play. Of our 25 people This statement is violently incorrect, and I can't imagine where you EVER got that perception from. Most everyone who posts here plays MULTIPLE types of decks, some not even based on any specific clan. Who exactly were you thinking of when you said "Majority"? >nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to >that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah >deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had >to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck >really effective. Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare And if you do this often enough, people will begin to habitually include maneuvers in their decks instead of S:CE, and your powerful Brujah deck will kill nobody, and fold miserably. And so you will move on to another deck, perhaps a Tremere deck. And then other people will remove their maneuvers and put in Dodges. And eventually, nobody has ANY idea what anyone else is going to be playing at any given point in time, which is what the game is supposed to be like, and you can quit worrying about IG specifically and just concentrate on combat in general. I'm beginning to think that y'all have a good bit of knowledge of what other people are playing before the game starts, frankly - meaning that your card limits are not providing the variety you claim they are. >card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy >rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... I have most funny, I haven't spent any more than you have and I have a -lot- of rares. Not 5-10 of all cards, certainly, but enough for most every deck I care to build. And I build a LOT of decks. But oddly enough, some of my best ones are based on common cards... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 00:22:21 +0200, "Darkelf" <darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> wrote: >I think that as cantila, I have never been into an actual discussion about >card limits, and sincerely, I don´t think that because other people have >expressed their opinions widely about CL in the past, we (me and cantila and >whoever wants to, for example) just should read the archives and never >express our own opinions. No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first, nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said before. >A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the >availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we No... actually, it's not important. Just because your group can't get that many cards is no reason to impose card limits on the game. If anything, the lack of availability would serve as an INHERENT card limit, as almost nobody would be able to get the "tons of rare cards" you so seem to fear. >have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a >hard thing to do. Thus, the CL makes you not to worry of getting million You are both focussing on rares, when you shouldn't be. An effective NCL deck will normally use more than 4 copies of a COMMON card, and use the rare cards as the occasional alternative. The effective difference between a vote deck that has 10 Bewitching Orations and a vote deck that has 4 BO and 6 Awe is minimal. Actually, the guy with Awe has to worry a lot more about blood on his vampires, because to provide an equivalent effect to BO, he needs to spend 2 blood whereas BO is free. Which deck is better? Neither. Actually, the BO deck is probably better off. And Awe is a VERY good rare card. However, under a CL, the guy with 4 BO and 4 Awe is going to roll over the poor bugger who can only play with 4 BO because of card limits. >copies of a single card, you just care to get the CL and that´s all. That >way I can modify my decks many, many times, even if I have only 3 inmortal I'm failing to see how having only 4 of every card makes you somehow "more able" to modify a deck than having as many as you want of every card. With more cards, you have more options - it's basic math. >grapples, or 4 Torn Signpost, or a couple Scorpion Sting (I can see a >powerful Gangrel deck with 8-10 Scorpion stings, I have never seen 4 of >those together). And myself, as cantila, didn´t spend few money on this They're uncommon, NOT rare, from Ancient Hearts. I bought one box of Ancient Hearts. I have about 6 Scorpion Stings. The box cost me $75. This is really not that much money. >>> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post >>> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up >>> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed >>> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS. > >Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in >your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able It's because we've beaten to death all your arguments before, disproven them, and demonstrated that NCL is actually better for the game. It's silly because every CL player will always jump in railing mindlessly and repeating the arguments OVER AND OVER AND OVER that have been answered long, long ago. If you haven't got something new to say, PLEASE DON'T. It sends some of us off into long rambling discourse, much like my response to cantila. >to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no >cards to use. How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8 >times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card. I would need to Put 8 Dawn Ops in a deck around here and you'll be sitting and looking at them in your hand, because people will quit blocking you if their deck can't handle aggravated damage. CL players always focus on the rares. It's not the rares that matter. I only own 5 Dawn Ops myself. This has always been enough for my decks. What MATTERS is finding a way, and oddly enough it's usually via common cards, to give your Gangrel an action that's worth blocking - and THEN you can drop Dawn Op on it. >get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable >one). Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy >my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order >a couple boxes to Potomac distribution, you sure don´t care about having 10 which I don't. As I said to cantila, I've spent almost exactly as much as he has. And I'm certainly on an even footing with any Mr. Suitcase who has 20 of each rare. >or 20 DO, because you just have them, but I think that if we want to get >more and more people onto this awesome game we should not let the game rely >on having many of copies of hard to find cards, because then people would >need to invest more money and more time, and what we try here is to have fun >and enjoy ourselves. Of course, those of us who don't have many copies of hard-to-find cards and have NO trouble playing under NCL with people who DO have many copies consider this all to be so much bunk. I haven't done a whole lot of trading at all. I bought a bunch of boxes of Jyhad a couple years ago, and over the course of the past two years i've bought two boxes of Dark Sovereigns, two boxes of Sabbat, and one box of Ancient Hearts. Oh, and one box of V:TES starters. If you think this is a lot of cards or a lot of money... I think you are well overdue for another "think." Well, actually, it IS a lot of Jyhad, but that's easily the LEAST amount I've spent, believe it or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I think that as cantila, I have never been into an actual discussion about > >card limits, and sincerely, I don´t think that because other people have > >expressed their opinions widely about CL in the past, we (me and cantila and > >whoever wants to, for example) just should read the archives and never > >express our own opinions. > > No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to > people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over > assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the > arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to > the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first, > nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where > things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said > before. > > It's because we've beaten to death all your arguments before, > disproven them, and demonstrated that NCL is actually better for the > game. It's silly because every CL player will always jump in railing > mindlessly and repeating the arguments OVER AND OVER AND OVER that > have been answered long, long ago. If you haven't got something new > to say, PLEASE DON'T. It sends some of us off into long rambling > discourse, much like my response to cantila. > Oh!, sorry my lord. So it pisses you off (and you have also included everyone elses in the newsgroup, :o)) to have to listen to people that think different than you do. Why the heck you keep answering us? If you gett pissed about this forget about this conversation and let the people that want to talk about something do it. You DONT have to read what we write, and we can write here WHATEVER we want about this game, and have the same right as you do, Derek. As far as I know this is a public forum in wich NOONE can tell you what you should or shouldn´t write in it (as long as it discusses something about it´s subject). And if you get pissed listening to people that think different than you do I don´t know why you live in a democratic country (ups, sorry, you may live in Libia or Irak, sorry there Derek). Just because there´s a majority of people that think that NCL is right it doesn´t mean that that is the best solution for everybody. Please Derek, respect other opinions, and don´t get pissed off, we are here to enjoy, if we do it different ways, lets welcome it!. I´m sure that if we ever get together and talk for a while we´ll forget about this and have many excellent games in wich I´ll learn a lot about NCL games, and you´ll respect my CL play style. And about the cost of buying cards, I have to say again that I am from Europe. A couple facts: the dollar right now is flying to heaven from the Euro (you guys over US are doing a well job on economy, at least against Europe). Actually today it is on the news that the Euro is on its downless. Right now dollars here cost more than double! than they were 3-4 years before, if you add to this the cost of delivering via air-mail or whatever, those cheap Jyhad boxes for you over there are not that cheaper around here. Don´t put us in the same ground than you are. But in relation with this, I think that James is totally right. >James Coupe wrote this: >Just because you don't have the cards to make the NL deck you really, >really want to doesn't mean you shouldn't play NL. It just means you >have to temper your dreams with reality. You can't play a deck with >cards you don't have, even under xCL. It's no different. If it is harder for you to get the cards it doesn´t mean that NCL is not the right way to play. You´re right James, but maybe, as we have this difficulty, it suits better for us to play with CL. Thanks for listening Darkelf

> > No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to > people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over > assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the > arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to > the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first, > nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where > things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said > before. > why don't you just not post and let people who haven't discussed this before discuss it now. we don't want to read screens and screens of archives, we want a lively discussion. we play with NL and i can't imagine what it would be like to play with CL. the whole dynamic would change as you'd know exactly how many cards of a particular type your opponent would have left to play, could be interesting. setite decks wouldn't be much fun with only 4 corruptions though... [ quoted text not captured ]

> If I want to make a Setite deck for example how much fun is a setite deck with only four corruptions? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:20:53 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >Look harder - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL >debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, search >for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that have >been refuted a hundred times before. You're the one with the same tired old refrain that you repeat again and again. Trying to silence the argument in this way clearly doesn't work. I've read the old argmuments in favour of NCL and, while I understand them, I'm not overly impressed by them. And there are some new facts to take into account now that the game is being relaunched. Telling people to go and buy cheap boxes of Jyhad to get the large multiples they need is a fading argument. At some point there won't be any more boxes of Jyhad left and then what? I'm not touching them, in any case, because I don't want the mixed card backs and lack of colour-coding. I can do without the hassle of sorting and filing thousands of cards too. Those cards are obsolete and your emphasis should now be on encouraging players to buy new WW stock, not old, remaindered WotC stock. They will have to pay full retail for the WW cards and this isn't going to be cheap even if you only collect one of each rare. If there's no ceiling to the number of each card required then the game can clearly become a money-pit and this issue is certainly enough to stop me taking the game seriously. If you want to get new players to try the game, you need to have an answer to this objection. Telling them to read the archives ain't it. If the PTB had any sense, they'd have multiple tournmant formats to please both camps. Doomtown has four recognised formats: Bicycle (one of each value), Derringer (CL=1), Double-Barrel (CL=2) and Standard (CL=4). The standard format is the most popular but TOs can use the other formats without all this unnecessary vituperation. What's wrong with having a choice? Andrew

> > A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the > availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we > have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a > hard thing to do. I do not want to bud in but I live in the Netherlands and yes cards availlability is a problem. But..ehm isn't that why trading over the net is so usefull?? You could get all you want as long as you take the time for it. At least that is my opinion. And I have also played both NL and CL. I think that cardlimits CAN be usefull, but they also take away too many viable deckoptions. I'll not go into that again. Now here in Utrecht, people are seeing the NL arguments and getting the point and they can choose for themselves. The most important argument a player gave me pro NCL was: No one likes to be forbidden something, and creative freedom is something that is necessary for any card game to evolve. Thus it's up to you what ever you want, but I can assure you that any CL will take away way too many other fun, even silly deckdesigns and favors soem clans over others. Tim Eijpe [ quoted text not captured ] -- PROPHECY OF GEHENNA: On The First Day Of Gehenna The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79EFF6570DEDA0FA.32E66319...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > You're the one with the same tired old refrain that you repeat again > and again. Trying to silence the argument in this way clearly doesn't > work. I've read the old argmuments in favour of NCL and, while I > understand them, I'm not overly impressed by them. > ooooooo. A CL/NCL debate. What a rare treat. Can I join in? /Checks watch- hmm September, right on time. We very nearly didn't have 2 flame wars about this topic in 2000. That was lucky. What aren't you impressed with Andrew? Aren't you impressed with players who have played both formats extensively and come to the conclusion that NCL is better? Are you not impressed with the fact that deck diversity is higher in NCL? Play skill is higher with NCL? Deck design is more important with NCL? That this topic has had the collective input from countless numbers of people with basically the same outcome? I'm genuinely confused by this as you only put a single arguement up in defence. > And there are some new facts to take into account now that the game is > being relaunched. Telling people to go and buy cheap boxes of Jyhad > to get the large multiples they need is a fading argument. At some > point there won't be any more boxes of Jyhad left and then what? I'm > not touching them, in any case, because I don't want the mixed card > backs and lack of colour-coding. I can do without the hassle of > sorting and filing thousands of cards too. Those cards are obsolete > and your emphasis should now be on encouraging players to buy new WW > stock, not old, remaindered WotC stock. They will have to pay full > retail for the WW cards and this isn't going to be cheap even if you > only collect one of each rare. If there's no ceiling to the number of > each card required then the game can clearly become a money-pit and > this issue is certainly enough to stop me taking the game seriously. > If you want to get new players to try the game, you need to have an > answer to this objection. Telling them to read the archives ain't it. > Yeah, that Magic the Gathering and it's 4CL. Thats no money pit. oh no. Hang on, how about this: *ahem* "Play V:TES by White Wolf, you get to use all your commons- not just the first 4 of any one type" Competitive 4CL decks are usually more rare intensive than NCL decks. Really. Majesty is common, Staredown is rare, etc, etc. You don't need vast numbers of cards to be good at this game. You just need to be a good player. If you're not sure what that entails, you're not playing enough. Stop whining about the numbers of cards you have, learn how to play the ones you have to the best of your ability. Most ProMagic players own very few cards. > If the PTB had any sense, they'd have multiple tournmant formats to > please both camps. Doomtown has four recognised formats: Bicycle (one > of each value), Derringer (CL=1), Double-Barrel (CL=2) and Standard > (CL=4). The standard format is the most popular but TOs can use the > other formats without all this unnecessary vituperation. What's wrong > with having a choice? > ...and who plays Doomtown? There are shed loads of expansions for that game and nobody plays it competitively. And apparently, if they do they get a choice of whichever format they want to play in. Strikes me that if you have a player base of 10 you don't want to have 2, 5 player tournaments you want 1, 10 player one. surely. You are of absolutely correct about the numbers of cards available at the moment, with a bit of luck that will change. Telling people to buy old stock is obviously a bad idea. However, splitting the player base and shackling half of them to a bad tournament format is a worse idea. Players will end up enjoying the game less. > Andrew > matt. [ quoted text not captured ]

Oh no... it's starting again... My two cents... CL bad NCL good No need to say why, as I am sure that others will do that for me... but I leave you with two words to ponder in regards to CL vs. NCL... Cryptic Mission... oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1. <mgre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8p7ulh$9i8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>The starting point here is that the player base is already split. Why won't VEKN embrace the CL play-groups and recognise their way of playing the game?>> Because it would be fracturing the player base to support a game that is not the one desgined to be VTES. VTES was designed specifically to be a NCL game. When playing with a CL, it doesn't work the same--it is a very different game (and most would say a worse one). There is no percentage in supporting a format of the game that is unbalanced and does not work. Does the international chess federation support tournaments where everyone gets to use Queens for all of their pieces? No--I'm sure it is an entertaining game, but it is not the one that the rules intended. Does the Americal Bridge Federation support tournaments where you only use Spades and Hearts? No. Again, I'm sure it would be entertaining as games go, but it is not the how the game was intended to be played. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

In article <8p7e6e$n14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] As I said before, we've made an exception for the Corruption card, there's no limit on that one, as well as Master Skill Cards (because NL on them allows you to try out fun strategies like Serpentis on Nosferatu etc). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" wrote: [stuff about CLs and other junk] I liked the suggestion from someone who was vaguely pro-CL that all the old fogies should shut up and let all the new kids babble about CLs. How about...start threads with [CL] in them, and then all jack-booted thugs can ignore those threads and go happily about our business of confusing everyone (Legbiter, Xian)/plotting the next victory (Derek, Rob T)/figuring out new methods of dishing out meaty justice (Peter, http://www.theonion.com/onion3308/headscrackedin.html ) Everyone happy? Xian, obviously over-tired...

> > A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, > is the > > availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and > here we > > have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card > is a > > hard thing to do. > > I do not want to bud in but I live in the Netherlands and yes cards > availlability is a problem. But..ehm isn't that why trading over the net > is so usefull?? You could get all you want as long as you take the time > for it. At least that is my opinion. How does trading over the net solve the problem?? If you trade, that means you have to GIVE soemthing to GET something, how is this possibly making me end up with more (rare) cards than before (unless the guy I trade with is stupid, but on the other hand I don't like to take advantage of such things in a deal). So the only option would be to actually buy the cards from people on the net. Now first of all, most people don't sell their cards, secondly this gets quite expensive because our banks charge us with high fees for exchanging the money PLUS the dollar is super expensive to us. Thirdly I am the only one in my playgroup that actually trade and buy over the net and I have done so for years, yet I still don't have a complete set of Sabbat yet (I'm missing 3 cards, 2 of them I'll get next week) and thanks to a trade with oAFLOARD I just managed to complete my AH set after 5 years... Not everyone has the time or knowledge to find a site where ot trade, or even the interest/cash or the trust for it. You really seem to have no idea how hard it is to get the cards needed of the AH and Sabbat set, even commons! Actually of our 25 people there's only me and three more who has enough Sabbat cards to even play one of the clans in that set. The rest of my people either no vampires and very very few Sabbat cards, ones that I or the other two people have traded to them. I bought a lot of AH and I got 5 Scorpion Sting, thanks to the CL there's now another lucky player in my group that has 2 Scorpion Stings...instead of me having 6 which would make things even more unfair. And in return I got some well needed cards. Even with Jyhad and DS that's still actually possible to buy at some places here I don't have have even 4 of some uncommons I want. About 15 of our 25 players can't put together a good deck based on a DS clan...and DS has been bought in big amounts here. Speaking of Dawn Operation, I've played Jyhad since it first came out 6 years ago, and just last week I bought the 4th card off oAFLOARD that I needed...although I would have had 4 sooner had I not traded one away once, but still, I think it shows that even uncommons you seemt to take for granted is really sought for here. A friend of mine just started to play V:TES again hearing Sabbat War was coming out, so he managed to buy the last 3 VTES boxes in a store. Guess what? He has 2 Dawn Ops, although he got 4 Ivory Bows, so now almost everyone in my frequent playgroup (we're 8, the rest live in the neighbour city so we don't play often with them) acutally has one, and trust me, people here has been wanted one for AGES, they went totally news when they heard the news that my friend got 4 ;) I myself got my Ivory Bow first two years ago, trying to trade for one for a really long time through the net. It's not possible to "just buya box for $75" since ther'es no boxes for sale anymore, and most of my friends began playing after AH went out of print. As for Sabbat, those who's been playing the game with me from the start began to lose interest in the game as Sabbat came out and thus never bought it, some of my friends bought their sets later on, after Sabbat went out of print so they can't get any. And one box is not enough either. In my frequent playgroup of 8 people there's onyl me that can put together a Sabbat deck of any clan, and there's one more guy who can put together a Tzimisce deck and a !Brujah deck, for the rest of the clans he'd have to mix in with other vampires and not go much for their clan discipline (like obt, dem etc). Sure you can borrow a few cards, but when you need ot borrow like 20-30 cards people are not that eager to do so. I don't feel like lending that many all the time myself, and I might even need to use the cards for my current deck too. > > And I have also played both NL and CL. I think that cardlimits CAN be > usefull, but they also take away too many viable deckoptions. I'll not > go into that again. > Now here in Utrecht, people are seeing the NL arguments and getting the > point and they can choose for themselves. > The most important argument a player gave me pro NCL was: No one likes > to be forbidden something, and creative freedom is something that is > necessary for any card game to evolve. > Thus it's up to you what ever you want, but I can assure you that any CL > will take away way too many other fun, even silly deckdesigns and favors > soem clans over others. > I can see how CL takes away some fun, but it also adds some fun. I think it works both ways. With CL you more often use cards that maybe you wouldn't have else. I think that as long as everyone is happy with the CL there's absolutely no reason to change. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D78832ABD879F57E.CCC81FC5...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >What aren't you impressed with Andrew? > > There are clearly pros and cons on both sides of CL vs NCL. What I'm > telling you is that one practical consequence of the dominance of NCL > is that I'm not bothering to collect many cards or trying to compete > seriously. If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+ > of some cards and that way lies madness ... > You still haven't said why this is. Why would you want 50+ copies of some cards? It is practically impossible to play a deck that wins anywhere near consistanyly with >20 of any one card. Usually something like Cryptic Mission or possibly Corruption would require >20, but not always. At _most_ 15 copies (and then usually commons) will suffice for the most focussed of decks. Most that see play in the UK are very nearly 6CL legal with a few noted exceptions for cards with unique abilities such as DotBeast and Legacy of Pander. Decks that want to use those strategies are straight up UNPLAYABLE under CL. Fine if you want to play a format with less variablility, but if the card pool is 2000 and hasn't expanded in 5 years i'd want to be playing the format with the most scope for deck variation. People with limited access to cards have a justification for CL up to a point. However sanctioning CL is a road to displeasure as it means: 1. The person with the biggest card collection will always have an advantage as he/she has access to the 'bad-dupe' (staredown) rares. 2. S:CE is ludricrously powerful 3. Sneak/bleed is overpowered 4. CL players will do badly if ever they play in NL format, whereas NL players will undoubtedly find it easier in a CL environment. What i'm telling you is that you haven't played the game enough, looked at the tournament environment enough and are not a good enough player to make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations about what is apparently good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps coming up, year after year after year. After a while you can tell the people who will inevitabily start the arguement up again. peace. [ quoted text not captured ]

> writes > >A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the > >availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we > >have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a > >hard thing to do. > > Rare cards aren't inherently more powerful. You don't need rare cards > to compete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading here how IG is really necessary for a rush deck. You know most people in my playgroup doesn't own more than max 2 of them!! I myself had 6 (only rare I ever managed to get more than 4 of, but that's because I bought lots of Sabbat and they're uncommon there) and traded away 2, else they'd be even mroe rare in ym playgroup. > > Rare cards offer, nine times out of ten, more "powerful" but more > "corner-case" cards. > > >What?? I can´t believe that you have ever discussed about this before. So > >that´s your opinion on decks that use CL, decks that just can´t do anything > >"consistently". Well, if you think that cantila and his 25 group of people > >know nothing about playing with NCL with this affirmation you state that > >know even less of playing with CL. > > How are you stopping me playing 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown and 4 Catatonic > Fear? You don't have enough sources of anti-S:CE. First of all, I happen to be the only one who even has Catatonic Fea,r and I have only 2. But what's more important is that there's a real big difference between Majesty and Staredown/Catatonic since the latter doesn't allow you to untap, which is what makes Majesty a card you relaly want to have more than 4 of. Using the other S:CE doesn't have the same impact at all, especially since I can do 4 IG's and 4 Psyches, or simply use 4 Majesties (so I can untap when he does too) and IG's (etc). > > >Here we have made up tons of decks that > >do many things very consistently, > > Not by NL standards. This is really a silly comment, it's like me saying that NCL doesn't live up to the "fun standard" as CL does because NCL decks are too narrow-minded and one-way directed. You don't have a right to judge our way of playing and say it's bad compared to NCL. We think our way is more fun and that's it. We're not gonna do NCL just to please some guy over in USA because "that's how the rules were intended to be". I'd never tell soemone playing Werewolf Pack with house rules that they cannot do that "because that's not what the rule ssay, you have to go back to the way it's written on the card!!". And I've never seen you saying something like that either James, which makes me wonder why you're so against other people using CL wehn you don't seme to mind people using other kinds of houserules for specific cards to make them more interesting. > > >Why not? What do you do around there? You just play > >with bleed only decks, political only decks and combat only decks? My > >friend, how boring that must be. > > And you assert that we know nothing of xCL. *sigh* You assert we know nothing of NCL. > > >Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in > >your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able > >to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no > >cards to use. > > You can play NL with as many cards as you want. Indeed, many of the > best NL decks have less than 6 copies of many cards. > That's 2 too many :) > You don't need more or different cards for NL. That's the point. > > >How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8 > >times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card. > > You don't. > > You look at the cards you have and you make a deck around them. So the guy witht he most cards/cash can make kick ass decks and always win, which in the end will result in that: a) the other players get tired of the game and stop playing, because they don't want to feel they have to buy lots of cards to remain competitive, or go through the effort of buying cards over the net. They just want ot play the game for fun. b) the player with all these good cards will be less invited for a game by the others because they want to play a game where they have a chance to win someomes too. > >I would need to > >get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable > >one). > > Why? You could borrow them from a friend. Nobody plays with sleaved cards here and since you care about your cards you don't want to lend out a lot of cards all the time. I do lend out decks to players quite often, but that's to players who don't have any cards of their own (but who will most liekly buy Sabbat War when it comes out). You could buy a few from > someone. You could choose to play with proxies in a friendly game. Proxies totally ruins the game really, then there's no point for collecting cards at all. You know, half of the fun with the game is that when you do get hold of this really cool rare u're happy, but with proxies I could just make 5 of DoS etc. Not to speak of how confusing it is with proxies, andit doesn't work for vampires either. You > could buy some boxes of Jyhad, and get a few in there. You could play > Jyhad On-Line. Oh, so I should suggest my playgroup to start playing JOL!! Wow, that's a great idea, all this just to please you :-) > > > Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy > >my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order > >a couple boxes to Potomac distribution, > > You don't need to order a couple of boxes "each week", at all. A couple > of boxes of Jyhad is plenty to make a workable deck. Read my post below baout my friend buying 3 boxes of VTES. While it's a good start he's still lack a lot of cards, and 3 boxes aint that cheap either for a simple game when you think of it. Just because we're fanatics doesn't mean they are ;) > > Just because you don't have the cards to make the NL deck you really, > really want to doesn't mean you shouldn't play NL. It just means you > have to temper your dreams with reality. You can't play a deck with > cards you don't have, even under xCL. It's no different. True, but it prevents people that are able to get all these juicy cards to ruin the fun for everyone else, and it also makes them trade away any excess cards to those who really would want to own just *one* of that card. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) > "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful > they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why > it's possible I could get by." > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <%nOt5.124$M06....@news.uswest.net>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > > "cantila" wrote: > > As I said before, we've made an exception for the Corruption card, > > there's no limit on that one, as well as Master Skill Cards (because NL > > on them allows you to try out fun strategies like Serpentis on > > Nosferatu etc). > > How about (as someone astutely pointed out) Cryptic Mission? Is that "fun"? > Would it get the okay to break CLs? As has been pointed out > *cough*archive*cough*, "fun" is something that is quickly determined by the > shifting mood of the playgroup, which can easily be swayed by more forceful > personalities in that playgroup. How long before a new "fun" strategy become > "cheesy"? Maybe a few people think that Using a bunch of...let's say Change > of Target, just because it is practically useless, would be "fun". What > happens when they figure out some way to make it win? How many games do they > have to win before "fun" becomes "cheesy"? > > Just a few thoughts. And now I shut up. > > Xian > The whole idea about the corruption card is based on NCL, that's why we have NCL on that card, a CL on it would make it nearly useless, while all other cards are still as useful as always even with a CL. As for the skill cards, NCL allows you a more diversified play style, while 10 cryptic mission (or 10 of any card) actually do the opposite. [ quoted text not captured ]

theve...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8p7ee5$n40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > >> If I want to make a Setite deck for example > >how much fun is a setite deck with only four corruptions? > It's 3.14159 fun. If you played with the EXTRA FUN card featured in Malk & Kookies, then the most fun you could possibly have (with 4CL) is 15.14159.

In article <8p8bvu$pd6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] As was shown in the recent Uk Gencon tournament, which also reinforced the point that if you play with boring NCL decks you will get your undead botty good and spanked. > > What i'm telling you is that you haven't played the game enough, looked > at the tournament environment enough and are not a good enough player to > make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations about what is apparently > good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have > argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps > coming up, year after year after year. > > After a while you can tell the people who will inevitabily start the > arguement up again. > > peace. > > matt. > Golly, that was fun, wasn't it? i'm sure this is a hormonal thing, the biannuality of the CL/NCL debate. Boringly enough i agree with Matt and Derek about this topic, and i'm sure that after a few months or years so will Cantila and Dark Elf. VTES cards are very beautiful and you can play all sorts of games with them - i myself have experimented with Vampy Chess, Vampopoly and L'Attaque des vampires. These games are OK but they are NOT Jyhad, the King of Games. Same goes for CL "VTES" - sorry, guys n gals, if you've only ever played CL then you've not actually played VTES at all, and if you've tried both and PREFER CL then maybe you should play a game where CL is a fixture. An example of such a game is sealed-deck VTES, of course, which i think is the only common ground between the CL and NCL camps. BUFFER line to stop message tailing BUFFER line to stop message tailing BUFFER line to stop message tailing BUFFER line to stop message tailing BUFFER line t [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:51:11 +0200, "Darkelf" <darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> wrote: >> No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to >> people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over >> assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the >> arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to >> the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first, >> nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where >> things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said >> before. >Oh!, sorry my lord. So it pisses you off (and you have also included >everyone elses in the newsgroup, :o)) to have to listen to people that think >different than you do. Why the heck you keep answering us? If you gett You address the symptoms without answering the problem. If you would say something NEW about the debate, then we would be perfectly happy to listen. But haven't you noticed everyone else jumping in and saying "oh, joy, we haven't had a good CL flamewar in awhile"? Maybe it means that we've all heard too damned much about it already? Why do I answer you? Same reason as I answer cantila - I will not permit you to spread inaccurate information unchallenged. >pissed about this forget about this conversation and let the people that >want to talk about something do it. You DONT have to read what we write, and >we can write here WHATEVER we want about this game, and have the same right >as you do, Derek. As far as I know this is a public forum in wich NOONE can >tell you what you should or shouldn´t write in it (as long as it discusses >something about it´s subject). I can sure ask you to learn something about the subject before writing on it, can't I? Which I did originally, VERY politely, in a response to that first offhand CL mention. And cantila's response was "oh, i haven't got time to do that" and then he wandered off into a bunch of the same old tired pro-CL arguments you could find anywhere and were disproven long ago. Do you wonder that I get annoyed? >Just because there´s a majority of people that think that NCL is right it >doesn´t mean that that is the best solution for everybody. In this case, actually, it DOES mean that it's the best solution for everybody. It handles the problems of "rich players with lots of cards" very effectively, because you don't need tons of rares to compete. It handles the problems of "few cards" fairly effectively as well, since it's tough to have only a "few" of the common cards. >Please Derek, respect other opinions, and don´t get pissed off, we are here >to enjoy, if we do it different ways, lets welcome it!. I´m sure that if we >ever get together and talk for a while we´ll forget about this and have many >excellent games in wich I´ll learn a lot about NCL games, and you´ll respect >my CL play style. You know, this is the real problem. I can respect you, but I'm not GOING to respect card limits, because they were never intended for the game and have been sheet-welded onto it by old Magic players, or people with good, but sadly mistaken intentions. All the arguments in favor of card limits hold no water, or in some cases can be shown to actually be MORE detrimental to the game than if they hadn't been in place. Why should I respect something that is so obviously wrong? >And about the cost of buying cards, I have to say again that I am from >Europe. A couple facts: the dollar right now is flying to heaven from the >Euro (you guys over US are doing a well job on economy, at least against >Europe). Actually today it is on the news that the Euro is on its downless. >Right now dollars here cost more than double! than they were 3-4 years >before, if you add to this the cost of delivering via air-mail or whatever, >those cheap Jyhad boxes for you over there are not that cheaper around here. >Don´t put us in the same ground than you are. (spreads hands) perhaps White Wolf will release some of the new expansion in Europe. I can't help you with geographical location, and I can sympathise, but I cannot support a set of rules that is based on something totally outside the game's purview. as we point out repeatedly, the guy with the most money DEFINITELY wins then, because he has 4 of all the rare cards and nobody else does - and nobody else can just use 8 commons to make up for the fact that he has 4 commons and 4 rares. His decks WILL be more effective. >But in relation with this, I think that James is totally right. James is capable of saying it in a 'saner' manner than I am. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8_Ot5.346803$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > Since you guys (Card Limits vs. No Card Limits) invaded our Talbot's > Chainsaw thread, I'm going to invade yours... > > I want to talk about Talbot's Chainsaw. > It's very pretty, as chainsaws go. > It has a chain, and it can saw through things. > It used to belong to someone, someone named Talbot, I think, but now IT'S > MINE! > The Sword of Judgement is also very pretty, but not as pretty as Talbot's > Chainsaw. > A little-known fact [which i will now reveal] is that Lady Legbiter is a collateral relative of that Lord Talbot whose favourite hobby was the public toasting of French National Heroines. i think therefore that the chainsaw probably belongs to her. Now i will show her your photograph, and you can argue it out between you. > Has someone ever built a nasty Giovanni/Carlotta Necromancy deck > specifically to screw with card limits? Yes If you built it right, you could > screw everyone at the table by bringing your 4 nasty broken cards back into > play time and time again Yes (You could also screw everyone at the table because > they will all think you are clever and sexy!) YES!!!!! How was it for you, Mike? > > Xian wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, but no-one sane deliberately starts these things. This time round it was a new guy called Cantila from Sweden wanting to know how to use the clan-specific burnable masters from AH and DS. i told him. Then he revealed that his group plays CL and therefore couldn't do one of the tricks i'd suggested. Then All Hell [believed to be a euphemism for Our Brothers Derek Ray and MAtthew Green] broke loose. > > > buffer line to stop message tailing. buffer line to stop message tailing. buffer line to stop m [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:13:15 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > >>What aren't you impressed with Andrew? > >There are clearly pros and cons on both sides of CL vs NCL. What I'm >telling you is that one practical consequence of the dominance of NCL >is that I'm not bothering to collect many cards or trying to compete >seriously. If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+ >of some cards and that way lies madness ... It already lies that way, if you are assuming you need 50+ of some cards. Ben Peal's 60-Weather Control deck was a silly lark, and i doubt even HE expected it to do anything other than gain a few VPs and keep himself amused. Sure, he intended to TRY to win as much as he could, but 60 of one card is the formula for NO winning deck. You can easily compete seriously with a simple commons-only deck. The solution lies in experience, and increased deck-building skill. Your options may be slightly more limited because you have fewer cards, but this is true whether or not you play under a CL. If you don't have all the commons you want, I am CERTAIN that some can be found for you in the UK. We have an enormous box here in Atlanta that we call the "common/uncommon giveaway pile" that basically consists of everyone's commons and uncommons that they have 40 of and will never need more than 15 of - and that's assuming they keep several decks built that use the card. When new players come into our group, we point them at THAT box first, so they can be sure to have plenty of the basic stuff for their decks, and that way they can be basically competitive. >That's funny. When I use comparative arguments on the Doomtown list, >other bigots tell me that no-one plays Star Wars, B5, Shadowfist, >whatever. I don't even bother to cite VTES as few of them will have The facts really come down to this: Lots of people play Magic and Pokemon. "No-one", by comparison, plays any other CCG. What names you get will depend on where you turn and who you ask, but those are the two biggies. >There is a fragmentation issue in Doomtown now but it's not over the >CL, it's about the storyline restricted format. VTES hasn't got there >yet but I dare say it will. The equivalent issue will be banning >Jyhad cards when the VTES base set is reprinted. That'll be fun... And will never happen. There are rules right now to deal with Jyhad-backed cards. They work fine. White Wolf is fully aware of the original screwup that WotC made by changing the name of the game, and they aren't about to compound the mistake by alienating all the players with Jyhad cards, who are currently the people who are keeping the game ALIVE. >The starting point here is that the player base is already split. Why >won't VEKN embrace the CL play-groups and recognise their way of >playing the game? Because it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, and doesn't serve any actual purpose. The game was designed for NCL. The player base is not split, as the vast majority of players still use NCL. New players will be introduced to the game as an NCL game, and will learn it properly. So it won't be a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:16:37 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >unfair. And in return I got some well needed cards. Even with Jyhad and >DS that's still actually possible to buy at some places here I don't >have have even 4 of some uncommons I want. About 15 of our 25 players >can't put together a good deck based on a DS clan...and DS has been >bought in big amounts here. Speaking of Dawn Operation, I've played That's because the Ravnos and Giovanni didn't get anywhere near enough vampire support in DS or afterwards. Look closely at the Giovanni discipline mix as compared to, say, just the Jyhad Ventrue. Notice how few actual USEFUL vampires the Giovanni have. They all have Necromancy, but the clan is supposed to have Potence and Dominate too, and trying to find those matched up in any consequence is just hopeless. Not to mention that if you go by just Dark Sovereigns, you have superior Necromancy on a 3-cap, and the next superior NEC you find is Carlotta... a 7? Ugh. The Ravnos are a little better, but they still suffer from some other problems, such as their stuff being largely related to equipment when equipment was already weak. It's going to be difficult to put together a good Ravnos or Giovanni deck no matter HOW many cards you have. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power, > >cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example > > *sigh* You know, I played against Legbiter's Temptation of Greater > Power deck multiple times recently. It's a good deck. It is NOT the > be-all end-all of decks. There are numerous ways to defeat it. It is > a very strong card, but if you think the deck is boring, all I can say > is that you've never really seen it played. There are a lot of things > it has to do BESIDES use "temptation of greater power" just to make > itself go. 10 Temptations is too many, BTW. About 7 is what you want. <snip> > Second, you can build a perfectly adequate deck with nothing more than > common and uncommon cards from Jyhad. You can sweep a table with it, > in fact. Against all the other horrible, horrible "NCL" decks. This > has been SHOWN, REPEATEDLY, in the archive I attempted to get you to > read.. Yep. <snip> > >I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is > >that? Everyone seme to go with that. Er, up to a point, Lord Copper. Is this the famous swedish sense of humour, perhaps? <snip> > >to prevent stealth or bleed decks, that's obviosuly an important > >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based > >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of > >Pander). The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. > Why no, i think this is an amazingly wrong statement. There were CL decks at Gencon. They were crap, largely. There were boring NCL decks at Gencon. Also crap, as it happens. Some of the decks in the final were 6CL compatible, some not, but nobody who got there was anything less than a top European player. <snip> > > The LoP deck does as well as it does because Rob Treasure is playing > it and he is a very skilled player, not because it is inherently > broken. It has a number of weaknesses, which he takes great pains to > play around. Not the least of these weaknesses is... +1 intercept. > Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are > actually a threat. Or if a Rush deck had been sitting near him. What > if a fast bleed deck was behind him? What if some voters were > influenced out early on, so he couldn't gain vote lock? All of these > things could be problems for his deck, and all are fairly common > strategies to see in a tournament. > <snip> In support of your point, Derek, Rob got well kicked in the first round at the UK Nationals this year, and came into the final behind me on tournament points. His first LoP went down to a DI. Same would have gone for his second, had i not used mine to DI a Toreador Justicar of Jon's which would have given the rest of the table an anti-treasure vote lock, which would probably have meant Jon or i would have won and sent poor Rob home in a REAL strop. Why did i do something so crassly stupid, you will ask? Well, second prize was signed original Sheldon artwork whereas first was The Barrens and some useless cup thing. Buffer line to prevent message tailing Buffer line to prevent message tailing Buffer line to prevent message tailing Buffer line to prevent [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <VPAm75AF...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8p69p3$dno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- > 6...@student.luth.se> writes > >So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties > > Which could be (mostly) done with 4 Majesties, 4 Catatonic Fears and 4 > Staredowns. > > >and I throw in 15 Psyches, > >then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other > >deck next time. > > Variable. > > If you aren't certain of being able to kill someone in one round, > Psyches will provide useful backup to go in again (say you find damage > prevention a problem). > > If you want to cycle more combat cards, 1 Pysche! will let you go for > another few combat cards. > > If you want to press, it's useful. > > If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful. You mean necessary (if you want to have a chance to beat on him) > > >And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that > >fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course. > >Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where > >people with the most money can make the best decks. > > You need to read all the previous posts on xCL, because you're not > saying anything that hasn't been said before. > > Who wins in a situation where I have 27 Bewitching Orations and 1 Awe, > and the money player has 500 Bewitching Orations and 5 Awe? > > Oh look, the rich player has more of a rare card. No but who wins ina situation where you have 10 BO or only 4? You said before that you can use Awe instead, you know I'm the only one in my playgroup even having that card, and I have one (1)!. It's time to wake up to reality, I and some other people here have tried to make you realise that CL is good for us because it's hard to get hold of cards. If I was rich I could have bought 10 Awes... Sure with your specific example the other players can get 10 BO quite easily, but there's tons of other situation where the card you want is a rare and not a common. > > >Not everyone has > >enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties... > > So play an entirely different deck that doesn't care about Majesty. If > you just avoid combat altogether, his 20 Majesties are pointless. > > >And that's > >what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :) > > You need to read previous arguments on this, you're not saying anything > new. > > Malkavian Stealth and Bleed is not hampered at all under CL. > > It is hampered under NL, because you can defend against it better. > > Fact. Not a fact, the protection is hampered as much/as little as the Malkavian Bleed deck is, because there's still 12 defelcts, and 4 telepatic counters. That's certian enough against any Malk deck. And then there's the Protected Resources and Archon Investigation and evenChimerstry cards reducing stealth/bleed. > > >For example, all combat decks > >I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, > > Look harder. > > >how fun is > >that? > > Plenty fun. Not everyone is playing those decks, and you have all sorts > of things you can do. > > What would you do? Deny people access to 12 copies of IG when you can > still have 12 sources of Combat Ends in a deck (Majesty, Staredown, > Catatonic Fear). > > Personally, I'd rather not try and play a combat deck and have someone > play 12 S:CE against me. How fun is that? 12 Majesties would be no fun since he can untap and do another action against you, however with the other S:CE it's not worse than someone having the vote power and an Elysium. I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact* same effect. > > >Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use > >other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully > >replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that > >might be something you can't afford. > > A lot of people find Increased Strength a very playable alternative. Which requires a strike to go with it, thus you have suddenly at least doubled the needed cards (need even mroe cards if you strike more than once). > > >You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you > >say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick > >the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a > >dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. > > You cannot make any other deck as dedicated. Now you contradict yourself again! Now you're saying that CL DOES have some effect on making a deck too one-way focused. > > People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it > doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop > cheese. I said I'd not explain this again, read above about specific combos... > > If that's why you're playing with xCL, you haven't examined the > situation clearly enough. > > > But the point with CL is not > >to prevent stealth or bleed decks, > > You said it was about no "cheesy stuff". Malk S&B often features under > a definition of such. We never tried to limit a Malk S&B deck, because that's what Malks are all about. It would have been much simpler to ban the clan if that was what we wanted. > > >that's obviosuly an important > >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based > >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of > >Pander). > > Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are > defeatable, and have holes to be exploited. Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure though)!!? >Except, under xCL, you are > not allowed to have enough of those counters. You're not allowed all > your S:CE counters because you can't have enough IG. You're not allowed > enough vote counters, because you can't have enough Delaying Tactics. This isn't why, it's to prevent someone going for 10 Consangineous Boons for example, which would make him win easily if he got them through (not too hard with 10 BO's unless people block, but you could use stealth in your deck, like Setites). > You're not allowed enough bleed bounces, because you can only have 8 in > Dominate and only 4 in Auspex. Auspex, under NCL, has a very good bleed > defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot, > because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs. You're so single-minded, there's Flak Jackets, Elysiums, S:CE etc etc etc etc etc > > >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. > >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP > >deck, > > You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against any > vote deck. Hmm how effective is a deck with 15 DG's?? Sure it definately prevents the LoP but has no chance to win himself. > > Building a specific counter deck is a pointless exercise. You need a > good amount of defence against a deck, along with a decent deck as well. > You can defend against politics, you can defend against bleed, you can > defend against combat. If you don't, you'll be dead, CL or no CL. > > >If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw > >in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10 > >IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? > > No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what NL > means. Which is the reason why we don't. Because we know what it means = a boring repetitive game (IMO) > > There are plenty of other viable defences against many other sorts of > combat decks, and S:CE won't work against all of them. Leather Jacket > won't work against all of them. Flak Jacket won't work against all of > them. Dodge won't work against all of them. You put in what is right > for your deck. And 10 Leather Jackets would be a bloody stupid choice > for such a deck. > > >And just > >because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less > >efficient against other types of decks. > > You surely put combat defence in an xCL deck? Do you just stand there > not being able to defend at all? > > >I also think that CL forces a > >more variety of card use, > > That's the point of it. It doesn't force no "cheesy stuff". It prevents specific combos based on one single (usually rare) card (once again). > > >so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do > >else, at least not as often. > > That might be because the cards are bad cards, or inappropriate to your > deck. So then we come back to the origin of this whole discussion where someone claimed that CL creates wallpaper cards. Nice to see someone from the NCL camp admitting they were wrong. > > You try and argue against NL, but say you'd put 10 Leather Jackets in > the above deck. It's an utterly stupid thing to do, and no serious NL > player would even think of doing such. The idea of maxing out on one or > two cards always seems to come from the anti-NL camp, and not from > people with NL experience. Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no decks ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of Greater Power deck then? Is that a BAD deck??? > > <4 Rampage - 4 Arson> > >This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL > >does punish you > > Erm, what? > > >(in this case you get punished by being forces to have > >potence), > >so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this > >kind of card. > > Indeed. If you don't need 8 of a kind of card, you're unlikely to put > that many in under NL. > > NL simply allows you access to the cards you do want. It doesn't force > you to take 10 of them, like you seem to be suggesting. No but it makes it possible, and with some certain cards that makes the deck way powerful. > > >Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM > >gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead > >of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent > >soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card. > > Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop > the cards being powerful. But it hasn't been done, so?? And LM isn't too powerful with a CL, and not enough powerful with NCL to make it changed (obviously, since it hasn't happened). And why change like 50+ card texts (in erratas) when you could just make a CL and fix most of the "broken" cards? > > Most cards in the game are balanced, currently. > > >And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in > >quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to > >buy for. > > There are other ways around S:CE, and you can suit your deck to whatever > your resources allow, for instance, playing a political deck instead. > > Going and buying a few boxes of Jyhad (which are cheap) is one way to > get a half-dozen Immortal Grapple. You're not the one having to get them shipped to Europe, pay for exchange fees (which are $10) or having to deal with the fact that your currency has almsot doubled against ours in 3 years time. I spent $800+ on this game and I got 6 IG's all in all which includes the Sabbat ones too. But then I bought two of them through the net... > > >You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has > >been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL. > > No, errata exists to balance cards regardless of number in a deck. > >Like the no > >repeat action tenet (that we don't use). > > That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak Drives > in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon > you. Sure they could but it's not likely to happen, and even so it doesn't have to mean you get ousted etiher. It's extremely unlikely that someone would have draw 4 FD's AND 4 bleed cards to go with them all at once. And even so I have the chance to draw 4 deflects etc. Once again you also forget that nobody even has 4 FD's in my playgroup but me. I happen to have money to buy more cards than others in my playgroup, if I wanted to I could have gotten 10 FD's or more, which wouldn't have made it better would it? > > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 > >Legacy of Pander. > > It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten. CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some diversity :) Playing > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives > you a good chance against many vote decks. Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with such a deck :) Vote lock isn't solely > generated via Legacy of Pander, you know? > > If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's 10 > Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in the > game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of Praxis > Seizures make the game any more "fun"? One LoP should give more votes than a PS (else u're doing something wrong :P) Also you can play 10 LoP's but you cannot play 10 PS unless you have that many minions (not likely). > > >It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the > >player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and > >then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new > >decks). > > If a deck has no way to defend itself against politics, it will die when > it sits next to politics. If a deck has no way to defend itself against > bleed, it will die when it sits next to bleed. If a deck has no way to > defend itself against combat, it will die when it sits next to combat. > > These are facts. Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues and all. > > You should consider what defences your deck has when you build it. > > So, you know you're not going to sit next to 10 Legacy of Pander. Do > you put no vote defence in? Vote lock can be achieved via other means. How will I know I'll sit next to a LoP deck?? > > If you need to "prepare yourself" against a specific deck, you are > playing badly - and the reason you need xCL to balance decks is because > you're playing badly, not because NL is broken. It sounds like you're > not putting *any* vote defence in at all. LoP can be badly screwed by > generic vote defence, and if you don't put any of that in, well, that's > your own fault, not the fault of NL or LoP. Or another vote deck. I always have vote defense, but it doesn't help when the guy has 5 minions all trying to play a LoP the same turn, now does it?? Unless I have enough of titled vampires up, but then he'd not play them in the first place *duh*. > > >> In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding. > >> Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have > >> said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again > >> unnecessarily? =) > > > >As I said, I don't have the time, > > If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should anyone > else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments that > have gone before you, with nothing new to add? I never asked anyone to listen, duh. You've chosed so yourself, not my fault. *I* wasn't the one brining up this whole issue, *someone* herecomplained at my playgroup using CL! Geesh sounds like now you're trying to make it my fault that you happen to not like CL and complain about it. > > >and you enedn't reply if you don't > >want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're > >happy in our group > > Please, be happy in your group. If you can't be bothered to show people > here the common decency of reading up on a debate before trying to sound > clever in it, don't bother. You just go over old ground and introduce > nothing new at all, which helps no-one. Ok, then I say to you, go and read ALL threads EVER made on this forum and ALL other forums ever created for the VTES. Because if you don't then u shouldn't post here about anything whatsoever, since it MIGHT have been handled already at some point, somehwere, in the far past!! So please, don't post here ever again before you have. Makes much sense huh? No yours didn't either. > > >why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love > >the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken, > >why fix it? > > What do you do if I sit down with a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed deck? > > 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it, with > a decent deck still there. That is broken. You know we've never had more probs with Malks that any other clan. If they have a cheesy deck, poeple usually gang up on them because we hate Malks ;-) > > What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's very > different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been ever > since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES. But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I? You tell me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to check how this single thread came to existance... "We don't abuse card limits in > our group, so they're alright." That just doesn't stand up. Card > limits can be abused. NL has no abusive decks, to my mind, as the > situation currently stands, even though some decks - LoP and ToGP are > causing people some grief at the moment. ToGP will do nothing against > massive blood gain, really. Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused, that just doesn't stand up, they are. > > >I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need > >ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied > > Once you get beyond a stupid number for a deck, you're satisfied. You > might also want to have several decks on the go at once, so you can lend > them to people, so you can't share cards between decks. > > >I think CL really helps to make people try out > >different clans. > > Erm, what? > > You can play as many clans as you want under NL. But not effectively unless u're filthy rich. > > > I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players > >here has a few clans that they almost always play. > > Look harder You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few decks/clans that they prefer to always play? Only those with tons of cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they never break down. I think that tells something... In my playgroup there's never been anything like "this guy 80% plays this specific clan". It seems very common at other places. When you got o websites of playgroups it usually says soemthign like: "In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be blind. - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL > debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, search > for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that have > been refuted a hundred times before. > > A lot of people have favourite clans, but I've seen people try all sorts > of things. I dind't dsay they never tried others. But they play mainly one, and that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed, without being filthy rich. > > And there is *nothing* making people shift clans by the presence or > absence of card limits. It means that you don't have to have 10 Majesties to make a Presence deck competitive because another guy has 10 Psyches in his deck... I can't believe you ahven't realised this yet, despite me telling you this so may times :( > > >Of our 25 people > >nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to > >that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah > >deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had > >to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck > >really effective. > > It takes very little expense or effort to get a lot of IGs. Buy a > couple of boxes of Jyhad. Put up a few notices on a trading site. > What's that, half an hour's work? > > > Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare > >card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy > >rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... > > Oh, but 4 is *that* much different to 5. Right. no but 10 is, you have to out the limit somewhere. If you allow 5, you could as well allow 6 "since it's not much different" and then you could as well allow 7...stupid argument. And even between 4 and 5 it DOES make difference. 5 is 25% more than 4. You say that 25% more Dawn Ops aint a large increase? ;) > > How do you cope with the new player who wants to put more presence vote > modifiers in his deck but can't, because he only owns 1 Awe but you own > 5? I don't own 5, if I had I'd traded one away because of the CL, so he'd have 2 :) I hardly own even 4 of any rare, VTES cards included. IG, RotBR, and Psychic Veil are the only exceptions I think. However if it wasn't for the CL I'd gotten more than 4 of some specific rare cards for sure. But now I think 3-4 of the best ones are good enough since I need ot mix in other cards anyway, so my deck won't be as narrow-minded as I else would have made it. But he has 10 Bewitching Orations and you won't let him. And the > rich player doesn't win? Yeah, right. Again no, because I don't have more than 1 awe. If he really needed it, he could borrow it from me. Also why would he need 10 BO's when nobody can have more than 4 Dread Gazes anyway? You need to see the whole picture here. He won't need as many BO's because there's fewer ways to counter hsi votes, thus he got place to throw in more fun and odd cards that's normally not used *wallpaper issue comes to mind*. > > > I have most > >cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare > >card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either. > > So, you have 3 Awes, newbie player doesn't. I got 1 Awe :) Besides Awes doesn't matter that much because newbie can still block me or play pulling strings etc. Shucks, I guess he just > can't play an effective politics deck - which he could if you'd let him > put more than 4 Bewitching Orations in. We play by the old vote rules, where you can throw one vote card for ready vampire (IMO I think it's redicilous that was changed), so he'll be able to gather votes that way plus Ventrue HQ and such cards. Our newbies never had problems with voting so I don't see how this is a problem. But, for some reason, you > decide to punish him for not being rich, where NL said "Yep, we're cool > with you playing 10 of that common card, instead of 4 common and 4 > rare". Yeah and I get to use 10 ToGP, nice. On a note I should add that it's the newbies that appreciate the CL the most, which would be strange if they were disadvantaged. > > And NL has shown time and time again that decks with many, many commons > in them do very well indeed. If you *want* to play a deck with mostly > rares, you can do that too - but a common deck won't fall down just > because it's common. It'll fall down because it's badly made. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) > "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful > they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why > it's possible I could get by." > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D78832ABD879F57E.CCC81FC5...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >What aren't you impressed with Andrew? > > There are clearly pros and cons on both sides of CL vs NCL. What I'm > telling you is that one practical consequence of the dominance of NCL > is that I'm not bothering to collect many cards or trying to compete > seriously. If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+ > of some cards and that way lies madness ... > > >...and who plays Doomtown? There are shed loads of expansions for that > >game and nobody plays it competitively. And apparently, if they do they > >get a choice of whichever format they want to play in. Strikes me that > >if you have a player base of 10 you don't want to have 2, 5 player > >tournaments you want 1, 10 player one. surely. > > That's funny. When I use comparative arguments on the Doomtown list, > other bigots tell me that no-one plays Star Wars, B5, Shadowfist, > whatever. I don't even bother to cite VTES as few of them will have > even heard of it or believe that people still play it. In fact, the > Doomtown events at Origins and Gencon were much bigger than those for > VTES though the numbers were about the same at Gencon UK - 30 to 28, I > think. > > There is a fragmentation issue in Doomtown now but it's not over the > CL, it's about the storyline restricted format. VTES hasn't got there > yet but I dare say it will. The equivalent issue will be banning > Jyhad cards when the VTES base set is reprinted. That'll be fun... > > >However, splitting the player base > >and shackling half of them to a bad tournament format is a worse idea. > >Players will end up enjoying the game less. > > The starting point here is that the player base is already split. Why > won't VEKN embrace the CL play-groups and recognise their way of > playing the game? > > Andrew > Becuase they're stuck up narrowminded non-tolerant people ;-) (not serious about this) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p8bvu$pd6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] What EXACTLY do you try to say?? I and some of my friends has played hte game since it first came out! Who do you thin you are? Some all- knowing God?? to > make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations Look's who's talking about ludicrous sweeping generalisations! (I really suggest you go back and read how this thread was started as well, I'm not pro CL for everyone, I just am *for my own playgroup* and you have NO WAY of knowing whether CL is better than us or not! Despite the fact you seem to consider yourself an all-knowing god. Also with all your knowledge, how come you manage to claim that Staredown is a rare!?!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p7ee5$n40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I already answered this twice in this thread [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <2uifrs8stijok80rb...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I agree that Giovanni isn't good, I think they're one of the worst clans, although it's IS possible to put together a good and working one. Ravnos I think are quite good actually, they manage well in combat can trap, horrid reality, illusions of the kindred combo is nice :) Works fine on a 4 CL limit too even. I also think that Konstantin's ability is one of the best in game and I usually use 3 of him when I play. Ravnos' problem is the lack of votes I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <vovdrsggj6tpbppqa...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are >actually a threat. Your best option is to kill the Legacies, in my view. They *are* the votes which are actually a threat. The times I've seen LoP defeated, it's generally been when the deck has been stalled very quickly. It couldn't do the vote in its first (i.e. the second, normally) turn, so it had to wait for the third turn. By, then, someone has normally been able to bring out a 7 or an 8 - hopefully a voting vampire. It's been a long standing habit of mine, when building crypts, to favour having a couple of Princes, Justicars, Bishops (alter to taste) in the crypt, simply for this ability. If I can get a Prince out - let's say Rake, Rob has problems. He can get the edge, yes. He gets one vote from the card, yes. Now he *needs* a vote push card (Awe, BewOra). And if I'm not the only person doing this - the Gangrel player has just brought out Caitlin, or Gitane, say - everyone stands a chance to vote him down. So why pick the Legacy of Pander? Well, it's quite common to have a vote deck on a table or, at least, a deck that has the capacity to vote in it, possibly as an aside, with a few cards around. Legacy of Pander doesn't just work on their votes, it works on everyone's. You hand the control of the entire voting environment to the LoP player. If you block the Kine Resources Contested, he's still probably got a few more votes up his sleeve, and he can still vote down your votes. If you block the Legacy of Pander (either through intercept, Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics), then he can't kill your votes, and he can't pass the Kine Resources Contested anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39b73b40@news>, Darkelf <darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> writes >If it is harder for you to get the cards it doesn´t mean that NCL is not the >right way to play. You´re right James, but maybe, as we have this >difficulty, it suits better for us to play with CL. Erm, what are you taking? You can play as many or as few cards as you want under NL. If you don't have the cards to make a 35 Cryptic Missions deck, you don't make it. But equally, under xCL, if I don't have the cards I want for a deck, I can't make that. And you don't *need* dozens of cards to play under NL. That's the "no difference" part. You can only play with the cards you have available to you under any format. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79EFF6570DEDA0FA.32E66319...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Trying to silence the argument in this way clearly doesn't >work. I am not trying to silence *any* argument. It is utterly, utterly pointless, however, to have exactly the same argument as last time. The NL advocates know all the standard lines on why xCL is good, and can refute them in their sleep - notice the fact that (whilst being different people) Derek and I hit on similar examples. If someone wants to have a decent go at advocating xCL, they need to go and learn why their arguments have already been refuted before they make them and then come up with something new. Then the argument can actually advance and have some point to it. All the arguments being had here have been had hundreds of times before. Nothing new is being done. The xCL players need to advance the argument, since nothing they say in defence of xCL is new, at all. The only way they can do that is to learn what the counters to their arguments are, and advance from there. There is no point them learning everything from first principles, to make an advance in maybe a few months or years time, when they could, instead, do an hour's research (I wouldn't say you'd need to do much more than that) and then be in a position where *real* progress can be made, taking the argument in new and different directions. Once again, the use of history and hindsight is to look and learn, not blindly amble on repeating the same mistakes. But then, what do I know? I'm just off to build this big boat. It's really cool. It'll be unsinkable. It'll sail across the Atlantic, and be really famous and nothing can ever go wrong with it. I can even save on the lifeboats, because I won't ever need them! What's that? I should go and spend a few hours doing a little bit of research? Tie-Tan Nick? Who the hell is Tie-Tan Nick? Screw you, I'm off to build my boat. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D78832ABD879F57E.CCC81FC5...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+ >of some cards and that way lies madness ... That way lies bad deck design. I see no reason, at all, to require 50 of one card in a 90 card deck. Aside from a couple of exceptions - Cryptic Mission and Corruption - I can't think of a card I'd want more than 12-15 of in a deck, ever. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8_Ot5.346803$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > Since you guys (Card Limits vs. No Card Limits) invaded our Talbot's > Chainsaw thread, I'm going to invade yours... > > I want to talk about Talbot's Chainsaw. > It's very pretty, as chainsaws go. > It has a chain, and it can saw through things. > It used to belong to someone, someone named Talbot, I think, but now IT'S > MINE! > The Sword of Judgement is also very pretty, but not as pretty as Talbot's > Chainsaw. > > Has someone ever built a nasty Giovanni/Carlotta Necromancy deck > specifically to screw with card limits? If you built it right, you could > screw everyone at the table by bringing your 4 nasty broken cards back into > play time and time again (You could also screw everyone at the table because > they will all think you are clever and sexy!) > > Xian wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] Action costs blood and is blockable plus it takes an action...so it doesn't have that much of an impact. [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > Action costs blood and is blockable plus it takes an action...so it > doesn't have that much of an impact. BZZZT!!! Wrong. Thank you for playing. Actions aren't always blockable. There are many, many ways to make actions unblockable. I'll leave lisitng the various methods as an exercise for the reader. Extracting cards from your ash heap is a HUGE effect as it goes a long way towards removing the random element from the contents of your hand. Need a particular card? Go get it from the ash heap. Card limits are not a part of the game. People who believe the contrary are wrong. And, yes, it's that simple. Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Farmington Hills, MI NJL Rules Team Member -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> escribió en el mensaje news:C7Pt5.346807$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That was great Mike. Thanks for making me laugh after all this "weird" discussion

In article <bgVt5.874$M06.1...@news.uswest.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] > I am trying to refrain from name-calling. However, you completely ignored the > point of my post. My question was, what other strategies, aside from > Corruption, that *need* more than 4 of one card (7+ Raptor deck, Cryptic > Mission deck -- I find it entertaining...suck all the blood of prey's > vampires...but surely that isn't broken, is it?) are "fun" and who defines > "fun"? And if they're not fun, why are they broken and thus prohibited by > your CL? Sorry I missed to address your question, but here's the answer: I agree these strategies seem fun to try out and I also agree that with CL they're not really possible to try out to its fulle xtent. So that's a negative yes, however on the positive side you get rid of some potentially very powerful combos and that straight out very boring to be faced it. It's not like there's absolutely no counter against these strategies (like LoP, 15 deflect deck etc) but it's that they're just really boring to face! We want some variety and not be the game like "vote+BO, vote+BO, vote+BO" etc, see my point? And as for the Raptor combo, nobody here owns more than 1 Raptor....I used to have 3 but traded two away, so naturally nobody would come up with the idea of suggesting we lifted CL coz they wante dot try this combo. If it happened, I guess we'd have to make a discussion as to whether we want to continue with the CL or not. It's really that simple, as long as everybody is happy, we don't change it and people won't question it since they're that, happy about it! If I played with you guys using NCL I'd have to adapt and I don't think I would have much of problems with it. But I do believe CL makes the game more diversified, makes it last longer, and sums up to making ti more fun in general. I think that the *game lasts longer* argument is important too (at least to me). The impression I get form you guys, is that if you have a round wasted, or didn't get the combo you built your deck on in the first few rounds, you're screwed. And it also sounds like ousting someone after a few rounds isn't uncommon. Well this isn't just how we want the game to be. I like games that are a real sweat and very even, and where you can play for up to 4 hours before it's settled. This doesn't mean our games cannot be quick either, but at least it's normal that they last for 1,5-2 hours with 4 players. I'm pretty sure yours doesn't (normally). > > Personally, if I were playing under a soft CL that allowed for a few specific > cards to be NCL (Corruption, etc.), I would want to know why I couldn't play a > deck with a lot of Cryptic Mission in it. It's not all that likely to sweep > the table time and again, but since I am entertained with odd deck concepts, I > would want to try it out. > > So, who defines the difference between "fun" and "cheesy"? > > You may have noticed that I have continued to post on this thread. Sorry, I'm > human. > > Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p8u4l$gi4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > > Action costs blood and is blockable plus it takes an action...so it > > doesn't have that much of an impact. > > BZZZT!!! Wrong. Thank you for playing. > > Actions aren't always blockable. There are many, many ways to make > actions unblockable. I'll leave lisitng the various methods as an > exercise for the reader. > > Extracting cards from your ash heap is a HUGE effect as it goes a long > way towards removing the random element from the contents of your hand. > > Need a particular card? Go get it from the ash heap. > > Card limits are not a part of the game. People who believe the contrary > are wrong. And, yes, it's that simple. There's no way to easily make an aciton unblockable with a Giovanni. Seduction isn't really a good way since both predator and prey can block and Seduction also only prevents *one* minion from blocking. It's a part of OUR game, and yes that's a reality (and simple). [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you, by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your addy. > > I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an > answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly > exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo > Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single > specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact* > same effect. > Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8 weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP idea but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be contradicted! On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one card. <snip> > > Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the > deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure > though)!!? > [a] it didn't sweep last year [Rob and Barney tied for first on VP, Rob won on TP, i was third overall] [b] Rob's a dam' fine player, not only technically but also psychologically, [c] i wanted second prize this year because it was signed Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both Sheldon and Ron SPencer. <snip> > > > > >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. > > >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP > > >deck, Flatly contradict that. You weren't there. i was. i am right. You are wrong. <snip> > Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no decks > ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of > Greater Power deck then? > Is that a BAD deck??? A good temptation deck has at most 7-8 of any one card. Trust me on this, or not, it doesn't matter. <snip> > > > > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 > > >Legacy of Pander. > > It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing. As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself. > CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to > be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some > diversity :) > Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy Families. > Playing > > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives > > you a good chance against many vote decks. > > Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with > such a deck :) > Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in favour of a table-vote deck. <snip> > > Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I > find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues and > all. This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a theologian. <snip vast amount of stuff> Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm happy that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going since the early days. Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew "Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however, share your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath before digging yourself any further into the mire here. i thought at first you were a total newbie but you clearly aren't and therefore, IMO, you ought to know better. Confucius said, respect a child's faculties from the Moment it Inhales the Clear Air - but a Man of Fifty who Knows nothing is Worthy of No respect. Buffer line to stop Message tailing Buffer line to stop Message tailing Buffer line to stop Message t [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you, by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your addy. > > I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an > answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly > exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo > Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single > specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact* > same effect. > Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8 weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP idea but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be contradicted! On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one card. <snip> > > Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the > deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure > though)!!? > [a] it didn't sweep last year [Rob and Barney tied for first on VP, Rob won on TP, i was third overall] [b] Rob's a dam' fine player, not only technically but also psychologically, [c] i wanted second prize this year because it was signed Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both Sheldon and Ron SPencer. <snip> > > > > >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. > > >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP > > >deck, Flatly contradict that. You weren't there. i was. i am right. You are wrong. <snip> > Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no decks > ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of > Greater Power deck then? > Is that a BAD deck??? A good temptation deck has at most 7-8 of any one card. Trust me on this, or not, it doesn't matter. <snip> > > > > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 > > >Legacy of Pander. > > It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing. As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself. > CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to > be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some > diversity :) > Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy Families. > Playing > > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives > > you a good chance against many vote decks. > > Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with > such a deck :) > Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in favour of a table-vote deck. <snip> > > Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I > find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues and > all. This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a theologian. <snip vast amount of stuff> Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm happy that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going since the early days. Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew "Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however, share your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath before digging yourself any further into the mire here. i thought at first you were a total newbie but you clearly aren't and therefore, IMO, you ought to know better. Confucius said, respect a child's faculties from the Moment it Inhales the Clear Air - but a Man of Fifty who Knows nothing is Worthy of No respect. Buffer line to stop Message tailing Buffer line to stop Message tailing Buffer line to stop Message t [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p8ju5$3l6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Wait wait wait. You're NOT a newbie??? Ok, that makes things a bit different. i respect your commitment to the game but, as one who's been through the process, i really REALLY think you should play a few on-line games or any games at all outside your own country before you, er, commit yourself any further. Who do you thin you are? Some all- > knowing God?? On no, Matthew is only a very minor God in the VTES world. Not so much ominiscient as polyniscient, less of the omnipotent and more of the generally effective. i still worship the ground upon which he deigns to tread and so, IMO, should you. > > to > > make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations > > Look's who's talking about ludicrous sweeping generalisations! > > (I really suggest you go back and read how this thread was started as > well, I'm not pro CL for everyone, I just am *for my own playgroup* and > you have NO WAY of knowing whether CL is better than us or not! Hey, all-knowing Gods can exist outside UK too! Man, i SURE hope that logic isn't part of your degree course otherwise you could be in some trouble. Despite > the fact you seem to consider yourself an all-knowing god. Also with > all your knowledge, how come you manage to claim that Staredown is a > rare!?!) Even Homer nods. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d7qfrsc0k4pgifgqd...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:24:41 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> > wrote: > > >In article <VPAm75AF...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> If you want to press, it's useful. > >> > >> If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful. > > > >You mean necessary (if you want to have a chance to beat on him) > > No, USEFUL. There are plenty of ways to beat up vampires who use > S:CE, not the least of which is using a Haven Uncovered and mobbing > the guy. Psyche is useful for any Celerity deck, but I have a deck > that uses Haven, Disguised Weapon, Deer Rifle, and Manstopper Rounds, > along with Dead-End Alley to press to a 2nd round and get 4 total > points of damage. It uses all the OBF weenies. It doesn't give a > damn if you S:CE or Dodge against it - someone will EVENTUALLY get > you. > > Haven Uncovered, Disguised Weapon, and Deer Rifle are all cards I have > a suspicious lot of. They might be uncommon, but I cannot BELIEVE > you'd have trouble locating enough copies of each to play with, since > they're hardly in high demand. Manstopper Rounds is probably a > very-uncommon or a rare, judging from how many I have, but you don't > need that many and it shouldn't be hard to trade for or just outright > buy - not that many people even USE the card. Dead-End Alley is a > ridiculous common, and even if you don't have enough of those somehow, > Boxed In is a suitable substitute. I have some Hawgs in there too. > > To make this deck all-commons, you could use .44 Magnums and > substitute Fake Outs for the Manstopper Rounds. The cost is the same > (2 pool), and the effect is the same (4 points of damage total, all at > long range). I used Deer Rifles to guarantee myself the maneuvers, > instead of the damage, so I don't get killed by Potence decks. But it > might work better with .44s, actually. > > >No but who wins ina situation where you have 10 BO or only 4? You said > >before that you can use Awe instead, you know I'm the only one in my > >playgroup even having that card, and I have one (1)!. It's time to wake > >up to reality, I and some other people here have tried to make you > >realise that CL is good for us because it's hard to get hold of cards. > >If I was rich I could have bought 10 Awes... > > No, it is time for YOU to wake up to reality. Bewitching Oration is > one of the easiest cards to get. We have a huge pile in our commons > box. I'm sure everyone in your group has AT LEAST 4 of them, and I > imagine most people actually have more. How many do you have > yourself? 6 VTES and 7 Sabbat ones. Probably traded away a buch in the past. > > That's the definition of "common" cards. COMMON. As in ridiculously > common. Never said that you couldn't get 10 or more of the commons, this has never beenan issue. > > >Sure with your specific example the other players can get 10 BO quite > >easily, but there's tons of other situation where the card you want is > >a rare and not a common. > > ...So name some already. What no-limit decks do you HAVE to have a > bunch of rare cards to compete against? > > There are a number of decks *I* can't make, because I don't have the > rares to do it. I can't make the Temptation of Greater Power deck. I > can play against it just fine, though. I can't make the Legacy of > Pander deck. But I can play against it with no problems. And I don't > even need any rares to do it. > > We ALL have not enough of the cards we want. We just live with it, > instead of trying to impose random limitations on people to make up > for our shortfall. > > >Not a fact, the protection is hampered as much/as little as the > >Malkavian Bleed deck is, because there's still 12 defelcts, and 4 > >telepatic counters. That's certian enough against any Malk deck. And > > Um. I count 4 Deflections, and 4 Redirections. Redirection is a > tragically inferior card to Deflection, because you MUST have superior > Dominate or you can only bounce younger vampires. So to have a hope > of defending against Malkavian bleed, you must be playing with > superior Dominate yourself. Boy, that sure gives me a lot of deck > variety! > Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections. And My Enemy's Enemy (although it's a rare, but so is Catatonic Fear and you counted 4 of these). I think 16 deflects is WAY more than you need against a Malk bleed deck, because your prey will be ousted before the Malk can oust you, and you get 6 pool and a buffer against some bleeds. Hm. So who has > superior Dominate and superior Auspex? Well, the Malks do. So I have > to play the Malkavians to beat the Malkavians? Wait, the Tremere do > as well! Except you can't get a Tremere with DOM/AUS until Justine, > at an 8-cap. That's not good. I could play the Ventrue Antitribu, I > suppose. They can get it at around a 6-cap. Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es ! Ventrue. But if you don't want to deflect, then you can try to intercept instead. This whole discussion is pretty meaningless, since with NCL you *still* are forced to have dominate or AUS to bounce a bleed, and while you can do fine with one of the types and in big amounts, you have to 1) actualyl include it in your deck, something you normally won't do unless you suspect someone is playign a heavy bleed deck (else it's wasted) 2) You need that many cards of the one you choose. I have 5 Deflections...it's a common card. I'd say I would have maybe 4-5 more if I hadn't traded away some, on the other hand I've bought more cards than anyone. They'd be eays to come buy through the net of course, but my playgroup doesn't trade through the net and doesn't even read any Jyhad stuff on here. > > So, according to your theory, if I am worried about a cheesy Malk > Bleed deck under CL, my options are limited to playing the Malks > themselves, the Ventrue Anti, or playing with Justine and whoever else > I can cram in there. Hmm. > > The Malks, on the other hand, just use any assortment of the 11 > different dominate bleed cards (at inferior DOM!), and any assortment > of the multitude of stealth cards that OBF can provide. Pretty easy > for them. No, sorry, that just doesn't hold water. There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare card). So you got 5 different options. Hmm I say too. > > >then there's the Protected Resources and Archon Investigation and > >evenChimerstry cards reducing stealth/bleed. > > Are you kidding me? First you complain about rares and how people > don't have them, then you quote two of the MOST rare cards in the > game? Come on, now, let's be real here! I just mentioned the OPTION. There's 3 people other than me in my 8 player group having it. They have one each, and I got one myself. > > You mention CHI. Well, let's see - they can reduce a bleed by 1. I'm > glad that Ozmo will only be bleeding me for 5 this turn instead of 6. CHI can reduce stealth to 0 too. Again, Malks has never been that big of a problem, I think you relizee yourself there's plenty of options for defence, just the Archon Investgation alone makes the Malks a bit cautios, to make you bale to hold out agains the Malks. If you go real heavy stealth and bleed you have no other defence, so one Haven and a Malk is in torpor. And everybody hates heavy S&B decks so very rarely anyone plays them, and when they do they usually get ousted fats because people gang up on them. In a tournament we had the Malk S&B deck ended up with 0 VP's actually because of this reason. > > >12 Majesties would be no fun since he can untap and do another action > >against you, however with the other S:CE it's not worse than someone > >having the vote power and an Elysium. > > Think of it from the point of view of a PREDATOR having to deal with > his prey using tons of S:CE. It doesn't matter if he untaps or not - > he got to end combat, and your deck got to be totally useless because > you can't use enough cards to get the right amount of counters to > S:CE. As I said before, Elysium has the same effect, so I don't really see this as a problem, coz then Elysium would be too (and it can be annoying sometimes really, but so can any card be). If you're gonna involve the predator into this, all I can say is that while prey can only have 4 IG's, predator can have another 4, which makes a total of 8 against this S:CE deck. I can assure you even 4 are enough if you send the vampire in torpor with them (and you most likely do once you get one out). > > >I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an > >answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly > >exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo > >Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single > >specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact* > >same effect. > > No Repeat Actions, a very wise rule, stops the bleed/untap/bleed, etc. > problem. As for the rest, you think those decks are cheesy because > you are not experienced enough with NCL to understand that they can be > beaten just like any others. Never said they can't be beaten. What I said is, that you have to build your deck witht eh goal to beat a particular deck. Which means you need to know (or be a good guesser) as to what kidn fo deck your opponent is going to play, which means it's more luck than skill (or at least some good intelligence work on your part) required here. Thing is, if I am a rusher I don't want to feel liek I have to always put in my 7 IG's just because all non-combat players always sits with like 10 S:CE's. I had a VERY good go at Legbiter's TGP > deck while he was in the US, and he barely edged me out at the end of > the game. And we've all played against Legacy of Pander decks here > locally, and they definitely have their shortcomings as well. > > The trick is learning to build decks well, and learning to discover > the TRUE weak point in a deck. A LoP deck can accumulate votes like > mad, sure. But it has a hard time gaining stealth, so you can > intercept either the damage votes or the LoP votes, as you choose. > You can beat up his Pander, since it's not so easy to provide combat > defense for them. You can bleed him -fast-, and he can be hosed. > > A Temptation of Greater Power deck relies on its Justicar. > Incapacitate the Justicar, and TGP cannot be played. It also relies > on being able to pass its own votes, and gaining vote lock against it > will hurt it badly. There's always good old blood gain, too, so you > just pay to keep your vampire and go on with your world. You keep talkign to me as if our playgroup was the same as yours or had as many cards as you. While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk about options here. Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares as well. Same thing with CL, it doesn't limit strategies anymore than not having enough of uncommons/rares does. > > >> People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it > >> doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop > >> cheese. > > > >I said I'd not explain this again, read above about specific combos... > > But you were wrong in your explanation. You need to come up with > another one now. CL doesn't stop abuse. It doesn't stop "boring". > It doesn't, actually, do anything but limit cards. > > >> You said it was about no "cheesy stuff". Malk S&B often features > >under > >> a definition of such. > > > >We never tried to limit a Malk S&B deck, because that's what Malks are > >all about. It would have been much simpler to ban the clan if that was > >what we wanted. > > Wow, you really haven't played much with the Malks, have you? They > make EXCELLENT intercept decks. They also can make a pretty good vote > deck, using Malk Rider Clause and Kindred Coercion/Pulling Strings. > Let's see... they make a decent Disguised Weapon/Muddles combat deck, > they do very well with a pool gain/wack Masters deck. If you think > the Malks are all about S&B, then you definitely should look into them > more. I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does. You brought up the example, so I countered it. What's fun about this game is to play it differently from the status quo. > > >> Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are > >> defeatable, and have holes to be exploited. > > > >Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the > >deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure > >though)!!? > > Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive. I am > surprised, myself, at the seeming lack of even light intercept at the > final table or even in the tournament in general. That would've hosed > the LoP deck down pretty effectively. There seem to have been plenty > of combat decks, but I suppose there were just none that sat next to > it - luck of the draw. > > There is also the fact that Rob is a damned good player and knows what > to do when he's sitting next to someone who can hose him down. Just > handing his LoP deck to someone isn't going to make them win a > tournament or sweep a table, I guarantee it. Of course no, I by no means claim that anyone would win with a LoP deck just like that. The player counts for a whole lot, but a good deck helps in this. I this particular issue, the player's skill is irrelevant since a good player can do as well in CL games. > > >This isn't why, it's to prevent someone going for 10 Consangineous > >Boons for example, which would make him win easily if he got them > >through (not too hard with 10 BO's unless people block, but you could > >use stealth in your deck, like Setites). > > How does 10 CB's make someone win? How is he going to oust his prey? You can bring out tons of vamps and bleed with them?? Bring out high cap vamps and you get the vote power as well. 8 MT/5th combo for example isn't bad either. It's powerful even with 4 cards, but at least you draw them less frequently which allows someone to get an intercept up before you can get carried away with them. > > You win by gaining 3 VPs at a 5 player table, or 2 1/2 at a 4-player. > A 10-CB deck has excellent blood gain, but if you spend all your time > calling CBs, you aren't going to be doing any damage to your prey at > all, and he's going to have a free hand to run over his own prey and > move forward from there. Sure, you'll be able to get a bunch of > vampires out, but you'll have to do lots more than that to win. Heh you can call 2 such votes in a turn at least, and ther'es not too many other ways to spend the time more efficiently. Else you can always call some 8 Parity Shifts if you are so inclined. > > I have a Setite vote deck, but it's a lot harder to get OBF/PRE to > work together than you think. First off, you normally have both at > inferior. The cheapest vamp with PRE/obf is Miranda Samova, a BRUJAH > 8-cap. The cheapest SETITE is Saqqaf, a 9-cap. Yes I agree on this. But you can do a Ven/Nos deck. It's quite common, or you can do Tor with obf. Not the easiest but you mihgt not need too much stealth either snc ehte vote alone gives you one. Setites also have opium den to help. > > >> defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot, > >> because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs. > > > >You're so single-minded, there's Flak Jackets, Elysiums, S:CE etc etc > >etc etc etc > > Flak Jackets only prevent one point of damage, which isn't going to > bother Anvil using a Torn Signpost and Blur one damned bit. He will > be happy to hit you for 8 instead of 9. People rarily do that much dmg with a 4 CL, esp not since it requires you to have TS and IG AND some striek card on your hand. Not impossible, but then if I have my LJ or Elysium it helps me, and both LJ's common. > > Elysium can be Rampaged OR voted down, and is only good once. S:CE is > good if you abuse it by using the multiple different S:CE cards, which > is what you used card limits to PREVENT, i thought? No, this won't > wash. You just asusme that everyhting speaks for your case. While of course a Brujah can crush someone (if not, then that would be a bad thing!) but just as much, people can get away too if things speak in their favor. Randomnes plays a big part of the game. If I presented you with proof that you could easily avoid a Brujah deck, you'd start complaining that Brujah's were to weak instead! So this is a no win conversation as you put it. Totally meaningless. > > >> You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against > >any > >> vote deck. > > > >Hmm how effective is a deck with 15 DG's?? Sure it definately prevents > >the LoP but has no chance to win himself. > > Again, you show a lack of experience with NCL by assuming that "vote > defence" involves 15 Delaying Tactics. That would be effective vote > defence, but you are correct, he would have no way to win himself. I > detailed ways to beat LoP up above, which incidentally will also > defeat almost any other vote deck as well. DG = Dread Gaze, but that doens't matter. Well you told me that you could make an anti-vote deck as a defence and no matter if you build it on 10 DT's and DG's, or 4 of each plus 4 Surprise Influence or whatever (!) it's going to be a very defense *in any case*. How are you supposed to win??? > > >> No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what > >NL > >> means. > > > >Which is the reason why we don't. Because we know what it means = a > >boring repetitive game (IMO) > > This statement shows that you don't know what it means at all. I don't have to, don't you see? As long as we're happy with our rules ther'es absolutely NO WAY for us to change. There's no VEKN tournaments around here or anything. If tis is what we want to do, then we'll do it no matter what you say! This works best for us, and I can assure you that I have a better understanding what works for us than you do. That does NOT mean I'm anti NCL like you are anti CL. I acceptthe fact that most people like NCL, and I never claimed that CL should be an official rule. I think people should stick to what they think it's FUN. And that's very individual. I mind my own business about how to play this game, I never todl YOU to stop playing NCL because I think CL is more fun. So I don't see why all these people here go whining about us playing with CL. IT IS UP TO US TO DECIDE =P So even if NCL IS better, so what? It's our loss, not yours *shrug*. We used to not have CL a long time ago, and we didn't like how thinsg turned out. So we made up the CL rule and we've stuck to it since then. It's possible we might change back to NCL, only time can tell. In any case, its' OUR and only OUR decision to do so, and I don't feel that ANYONE outside our playgroup can come and tell us what do to or what works best for US. my 2 cents. > But other decks also become powerful as well. Sure, the TGP deck is > going to rape an xCL environment silly. But having seen it, it has to > work for its VPs - they do NOT come as easily as all that. > > Any other "power" cards you can think of, by the way, besides TGP and > LoP? That 18 Raptor deck didn't seem too fun to meet if the -1 handsize is stackable (which I assume it is). Although I admit it's a cool idea :) Disarm is also a quite powerful card wtih IG (which is another one). Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too, although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have) > > >> Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop > >> the cards being powerful. > > > >But it hasn't been done, so?? And LM isn't too powerful with a CL, and > >not enough powerful with NCL to make it changed (obviously, since it > >hasn't happened). And why change like 50+ card texts (in erratas) when > >you could just make a CL and fix most of the "broken" cards? > > Because CL doesn't fix the broken cards, and makes the game even more > broken in other areas. Do you really thing a Temptation of Greater > Power deck is going to be so terribly hurt by using only 4 TGPs > instead of 7? Sure, he won't be able to get ALL the vampires. But he > can also back off on some of his other defenses, since under a CL he > doesn't have to worry about some things. I would almost be willing to > bet that a TGP deck would be even MORE powerful under a CL than > outside it, because nobody's deck could consistently stop it. Nope because if you have a Sudden on hand and take away a ToGP with it, you took away 25% of his cards. While if he has 10 of them, one Sudden mor eor less makes no difference (and don't tell me people should play with 5-6 Suddens!! I never even play with 4). > > >> That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak > >Drives > >> in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon > >> you. > > > >Sure they could but it's not likely to happen, and even so it doesn't > >have to mean you get ousted etiher. It's extremely unlikely that > >someone would have draw 4 FD's AND 4 bleed cards to go with them all at > >once. And even so I have the chance to draw 4 deflects etc. > > So it's all about luck, then? I wans't the one bringing up the luck issue here, geesh it's really funny how you guys try to twist things you bring up and make them look like MY fault. Luck obviously plays a part *always* in these type of games. If the deck happens to draw the cards, > it wins? If not, it loses? xCL seems really stupid to me, frankly. > If I wanted to play a card game with that much luck, I'd play poker. Oh so does it work the other way around too? If you happent o be very unlucky with your cards in a tournament, do you decide not to ever play the game again because normally your bad luck shouldn't be possible? :) > >> >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 > >> >Legacy of Pander. > >> > >> It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten. > > > >CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to > >be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some > >diversity :) > > This statement is, of course, mindless blather. As was the statement before that just as much. It's strange how that NCL is a challenge while when I CL is too it's suddenly "mindless blather". Wow, I don't think that convinces anyone but maybe yourself. > > > Playing > >> Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives > >> you a good chance against many vote decks. > > > >Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with > >such a deck :) > > Learn some advanced deck-building skills? Yeah right, when 25% of my deck consists of cards trying to prevent someone from gaining power through votes, I'll by some strange miracle manage to get say a good vleed deck where my prey under NCL could have some 10 deflections? Wonderful, wonderful. > > >> If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's > >10 > >> Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in > >the > >> game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of > >Praxis > >> Seizures make the game any more "fun"? > > > >One LoP should give more votes than a PS (else u're doing something > >wrong :P) Also you can play 10 LoP's but you cannot play 10 PS unless > >you have that many minions (not likely). > > Ever seen a weenie vote deck go? All the 1-caps. Easy to get 10 > minions out. Lots harder to kill with combat, intercept, etc. Lots > tougher to pass all the votes. I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still harder to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting titles can become an issue. > > >I always have vote defense, but it doesn't help when the guy has 5 > >minions all trying to play a LoP the same turn, now does it?? Unless I > >have enough of titled vampires up, but then he'd not play them in the > >first place *duh*. > > The LoP deck doesn't run that way at ALL, by the way. You are > revealing your inexperience. Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a hypothetical discussion. And you assume a lot of things about CL that's not true either. By the time he has 5 minions out, you > and the rest of the table will have some titled vampires and/or vote > defense out and you can just IGNORE his LoP's. The LoP deck normally > gets a couple minions out fast and hopes to take an action to pass an > LoP, getting a couple quick votes. If it doesn't have an LoP in its > opening hand, it is in trouble already. If it gets those first votes > intercepted, it is in trouble. It relies a LOT on a great turn of > speed. Yes but actually the guy sitting on the opposite side of the table could help you gain voting power too, it's happened many times, o you're not necessarily screwed because you didn't get out a LoP the first round(s). And to repeat what you said, it's all about luck then? I thought that was a reason for you not to play poker but play this game instead... > > >> If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should > >anyone > >> else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments > >that > >> have gone before you, with nothing new to add? > > > >I never asked anyone to listen, duh. You've chosed so yourself, not my > >fault. *I* wasn't the one brining up this whole issue, *someone* > >herecomplained at my playgroup using CL! Geesh sounds like now you're > >trying to make it my fault that you happen to not like CL and complain > >about it. > > Actually, the original poster (Norm) pointed out that CL creates > wallpaper cards. You responded with one of the common pro-CL > arguments, and I responded directing you to www.deja.com. > You ignored > that, and began immediately posting many MORE pro-CL arguments in your > own response. Yes so ACTUALLY Norman made a remark on my playgroup for using CL and I jsut explained to him that he was wrong. And even you NCL guys have indirectly admitted in previous posts that NCL creates more wallpaper cards! You want me to go find the actually text for you?? One of your arguments is that with NCL your deck is more focused and you don't need to use useless cards. So tell me, HOW is this not making more wallpaper cards? > > It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made > statements like "i haven't got time to read that." Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads?? I've read aruments about CL before, jsut not the ENTIRE ARCHIVE. Does that suddenly disqualify me from posting?? As I stated before, if it is so, then you shouldn't be posting anything here before you've searched the entire web for all kinds of topics that relates to VTES, because if you do you risk to repost soemthing that's already been handled before. And now that would be terrible, wouldn't it? As I can see why you don't want to repeat same arguments over and over, that's certianly not a valid reaosn for me to NOT respond when jumped on. You're basically saying that Norman has a right to make a remark that I feel is wrong, and I don't have a right to respond to it until I've read the whole archive about the subject. Wow, you blow me away. All I can say is, you don't have aright to comment my playgroup and how we handle things here, until u've actually came and played with us to see how it is. > >> 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it, > >with > >> a decent deck still there. That is broken. > > > >You know we've never had more probs with Malks that any other clan. If > >they have a cheesy deck, poeple usually gang up on them because we hate > >Malks ;-) > > Then someone isn't building the 4CL Malk deck right. It can easily > run over any 4CL table, barring a GREAT deal of good luck on the > victims' parts. It can't run over a table more than the LoP deck did at the Gen*Con or whatever else. You can certainly stop the Malk deck by having lots of intercept and a few deflects/reduce bleeds. Throw in a Guardian Angel, a few Sports Bikes and a few loc-intercepts and you got a decent defence. Sure Malky might get through but it's not like you'll die on *one* bleed or two. I could go a voting deck and vote myself lots of pool, or I could rush his vamps and kill him. I could have Protected Resources (need only one of this card, and 4 ppl here has it), I could use Archon Investigation..etc...*doesn't this discussion feel very familiar somehow??* > > >> What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's > >very > >> different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been > >ever > >> since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES. > > > >But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I? You tell > >me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to > >check how this single thread came to existance... > > I did. I tried to head the whole damn thing off by directing you to > the archive, INSTEAD of encouraging you to post all this glop to the > group, KNOWING that this would happen. Do you understand now why I > did that? No I don't, because Norman made a remark that was wrong and I corrected it and now it's my fault? CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL and nothing in the archives makes me think differently and nothing you or anyone else have said in all this long thread has made me think differently. And everyhtign u've said has already been handled in the archives, so OBVIOUSLY it would have been a watse of time to read them, I'm glad I didn't. > > >Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused, > >that just doesn't stand up, they are. > > The card itself is no less powerful with only 4 in a deck. And I > still hesitate to call ToGP broken. A sudden will have more impact, and it also take slonger for you to draw the ToGP's so meanwhile a lot of stuff could happen that speaks to my favor. I'm not saying it's still not a good combo (I am NOT against good combos!!) it's just not as likely to pull it all through. > > >> You can play as many clans as you want under NL. > > > >But not effectively unless u're filthy rich. > > This is just wrong. What clan can't you play effectively under NL > unless you're rich? No what I mean is that you need ot be filthy rich to buy enough card ot be able to get vampires for all cards and all the cards that goes with these vampires. If I for example don't have money to buy both AH and Sabbat I can't play them either. With CL you don't need as many cards of these to remain competitive, with NCL you need more cards because you find that you want more than 4 of a card, say Guard Dogs, so you need to buy more boosters to get them. And don't come and say you can use Rat's Warnign instead, because then you're saying that 4 CL doesn't harm you, since using Rat's Warning is what our players do now... > > >You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few > >decks/clans that they prefer to always play? Only those with tons of > >cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they > >never break down. I think that tells something... > > Yeah, we're telling you that THERE ARE, IN FACT, *NOT* TONS OF PEOPLE > HAVING A FEW DECKS OR CLANS THEY ALWAYS PLAY. Those people who DO are > invariably new to the game or inexperienced, and as soon as they're > introduced to a different style of deckbuilding, they change over > themselves. Some of our new players used to play nothing but Brujah, > nothing but Tremere, etc. - they no longer do that, because they find > it more fun to play with multiple different ideas. And they got more hooked ot thegame and were willing to spend more money. Once our players have spent enough money to be able to pay most decks they'll also have more rare and uncommon cards and then CL might be lifted. But this hasn't happeend yet and the fact that it's virtually impossible to buy new cards prevents this from happening. > > >"In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a > >Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be blind. > > We haven't seen it. Quote us some websites, will you? Because I > don't think you've seen it either. I actually came across one just the other day, I'll for sure post an example when I find one. > > >I dind't dsay they never tried others. But they play mainly one, and > >that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent > >their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's > >not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed, without > >being filthy rich. > > Again, this is just false. $750 spent over 2 years is not filthy > rich, i'm sorry. And I can make pretty much almost any deck I want. Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts, they think even $30 to get started is too much. Trust me I'm honest in this, I think $30 is really nothing for the great fun you get, but somehow they seme to think so. There was a guy who sold all his cards (he had a big binder full of cards, both VTES, DS and AH, cards worth maybe $300) and he was selling for $40 and people weren't interested. The one who bought it is a guy who's as fanatic as me and who already had quite many cards. The binder would have done a lot more good in the hands of some newbies who plays with us all the time. > > -- Derek > Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9epf$4la$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > I would like to address your point on Malk stealth and bleed below where > you say: > > > It can't run over a table more than the LoP deck did at the Gen*Con or > > whatever else. You can certainly stop the Malk deck by having lots of > > intercept and a few deflects/reduce bleeds. > > > > Throw in a Guardian Angel, a few Sports Bikes and a few loc- intercepts > > and you got a decent defence. Sure Malky might get through but it's > not > > like you'll die on *one* bleed or two. I could go a voting deck and > > vote myself lots of pool, or I could rush his vamps and kill him. I > > could have Protected Resources (need only one of this card, and 4 ppl > > here has it), I could use Archon Investigation..etc...*doesn't this > > discussion feel very familiar somehow??* > > First of all, your arguement about being able to counter dedicated > stealth with an equal amount of dedicated intercept is wrong. It > requires approximately twice as much dedicated intercept to catch a > dedicated stealth deck. Wrong, you don't need twice as much because of Elder Impersonation, you can oyl have 4 of EI and you once again forget that my playgroup lacks AH and Sabbat cards. I have 4 EI, but to my knowledge no one else of our 8 players have. There *might* be another guy having four, but if so he's never used them to make ti noticable. As for the rest, they all have none, one guy has one or two that he got from me. Another thing is, Malks don't have permanent stealth locations (not counting Shadow Forest that can be burned easily) while you can have such intercept ones easily. This makes you require a lot less of intercept card. Add four 2nd Tradition and a couple of other intercept card (let's say 12, which isn't uncommon for an intercept deck) and top it with 4 Telepathic Counters you really DO survive. First I use my perm intercepts to block and if I have to, I throw in an intercept card. If he plays IE I could Misdirect it and then I can soon collect some 6 pool. The reason for this is Elder Impersonation. At > superior, Elder Impersonation causes a block to fail. With NCL this card is certainly bad yes, a reason to not use NCL since it limits your defence to only be deflects. This card single > handedly takes a vampire with alot of intercept on him out of the > blocking scheme and therefore requires the blocking player to put an > equal amount of intercept on a second vampire. Therefore it requires > twice as much intercept on average to catch stealth in any environment > CL or NCL. If you plan on playing Elder Impersonation, then it should > be your last of a series of stealth cards with your intention being to > draw out all of your prey's intercept. > > Second, Malkavians can go all out every turn and bleed you with each > minion for two if you have Protected Resources, but if you have > protected resources then you cannot bleed your prey so therefore you > must play politics or you lose your Protected Resources. Therefore if > you play Protected Resources then you can't use a rush strategy, because > with rush you must always eventually bleed your prey out. Rush is the > counter to Stealth/Bleed. You play either a rush deck OR vote deck. And by rushing vamps I was tlaking about the Malks, you rush them and try kill them. He won't have much defence since he's such a devoted S&B. > > Third, Archon investigation is a good defense against power bleeds, but > if your predator even has a inkling that you might have one in your deck > . He is either going to bleed you for no more than three or try to draw > it out using a disposable vampire like a weenie. So it is good to > suprise your predator with one of these, but it only works once and it > costs you 3 pool. It is an expensive yet inconsistant defense. True, but it makes him cautious and it's good to have in combination with other defence. > > This leeds me to Derek's point about bounce. Bounce is the only > definative defense against stealth and bleeds. It is convenient, cheap > and extremely useful in helping you oust your own prey. To restate > Dereks point in a card limit environment you are limited to at most > having 12 of these in your deck (4 Redirections, 4 Deflections, 4 > Telepathic Misdirections), and, as Derek said Redirections are the weak > one out of that group. You missed My Enemy's Enemy, although it's not relevant in my playgroup. But so isn't EI either. Of course you also have Telepathic Counters, but > that is a paper shield against a stealth and bleed deck. > > That really only leaves one deck strategy to play if you want to win in > a CL environment, and that is stealth bleed. Stealth, bleed is fast and > powerful right out of the gate, and with your 4 card limit, a player > cannot muster a substancial defence before they are ousted. Therefore > if you want to win in a CL environment you play dedicated Stealth- Bleed. > Do you like to win? So why would you play anything else? Why do YOU play anything else but your favourtie win-deck? Because it's fun. We play both for fun and to win. It's not fun to win IF you were able to do it as easily as you describe all the time (but it's not). Why would > anybody play anything else? Because we don't liek Malkavians? :) Let's all play stealth and bleed because > card-limits just wall-papered Rush Combat and politics is too fragile in > a high speed environment. So now everyone plays stealth bleed. Yee > Haw!! :) So why don't people do that in my playgroup then?? It's not liek nobody ever tried it *duh*, like that tournament we had. The player was from my neighbour town and they're good players, the people there have a to more cards too and a few have even most cards of all sets. People in my group don't play much of real pure stealth and bleed, because it's so friggin' boring and quite lame and IF they do they get quite gangbanged after the first game (if hey won). Maybe you don't play for fun but only to win and don't care if you're having fun while doing so, but you're not in my playgroup, I don't have to take your possible decks into consideration. If CL didn't work we OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have it. Your theoretical arguments doesn't are not real in our playgroup so it makes no sense. If and when anyhting like you describe happens we'll find a way to deal with it. NCL could be a way to go, but that would cause other problems too. Came to think of another card you don't want to see in quantities, Horrific Countentance (together with dominate, Gangrels can do it without too much of effort). In THIS case bouncing is the only way to go, so you're telling me that if I don't play a bouncing deck I'm screwed and I should from now on always play bouncer decks??? > > 2 cents, 2 pennys, 2 kopeks, 2 pesos, whatever... it is all pocket > change. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > X_Zealot > Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9e7j$3vg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > <snip> > > Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire > your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you, > by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your > addy. Hmm how can you admire my speedo connection if you don't know how fast it is? ;) (it IS fast though, 10Mbit Ethernet). And no, sorry to disappoint you but luth doesn't stand for what you think. I'm by no means a theologist (I'm an atheist, Scandinavia tends to have more of them and any other region I know of). the campus in my DNS should give you a hint I'ma student ;-) luth stands for Luleå Tekniska Högskola, or Luleå University of Technolgy as it's in English. But to make it even more complicated, I'm not a technician, I'm doing my 5th year Legal Science and I DO claim my right to play with CL if I so have to go to court with it ;-) Ok so now when you know my life history let's move on :P > > > > I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided > an > > answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly > > exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo > > Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single > > specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the > *exact* > > same effect. > > > Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8 > weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP idea > but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a > tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be > contradicted! > > On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't > understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one > card. No but the reason the deck is called ToGP is that that specific cards plays the major role of the deck. No ToGP - no taking control of vampires, which is what the deck is about. I by no means claim it's a SIMPLE strategy, I never have. I just say it's a POWERFUL one, too powerful if you ask me. And I suspect it's extremely boring and frustrating to be faced by it after a couple of times. Of course one fun thing could be to devote a deck just to counter it, which could be fun, but in the long run it's really isn't. [ quoted text not captured ] It's still well above 4. The idea of CL is also not to completely destroy a tactic (at least not on purpose), you could play with 4 ToGP and still probably do quite good. Thing is, you won't at least ALWAYS draw that ToGP early in thegame, wihch makes the game a bit less predictale and more fun. > > <snip> > > > > > > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 > > > >Legacy of Pander. > > > > It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing. > As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself. > > > CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to > > be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some > > diversity :) > > > Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm > afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the > other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too > shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and > understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and > the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy > Families. Please bring her on to the forum ;-) Also as I've stated already, I'd not mind playing games with NCL in tournaments with you guys if I ever got an opportunity to. I just liek CL better and it's the best solution under the current circumstances where there's no cards to buy. > > > Playing > > > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., > gives > > > you a good chance against many vote decks. > > > > Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with > > such a deck :) > > > Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A > well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in > favour of a table-vote deck. You know DI is extremely rare and I'm the onyl one having it (and I paid $8 for it, who said you needn't be rich? ;-)). DT I don't know what it stands for, so please enlight me. I once again ask you to keep in mind that CL is best for us in our gaming environment. You keep assuming we have this and that card when we don't. The whole point of CL here is that players here hardly have any Sabbat and AH cards. Two sets that has some really great cards. > > <snip> > > > > Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I > > find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues > and > > all. > > This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a > theologian. Hey gimem that prize back! :) > <snip vast amount of stuff> > > Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm happy > that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going > since the early days. I'm glad too, and even more glad if CL helps us to make the newbies happy and conitnue to play this wonderful game. Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew > "Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however, share > your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance > of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and > commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath before > digging yourself any further into the mire here. I didn't ask to get jumped on in the first place. All I want is to play the game I like and take part of interesting ideas on this forum. I'd never critisize anyone for using homesrules and frankly I don't see why you do that on me. I made a post where I explained a houserule we had on Werewolf Pack and nobody complained about that one. Our houserule doesn't follow how the card was intended to be, yet no complaints? So why this fuzz about CL? It's not like you guys ever will suffer from it. It's our cards, our games, our fun, that YOU are trying to change, with no rights. i thought at first you > were a total newbie but you clearly aren't and therefore, IMO, you ought > to know better. > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9ifd$8on$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > In article <8p9e7j$3vg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire > > your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you, > > by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your > > addy. > > Hmm how can you admire my speedo connection if you don't know how fast > it is? ;) (it IS fast though, 10Mbit Ethernet). > > And no, sorry to disappoint you but luth doesn't stand for what you > think. I'm by no means a theologist (I'm an atheist, Scandinavia tends > to have more of them and any other region I know of). the campus in my > DNS should give you a hint I'm a student ;-) umm sorry I just saw that you actually realised I'm a student :P I guess it's time for me to go to sleep...it's 4:40 am... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:42:48 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <vovdrsggj6tpbppqa...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are >>actually a threat. > >Your best option is to kill the Legacies, in my view. They *are* the >votes which are actually a threat. Hm. Maybe this is just me, since when I play intercept, I tend to build decks that can stop "any action, anywhere, any stealth". (Superior Night Moves is excluded from this list.) So I tend to look at it as idle entertainment until he actually tries to DO something with his votes, at which point i offer him the deal "No damage to me, or that vampire goes kaboom." Usually his vampire gets to go kaboom at that point, although some of my decks (Daffy Deck, leggy? =) don't make kaboom very well. This is assuming he's my predator. If he's my prey, I seize every opportunity to disrupt the hell out of his deck by stopping his actions and punching his minions for 1, if necessary. =) >The times I've seen LoP defeated, it's generally been when the deck has >been stalled very quickly. It couldn't do the vote in its first (i.e. >the second, normally) turn, so it had to wait for the third turn. By, >then, someone has normally been able to bring out a 7 or an 8 - >hopefully a voting vampire. This is also an effective way to stomp it, or when someone else has had a convenient KRCG, or Delaying Tactics, or Edge, or whatever. >So why pick the Legacy of Pander? Well, it's quite common to have a >vote deck on a table or, at least, a deck that has the capacity to vote >in it, possibly as an aside, with a few cards around. Legacy of Pander >doesn't just work on their votes, it works on everyone's. You hand the >control of the entire voting environment to the LoP player. If you >block the Kine Resources Contested, he's still probably got a few more >votes up his sleeve, and he can still vote down your votes. If you >block the Legacy of Pander (either through intercept, Direct >Intervention, Delaying Tactics), then he can't kill your votes, and he >can't pass the Kine Resources Contested anyway. OK, I think I see the other half of it. I assume that my deck is NOT necessarily going to have a vampire -and- intercept handy to stop the first LoP, so he'll already have one vote per vampire - which could be enough to pass stuff anyway. Certainly, from the point of view of a voting deck, I would want to make sure he couldn't gain vote lock and stomp my guys flat. But this is also something the table should discuss IMMEDIATELY as soon as the first LoP hits the table - "Do we need to make this deck dead NOW, or can we just stall it for a few turns and let it die on its own?" I don't see LoP included as part of many decks OTHER than the LoP deck, so it's usually safe to assume that someone calling an LoP is about to attempt to run over the table. There's always the potential option, in your own vote deck, of just burning the early single LoP's as they come out. A Prince with superior BO has 6 votes, which beats 5 Panders. (A Prince with Closed Session can snub the Pander completely, and Closed Session isn't always such a bad card.) And after that, he may have a difficult time getting the next few LoP's out, since there probably won't be THAT many vote modifiers of his own in the deck, and everyone else will have had time to get some intercept ready, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:48:55 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >There's no way to easily make an aciton unblockable with a Giovanni. >Seduction isn't really a good way since both predator and prey can >block and Seduction also only prevents *one* minion from blocking. Whispers from the Dead is a +1 stealth action. Spectral Divination and Giuseppe, Gravedigger make it +3 stealth, out of reach of any single card *and* most importantly out of reach of 2nd tradition. Seduction is nastier than you think since that guy you left untapped just for that reason will suddenly be unable to block - you'll be spending a lot of time attempting to block the card-fetch actions. Carlotta's action is also at +1 stealth, and she has Obfuscate. (And in this deck I would play with OBF skill masters and OBF stealth added in, because there are a couple other Giovanni with Obfuscate as well.) It may not be unblockable, but it WILL consistently gain more stealth than you have intercept available. The question is now, how do you abuse 4 Whispers from the Dead, the Giovanni, and Carlotta? Oh look! Dominate bleed! =) YEEE HAAAAAAA! On a different note, it REALLY seems to me, from some things you say, that you guys spend a lot of time habitually blocking. Is that true? Often the best defense and/or strategy is to just not block someone. [ quoted text not captured ]

"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8p8d8h$r1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <%nOt5.124$M06....@news.uswest.net>, > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > > > > "cantila" wrote: > > > As I said before, we've made an exception for the Corruption card, > > > there's no limit on that one, as well as Master Skill Cards > (because NL > > > on them allows you to try out fun strategies like Serpentis on > > > Nosferatu etc). > > > > How about (as someone astutely pointed out) Cryptic Mission? Is > that "fun"? > > Would it get the okay to break CLs? As has been pointed out > > *cough*archive*cough*, "fun" is something that is quickly determined > by the > > shifting mood of the playgroup, which can easily be swayed by more > forceful > > personalities in that playgroup. How long before a new "fun" > strategy become > > "cheesy"? Maybe a few people think that Using a bunch of...let's say > Change > > of Target, just because it is practically useless, would be "fun". > What > > happens when they figure out some way to make it win? How many games > do they > > have to win before "fun" becomes "cheesy"? > > > > Just a few thoughts. And now I shut up. > > > > Xian > > > > The whole idea about the corruption card is based on NCL, that's why we > have NCL on that card... Richard Garfield designed Jyhad with NCL. Since the whole idea of Jyhad is based on NCL, and there has never been a set of rules intimating or asking or stating that the players should use xCL (such as there has been with repeat actions), shouldn't we use NCL? You don't have to say something about your playgroup or how you enjoy the game better whichever way -- I understand how you feel about your own personal group and its preferences. Just tell me if we should play the game based on the conceptual and rules designated system of NCL.

> It's not possible to "just > buy a box for $75" since there's no boxes for sale anymore Get on eBay. I bought a box of DS and a box of AH together for about $100 US. (I cannot help you with your currency exchange rate, however.) I don't know anyone with a regular job that can't do that once a year. Your *entire playgroup* would have plenty of boxes if you did that. You would have plenty of cards to trade with each other and make the NCL decks you have only been dreaming about. Oh, wait, everyone in your playgroup wouldn't have 20 of every card, so I guess everyone wouldn't be able to make every deck they've ever thought about making. (This is the core of your pro-xCL argument, is it not?) > As for Sabbat, It isn't our fault that there was a smaller print run with Sabbat. Get the cards when you can get them. Buy the next expansion. Play in Sabbat tournaments, if there are any. Trade with people in your play group, and over the net. Oh, wait, you would have to give up a card(s) to get a card(s), and since you want to have 20 of each card, I guess you can't trade with anyone. (This is the core of your pro-xCL argument, is it not?) It would seem to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in *any* card game, unless you are Mr. Suitcase, you will have to mentally deal with your lack of cards. What you as a player/playgroup have to decide is to play the game as it was intended to be played, i.e. NCL, or create an arbitrary system that caters to your problems, i.e. xCL. I'm also curious to know, if one of you won the lottery and went berserk and bought 10 boxes of each expansion for each member of your playgroup and therefore had all the cards you could ever want, would you just up and *change* your rules, i.e. xCL-->NCL ?

In article <8p8ju5$3l6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > In article <8p8bvu$pd6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article > > <D78832ABD879F57E.CCC81FC5...@lp.airnews.net>, > > a...@csi.com wrote: > > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > > >What aren't you impressed with Andrew? > > > OK, that was your first clue. > > > > People with limited access to cards have a justification for CL up > > to a point. This was me supporting your arguement to some degree, and your second clue. > What EXACTLY do you try to say?? I and some of my friends has played > hte game since it first came out! Who do you thin you are? Some all- > knowing God?? > No, just that Andrew may not have played the game enough yet and as he plays more i strongly feel that his opinion towards CL will change based on the dynamics of the game and his experiences with other CCGs- nothing more. i don't know you, or have any idea of you or your groups play style. I obviously wouldn't make any rash opinions about that at all. My apologies if i offended you, the response wasn't aimed at you at all. It quotes nothing you have ever writen and is 6 posts down the thread from your last comment on the topic. I am sorry you misconstrued my comments. > > Look's who's talking about ludicrous sweeping generalisations! > > (I really suggest you go back and read how this thread was started as > well, I'm not pro CL for everyone, I just am *for my own playgroup* Did i not just support that above? Despite > the fact you seem to consider yourself an all-knowing god. Also with > all your knowledge, how come you manage to claim that Staredown is a > rare!?!) > Ah, you're right. You own me. I am indeed your bitch. (Dammit- why do i only have 2 of them then? ;) ) - you get the point though, it's a lot harder to come by than a Majesty. matt the partially-knowing god, who's off to memorise card lists. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hmm Deja.com seems to have messed up ro else I did. Most of my comments in this line of the thread was directed agaisnt another post and not this one. I'll see if I can find the real thread I was to repsond to later today when i have the time. In article <8pacbg$5hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <wn2u5.19121$Qx4.8...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, "Kevin M." <kjme...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote: > > It's not possible to "just > > buy a box for $75" since there's no boxes for sale anymore > > Get on eBay. I bought a box of DS and a box of AH together for about $100 > US. (I cannot help you with your currency exchange rate, however.) Also add the shipping of some $20 to this, plus the risk of getting cheated on. Nobody I know (including myself) would really buy anything that expensive without knowing who the seller is. I've made two trades aowrht about $100 in the past, but it was with people that was fairly well known in the online community. I don't > know anyone with a regular job that can't do that once a year. Your *entire > playgroup* would have plenty of boxes if you did that. People aren't dedicated enough here to do that. One reason could also be that we pretty much play in waves. Sometimes we don't play for a long time, and then we play intensively for a while etc. I myself can't play at all except during the holidays because I study far away from my playgroup :( Also, most of my playgroup (read all but two, and that's me plus one other guy =P) are people who are always short on money. You would have > plenty of cards to trade with each other and make the NCL decks you have > only been dreaming about. Oh, wait, everyone in your playgroup wouldn't > have 20 of every card, so I guess everyone wouldn't be able to make every > deck they've ever thought about making. (This is the core of your pro-xCL > argument, is it not?) One box is far from enough, even 3 boxes isn't enough to get even 4 cards of some of the uncommons, let alone the rares. > > > As for Sabbat, > > It isn't our fault that there was a smaller print run with Sabbat. Get the > cards when you can get them. Buy the next expansion. Play in Sabbat > tournaments, if there are any. Trade with people in your play group, and > over the net. I'm the only one trading on the net, however I do sometimes buy a card because I know someone in my playgroup would trade with me for it. Oh, wait, you would have to give up a card(s) to get a > card(s), and since you want to have 20 of each card, I guess you can't trade > with anyone. (This is the core of your pro-xCL argument, is it not?) > > It would seem to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in *any* card > game, unless you are Mr. Suitcase, you will have to mentally deal with your > lack of cards. What you as a player/playgroup have to decide is to play the > game as it was intended to be played, i.e. NCL, or create an arbitrary > system that caters to your problems, i.e. xCL. So that's what we did. > > I'm also curious to know, if one of you won the lottery and went berserk and > bought 10 boxes of each expansion for each member of your playgroup and > therefore had all the cards you could ever want, would you just up and > *change* your rules, i.e. xCL-->NCL ? If that player complained we'd start talking about it yes. I can't really tell because it hasn't happened and will never happen either actually. People in ym playgroup don't have the cash to do this even if they wanted to, and I happen to know that they don't even want to. There's one guy you spends fairly much money, but even 3 boxes wouldn't be enough. Sure he might some uncommons and a few rares extra, but he'll just trade them away for other cards he happened not to get/or get as many of. You have to understand that people won't buy that many cards for three reasons: 1) no money 2) no point to buy "too amny" cards since we have the CL, so they won't. 3) people here are confident in the CL rule and will trade away excess cards without complaints since they will get another card they wanted instead. The only one in my playgroup that ever feels he has too many rare sof one kind is me, and that's not coz of the CL. It's coz I got 3 rares of cards that were pretty much worthless (for being a rare that is) such as Code of Milan (if anyone wants tot rade for one let me know hehe). I even got 3 LoP but I didn't know the card effect was stackable so I traded away two of them :( [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p8ju5$3l6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >What EXACTLY do you try to say?? I and some of my friends has played >hte game since it first came out! Who do you thin you are? Some all- >knowing God?? Now, let's see. Matt was replying to *Andrew* not you. When playing the game since it came out, did you forget how to read attribution lines? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9d1g$2kt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >There's no way to easily make an aciton unblockable with a Giovanni. >Seduction isn't really a good way since both predator and prey can >block and Seduction also only prevents *one* minion from blocking. Who says you have to be playing Giovanni to play it? You could throw half a dozen master cards in, a Camarilla Vitae Slave, the Setite with Necromancy etc. Or you could go obf/nec, having Raphael, Carlotta and that Setite. Drop in 5 or 6 master cards, and go. Oh, right. You're playing 4CL, the one where creative ideas like that are stopped. Sorry, forget I ever said anything. >It's a part of OUR game, and yes that's a reality (and simple). I'll create a variant of Jyhad where, every time I bleed my prey, I get to amputate a limb. It's part of MY game, and yes that's a reality. The old "It's right because we say so" argument. Hmm.... convincing. 4CL was grafted onto Magic, and grafted badly. It didn't stop things being broken, it didn't stop boring decks. Just look at the Magic scene now - most of the time, it's half a dozen boring decks. 4CL didn't work with Magic when it was started, so they invented restricted cards too. All it did was force the "killer combos" into the "lucky" category. It didn't make things more creative, because all you did was play lots of different cards revolving around the same thing, rather than just the one. Woohoo, you get killed by a Fireball instead of a Lightning Bolt. Woohoo! And indeed, woohoo. Magic has now been designed *with* a 4CL in mind - as have a number (the majority) of other card games, though with subtle variations (3CL, 1CL per character etc.) The card games are *designed* for it. Jyhad was *not* designed for a card limit. This is reality. It was specifically designed to be played with a theoretically infinite supply of cards. Why do you think they went to so much trouble with things like "1 named action modifier per minion per action", "1 source of additional strikes per round", "1 named reaction per minion per action", "1 master phase action per turn", "You may not cancel a maneuver you played yourself", "You may not cancel a press you played yourself". They tried to limit political actions, too, by limiting how many cards you could replace. Play-testing didn't get that one right - but the idea was there, and the intent was there, it just needed some tweaking. The only real thing they didn't catch was actions - again, because play- testing cannot catch everything, because you are not playing with every person out there. The creative ideas *I* come up with are not the creative ideas *you* come up with are not the creative ideas *Legbiter* comes up with etc. Unless play-testing included every player who ever has or will play V:TES on the planet, you couldn't predict everything. So, for the most part, V:TES worked. The Gangrel infinite loop deck was a trifle annoying, but was fixed with NRA, as was the Presence Bleed- Block-Majesty-Wash-Rinse-Repeat deck. Two broken decks, and that was it, basically. A lot of people *perceived* Malkavian Stealth and Bleed as broken. It was, indeed, a powerful deck - and still is. It could burn your pool quickly and do it at stealth. There are, however, many counters to it. Wake, Deflection is a good one. In a 4CL environment, that's 4 of each I'm allowed. But you can take lots of bleed actions. I can bounce 4. Woohoo and, again, woohoo. I can't have a good chance of drawing one in my opening hand, with only 4 in the deck. I can't have a good chance of having a steady flow of either, with only 4 in the deck. So, it's luck. Does he bleed me when I have one, or not? Does he do his really big bleed when I have one, or not? If I wanted luck, I'd go play Battletech and roll lots of dice, instead of relying on some skill in play and construction. One of the best decks I've seen in recent times is the Lazverinus All- Stars deck that won GenCon UK 98. Absolutely beautiful to watch then, and now. Deck list follows: 1 Foreshadowing Destruction 2 Resilience 2 Spirit's Touch 1 Homunculus 3 Disarm 2 Minion Tap 2 Undead Strength 2 Immortal Grapple 2 Taste of Vitae 1 Dominate 3 Restoration 3 Forced Awakening 2 My Enemy's Enemy 2 Rapid Change 2 Freak Drive 3 Rolling with the Punches 1 Demonstration 1 KRCG News Radio 2 Bum's Rush 3 Bone Spur 1 Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper 1 Barrens 1 Masochism 1 Thrown Sewer Lid 3 Wake With Evening's Freshness 1 Mr. Winthrop 2 Flesh of Marble 1 Rack 1 Signet of King Saul 3 Skin of Steel 4 Govern the Unaligned 1 Golconda: Inner Peace 4 Deflection 1 Fists of Death 1 Giant's Blood 1 Direct Intervention 2 Conditioning 2 Earth Control 1 Information Highway 2 Indomitability 1 Enhanced Senses 1 Kindred Co-ercion 1 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Major Boon 1 Blood Doll 1 Sudden Reversal 2 Skin of Rock 1 Threats 1 Ivory Bow 1 Hand of Conrad 1 Fortitude Vampires: 2 Badger 1 Jimmy Dunn 1 Dylan 2 Lazverinus, Thrall of Lambach 1 Iliana 1 Juan Cali 1 Cameron 1 Lisette Vizquel 1 Ricki van Demsi 1 Ian Forestal Works under a 4CL, you know. And it's an astoundingly competitive NL deck. Just because you are playing NL doesn't mean that *you* have to play a deck with more than 4 of anything in. You can play whatever deck you want and, once you have a reasonable pool of cards, you can build a competitive set of decks. Something like a box of Jyhad is plenty to make a very competitive deck. A box of V:TES or a box of Sabbat (though finding the latter is nigh on impossible now) would do exactly the same, since they give you, very roughly, a similar pool of cards. Legbiter has done some astounding things with a box of Jyhad and a copy of the "Happy Families" formula (.EXE version almost finished, I just need to fix on error on one of the vampires), things you wouldn't believe. Some of those fit in the 4CL category, others don't. The idea that you have to have hundreds of rares to play NL is wrong, based on assumption and mis-information. Jyhad is *not* a game like Magic, where, from the off, some of the very, very powerful cards were made stupidly more powerful than the commons. That was never viewed to be likely as a problem, in Magic - since no-one would have more than a couple, because there collection would never exceed the heady heights of about 400. V:TES learned from this fundamental error, so let's take a look at a couple of the instances within Jyhad. Misdirection: X pool - Tap X vampires. - Common Anarch Troublemaker: Free - Tap 2 vampires *OR* burn equipment. - Rare Yikes! That's a fairly hefty difference. Misdirection has to pay 2 pool for something Anarch Troublemaker gets for free *AND Anarch Troublemaker has another ability. Clearly, the rares are more powerful than the uncommons. Except, no - Anarch Troublemaker has some significant downsides. First of all, it isn't instant. You tap it during the untap phase, so you have to go around a turn. Everyone has warning of it. Then, it stays in play going to other people. It can come back and haunt you. Then, it doesn't have the flexibility that Misdirection has. You can't tap 5 vampires with Anarch Troublemaker, which you could do with Misdirection. The common card can be a lot more 'powerful' than the rare version, in the right situation. Then, we take Govern the Unaligned vs. Dominate Kine. Govern the Unaligned is only 1 blood, and gets you +2 bleed, whereas Dominate Kine is 2 blood, but only gets you +1 bleed *but* it also gives you +1 stealth. Swings and roundabouts. Then at superior, Govern the Unaligned generates 3 pool for you, whereas Dominate Kine lets you steal a location - useless, if there's nothing on the board. Swing and roundabouts. The Rare version isn't more powerful, it's just a different card. Then take Fists of Death vs Undead Strength. First of all, Undead Strength is free - but it's only for one strike. If you were to be using it defensively (i.e. to deter people from rushing you), you probably wouldn't have additional strikes, so Undead Strength would be much better. If, however, you want to go offensively, play Fists of Death as being better. What about Undead Strength vs Torn Signpost? Well, again, you have to pre-declare your intentions with Torn Signpost. There are no hidden surprises, you can't just throw it on someone once they've said "strike for hands", they know even before they set range. Then Undead Strength complements it quite well, adding to the strike - so you could be striking for 5. Also, the different periods in combat at which you play them give you different opportunities. I could be drawing Undead Strength after playing a few maneuver cards, for instance. Similarly, versus Death of my Conscience, you can get, wow, +8 hand damage from one card! But you have to discard cards, which is something Undead Strength never makes you do. And it has a hefty blood cost, too. Would a deck playing with Torn Signpost be, necessarily, better than one with Undead Strength? No. It might be a slightly different deck, but both of them could stand up to competitive play, albeit differently. Rare cards *aren't* a way to win a game. A good deck is, and a good deck doesn't require 20 of any card, nor rare cards at all. That's a reality, and yes, it's that simple. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d7qfrsc0k4pgifgqd...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? I am >surprised, myself, at the seeming lack of even light intercept at the >final table or even in the tournament in general. Legbiter normally plays a lot. Recently, he's been playing a lot of vampires with Animalism, using Raven Spy and 2nd Tradition with the Nosferatu. He wasn't, however, in his ToGP deck. He *would* have been the wall, and could have drastically reduced the effectiveness of Rob's deck, since Rob didn't have many Majesties and the deck James had been playing previously had a lot of intercept, followed by a maneuver with a gate, which wouldn't have suited Rob at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d7qfrsc0k4pgifgqd...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Psyche is useful for any Celerity deck, but I have a deck >that uses Haven, Disguised Weapon, Deer Rifle, and Manstopper Rounds, >along with Dead-End Alley to press to a 2nd round and get 4 total >points of damage. It uses all the OBF weenies. It doesn't give a >damn if you S:CE or Dodge against it - someone will EVENTUALLY get >you. It strikes me that a Prince with Obfuscate would be useful to the deck, maybe Selma, or someone like Volker (i.e. cheap) with skill cards. That way, you can play Blood Hunt as well. Once you cycle through a lot of their defence, you'll want a way to attack multiple *vampires* per round. A few Blood Hunt cards will do that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9aau$vba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections. > >And My Enemy's Enemy Which doesn't bounce it the way you want. 9 times out of 10, a bounce will go to my prey, not my grand-predator. >Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es ! >Ventrue. So now bleed bounce is only playable by !Ventrue. Yay! >There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or >use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare >card). Protected Resources is not *quite* rare. It is, as stated, ridiculously rare. >As I said before, Elysium has the same effect, It has the same effect as itself, not as S:CE. Since you get in position to hit, S:CE causes you to waste cards. You won't waste cards setting range etc. if Elysium is tapped. If you think Elysium has the same effect as S:CE, You Are Wrong. >> A Temptation of Greater Power deck relies on its Justicar. >> Incapacitate the Justicar, and TGP cannot be played. It also relies >> on being able to pass its own votes, and gaining vote lock against it >> will hurt it badly. There's always good old blood gain, too, so you >> just pay to keep your vampire and go on with your world. > >You keep talkign to me as if our playgroup was the same as yours or had >as many cards as you. Someone turns up and plays against you with ToGP. It is defeatable with mostly common card based decks. > While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk >about options here. You have many common options. >Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of >options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares as >well. They give you more options, because they are other cards, with other options. But you can defend with common cards plenty well enough. >I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play >Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does. Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck, something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at all. If people aren't turning up with Malk S&B, you have no way to assert that xCL isn't broken. >You brought >up the example, so I countered it. No, you didn't. >> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? > >This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup >doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive. You don't need to be a mind-reader to be competitive. >Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too, >although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have) Wrong. Mind Numb is perfectly balanced, as is Marijava Ghoul. >> So it's all about luck, then? > >I wans't the one bringing up the luck issue here, geesh it's really >funny how you guys try to twist things you bring up and make them look >like MY fault. No, but if you cannot refute that xCL ends up revolving around luck *way* more so that NL, you lose a point in the argument. >Luck obviously plays a part *always* in these type of games. And more so in NL. > >As was the statement before that just as much. > >It's strange how that NCL is a challenge No, playing against Legacy of Pander is an interesting challenge. Do learn to read before writing any more moronically obviously incorrect statements, won't you? >while when I CL is too it's >suddenly "mindless blather". Because you were talking crap. >> Learn some advanced deck-building skills? > >Yeah right, when 25% of my deck consists of cards trying to prevent >someone from gaining power through votes, If you have to put 25% of your deck to vote defence, then you *do* need to learn some "advanced deck-building skills" because you have very weak deck-building skills if you think that's how to do it. > I'll by some strange miracle >manage to get say a good vleed deck where my prey under NCL could have >some 10 deflections? Wonderful, wonderful. So, you'd prefer your prey just couldn't defend by bleed bounce instead. Hurrah. What you are advocating is a game where everyone races to do their deck, and no-one else can affect you. If I want that, I'd go play The X-Files card game, or maybe just toss coins like Guildenstern and Rosencratz. Or maybe snakes and ladders. >I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still harder >to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting >titles can become an issue. You don't call that PS and call another one instead, because you have plenty on hand. >Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a >hypothetical discussion. You oviously don't understand how the deck works then. If you think 15 Dread Gazes would be a hypothetical way to defend against Legacy of Pander, You Are Wrong. >> >> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made >> statements like "i haven't got time to read that." > >Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads?? You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis available. >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper. >Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts, >they think even $30 to get started is too much. Loan them a deck. Tell them to buy a pre-con starter when they come out. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p8d1k$ql7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading here how IG is really >necessary for a rush deck. You read wrong. If you believe that to be true, you are wrong. It is a very good card for a rush deck, very true. It is not required. Rare cards are not required for decks under NL. If you believe otherwise, You Are Wrong. Certain styles of rush deck - the Brujah close range pump and pound[0] decks - do have a great need for it. Not all, by a long shot. Derek cites his weenie attrition deck, which is great. I've also seen weenie bleeders with guns, which are quite scary. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <anngrsorqmkh93aem...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >There's always the potential option, in your own vote deck, of just >burning the early single LoP's as they come out. You need Sabbat vampires to burn it. Understandable, since the respect the Pander have over Caitiff, is solely internal to the Sabbat, but annoying. > A Prince with >superior BO has 6 votes, which beats 5 Panders. What happens if I get two-pair? ;) >(A Prince with Closed >Session can snub the Pander completely, and Closed Session isn't >always such a bad card.) I'm starting to think that a voting deck with Closed Session in it is rapidly becoming a very attractive proposition indeed. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote (in response to Cantila) > >Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es ! > >Ventrue. > > So now bleed bounce is only playable by !Ventrue. Yay! And the Tremere, you evil evil bastard. :) [Malks] > Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck, > something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken > environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at > all. I think that a pertinent question here is, why do people gang up on Malk S&B in your group? In a balanced environment, there shouldn't be need to gang up on one deck strategy. Viable defenses against Malk S&B include (CL fave) intercept, voting, faster bleeding, bounce, and (jack-booted thug fave) combat. Combat kicks Malk S&B to hell and back. Under NL. > You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis > available. Yes. This will take under, oh an hour, maybe two at most if you are a slow reader. URL provided: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html Xian www.waste.org/~xian

cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8paish$c7b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > People aren't dedicated enough here to do that. One reason could also > be that we pretty much play in waves. Sometimes we don't play for a > long time, and then we play intensively for a while etc. I myself can't > play at all except during the holidays because I study far away from my > playgroup This says it all... Consistent playing may have led to the realization that the game was in fact designed to be played NCL. Now, I am not saying that your mechanics are behind other players, or that NCL players are better than CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the way the game was designed), is a better and the right way to play. I started out in a Magic shop when Jyhad first came out, and we NATURALLY made our decks with a 4CL in mind. We had to be told that the game was NCL, and when we found that out, we changed... not because we wanted to, yes we had traded cards away to make 4CL decks, we changed because we were playing the game wrong. Restricting ourselves to a CL that was unnecessary and improper. I can't imagine going back to 4CL. Any deck you play, ANY deck, you can find the need for more than 4 of a certain card. I would like to see a posting of a successful 4CL deck that wins consistently over NCL decks and 4CL decks alike. I don't think that will happen, because if your playgroup is NCL, you won't play 4CL. Maybe some one would like to take up this challenge??? (insert sounds of crickets chirping) That's what I thought... Prove me wrong, though. If there is a deck that is 4CL that can win consistently, I want to build it... ;-) oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.

In article <LvvhDqA1...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, [ quoted text not captured ] I already commented this saying somehting screwed up here, I wasn't suppsoed ot respond to that thread, but another one. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> Exellent article James!! Thank you. I'd like to emphazise something James touched on earlier. ---> Any self-adopted card limit is in fact NL! <---- And it's always easier to trade for more powerfull commons than for semipowerfull rares, like James also stated before. Why would you *need* 4 Catatonic Fears when you can use as many Majesties as you like..same goes fore Awe and My Enemies Enemy. Don't get me wrong here. IMO any playgroup has the right to adopt any CL or houserules, but this forum is mainly about V:tES Tournaments where the official WW rules are enforced. Moreover, I have played both styles and yes a CL has its pro's (sometimes) but NL does not force you to use only the standerd tactics. Creativity as stated by many others is very important to VTES and NL gives you the option (!) to do whatever you like as long as you do not have too many or not enough cards in your crypt and/or library. Please check out the archives for articles about flexibility in decks, or check out Rob Treasures decks. Under NL rules every card slot is used to it's maximum potential wher IMO that is not done under any CL as you will have to adopt too many different strategies, both offensive as defensive. Also this is mentioned anywhere in these threads. But most importantly instead of refuting, ignoring and counterposting argument to the people who know most about this game in all of it's facets, first listen to them without arguments. Let it sink in. They (we) are only trying to be of help. You can still do whatever you want, but remember the official rules for the game like you do in any other game. Tim Eijpe [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > There are no exact duplicates of any card in V:TES, with about three > exceptions - Bastard Sword/Meat Clever, Pack Tactics/Elder Intervention, > Homunculus/Carrion Coffin. And that's about it. Homunculus is a retainer, Carrion Coffin is just a card (with a built-in burn option). I wouldn't classify them as exact duplicates of each other. One can be moved with Heidelburg and the Succubus Club and pulled via Culling the Herd or stolen in a variety of ways (and is difficult to burn), the other can be burned without much effort and cannot be moved. And the action to get one is at +1 stealth at inferior, the other is 0 stealth at inferior. The only pair I'd add to your list is Anarchist Uprising / Autarkis Persectution, though with the effects of Delaying Tactics, the change of name actually matters. (Similarly, unique cards like vampires are sufficiently "different" by name alone so as not to count.) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <vtuITuBx...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8p9aau$vba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- > 6...@student.luth.se> writes > >> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections. > > > >And My Enemy's Enemy > > Which doesn't bounce it the way you want. OMG talk about being picky. If it saves me from being ousted that's pretty much worth it. > > 9 times out of 10, a bounce will go to my prey, not my grand- predator. > >There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or > >use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare > >card). > > Protected Resources is not *quite* rare. It is, as stated, ridiculously > rare. If half of my playgroup have on it's not redicilously rare here. > > >As I said before, Elysium has the same effect, > > It has the same effect as itself, not as S:CE. Since you get in position > to hit, S:CE causes you to waste cards. You won't waste cards setting > range etc. if Elysium is tapped. But he wasted a Bum's Rush and an action. If he knows Elysium is up he's not gonna bother attacking me before he knows a way to get around it, this it saves me a lot of trouble till he can. S:CE is not suppsoed to be and-end-to-all-troubles card, I know you guys like it when one card solves everything and makes you not have to have more than a few different cards to come up with a good strategy, but that's ot how we prefer to have it. > > If you think Elysium has the same effect as S:CE, You Are Wrong. > > Someone turns up and plays against you with ToGP. Who would that be?? In 6 years nobody has ever "turn up" who didn't belong to the 25 people I've mentioned before. People here don't travel very far to get to play VTES and even if someone showed up for a day of playing, then that's certainly not a reason to lift CL forever. This is getting so redicilous. > It is defeatable with mostly common card based decks. > > > While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk > >about options here. > > You have many common options. > > >Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of > >options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares as > >well. > > They give you more options, because they are other cards, with other > options. But you can defend with common cards plenty well enough. And you defend with CL well enough against any strategy that follows the CL too. Your S&B example etc doesn't cut it. We've never had real trouble with it, if we had we'd changed our rules. > > >I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play > >Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does. > > Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck, > something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken > environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at > all. And you're supposed to be an experienced player?? Wow if what u're saying is that you never do politics in your games then your games is nothing I'd want to play. I saw one example before somewhere in this long thread where I think Legbiter said that if someone goes for LoP you could cooperate to bring him down. Isn't that the exact same thing as ganging up on a S&B deck?? oh noo...wait..I forgot that same things doesn't apply for you as it does for us because you're so almighty. That's just the way things are huh? You'd be a fool if you didn't try to prevent your opponents from winning. A S&B that is about to sweep the table is a threat and of course u'd try get people gang up on him if you ever have the intention of winning the game. But you being a white knight and all, of course would have done nothing but let him win huh? All for the sake of being honorable. > > If people aren't turning up with Malk S&B, you have no way to assert > that xCL isn't broken. Oooh so we should play with NCL because it *might* be broken even when it's never turned out to be so during 6 years of playing?? Come up with something better pleeeease. I could say the same thig for you; "there *might* be some strategy that you just haven't invented yet (based on existing OR coming card), that *could* turn out to be overpowerful with NCL, you just haven't discovered it yet, so you better get rid of that NCL just in case!" > > >> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? > > > >This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup > >doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive. > > You don't need to be a mind-reader to be competitive. Is that all you have to say? You say you need to exploit holes but that requires you to know what they'll be playing in first place. How can I try exploit a hole in a deck that doesn't exist??? I have to have a deck to refer to, how can I if I don't know what he'll be playing? Thus I need to be a mind-reader, or the guy needs to play this deck at more than one consecutive occassion and I also have to know that he intends to do so. When we gather before gameplay we never tell each other what decks we're going to play, because then they might throw in some cards against it. > > >Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too, > >although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have) > > Wrong. Mind Numb is perfectly balanced, as is Marijava Ghoul. Explain this further please. I think that if you don't get intercepted, being able to play some 10-15 Mind Numbs in a low cap presence deck is damn powerful. Your prey won't be able to do nothing anfd you can go on bleeding with some presence cards. > > >> So it's all about luck, then? > > > >I wans't the one bringing up the luck issue here, geesh it's really > >funny how you guys try to twist things you bring up and make them look > >like MY fault. > > No, but if you cannot refute that xCL ends up revolving around luck > *way* more so that NL, you lose a point in the argument. It's more luck yes, but a game shouldn't be too predicable. We think it's fun the extra luck invlved, it doesn't change things at all as mucha s you try to make ti seem. Obviously you haven't really tried out CL then. > > >Luck obviously plays a part *always* in these type of games. > > And more so in NL. > > > > >As was the statement before that just as much. > > > >It's strange how that NCL is a challenge > > No, playing against Legacy of Pander is an interesting challenge. > > Do learn to read before writing any more moronically obviously incorrect > statements, won't you? > > >while when I CL is too it's > >suddenly "mindless blather". > > Because you were talking crap. Wow these well-founded arguments blow me away, you win, I have ntohing to speak against that. > > If I want that, I'd go play The X-Files card game, or maybe just toss > coins like Guildenstern and Rosencratz. Or maybe snakes and ladders. But you're not me, and nothing you say can prevent us from playing and enjoying the game as WE want. If that disturbs you, frankly that's your problem, not ours. And if you get really annoying by this fact I think you need to see a doctor, you take this game way too seriously then. > > >I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still harder > >to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting > >titles can become an issue. > > You don't call that PS and call another one instead, because you have > plenty on hand. > > >Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a > >hypothetical discussion. > > You oviously don't understand how the deck works then. > > If you think 15 Dread Gazes would be a hypothetical way to defend > against Legacy of Pander, You Are Wrong. You're saying that 15 DG's in a deck won't prevent him from passing LoP votes all the time?? > > >> > >> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made > >> statements like "i haven't got time to read that." > > > >Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads?? > > You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis > available. I read that page even before this thread started actually. The page is seems written by pro-NCL and obviosuly the arguments written there reflects that. I can make my own webpage bringing up arguments for and agaisnt CL and make it look like CL is easily the better we to go. > > >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL > > Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper. We don't have a CL in Corruption, try again thank you. You gave ONE example which wasn't even valid since I already agree on this and that's why we don't have a CL on that card. Give me a new example please, it should be easy since CL creates so "many" wallpapers. > > >Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts, > >they think even $30 to get started is too much. > > Loan them a deck. Tell them to buy a pre-con starter when they come > out. They will, but the pre-cons aren't out yet. You're saying that we shouldn't have played with CL for 6 years because they were going to give out pre-cons in October/November 2000? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p8ivu$29m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >> If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful. > >You mean necessary (if you want to have a chance to beat on him) No, I don't mean necessary. If you think that, You Are Wrong. > >No but who wins ina situation where you have 10 BO or only 4 Walk into a shop and buy a few commons. It's not hard. If you have a few hundred cards (6 or 7 starters), you'll have half a dozen of quite a few commons. If someone tries to play a deck when they have insufficient cards for it, that's *their* fault, not the format's. They'll have sufficient cards for some deck. If I play a rush deck but I only own one Bum's Rush, that's my fault - nothing to do with the format. Commons are cheap and easy to come by. >? You said >before that you can use Awe instead, you know I'm the only one in my >playgroup even having that card, and I have one (1)!. So you have the advantage over other people. You can have 5 vote pushes, other people can only have 4. Why is this? >It's time to wake >up to reality, Some of us are already there. >I and some other people here have tried to make you >realise that CL is good for us because it's hard to get hold of cards. >If I was rich I could have bought 10 Awes... Fine. Can I play with 10 Bewitching Orations? Bewitching Oration is a *different* *card*. Shall we say that again, boys and girls? *Different* *card*. Awe is not implicitly better. It *can* get more votes, but then you need to play blood. >Sure with your specific example the other players can get 10 BO quite >easily, but there's tons of other situation where the card you want is >a rare and not a common. Why do you need tons of a rare? Unless there is one specific deck that you want to make e.g. the Betrayer deck, you don't *need* rares. You can defend against all sorts of decks using commons and possibly a few uncommons. If you think rares are inherently better than commons, and that you need rares to defend against the player using rares, You Are Wrong. Someone plays Immortal Grapple - a rare in Jyhad, uncommon in Sabbat. What's a good defence? Lots of maneuvers, maybe. Damage prevention. Oh look, commons win. Someone plays Temptation of Greater Power. I have lots of minion taps and blood dolls sucking up blood from my minions already, so I have plenty of pool. Commons win. Someone plays Betrayer. I rush their vampires, KRC them, bleed them or whatever options I have in my deck. All do-able with commons. Commons win. Commons are the thing that make V:TES go. Rares are things that give a deck a little flavour, or a slightly esoteric ability, or a little flexibility, reasonably priced. You need to wake up to the situation where commons are not bad. Commons are good. Commons do many things. Commons have lots of utility. Decks can be made with few rares or no rares. I recall making one deck, doing extremely well with it, and having 2 rares in it. 2, out of 90. And for what they did, they could have been replaced by Drawing out the Beast, a common, since they (2 Terror Frenzies) only served to stop equipment. > >Not a fact, the protection is hampered as much/as little as the >Malkavian Bleed deck is, because there's still 12 defelcts, Available to the Toreador? Crap. They have 4. Available to the Tzimisce? Crap. They have 4. Available to the Giovanni? Crap. They have 8. And if I want to play weenie dominate, I don't even necessarily have that, because of the necessity to be older, at inferior. >and 4 >telepatic counters. Oh god, you can stop a whole 8 bleed. >That's certian enough against any Malk deck. And >then there's the Protected Resources and Archon Investigation So you need rares under xCL. Woohoo! Case proved. Can you please scuttle off and look at the inherent contradiction in your 'argument'? I own a *lot* of V:TES cards. Oodles of the things. Number of Protected Resources owned: 0 >and >evenChimerstry cards reducing stealth/bleed. So to defend against stealth bleed, we need to play AUS/DOM/CHI, with rare cards. Wow, what a Good Idea. Why didn't you tell me before? >> Personally, I'd rather not try and play a combat deck and have someone >> play 12 S:CE against me. How fun is that? > >12 Majesties would be no fun since he can untap and do another action >against you, Against a *rush* deck they're not acting. >however with the other S:CE it's not worse than someone >having the vote power and an Elysium. Elysium is once per turn. You do know the rules to the game, don't you? >I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an >answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly >exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo >Greater Power, Majesty etc. They're not "cheesy". They're already balanced under NL. If you're not playing decks that can evade them, that's the fault of Your Decks, not the Deck Format or even the Actual Card. If you need a Card Limit to put up with the fact that you can build decks, move along please and let the next crap argument have a go. >Tactics that are based on one single >specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact* >same effect. There are no exact duplicates of any card in V:TES, with about three exceptions - Bastard Sword/Meat Clever, Pack Tactics/Elder Intervention, Homunculus/Carrion Coffin. And that's about it. >> >Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use >> >other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully >> >replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that >> >might be something you can't afford. >> >> A lot of people find Increased Strength a very playable alternative. > >Which requires a strike to go with it, thus you have suddenly at least >doubled the needed cards (need even mroe cards if you strike more than >once). And they're common cards. You don't seem to understand something, very fundamental. You use the cards available to you You look at the cards you have, and you build a deck to suit them. You cannot build a deck with cards or abilities you don't have. However, once you have several hundred cards (400, say), you can build perfectly competitive decks. >> >You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you >> >say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick >> >the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make >a >> >dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. >> >> You cannot make any other deck as dedicated. > >Now you contradict yourself again! Now you're saying that CL DOES have >some effect on making a deck too one-way focused. No, what I'm saying is that you *can* make a Malk S&B deck focussed. I didn't say it makes it focused. Please, do take the trouble to read an argument before making a fool of yourself. >> People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it >> doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop >> cheese. > >I said I'd not explain this again, read above about specific combos... You noted specific cards above, not specific combos. Care to revise your argument? >> >that's obviosuly an important >> >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based >> >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy >of >> >Pander). >> >> Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are >> defeatable, and have holes to be exploited. > >Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the >deck was well-known and won last year too Because it got good seating, amongst other things. 1 game it got 0 victory points. It also went first, and drew an Info Highway. Had these things not happened, the deck wouldn't have got vote lock. It wouldn't have got to its second LoP fast enough, the first one was DI- ed, its prey would have had votes available Do decks never sweep under xCL? Never ever? *giggles* And *we* need to wake up to reality? >(I think it did? not sure >though)!!? It got 2 victory points in the '99 final, being ousted. However, with a 2-2-1 split, and a superior set of VPs in the heats, it won. That shows you it does have weak points, and can be beaten. If your playing ability isn't enough to beat it without having to 1) limit it artifically or 2) prepare specifically for it, the problem is Your Deck and Your Ability not His Deck. Even in a 4CL environment, you could get (with Rob's deck) about 36 votes onto the table, enough for vote lock. *If* the card is a problem, the problem should be addressed via the card. Why artificially screw up every other card, just because of 5 or 6 cards that are broken, or need addressing? If Majesty is a problem, address S:CE, or introduce new cards via Sabbat War. Why screw up every other perfectly usable combat card? Why can't I have 10 Fake Outs in my deck? What's wrong with 10 Fake Outs? >>Except, under xCL, you are >> not allowed to have enough of those counters. You're not allowed all >> your S:CE counters because you can't have enough IG. You're not >allowed >> enough vote counters, because you can't have enough Delaying Tactics. > >This isn't why, it's to prevent someone going for 10 Consangineous >Boons for example, which would make him win easily if he got them >through (not too hard with 10 BO's unless people block, Then you're not playing enough vote defence, if any. If you need to stop people having the votes in their deck to stop them, you need to look at your playing style. Put *vote defence* in your deck. There are many potential ways of doing that. You need to be able to defend against votes. If you are not, and need to stop people playing the votes instead, You Are Playing Badly. >but you could >use stealth in your deck, like Setites). Setite vote decks have their own, unique problems. First of all, obf-pre is reserved for, mostly, the larger vampires, except for two weenies (4 cap), amongst the setites. Amisa, with her two votes, has OBF pre, not OBF PRE, or obf PRE. Kemintiri has OBF PRE and 0 votes. Kephamos has obf pre, and 2 votes. All of these are problems. Then you can't easily pass vote-gaining votes on them, because they're Independent. You need to get an Invitation Accepted passed first, which isn't easy, because you need a number in your deck, and the ability to pass it. Is it a playable deck? Yes. Noal has a very nice one. Is it an unstoppable deck? By no means. >> You're not allowed enough bleed bounces, because you can only have 8 >in >> Dominate and only 4 in Auspex. Auspex, under NCL, has a very good >bleed >> defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot, >> because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs. > >You're so single-minded, there's Flak Jackets, Elysiums, S:CE etc etc >etc etc etc Not every deck has the ability. What combat defence do I give a clan who don't have vote superiority and don't have S:CE? S:CE isn't found in every discipline, nor should it be. And a lot of clans have problems securing many votes. The Malkavians have no vote lock, and no S:CE. Oh well. And Flak Jackets will work against Gangrel, but they won't work against Brujah. Brujah do lots of damage, not a pity 1 damage. Torn Signpost- Blur. 9 damage. Why did you tell me to equip a Flak Jacket again? >> >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. >> >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP >> >deck, >> >> You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against >any >> vote deck. > >Hmm how effective is a deck with 15 DG's?? Why would you put 15 of one card in? Your problem, repeatedly demonstrated by you, is your ability to construct a deck in the environment, not the environment itself. 1) Vote defence isn't solely achieved via gaining votes 2) If votes don't get a referendum, votes can't pass 3) One way to stop a referendum is to cancel the vote 4) Another way to stop a referendum is to stop it being called in the first place 5) Vote defence doesn't have to be achieved passively 6) There are permanent cards to be utilised >Sure it definately prevents >the LoP but has no chance to win himself. Because it's a crap deck. Build a crap deck, do badly. That's true under xCL, too. >> >If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to >throw >> >in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with >10 >> >IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? >> >> No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what >NL >> means. > >Which is the reason why we don't. Because we know what it means = a >boring repetitive game (IMO) *snigger* I saw nothing boring or repetitive about *any* of the 19 games at GenCon. Even the final. It was a very cleverly played game, with a lot of thought, creativity and agitation. Bad players create boring repetitive games, not No Card Limits. >> >I also think that CL forces a >> >more variety of card use, >> >> That's the point of it. It doesn't force no "cheesy stuff". > >It prevents specific combos based on one single (usually rare) card >(once again). So people lucky enough to pull such cards should be punished. And bad deck design should be encouraged, by letting all players know they're never going to have to defend against a focused political deck, because there're never going to be more than 8 vote push cards in a deck, and they can play S:CE, because there are never going to be more than 4 anti-S:CE cards in a deck. What a fool I've been. Why didn't I see this before? What Jyhad *really* needs is to have crap players, playing badly, with no impetus or time to improve, because they play in an environment which encourages bad play, no defence and punishes them for being lucky, or for buying cards. Sounds like great fun to me! >> >so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do >> >else, at least not as often. >> >> That might be because the cards are bad cards, or inappropriate to >your >> deck. > >So then we come back to the origin of this whole discussion where >someone claimed that CL creates wallpaper cards. No it doesn't. xCL has wallpaper cards, you're just forced to use them. >Nice to see someone >from the NCL camp admitting they were wrong. Don't put words in my mouth, or attribute other people's words to me. Cards are still crap, whether xCL or NL. Just under NL, you have the choice to avoid them. xCL forces crap cards upon you. Yay! Making people play with crap cards is a *great* way to get them to enjoy the game. Why didn't we think of it earlier? > >> >> You try and argue against NL, but say you'd put 10 Leather Jackets in >> the above deck. It's an utterly stupid thing to do, and no serious NL >> player would even think of doing such. The idea of maxing out on one >or >> two cards always seems to come from the anti-NL camp, and not from >> people with NL experience. > >Yet again, it was an *example*. And a very bad one at that. >You're really telling me that no decks >ever has 10 card of a specific type? No-one has told you that. If you think that, you are a First Class Fool. >What about the Temptation of >Greater Power deck then? >Is that a BAD deck??? No. But I can play equally *good* decks which don't have 10 cards the same in them. NL lets you play the ToGP deck, but you don't have to. The ToGP deck came second overall at GenConUK, but got 0 points in the final. >> >(in this case you get punished by being forces to have >> >potence), >> >so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this >> >kind of card. >> >> Indeed. If you don't need 8 of a kind of card, you're unlikely to put >> that many in under NL. >> >> NL simply allows you access to the cards you do want. It doesn't >force >> you to take 10 of them, like you seem to be suggesting. > >No but it makes it possible, Indeed. >and with some certain cards that makes the >deck way powerful. Unsubstantiated rubbish. >> >Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM >> >gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's >instead >> >of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent >> >soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) >card. >> >> Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop >> the cards being powerful. > >But it hasn't been done, so?? Are you *seriously* telling me that Legal Manipulations should be errata-ed? If you can't defend against Legal Manipulations, give up and go home now. >And LM isn't too powerful with a CL, Legal Manipulations isn't too powerful with NL. > and >not enough powerful with NCL to make it changed (obviously, since it >hasn't happened). Not "obviously". All no errata means is that, in the view of the Rules Team, there is no need. >And why change like 50+ card texts (in erratas) when >you could just make a CL and fix most of the "broken" cards? And fuck up 750 cards? Sounds good. And I contend that there are not 50+ cards in the game that need fixing. What needs fixing is your inability to play the game well. >> Going and buying a few boxes of Jyhad (which are cheap) is one way to >> get a half-dozen Immortal Grapple. > >You're not the one having to get them shipped to Europe, Please, do pay attention to my e-mail address. I'm based in Europe. >pay for >exchange fees (which are $10) or having to deal with the fact that your >currency has almsot doubled against ours in 3 years time. Not last time I checked. >> >Like the no >> >repeat action tenet (that we don't use). >> >> That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak >Drives >> in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon >> you. > >Sure they could but it's not likely to happen, But when someone is lucky enough to pull it off, the situation is just as broken. In xCL, broken cards still exist when luck comes up. So the lucky player wins. Would you care to dispute that? >Once again you also forget that nobody even has 4 FD's in my playgroup >but me. You have never posted your card lists, so please don't tell me what I've "forgotten". xCL is giving you a very strong advantage. No wonder you want to keep it. >I happen to have money to buy more cards than others in my >playgroup, if I wanted to I could have gotten 10 FD's or more, which >wouldn't have made it better would it? Nothing would happen, because NRA fixes it. >> >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10 >> >Legacy of Pander. >> >> It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten. > >CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to >be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some >diversity :) New and odd decks exist under NL. All xCL decks exist under NL, and some are played. Apparently, you want to hamper the number of decks available. > Playing >> Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives >> you a good chance against many vote decks. > >Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with >such a deck :) Like everyone else does. By building a good deck and playing well. Twit. *Not* by putting 15 Dread Gazes in, like you would. > > Vote lock isn't solely >> generated via Legacy of Pander, you know? >> >> If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's >10 >> Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in >the >> game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of >Praxis >> Seizures make the game any more "fun"? > >One LoP should give more votes than a PS So? Someone can still achieve vote-lock, and you have no defence, because You Are Playing Badly. >(else u're doing something >wrong :P) Also you can play 10 LoP's but you cannot play 10 PS unless >you have that many minions (not likely). You've never seen a weenie Caitiff/2 cap deck in action then. Would that be because under xCL, the creativity is hampered because I can't have more than 8 vote push cards in a deck? I'd say so. >> >It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the >> >player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and >> >then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new >> >decks). >> >> If a deck has no way to defend itself against politics, it will die >when >> it sits next to politics. If a deck has no way to defend itself >against >> bleed, it will die when it sits next to bleed. If a deck has no way >to >> defend itself against combat, it will die when it sits next to combat. >> >> These are facts. > >Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Bollocks. Do read the report, won't you, before making any more stupid statements? You also forget to take into account *anything* to do with the player. Rob Treasure is a highly skilful player and, in his hands, LoP is a very destructive deck. Other people have fallen over into a heap with it, by being bad players. >Wow I >find it hard to believe that You don't need to believe anything. The report is there for you to read. >....30 players with some being Ventrues and >all. Why would some be Ventrue? I don't recall a solid mono-Ventrue deck, off the top of my head. >> You should consider what defences your deck has when you build it. >> >> So, you know you're not going to sit next to 10 Legacy of Pander. Do >> you put no vote defence in? Vote lock can be achieved via other >means. > >How will I know I'll sit next to a LoP deck?? You won't. And you don't need to. But a deck with politics could end up next to you. So you put vote defence in. This is not a race to see who can pull of their combo first. The game is about interacting. If you don't interact with other decks, you're playing badly. If you can't interact with a vote deck, you've left yourself open and deserve to be ousted by a vote deck. >> If you need to "prepare yourself" against a specific deck, you are >> playing badly - and the reason you need xCL to balance decks is >because >> you're playing badly, not because NL is broken. It sounds like you're >> not putting *any* vote defence in at all. LoP can be badly screwed by >> generic vote defence, and if you don't put any of that in, well, >that's >> your own fault, not the fault of NL or LoP. Or another vote deck. > >I always have vote defense, Then you can defend. >but it doesn't help when the guy has 5 >minions all trying to play a LoP the same turn, now does it?? Anyone with that many Legacy of Panders in a deck - 5 in their hand at once?!?!? - has already screwed themself over by playing a crap deck. LoP works well as the focus for a deck at around 9 or 10. Fewer is possible for a deck, but it wouldn't be the focus, necessarily, but a nice by-line. Anything more than 10 - and for 5 in your hand at once, you'd need around 20 in a deck, I'd guess - and you fuck up big-time. >Unless I >have enough of titled vampires up, but then he'd not play them in the >first place *duh*. Which works very nicely. He has a hand full of crap, and can't do anything. Vote defence achieved, LoP stopped. *duh* yourself. >> >As I said, I don't have the time, >> >> If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should >anyone >> else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments >that >> have gone before you, with nothing new to add? > >I never asked anyone to listen, duh. You posted to a newsgroup. Unless you like talking to yourself, you post things for people to read. *duh* >You've chosed so yourself, not my >fault. *I* wasn't the one brining up this whole issue, *someone* >herecomplained at my playgroup using CL! Geesh sounds like now you're >trying to make it my fault that you happen to not like CL and complain >about it. That I happen to have empirical evidence that CL leads to a more broken game, you mean. >> >and you enedn't reply if you don't >> >want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're >> >happy in our group >> >> Please, be happy in your group. If you can't be bothered to show >people >> here the common decency of reading up on a debate before trying to >sound >> clever in it, don't bother. You just go over old ground and introduce >> nothing new at all, which helps no-one. > >Ok, then I say to you, go and read ALL threads EVER made on this forum >and ALL other forums ever created for the VTES. I've read a great deal of the posts ever made to this group. Not all, because Usenet doesn't work like that. (I cannot guarantee that any given server will see *all* posts, because of rogue cancels, rogue supersedes, legitimate cancels, legitimate supersedes, expires, NNTP propagation leaving holes, servers going down, leaky back-fill and the like. If you do not understand any of the above, you are not qualified to argue with me on this.) >Because if you don't >then u shouldn't post here about anything whatsoever, since it MIGHT >have been handled already at some point, somehwere, in the far past!! It is good sense to go and do a search on any topic you bring up which strikes you as being likely to have been addressed in the past. Also, you are being *specifically* told here that this has been addressed time and time again in the past. But you response is "I can't be bothered to listen. *lah lah lah* I'll just stick my fingers in my ears." Going over exactly the same argument *again* and *again* as each new poster suddenly thinks they've hit on something new does nothing. Doing a little research helps you by: 1) You don't annoy the regulars 2) You don't take several months to glean all the points that you could get in a half hour's work 3) You get to pre-empt counter-responses, by already having formulated an answer to them 4) You gain respect for having done thorough research, even if we disagree with you 5) You move the argument forward to new and unprepared ground, where you can give yourself an advantage by already having thought three or four steps ahead Learn some netiquette. > >So please, don't post here ever again before you have. Makes much sense >huh? No yours didn't either. Mine makes plenty of sense, if you actually have a brain in your head. We are *telling you* that what you are saying is nothing new, and that you should do some research. I would not have expected an utterly exhaustive search *before* you made your initial comments, but now you are being told what you should do. But you ignore us, because You Know Better. >> >why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love >> >the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken, >> >why fix it? >> >> What do you do if I sit down with a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed >deck? >> >> 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it, >with >> a decent deck still there. That is broken. > >You know we've never had more probs with Malks that any other clan. That you group doesn't abuse xCL is not a valid defence for saying that it is a good format. >If >they have a cheesy deck, poeple usually gang up on them because we hate >Malks ;-) Ah, so now you have to: 1) Gang up on powerful decks 2) Victimise people Recipe for harmony, don't you think? A better tactic is: 1) Make the deck balanced 2) Allow everyone equal access to defences, so if they get screwed, it's a combination of their lack of defence with the skill of the winning player >But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I? You have been advocating CL as more creative and balanced. > You tell >me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to >check how this single thread came to existance... And you don't know what you're saying yourself. > > "We don't abuse card limits in >> our group, so they're alright." That just doesn't stand up. Card >> limits can be abused. NL has no abusive decks, to my mind, as the >> situation currently stands, even though some decks - LoP and ToGP are >> causing people some grief at the moment. ToGP will do nothing against >> massive blood gain, really. > >Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused, >that just doesn't stand up, they are. No, I can give empirical evidence of decks that stand up against ToGP. I can *prove* there are defences against it. We take the hypothesis: H0 = ToGP deck is unstoppable I disprove H0 by counter-example. You are trying: H0 = xCL is balanced and creative Counter example: I cannot play a Corruption deck. I disprove the latter part of H0 by counter-example. Counter example: People gang up on Malkavian decks. I disprove the former part of H0 by counter-example. >> >I think CL really helps to make people try out >> >different clans. >> >> Erm, what? >> >> You can play as many clans as you want under NL. > >But not effectively unless u're filthy rich. Bollocks. Utter, utter unsubstantiated bollocks. You can play very effective decks with commons. Legbiter has done some *very* good Happy Families decks with ONE box of Jyhad. ONE. He picked Brujah in his example, but could have picked *any* of the clans - and still come up with a neat deck. I think he dropped all of two cards in that weren't in the box. >> > I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players >> >here has a few clans that they almost always play. >> >> Look harder > >You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few >decks/clans that they prefer to always play? I can tell you that there are people who have preferred clans. I dispute "almost always" as being wrong. >Only those with tons of >cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they >never break down. That they never break down? No. And that's Lasombra, whose focus is Lasombra decks, unsurprisingly. >I think that tells something... It tells me that you think a sample of 1 person is statistically significant, which makes you a fool. >In my playgroup there's never been anything like "this guy 80% plays >this specific clan". It seems very common at other places. Emphasis on the word "seems". >When you got >o websites of playgroups it usually says soemthign like: > >"In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a >Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be blind. And people change decks and move on. If you haven't seen that, you're blind. > - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL >> debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, >search >> for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that >have >> been refuted a hundred times before. >> >> A lot of people have favourite clans, but I've seen people try all >sorts >> of things. > >I dind't dsay they never tried others. You said they "almost always" play certain clans. I dispute that as untrue. >But they play mainly one, Untrue. >and >that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent >their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's >not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed, I dispute that any clans needs 5-6 of rares and uncommons. I assert that with every clan, a workable decks is playable without 5-6 rares and uncommons. That is your null hypothesis. Disprove it. >without >being filthy rich. Perhaps they traded away cards they don't want. If I have a Society of Leopold I don't want and Robert Goudie wants it, and Robert Goudie has a Curse of Nitocris that I do want and he doesn't, we can *trade*. Nothing "filthy rich" about that. >> And there is *nothing* making people shift clans by the presence or >> absence of card limits. > >It means that you don't have to have 10 Majesties to make a Presence >deck competitive because another guy has 10 Psyches in his deck... You can cycle Psyche! out of your hand, you can put in a number you think will be most useful, you can use them against several Methuselahs - once you've ousted your prey, for instance. All decks are about compromise. But, let's say we get into a situation where we're playing 4CL. I can't put 10 Psyches in. But you play 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown and 4 Catatonic Fear. That's 12 S:CE. And I can't do anything about it. *sigh* Apparently, this is a Good Thing. >I >can't believe you ahven't realised this yet, despite me telling you >this so may times :( If you put a *useful* number of a card in your deck, you don't have a problem. And you twist your deck to fit an environment, not a seating position. If you are likely to be playing in a high S:CE environment, play more. If you are not, play less. You don't pick a specific *deck* to counter. One of the hall-marks of true quality in a player is the ability to judge an environment based on past experience, thought, rationale, logic and instinct. >> > Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare >> >card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy >> >rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... >> >> Oh, but 4 is *that* much different to 5. Right. > >no but 10 is, You don't even need 5 of any rare card to make a playable Brujah deck. To make a *specific* Brujah deck, yes. To make a *playable* *competitive* deck, no. >I hardly own even 4 of any rare, VTES cards included. IG, RotBR, and >Psychic Veil are the only exceptions I think. And you can make perfectly usable decks with none of those, or lots of those, or somewhere in between. >However if it wasn't for >the CL I'd gotten more than 4 of some specific rare cards for sure. And? People could defend against any deck you make with solely commons, possibly aided by a few uncommons. And your pointless arguments about 15 Dread Gazes just show what a bad grip you have on making decks. >But >now I think 3-4 of the best ones are good enough since I need ot mix in >other cards anyway, so my deck won't be as narrow-minded as I else >would have made it. Having more than 4 of a card in a deck doesn't have to make it narrow minded. A player can make the deck narrow-minded in several ways. Duplicate cards aren't necessarily a cause, nor the only cause. > But he has 10 Bewitching Orations and you won't let him. And the >> rich player doesn't win? Yeah, right. > >Again no, because I don't have more than 1 awe. But you have 4 Bewitching Oration and 1 Awe. He has 4 Bewitching Oration. Rich player wins. >If he really needed it, >he could borrow it from me. In which case, you arguments about "rich players" are utterly spurious. >Also why would he need 10 BO's when nobody >can have more than 4 Dread Gazes anyway? Dread Gaze Surprise Influence Other voting vampires The edge Political action cards in hands Vote locations, e.g. Ventrue HQ, Powerbase Rome, Alamut And every player could play a Dread Gaze. Alan, Belinda, Caroline, Donald and Euan sit down a table to play Jyhad. Alan calls a vote. Belinda: "Euan, this looks bad. We don't want to give him vote-lock. Can you cast your votes against with Donal O'Conor?" Euan: "Sure, Belinda. 2 votes against." Alan: "I play Bewitching Oration." Belinda: "I throw the Edge in. And I'll tap my Mausoleum. Five votes against." Alan: "Damn it." Next action. Belinda: "He's doing it again. What are we going to do?" Euan: "Two votes against." Alan: "Damn it, I'm only allowed 4 Bewitching Orations in the deck, so I haven't pulled another." A couple of turns down the line. Alan: *sees the card he's drawn* Euan: "2 votes against." Alan: "2 votes in favour with Rake who I managed to get out." Belinda: "Erm, I toss a political action card from my hand. Pity I've already tapped the Mausoleum." Caroline: "Hey no, you're not ousting her. I need her there to protect me from you. I burn a political action card from my hand too." Donald: "So, it's three in favour, 4 against." Alan: "I play a Bewitching Oration with Gideon. Four in favour." Caroline: "I burn 4 counters from my Alamut." Every player has 2 direct enemies, and 2 potential enemies. That's 4 times as many cards against them as they have in their deck, potentially. And, yes, I've seen some frighteningly good Alamut decks. Matt Green has one. >You need to see the whole >picture here. He won't need as many BO's because there's fewer ways to >counter hsi votes, There are still more counters than he has ways to do it. >thus he got place to throw in more fun and odd cards >that's normally not used *wallpaper issue comes to mind*. So we make people play with crap cards, because they can't use the ones they want. You really aren't thinking. >> > I have most >> >cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare >> >card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either. >> >> So, you have 3 Awes, newbie player doesn't. > >I got 1 Awe :) Besides Awes doesn't matter that much because newbie can >still block me or play pulling strings etc. No, but he can't play as good a deck as you can. With more than 4 Bewitching Orations, he can have the basis of a very strong deck. > Shucks, I guess he just >> can't play an effective politics deck - which he could if you'd let >him >> put more than 4 Bewitching Orations in. > >We play by the old vote rules, where you can throw one vote card for >ready vampire (IMO I think it's redicilous that was changed You don't understand the old rules, by the sounds of it. Nor do you understand why it was changed. >), so he'll >be able to gather votes that way plus Ventrue HQ and such cards. Our >newbies never had problems with voting so I don't see how this is a >problem. That's because you're building bad decks, and don't know how to do vote defence. You've established that one with your ill-thought out crap above. 15 Dread Gazes is not vote defence, my dear. > But, for some reason, you >> decide to punish him for not being rich, where NL said "Yep, we're >cool >> with you playing 10 of that common card, instead of 4 common and 4 >> rare". > >Yeah and I get to use 10 ToGP, nice. Perfectly workable deck, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Deck with holes, deck with defences, deck that can be defeated. The ToGP deck needs pool gain to work. It cannot afford to up the stakes on ToGP without a good supply of pool. That's one good way to attack. Block the actions, rush the vampires, banish the vampires, Sudden Reversal the ToGP, bleed the player (using the relevant cards), KRC the player, Dramatic Upheaval yourself out the way (such that stealing your vampires isn't of use to them), have massive pool gain yourself, play weenie vampires so it becomes too expensive for them to steal them all. It needs a Justicar, so either has to split among several clans or double up on cards. It doesn't necessarily guarantee a Justicar, or can screw itself for vampires. It's an interactive card, so someone else on the table (e.g. the ToGP deck's predator) could have massive pool gain and bid for it instead, strengthening its position and putting the ToGP deck in a possibly marginally stronger position (one less vampire of its prey), but something that could have been achieved via combat, say, and with a newly strengthened predator. If it's using votes, like Parity Shift, to gain pool, you could block the vote, Delaying Tactics it, or even, horror of horrors, put vote defence in the deck. Creative thinking, creative play. Things you can't do properly unless you're allowed the cards. >On a note I should add that it's >the newbies that appreciate the CL the most, which would be strange if >they were disadvantaged. They don't understand the situation properly. They think that rares are better than commons. In Jyhad, this isn't true. Limiting the number of rares you have in a deck doesn't remove powerful cards. There are many powerful common cards. They also don't understand the advantage the old players have. Old players have access to more sets. Old players, therefore, have Majesty, when they only have Staredown. (Or whatever sets are accessible in your group.) You have access to cards they don't. You can play double the number of cards they have. >> >> And NL has shown time and time again that decks with many, many >commons >> in them do very well indeed. If you *want* to play a deck with mostly >> rares, you can do that too - but a common deck won't fall down just >> because it's common. It'll fall down because it's badly made. Very telling that you choose not to dispute this. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <xz6u5.4437$Ld.9...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: > > cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > news:8paish$c7b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > People aren't dedicated enough here to do that. One reason could also > > be that we pretty much play in waves. Sometimes we don't play for a > > long time, and then we play intensively for a while etc. I myself can't > > play at all except during the holidays because I study far away from my > > playgroup > > This says it all... Consistent playing may have led to the realization that > the game was in fact designed to be played NCL. Now, I am not saying that > your mechanics are behind other players, or that NCL players are better than > CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the way the > game was designed), is a better and the right way to play. That's what you thin, not I. I agree that NCL allows for more powerful decks, and this is exactly what we wanted to prevent with the CL. In our opinion they're *too* powerful and single-minded. For example why would you ever use Staredown in a deck that you want a lot of S:CE in? You'd use Majesty instead because it's a lot better than Staredown. With CL you'll use Staredown too and add some variety to the game instead of making it a wallpaper. [ quoted text not captured ] You missed the whole point as to why we use CL if you think we use it because it makes better decks *duh* > oAFLORD > aka > Thomas Kuster > V:EKN Prince of Caledon > > Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:07:57 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <d7qfrsc0k4pgifgqd...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Psyche is useful for any Celerity deck, but I have a deck >>that uses Haven, Disguised Weapon, Deer Rifle, and Manstopper Rounds, >>along with Dead-End Alley to press to a 2nd round and get 4 total >>points of damage. It uses all the OBF weenies. It doesn't give a >>damn if you S:CE or Dodge against it - someone will EVENTUALLY get >>you. > >It strikes me that a Prince with Obfuscate would be useful to the deck, >maybe Selma, or someone like Volker (i.e. cheap) with skill cards. Possibly. It certainly changes the focus of the deck, since nobody is larger than a 3-cap in the deck right now (and Watenda appears in the crypt 3 times, since his special is just so cool for this instance). Blood Hunt would be entertaining, though. >That way, you can play Blood Hunt as well. Once you cycle through a lot >of their defence, you'll want a way to attack multiple *vampires* per >round. A few Blood Hunt cards will do that. Granted. Currently, the way I handle it is I tend to use the Havens backwards mostly to subtract large threats, and then once I've got Deer Rifles on everyone, I just bleed with Computer Hacking. Even without a Manstopper Rounds in hand, my guys should at least SURVIVE any combat, and 2 points of damage at a time is a nuisance and will add up. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39B8F6DC...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > There are no exact duplicates of any card in V:TES, with about three > > exceptions - Bastard Sword/Meat Clever, Pack Tactics/Elder Intervention, > > Homunculus/Carrion Coffin. And that's about it. > > Homunculus is a retainer, Carrion Coffin is just a card (with a built- in > burn option). I wouldn't classify them as exact duplicates of each other. > One can be moved with Heidelburg and the Succubus Club and pulled via > Culling the Herd or stolen in a variety of ways (and is difficult to > burn), the other can be burned without much effort and cannot be moved. > And the action to get one is at +1 stealth at inferior, the other is > 0 stealth at inferior. > > The only pair I'd add to your list is Anarchist Uprising / Autarkis > Persectution, though with the effects of Delaying Tactics, the change > of name actually matters. I think it should say Anarchist Uprising / Ancillae Empowerment? > > (Similarly, unique cards like vampires are sufficiently "different" by > name alone so as not to count.) > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:19:19 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <xz6u5.4437$Ld.9...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, > "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: >> CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the >way the >> game was designed), is a better and the right way to play. > >That's what you thin, not I. I agree that NCL allows for more powerful But you are wrong, and he's not. >decks, and this is exactly what we wanted to prevent with the CL. In >our opinion they're *too* powerful and single-minded. For example why It sounds to me as though you all prefer to wallow in ignorance, a glorious never-ending fish-fight. Why shouldn't you all try to make the best decks you can, instead of imposing stupid limits on yourselves? >would you ever use Staredown in a deck that you want a lot of S:CE in? Since I only have like ONE Staredown, there's a good reason why I personally wouldn't. However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can then use a Blur and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat. But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and end combat. Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. >You'd use Majesty instead because it's a lot better than Staredown. >With CL you'll use Staredown too and add some variety to the game >instead of making it a wallpaper. You keep mentioning this fictional "variety" you seem to have. Both cards end combat. Both cards are played to end combat. There is no "variety" in what you're saying here, other than the name of the card. If you believe this is "variety", then you are extremely simple-minded. VARIETY is something like I mentioned above, except you can't DO that since you can't put more than 4 Staredowns in a deck, and Majesty wouldn't serve the purpose at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:25:13 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: >You still haven't said why this is. Why would you want 50+ copies of >some cards? It is practically impossible to play a deck that wins >anywhere near consistanyly with >20 of any one card. Usually something >like Cryptic Mission or possibly Corruption would require >20, but not >always. At _most_ 15 copies (and then usually commons) will suffice for >the most focussed of decks. Most that see play in the UK are very nearly >6CL legal with a few noted exceptions for cards with unique abilities >such as DotBeast and Legacy of Pander. A deck was recently described which had lots of Pursuit. This seemed like an amusing deck - one that I might build and play given the opportunity. You really can't have it both ways. Either large multiples of cards are effective and interesting or they're not. If they are then one has the problem of collecting them. If they are not then a CL is unimportant as you won't want to exceed it anyway. As for the exact numbers, bear in mind that I expect to build lots of decks for a CCG that I take seriously. I have about 30 decks each for Shadowfist and Doomtown. I have bought about 3500 VTES cards so far and in my limited attempts at deck building it seems that I have less than enough staples like Taste of Vitae for one deck, never mind many. If you put 12 copies of a card like this in a combat deck and have 5 decks of that type then that's 60 cards that you need to find. The lack of a CL clearly exacerbates this problem. >What i'm telling you is that you haven't played the game enough, looked >at the tournament environment enough and are not a good enough player to >make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations about what is apparently >good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have >argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps >coming up, year after year after year. Get a clue - it obviously keeps coming up because it's an important issue. It won't go away until it is resolved in a better way than ranting "wrong, wrong, wrong". Andrew

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:26:48 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >As for the exact numbers, bear in mind that I expect to build lots of >decks for a CCG that I take seriously. I have about 30 decks each for >Shadowfist and Doomtown. I have bought about 3500 VTES cards so far >and in my limited attempts at deck building it seems that I have less >than enough staples like Taste of Vitae for one deck, never mind many. Join the club. I have roughly enough Taste of Vitae for one deck as well. I solve the problem by keeping in mind which decks need Taste, and rotating out the cards to the appropriate deck as necessary. <shameless Atlanta plug> I find that ELDB helps me ENORMOUSLY with this, since I do not need to physically keep 30 decks built. I usually build decks first in ELDB, then save to a text format and pull it up in Notepad for easy reference when I actually physically put the cards together for the deck. I have approximately 8 decks built at any given time (well, that's how many I have right now), and the rest of the cards sorted out appropriately. As demonstrated recently, in a weekend of Jyhad-playing with multiple players, I was unable to become bored with my decks, having 8 to choose from every time I wanted to play a game. 8 "built" decks is really plenty. But I never have to worry about wasting time just because a deck isn't built - it takes approximately 10 minutes, tops, to constitute any deck from its .TXT ELDB format to a playable pile of cards. </shameless Atlanta plug> >If you put 12 copies of a card like this in a combat deck and have 5 >decks of that type then that's 60 cards that you need to find. The >lack of a CL clearly exacerbates this problem. Goodness me, no. The concept of owning 60 Taste of Vitae is totally foreign to me, and given the current "rare" distribution, would force me to buy a ridiculous number of cards. Much better to just use a little restraint, a little forethought, and swap cards out between decks, since there are so very FEW cards that have the problems Taste does. >>good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have >>argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps >>coming up, year after year after year. > >Get a clue - it obviously keeps coming up because it's an important >issue. It won't go away until it is resolved in a better way than >ranting "wrong, wrong, wrong". No, it keeps coming up because the people who bring it up and begin ranting about CL don't understand the issue fully - they've simply grafted on the CL from Magic, assuming that of COURSE it applied to all other CCGs as well... which it doesn't. Or they've grafted on the CL to avoid having to spend money on rare cards, when they don't realize that they don't NEED to spend money on rare cards - commons and uncommons will serve just nicely. [ quoted text not captured ]

This says it all... Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:o99irs8poi97qu137...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <dn5irs0ckj96sbugb...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:19:19 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> > wrote: > > >In article <xz6u5.4437$Ld.9...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, > > "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: > >> CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the > >way the > >> game was designed), is a better and the right way to play. > > > >That's what you thin, not I. I agree that NCL allows for more powerful > > But you are wrong, and he's not. > > >decks, and this is exactly what we wanted to prevent with the CL. In > >our opinion they're *too* powerful and single-minded. For example why > > It sounds to me as though you all prefer to wallow in ignorance, a > glorious never-ending fish-fight. Why shouldn't you all try to make > the best decks you can, instead of imposing stupid limits on > yourselves? > > >would you ever use Staredown in a deck that you want a lot of S:CE in? > > Since I only have like ONE Staredown, there's a good reason why I > personally wouldn't. > > However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a > dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can > then use a Blur If you have celerity on the vamp you rather use a cel dodge than a presence! Why the heck would you use presence when you can use celerity and thus make the deck mroe focused? and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat. > But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and > end combat. If it was S:CE you included Staredown for you'd do better with Majesty where you get S:CE even at inferior. Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than > Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE > Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. > Oh why don't I believe you? > >You'd use Majesty instead because it's a lot better than Staredown. > >With CL you'll use Staredown too and add some variety to the game > >instead of making it a wallpaper. > > You keep mentioning this fictional "variety" you seem to have. Both > cards end combat. Both cards are played to end combat. But with Staredowns it's slightly harder to get a S:CE, which means more challenge and less boring too for the other players to always see that Majesty coming. You need to include some Presence skill cards so the deck needs a different apporach on the deck building. You don't have to like this, it's enough that we do. There is no > "variety" in what you're saying here, other than the name of the card. > If you believe this is "variety", then you are extremely > simple-minded. VARIETY is something like I mentioned above, except > you can't DO that since you can't put more than 4 Staredowns in a > deck, and Majesty wouldn't serve the purpose at all. > > -- Derek > Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta > [ quoted text not captured ]

In > > > > First of all, your arguement about being able to counter dedicated > > stealth with an equal amount of dedicated intercept is wrong. It > > requires approximately twice as much dedicated intercept to catch a > > dedicated stealth deck. > > Wrong, you don't need twice as much because of Elder Impersonation, you > can oyl have 4 of EI and you once again forget that my playgroup lacks > AH and Sabbat cards. I have 4 EI, but to my knowledge no one else of > our 8 players have. There *might* be another guy having four, but if so > he's never used them to make ti noticable. As for the rest, they all > have none, one guy has one or two that he got from me. So a 4 cl actually helps you, because you could play a better stealth than someone else who doesn't have access to Elder Impersonation. The other players, who under a NCL could play a deck with more than 4 Cloak the Gathering, now can only play with 4 Cloaks but you can play with the same 4 cloaks they can plus your 4 Elder Impersonation cards in addition to any other stealth cards that they have. > Another thing is, Malks don't have permanent stealth locations (not > counting Shadow Forest that can be burned easily) while you can have > such intercept ones easily. This makes you require a lot less of > intercept card. Add four 2nd Tradition and a couple of other intercept > card (let's say 12, which isn't uncommon for an intercept deck) and top > it with 4 Telepathic Counters you really DO survive. First I use my > perm intercepts to block and if I have to, I throw in an intercept > card. If he plays IE I could Misdirect it and then I can soon collect > some 6 pool. So now you understand that bounce is a nessasary defense against stealth bleeds because of this card. I am glad we agree. > The reason for this is Elder Impersonation. At > > superior, Elder Impersonation causes a block to fail. > > With NCL this card is certainly bad yes, a reason to not use NCL since > it limits your defence to only be deflects. You just said above that your only defense against Elder Impersonation is bounce. > This card single > > handedly takes a vampire with alot of intercept on him out of the > > blocking scheme and therefore requires the blocking player to put an > > equal amount of intercept on a second vampire. Therefore it requires > > twice as much intercept on average to catch stealth in any environment > > CL or NCL. If you plan on playing Elder Impersonation, then it should > > be your last of a series of stealth cards with your intention being to > > draw out all of your prey's intercept. > > > > Second, Malkavians can go all out every turn and bleed you with each > > minion for two if you have Protected Resources, but if you have > > protected resources then you cannot bleed your prey so therefore you > > must play politics or you lose your Protected Resources. Therefore if > > you play Protected Resources then you can't use a rush strategy, > because > > with rush you must always eventually bleed your prey out. Rush is the > > counter to Stealth/Bleed. > > You play either a rush deck OR vote deck. And by rushing vamps I was > tlaking about the Malks, you rush them and try kill them. He won't have > much defence since he's such a devoted S&B. But you will never play rush in a Cl environment. It doesn't and can't win because it can't beat S:CE. So someone who plays it is playing it for "fun" but not to win. <snip point on Archon Investigation which we agree on> > > > > This leeds me to Derek's point about bounce. Bounce is the only > > definative defense against stealth and bleeds. It is convenient, > cheap > > and extremely useful in helping you oust your own prey. To restate > > Dereks point in a card limit environment you are limited to at most > > having 12 of these in your deck (4 Redirections, 4 Deflections, 4 > > Telepathic Misdirections), and, as Derek said Redirections are the > weak > > one out of that group. > > You missed My Enemy's Enemy, although it's not relevant in my > playgroup. But so isn't EI either. > > Of course you also have Telepathic Counters, but > > that is a paper shield against a stealth and bleed deck. > > > > That really only leaves one deck strategy to play if you want to win > in > > a CL environment, and that is stealth bleed. Stealth, bleed is fast > and > > powerful right out of the gate, and with your 4 card limit, a player > > cannot muster a substancial defence before they are ousted. Therefore > > if you want to win in a CL environment you play dedicated Stealth- > Bleed. > > Do you like to win? So why would you play anything else? > > Why do YOU play anything else but your favourtie win-deck? All my decks are win decks (in that I built them with winning as a end-goal). I expect all the other players in my playgroup to play their win decks. When this happens and everyone is trying to win, it is not only fun, but also makes us better players as we can see how the decks interact with each other. > Why would > > anybody play anything else? > > Because we don't liek Malkavians? :) Why should you have to dislike a clan to play with your playgroup? I know what I am touching on now is social theory, but why should you have to not play Malkavians to be a member of your group? I have gotten killed alot by stealth bleed or tap/ bleed. So I just build my decks to compensate for it, which is easy in a NCL environment (I just add 8 wakes and 8 deflections or Telepathic Misdirections or use a serious rush strategy like a Gangrel Multi-rush or an IG deck). It seems much harder to compensate for stealth and bleed in a CL environment. > People in my group don't play much of real pure stealth and bleed, > because it's so friggin' boring and quite lame and IF they do they get > quite gangbanged after the first game (if hey won). These are social considerations, and while I like the social aspect of VTES and love table politics, I don't think that social bullying should be part of the rules. > Maybe you don't play for fun but only to win and don't care if you're > having fun while doing so, but you're not in my playgroup, I don't have > to take your possible decks into consideration. I do play for fun, and you are right I do not play in your playgroup. You certainly don't have to take my possible decks into consideration, but you might have fun, abeit a different kind of fun, if you tried them. > If CL didn't work we OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have it. Your theoretical > arguments doesn't are not real in our playgroup so it makes no sense. > If and when anyhting like you describe happens we'll find a way to deal > with it. Since you are not here in my play group and I am not there in your playgroup, the only way to show you how CL don't work is to show you the theory behind CL. The reason people apply CL to VTES is because Magic has card limits. Did you know that Magic used to have NCL? They did back in Alpha and Beta, but someone figured out a deck that could win consistantly on the first round. It was the Black Lotus-Channel-Fireball deck. I don't know if you have heard of it so I will tell you about it. On round one A player would play a Black Lotus (which costs zero mana and the player could tap it and discard it for 3 mana of any color), and a mountain. That player would then tap the black lotus for 2 green and one red mana. The player would use the 2 green mana to cast a channel which allowed you to burn one life for one colourless mana. The player would then burn 19 life, so he would have 2 red mana (one from the lotus and one from the mountain) and 19 colourless mana. The player could then cast a 20 point fireball and take the opposing player out on round one. There is no deck in VTES that can take a person out on the first round, or even the second round. The game was designed that way. Since there is no way to kill another player instantly, then there is no reason for card limits. NCL could be a way to go, but that would cause other problems > too. Please name some of these problems > Came to think of another card you don't want to see in quantities, > Horrific Countentance (together with dominate, Gangrels can do it > without too much of effort). Which also costs 4 blood, and also defeats all intercept strategies. > In THIS case bouncing is the only way to go, so you're telling me that > if I don't play a bouncing deck I'm screwed and I should from now on > always play bouncer decks??? Actually, yes, that is what I am telling you. In the face of stealth and bleed bouncing (which includes bleed reduction) is the only way to go, and in a four card limited environment you cannot put enough defense in your deck to compensate for stealth and bleed and rush is not a viable defense because you are limited to how many IG's or even bum's rushes that you can put in your deck. Also as we mentioned above, intercept as a deck is extremely difficult proposition for a deck strategy because of Elder Impersonation. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> As for the exact numbers, bear in mind that I expect to build lots of > decks for a CCG that I take seriously. I have about 30 decks each for > Shadowfist and Doomtown. I have bought about 3500 VTES cards so far > and in my limited attempts at deck building it seems that I have less > than enough staples like Taste of Vitae for one deck, never mind many. > If you put 12 copies of a card like this in a combat deck and have 5 > decks of that type then that's 60 cards that you need to find. The > lack of a CL clearly exacerbates this problem. Actually we are addressing this subject under the Toreador-Antitribu Newsletter. We call it deck modules. It is groups of interchangable cards that you can switch from deck to deck, therefore allowing a player more decks to be ready a one given time than would be under normal circumstances. [ quoted text not captured ]

You know, I kept promising myself that I wouldn't post on this topic (one flamewar in two months is enough for me), but I just have to put in my two cents here. cantila wrote: > > In article <dn5irs0ckj96sbugb...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Since I only have like ONE Staredown, there's a good reason why I > > personally wouldn't. > > > > However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a > > dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can > > then use a Blur > > If you have celerity on the vamp you rather use a cel dodge than a > presence! Why the heck would you use presence when you can use celerity > and thus make the deck mroe focused? You don't seem to understand what he's saying: he may want the deck to be able to dodge _and_ S:CE. If he put in 5 Vampiric Speed and 5 Majesty, the deck would be less focused than if he put in 10 Staredown. In the 5&5 deck, sometimes he'd have a dodge when he wanted a S:CE, and vice versa. In the 10 deck, he'll always have a Staredown (or nothing), and will get to use whichever ability he needs at the time. > > and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat. > > But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and > > end combat. > > If it was S:CE you included Staredown for you'd do better with Majesty > where you get S:CE even at inferior. He's including the Staredown for Dodge _and_ S:CE. The trade-off is that, as you say, he won't be able to S:CE at inferior. But it sounds like this deck wouldn't really want to have S:CE very often, just in some special cases. So a Majesty would sit around clogging up your hand if you didn't need a S:CE, whereas a Staredown could be used for either purpose as needed. > > Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than > > Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE > > Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. > > Oh why don't I believe you? I'll let someone with a bit more vitriol answer this one. > But with Staredowns it's slightly harder to get a S:CE, which means > more challenge and less boring too for the other players to always see > that Majesty coming. You need to include some Presence skill cards so > the deck needs a different apporach on the deck building. > > You don't have to like this, it's enough that we do. You're saying that a CL game is "more interesting" because it _forces_ people to play with cards they don't want to play with. I think a lot of people would call that "stifling" creativity, not encouraging it. Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > A deck was recently described which had lots of Pursuit. This seemed > like an amusing deck - one that I might build and play given the > opportunity. You really can't have it both ways. Either large > multiples of cards are effective and interesting or they're not. If > they are then one has the problem of collecting them. If they are not > then a CL is unimportant as you won't want to exceed it anyway. Sometimes large multiples of cards are effective and sometimes they're not. I'll leave interesting up to each individual person. You were responding to a post by a UK player, and their environment (from what I gather) has fewer _really_ focused decks than what you might find in the US. I have a deck with 13 Immortal Grapples. I have a deck with 8 Earth Melds. Neither of these decks would function correctly under a card limit. So having large (i.e. >= 5) multiples of cards is effective, given that allowing such multiples allows particular decks to exist and denying such disallows that existence. To address the collection difficulty: I would say that I have a reasonably large number of cards, but there's no way I could build 30 V:TES decks. I have a reasonably large number of Shadowfist cards, but if I tried to make 30 decks, the last ten to fifteen or so would be stuffed full of Lily Ponds or some such crap. The issue is whether it is inordinately difficult to make _some_ deck under NCL. I would say that the answer is "no", since there are a large number of decks that can run on mostly commons and still be effective. Are there decks that require a large number of rares to build? Yes. Can these decks be beaten by the aforementioned "commons decks"? Also, yes. My Brujah rush deck is chock full of rares and still stops dead in its tracks against Skin of Steel, Obedience, or lots of maneuvers, none of which are rare. > Get a clue - it obviously keeps coming up because it's an important > issue. It won't go away until it is resolved in a better way than > ranting "wrong, wrong, wrong". OK. I agree that it is an important issue. As the only card game without an official card limit (as far as I am aware), V:TES has a unique place in the CCG world. People are correct to ask: can this game really work without a card limit? Even "cantila" agrees that the NCL game is at least functional; he/she just doesn't like it. As people who have been on this newsgroup for years and have had this discussion repeatedly, we know why a lot of people are (for lack of a better word) "afraid" of playing with NCL. "Cantila" is afraid that NCL makes for (a) overly powerful decks, (b) less interesting decks, and (c) less fun overall. We can only assure him/her that (a) while NCL decks are generally more consistent, NCL tournaments are _not_ dominated by one or two deck types, (b) many people would argue that since many interesting decks are impossible under CL (IG rush, Cryptic Missons, some Gangrel and Tremere decks), NCL provides for more interesting decks overall, and "consistent" does not equal "boring", and (c) we are having just as much fun as you are. I will close by mentioning again that I used to play 4CL, then switched and was glad I did. So I _do_ understand the arguments. To "cantila" I would only suggest that you misunderstand a lot about the NCL environment. Few decks have 20+ of any cards. Decks with that many, say, Majesties sound good on paper, but in practice they don't really work. You have said that you don't put a limit on Corruptions because of its unique effect. Would you be willing to raise the limit on other cards which have such a unique effect, like Immortal Grapple, Mind Numb, Aire of Elation, Cryptic Mission, Walk of Flame, etc.? If not, why not? James ...trying to be civil, but coverin' up my head anyway...

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:28:51 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <dn5irs0ckj96sbugb...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a >> dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can >> then use a Blur > >If you have celerity on the vamp you rather use a cel dodge than a >presence! Why the heck would you use presence when you can use celerity >and thus make the deck mroe focused? Because the superior of the card is S:CE, thus providing me two -totally separate- alternatives in one card. I could use Preternatural Evasion, but that costs me a blood at superior, which I don't like - that's a pool I could be gaining via a Blood Doll. There are plenty of reasonably cheap PRE/CEL vampires. Besides, I want PRE anyway so I can get some bleeds in - so as long as I have PRE, Staredown is a suitable (and FREE) option. If I focus my deck entirely on CEL and use Preternatural Evasion, I have a slightly easier time getting superior Celerity on all my vampires, and I can use smaller vampires, but I can't bleed for more than 1. That will end up hurting me when I don't get a Rush action in my hand and my prey refuses to block me - I won't have any threats, and my deck will stall and die. >and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat. >> But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and >> end combat. > >If it was S:CE you included Staredown for you'd do better with Majesty >where you get S:CE even at inferior. This is why you need some more experience building decks, something that NCL would provide you. You are totally missing the point. If I include Majesty, I do not get the "dodge" feature. If I include Sideslip, I do not get the S:CE feature. Using those specific cards mean that I have to include twice as many cards in my deck just to have a way to save my guys if I run into a bigger, meaner combat deck. If I use Staredown, I can include, say, 8 of them in the deck, and I have EITHER 8 Dodges *or* 8 S:CE cards, depending on what I need at the time. If I just need to dodge someone's initial strike, then I can do that and use the gun to shoot them for 4 afterwards. If I need to get out of combat ENTIRELY, I can use the SAME CARD and do so. This means instead of 16 cards (8 Majesty and 8 Sideslip), I can put in only 8, which means that I will be more likely to draw cards like .44, Blur, Legal Manipulation, Blood Doll, what have you, and have them in my hand. This will make my combat more effective, since I will have the cards I need when I need them. In NCL, there is an opportunity cost for every card you put in your deck. If you put a card in that is unnecessary, you will have to discard that card. If I play a deck with 8 Majesty and 8 Sideslip, then I will most likely not need BOTH the Majesty and the Sideslip in the same game. I will end up discarding a bunch of one or the other, and my deck will run poorly. If I play a deck with Staredown, I will probably not ever have to discard one, and I can discard other cards that I might not need instead. > Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than >> Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE >> Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. > >Oh why don't I believe you? Because you aren't thinking about it all the way through, and because you don't have enough experience with NCL to understand the concept of "opportunity cost"? In CL, there is little to no opportunity cost - you stick in 4 of every cool card, and you never discard even if your hand looks like shit, because you know you have to use every card. In NCL, it requires much more skill to know where the fine line is. This, by the way, is how you prepare for the unknown. First, ask yourself what your deck will do: "OK, I have a Toreador/Brujah gun deck. It will bleed with Presence, and fight with .44 Magnums and Celerity Blurs if someone blocks it. It will have blood gain via multiple Blood Dolls, and its vampires won't be spending much blood or taking much damage in combat, so a lot can be pulled off them. Its defense against basic bleed will be either leaving a gun untapped, or Wake-and-block with a couple intercept locations, maybe some transient Auspex cards since a lot of PRE/CEL guys are Toreador and have at least inferior AUS. Its defense against voting or stealth bleed will be its Rush actions, which can be taken backwards as necessary to remove threats. Its defense against combat... hmm. How can I defend against multiple combat types?" Well, you have maneuvers from the guns and Celerity, so you probably don't have to worry about Immortal Grapple decks too much, or indeed any close-range-only deck. What kind of long-range decks would give you trouble? The Assamites use long-range attacks, and they have additional strikes. To survive this, you'll have to use S:CE. Potence weenies will throw a Sewer Lid at you, but you only need to Dodge that, and then you can shoot back. Gangrel could use Body Flare or Song in the Dark, but again, you only need to Dodge that. Tremere will be using Theft of Vitae: a simple dodge is satisfactory. Other Celerity decks, either guns or a Potence pitch deck, will be using addtional strikes: you need S:CE. Your biggest problem will be someone using Drawing Out the Beast since it ruins your guns and maneuvers all in one. But even here, you can Dodge a Gangrel's claws and then use your Blur and +1 hand damage from DotB to punch him for 4. If he is using Scorpion Sting, you can S:CE instead. Turns out that to feel confident that you can survive other players' combat, you need both Dodge and S:CE. You could include Majesty and Sideslip, and either risk having the wrong one when you need it most, or having too many of both. Or you could include Staredown, which provides you both options in one card slot, and a few Presence skill cards for the guys who only have pre/CEL. That would work pretty well. This would be a good "first incarnation" of such a deck: Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 16, Max: 21, Avg: 4.75] 1 Black Cat (Brujah, 5, CE po pr) 2 Brachah (Brujah, 5, CE fo PR) 1 Dodd (Brujah Antitribu, 5, CE do pr) 1 Felicia Mostrom (Toreador, 5, AU CE pr) 1 Ian Wallingford (Toreador Antitribu, 6, au CE PR, Bishop) 1 Itzahk Levine (Ventrue, 3, ce pr) 1 Ramiel DuPre (Toreador, 5, au ce do PR) 2 Rigby, Crusade Vanguard (Brujah Antitribu, 5, au CE po PR) 1 Uma Hatch (Brujah, 3, ce pr) 1 Victor Revell, Loyalist (Toreador Antitribu, 5, au CE de pr) Library: (82 cards) Master (12) 6 Blood Doll 1 KRCG News Radio 4 Presence 1 Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper, The Minion (70) 6 .44 Magnum 2 Alacrity 8 Blur 8 Bum's Rush 4 Flash 8 Legal Manipulations 6 Psyche 4 Pursuit 4 Spirit's Touch 8 Staredown 4 Taste of Vitae 8 Wake with Evening's Freshness Thanks to ELDB again for making it possible to whip this up real quick to prove a point. So tell me, is this deck broken or boring? It violates your 4CL in 8 different places. But it also makes use of a card that you previously didn't consider very useful at all, and it makes use of one in a way you obviously hadn't thought of before. (and possibly that nobody ELSE had either, since Staredown has been getting bagged a lot in this thread). How many rares does it have, I wonder? Hmm. Well, it has 6 Psyche, and 4 Taste of Vitae, although the Tastes probably aren't all THAT necessary since your vamps won't be losing much blood. Damn, this looks like a deck full of commons and uncommons to me... and it also looks like it might be fairly effective, if it doesn't run into trouble equipping the guns. Even only one gun wouldn't be bad. It also looks a bit light on intercept, but one deck can't do everything. Might be worth it to rip out the Taste of Vitae and use 4 Sport Bikes instead. >> You keep mentioning this fictional "variety" you seem to have. Both >> cards end combat. Both cards are played to end combat. > >But with Staredowns it's slightly harder to get a S:CE, which means >more challenge and less boring too for the other players to always see Which means more luck - if you happen to have a Staredown in hand when you really need a Majesty, you are just as screwed as if you had a Sideslip. It makes for inferior deck-building skills since you know you and everyone else will largely be relying on luck. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> > >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL > > > > Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper. > > We don't have a CL in Corruption, try again thank you. > > You gave ONE example which wasn't even valid since I already agree on > this and that's why we don't have a CL on that card. Give me a new > example please, it should be easy since CL creates so "many" wallpapers. I hate to be the one to mention this, but the reason that everyone is mentioning Corruption being worthless under CL is to poke you in the eye with your own hypocrisy. So now you say CL is a more creative and more fair environment, but you give an arbitrary exception to Corruptions and Skill Cards to the CL. If these cards get an exception to the CL, then why don't other cards get the same exception? I will tell you why, because it favors you, the person with all the rare cards, the person with all the money who has outspent the other players in his playgroup. If you are not afraid of the other players being able to compete with you then try it out. Otherwise I believe you are just using your stranglehold on rare cards to your own advantage. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:53:02 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Goodness me, no. The concept of owning 60 Taste of Vitae is totally >foreign to me, and given the current "rare" distribution, would force >me to buy a ridiculous number of cards. Much better to just use a >little restraint, a little forethought, and swap cards out between >decks, since there are so very FEW cards that have the problems Taste >does. Better yet to do something about this when planning the pack-out for the new sets. It should be a golden rule in any CCG that the rares should be unique and the uniques should be rare. This has not been the case in VTES where there are many common vampires and unique master cards which are just waste paper. These should have been cards like Taste of Vitae. >Or they've grafted on the >CL to avoid having to spend money on rare cards, when they don't >realize that they don't NEED to spend money on rare cards - commons >and uncommons will serve just nicely. Unfortunately you don't get guarantees of this kind with living CCG. Folk with experience of CCG are very aware that the rarity schemes used are mostly a money-making device and that personnel and policies change. What's it going to cost to get the power cards in the Sabbat reprint? I've no idea and am keeping a careful hold onto my wallet. Andrew

In article <q6hirs821i751rj2u...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:28:51 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> > wrote: > > >In article <dn5irs0ckj96sbugb...@4ax.com>, > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a > >> dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can > >> then use a Blur > > > >If you have celerity on the vamp you rather use a cel dodge than a > >presence! Why the heck would you use presence when you can use celerity > >and thus make the deck mroe focused? > > Because the superior of the card is S:CE, thus providing me two > -totally separate- alternatives in one card. I could use > Preternatural Evasion, but that costs me a blood at superior, which I > don't like - that's a pool I could be gaining via a Blood Doll. There > are plenty of reasonably cheap PRE/CEL vampires. Besides, I want PRE > anyway so I can get some bleeds in - so as long as I have PRE, > Staredown is a suitable (and FREE) option. You don't need PRE to bleed well, you do very fine with just pre. Throw in Marjiava Ghouls if you want your bleed actiosn to go through. LM, SC etc all do same bleed on inferior vs superior. Intimidation is the only exception, and Aire of Elation, but Toereadors get another +1 bleed anyway so it's negligible because most people try to block a Tor with PRE anyway. Preternatural Evasion is the way to go here, sure it costs one blood to use S:CE but if you use a celerity deck you're certianly more liekly to use dodges than S:CE. S:CE comes for special occasions like when someone plays a Dawn Op, and 1 blood is a cheap way to get out of it. Normally you'd dodge so you can use your additional strikes to do damage. If you haven't made your combat oriented then you shouldn't include blurs. Dodge is as good as S:CE in most cases if you have celerity and can play additional strikes. Ther'es no point in playing a S:CE if you're combat oriented, then you'll be stuck with addition strike-card that you don't get to cycle. IMO I thin youjust use the blood cost as a quite bad excuse to have somehting to come up against me. One blood isn't much if you don't have to play S:CE all the time, but then again you'd probably be better off not doing a combat deck based on Celerity in the first place. > > If I focus my deck entirely on CEL and use Preternatural Evasion, I > have a slightly easier time getting superior Celerity on all my > vampires, and I can use smaller vampires, but I can't bleed for more > than 1. That will end up hurting me when I don't get a Rush action in > my hand and my prey refuses to block me - I won't have any threats, > and my deck will stall and die. > > >and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat. > >> But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and > >> end combat. > > > >If it was S:CE you included Staredown for you'd do better with Majesty > >where you get S:CE even at inferior. > > This is why you need some more experience building decks, something > that NCL would provide you. You are totally missing the point. Don't tell me I need more experience building decks, I've played the game for 6 years. Read above, I think YOU need more experience if you don't see my point. Jus thte fact that you just now "realised" that Staredown is useful smells. Obviously you've been doing well without the card all the time since you've only got one and not btohered to get more. They're commons so not that hard to get by for a devoted player like us. > > If I include Majesty, I do not get the "dodge" feature. If I include > Sideslip, I do not get the S:CE feature. Using those specific cards > mean that I have to include twice as many cards in my deck just to > have a way to save my guys if I run into a bigger, meaner combat deck. > If I use Staredown, I can include, say, 8 of them in the deck, and I > have EITHER 8 Dodges *or* 8 S:CE cards, depending on what I need at > the time. If I just need to dodge someone's initial strike, then I > can do that and use the gun to shoot them for 4 afterwards. If I need > to get out of combat ENTIRELY, I can use the SAME CARD and do so. > This means instead of 16 cards (8 Majesty and 8 Sideslip), I can put > in only 8, which means that I will be more likely to draw cards like > .44, Blur, Legal Manipulation, Blood Doll, what have you, and have > them in my hand. This will make my combat more effective, since I > will have the cards I need when I need them. As I said, go for Preternatural Evasion. > > In NCL, there is an opportunity cost for every card you put in your > deck. If you put a card in that is unnecessary, you will have to > discard that card. If I play a deck with 8 Majesty and 8 Sideslip, > then I will most likely not need BOTH the Majesty and the Sideslip in > the same game. I will end up discarding a bunch of one or the other, > and my deck will run poorly. If I play a deck with Staredown, I will > probably not ever have to discard one, and I can discard other cards > that I might not need instead. > > > Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than > >> Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE > >> Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. > > > >Oh why don't I believe you? Going Staredown instead of PE will save you a blood for the occassion you choose to use S:CE. Let's say you do half the time (u're likely to use it less than half the time) which would be 4 times. That's 4 blood. Now by going Staredown you need to get PRE on the vamp, so you need to throw in some extra Masters, and you're talking about saving spots in your deck here... Also you gae an example of Staredown+Blur. Corrct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that speak agaisnt the fact you didn't want to be dependant on 2 disciplines?? With PE you need only CEL and that's it. It's worht the blood cost for sure because you'll be able to use it on all your vamps, while Staredown you need to add so you get PRE on the vamps. > > Because you aren't thinking about it all the way through, and because > you don't have enough experience with NCL to understand the concept of > "opportunity cost"? In CL, there is little to no opportunity cost - > you stick in 4 of every cool card, and you never discard even if your > hand looks like shit, because you know you have to use every card. In > NCL, it requires much more skill to know where the fine line is. I'd say you learn more about opportunity costs with CL since you tend to nee dmore cards to acheive the sae effect, and yet you want only some 90 cards in your deck. This means you REALLY have to think of which cards you include. So don't tell me I don't understand, you're the one that doesn't. > > This, by the way, is how you prepare for the unknown. First, ask > yourself what your deck will do: "OK, I have a Toreador/Brujah gun > deck. It will bleed with Presence, and fight with .44 Magnums and > Celerity Blurs if someone blocks it. It will have blood gain via > multiple Blood Dolls, and its vampires won't be spending much blood or > taking much damage in combat, so a lot can be pulled off them. Its > defense against basic bleed will be either leaving a gun untapped, or > Wake-and-block with a couple intercept locations, maybe some transient > Auspex cards since a lot of PRE/CEL guys are Toreador and have at > least inferior AUS. Its defense against voting or stealth bleed will > be its Rush actions, which can be taken backwards as necessary to > remove threats. Its defense against combat... hmm. How can I defend > against multiple combat types?" I know quite well what to ask myself when I make a deck. Go CEL and pre in this case, *not* CEL and PRE since what you get for the ORE is only slightly more bleed. Not worth it (to include Masters or it that is) and the high cap vamps will have PRE anyway. > > Well, you have maneuvers from the guns and Celerity, so you probably > don't have to worry about Immortal Grapple decks too much, or indeed > any close-range-only deck. What kind of long-range decks would give > you trouble? The Assamites use long-range attacks, and they have > additional strikes. To survive this, you'll have to use S:CE. > Potence weenies will throw a Sewer Lid at you, but you only need to > Dodge that, and then you can shoot back. Gangrel could use Body Flare > or Song in the Dark, but again, you only need to Dodge that. Tremere > will be using Theft of Vitae: a simple dodge is satisfactory. Other > Celerity decks, either guns or a Potence pitch deck, will be using > addtional strikes: you need S:CE. Your biggest problem will be > someone using Drawing Out the Beast since it ruins your guns and > maneuvers all in one. But even here, you can Dodge a Gangrel's claws > and then use your Blur and +1 hand damage from DotB to punch him for > 4. If he is using Scorpion Sting, you can S:CE instead. and Scorp Stong there will be only 4 of with CL so you tend to dodge more than S:CE in a celerity Tor deck. [ quoted text not captured ] So if you use PE you can skip the 4 skill cards (and add one celerity if you really want) or you can skip 3 of the presence one. In any case, there's slots to save here. > > Thanks to ELDB again for making it possible to whip this up real quick > to prove a point. > > So tell me, is this deck broken or boring? It violates your 4CL in 8 > different places. But it also makes use of a card that you previously > didn't consider very useful at all, I didn't say it wasn't useful at all, I'd not have 4 of it in that case. I jsut think you appreciate it MORE with CL. The fact you had only one Staredown doesn't make a bell ring?? and it makes use of one in a way > you obviously hadn't thought of before. (and possibly that nobody > ELSE had either, since Staredown has been getting bagged a lot in this > thread). > > How many rares does it have, I wonder? Hmm. Well, it has 6 Psyche, > and 4 Taste of Vitae, although the Tastes probably aren't all THAT > necessary since your vamps won't be losing much blood. Damn, this > looks like a deck full of commons and uncommons to me... and it also > looks like it might be fairly effective, if it doesn't run into > trouble equipping the guns. Even only one gun wouldn't be bad. It > also looks a bit light on intercept, but one deck can't do everything. > Might be worth it to rip out the Taste of Vitae and use 4 Sport Bikes > instead. I assume you have quite many cards (at least more than any of my players have except maybe one) and yet you had one Staredown. So how are all my people going to get it? And 8 each??? > > >> You keep mentioning this fictional "variety" you seem to have. Both > >> cards end combat. Both cards are played to end combat. > > > >But with Staredowns it's slightly harder to get a S:CE, which means > >more challenge and less boring too for the other players to always see > > Which means more luck - if you happen to have a Staredown in hand when > you really need a Majesty, you are just as screwed as if you had a > Sideslip. It makes for inferior deck-building skills since you know > you and everyone else will largely be relying on luck. It could be said the same for your deck, in fact there will ALWAYS be occassions when you're Screwed. If the guy plays IG no Staredowns in the world will help you. So does that make your deck-building inferior? I guess it does. > > -- Derek > > "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > - C. Darwin, 1871 > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39B94BFC...@math.wisc.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] I had PE in mind when saying you should go with celerity. > > If it was S:CE you included Staredown for you'd do better with Majesty > > where you get S:CE even at inferior. > > He's including the Staredown for Dodge _and_ S:CE. The trade-off is > that, as you say, he won't be able to S:CE at inferior. But it sounds > like this deck wouldn't really want to have S:CE very often, just in > some special cases. Exactly, so the blood cost for PE isn't an issue compared to the skill cards you save. So a Majesty would sit around clogging up your hand > if you didn't need a S:CE, whereas a Staredown could be used for either > purpose as needed. > > > > Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than > > > Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE > > > Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. > > > > Oh why don't I believe you? > > You're saying that a CL game is "more interesting" because it _forces_ > people to play with cards they don't want to play with. Since we made up the rules together this isn't exactly "forcing" people. You could also look at it as an icentive to come up with new uses for cards you'd not considered to include before. There's thousands of different cards for VTES too, a CL doesn't force people to include cards they don't want to use at all. [ quoted text not captured ] wow I'm impressed someone managed to realise this finally. All I've been talking about all the itme is that I think CL is justified in my play group and even if it's not, if people have nothing agaisnt it it still doesn't hurt. Once someone says that they'd like to try out a deck with 15 Cryptic Missions and complains they cannot do so, then we can actually say someone is hampered here. This hasn't been the case yet. And if people wantot go with NCL then I'd not be agains tit. Thing is, with CL card collecting becomes so much easier, and the games are longer (= more fun) and slightly more random, giving everyone a chance, even those that aren't as good palyers (and now I don't talk about cards, I'm talking about skill). It would be quite boring for the newbies to always lose (becuase they lack the skill to win). They lose often still, but they have a better chance as it is now (because of many factors, where randomness is one). You can be agaisnt it all you want, but I've won enough of games to feel that "I have to win and it comes before having fun or letting my other players have fun". Also if the best players wins all the time the new ones will get bored because they feel they need more cards (even commons they'd need more, and borrowing from me aint possible because I would need ot use them myself if CL was lifted). As people who > have been on this newsgroup for years and have had this discussion > repeatedly, we know why a lot of people are (for lack of a better word) > "afraid" of playing with NCL. "Cantila" is afraid that NCL makes for > > (a) overly powerful decks, > (b) less interesting decks, and > (c) less fun overall. (d) makes card collecting cheaper and easier (even commons costs money and frankly I don't have more than 10 of ANY card if you don't count the cards that exists both for Sabbat and VTES, like Flash. And the one I got 10 of is Corruption actually and because I actively have been trading to get them all). (e) Games probably lasts longer. Of course I'm gonna hear people say it's not true, simply because you know there's no sure way to prove it. But what you say won't change the facts. And I believe them to be that they do last longer. It wa sonly a couple of weeks ago I saw a thread where people here said tournament games are generally veyr fast. Well ours aren't. > > We can only assure him/her that > > (a) while NCL decks are generally more consistent, NCL tournaments are > _not_ dominated by one or two deck types, > (b) many people would argue that since many interesting decks are > impossible under CL (IG rush, Cryptic Missons, some Gangrel and Tremere > decks), NCL provides for more interesting decks overall, and > "consistent" does not equal "boring" No it doesn't but unfortunately many times it does. Those are generally the same peole who like a pure Malk S&B deck. , and > (c) we are having just as much fun as you are. > > I will close by mentioning again that I used to play 4CL, then switched > and was glad I did. So I _do_ understand the arguments. > > To "cantila" I would only suggest that you misunderstand a lot about the > NCL environment. Few decks have 20+ of any cards. No I didn't think so either actually. I've sene many examples of decks on the net to know it's not true. But 8 of a kind is certianly not uncommon. And make 5 cards with 8 each and you got half of the deck... Decks with that > many, say, Majesties sound good on paper, but in practice they don't > really work. You have said that you don't put a limit on Corruptions > because of its unique effect. Would you be willing to raise the limit > on other cards which have such a unique effect, like Immortal Grapple, > Mind Numb, Aire of Elation, Cryptic Mission, Walk of Flame, etc.? If > not, why not? No because these cards works as well alone. The cards a are no dependant on the numbers per se. Corrpution specifically is made to be stackable and the whole success of Corruption depends on how many cards of it you have. The more ---> the higher vamp you have a chance to take control over. With Mjeasties you'll be able to S:CE with that card whether you have one or 20 in the deck, once you pull it. If you have only 4 Corrputions, then you have no chance of uysing it if your prey has vamps all at cap 5 or higher. In this case you'll never even get a chance to make the card useful. While all other cards has their uses. > > James > > ...trying to be civil, but coverin' up my head anyway... You certianly are so more than most others here... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pbfcr$fau$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > In > > > > > > First of all, your arguement about being able to counter dedicated > > > stealth with an equal amount of dedicated intercept is wrong. It > > > requires approximately twice as much dedicated intercept to catch a > > > dedicated stealth deck. > > > > Wrong, you don't need twice as much because of Elder Impersonation, > you > > can oyl have 4 of EI and you once again forget that my playgroup lacks > > AH and Sabbat cards. I have 4 EI, but to my knowledge no one else of > > our 8 players have. There *might* be another guy having four, but if > so > > he's never used them to make ti noticable. As for the rest, they all > > have none, one guy has one or two that he got from me. > > So a 4 cl actually helps you, because you could play a better stealth > than someone else who doesn't have access to Elder Impersonation. The > other players, who under a NCL could play a deck with more than 4 Cloak > the Gathering, now can only play with 4 Cloaks but you can play with the > same 4 cloaks they can plus your 4 Elder Impersonation cards in > addition to any other stealth cards that they have. On the other hand these guys doesn't own more CLoaks etc, in fact some does only own 4 because I've traded away all ym excesses to the,. Under NCL I would have kept them and they'd have NO stealth cards and I'd have say 10 Cloaks to play with. As long as they can't get more stealth cards this actually benefits them, because it limits me to only 4 IE's. I would have had more else, I used to have 7 but traded away 3. So thanks to CL other people got the chance to playw ith this card too, and they always only face max 4 coming form me ina game, instead of potentially 7. > > > Another thing is, Malks don't have permanent stealth locations (not > > counting Shadow Forest that can be burned easily) while you can have > > such intercept ones easily. This makes you require a lot less of > > intercept card. Add four 2nd Tradition and a couple of other intercept > > card (let's say 12, which isn't uncommon for an intercept deck) and > top > > it with 4 Telepathic Counters you really DO survive. First I use my > > perm intercepts to block and if I have to, I throw in an intercept > > card. If he plays IE I could Misdirect it and then I can soon collect > > some 6 pool. > > So now you understand that bounce is a nessasary defense against stealth > bleeds because of this card. I am glad we agree. yes, either bounce or reduce bleed or wake and intercept with another guy (2nd Tradition you can have 4 of...) > > > The reason for this is Elder Impersonation. At > > > superior, Elder Impersonation causes a block to fail. > > > > With NCL this card is certainly bad yes, a reason to not use NCL since > > it limits your defence to only be deflects. > > You just said above that your only defense against Elder Impersonation > is bounce. no, either bounce, reduce bleed or wake and intercept with another guy or DI (not an option for the other guys though) and even IF bounce was the only defense you can have 8 bouncers on dominate and at leats 4 on AUS (more if u got My Enemy's Enemy) while you can only have 4 EI. So ina worst case scenario you have 4 bouncers against 4 EI... I have to stop replying here coz I only got 4 hours to sleep before I have to catch a plane to Stockholm. I'll be back after the weekend. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pbjn9$kqi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL > > > > > > Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper. > > > > We don't have a CL in Corruption, try again thank you. > > > > You gave ONE example which wasn't even valid since I already agree on > > this and that's why we don't have a CL on that card. Give me a new > > example please, it should be easy since CL creates so "many" > wallpapers. > > I hate to be the one to mention this, but the reason that everyone is > mentioning Corruption being worthless under CL is to poke you in the eye > with your own hypocrisy. So now you say CL is a more creative and more > fair environment, but you give an arbitrary exception to Corruptions and > Skill Cards to the CL. If these cards get an exception to the CL, then > why don't other cards get the same exception? I will tell you why, > because it favors you, the person with all the rare cards, the person > with all the money who has outspent the other players in his playgroup. Oh yes, wow you discovered my Master plan huh? The facts in short: 1) Without CL I'd not traded awya a LOT of my cards to those you really needed my excess Cloaks etc. With NCL those CLoaks wouldn't have been excess, so I'd had 10 and they'd have 1-2. 2) In our neighbour city there's 17 palyers and they do CL too. And at least 5 people there has a lot of cards, maybe even as many as me. Also I don't even have many cards compared to you guys. So I could as well say that you want NCL because it lets you use your ToGP strategy (just an example) that no one else can afford to try out. > If you are not afraid of the other players being able to compete with > you then try it out. Otherwise I believe you are just using your > stranglehold on rare cards to your own advantage. Believe whatever you want. Nobody has ever suggested goign back to NCL, and if they did I'd not be agaisnt it like I've said wuite many times before. Just because you're not non-selfish doesn't mean others can be *shrug*. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Better yet to do something about this when planning the pack-out for > the new sets. It should be a golden rule in any CCG that the rares > should be unique and the uniques should be rare. This has not been > the case in VTES where there are many common vampires and unique > master cards which are just waste paper. These should have been cards > like Taste of Vitae. Oh my God, I think I am going to be ill. I can't belive that you are advocating that VTES should follow in the steps of Spellcraft. How broken a game to follow. I would much rather that card games be like Xenophile where all card are the same rarity. Absolutely Grosse, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> Oh yes, wow you discovered my Master plan huh? Strange but true, 4cl will keep you as one of the top players in your group. > The facts in short: > > 1) Without CL I'd not traded awya a LOT of my cards to those you really > needed my excess Cloaks etc. With NCL those CLoaks wouldn't have been > excess, so I'd had 10 and they'd have 1-2. Oh so you would have alot more commons and some one else would have alot more of another card. How is this relavent? > 2) In our neighbour city there's 17 palyers and they do CL too. And at > least 5 people there has a lot of cards, maybe even as many as me. And your playing against them how much? Also > I don't even have many cards compared to you guys. So I could as well > say that you want NCL because it lets you use your ToGP strategy (just > an example) that no one else can afford to try out. It allows all stratgies, including the 10 Sudden Reversal decks > > If you are not afraid of the other players being able to compete with > > you then try it out. Otherwise I believe you are just using your > > stranglehold on rare cards to your own advantage. > > Believe whatever you want. Nobody has ever suggested goign back to NCL, > and if they did I'd not be agaisnt it like I've said wuite many times > before. Just because you're not non-selfish doesn't mean others can be > *shrug*. So you being the quintissential example of generosity allows them to build decks which actually include as many cards as they themselves the players own. I believe you have said otherwise. You have enforced an artificial limit to the cards they themselves own while you own many more different cards than they do giving yourself the advantage in a limited format. Rah Rah, go Captain Generosity, Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> > (d) makes card collecting cheaper and easier (even commons costs > money and frankly I don't have more than 10 of ANY card if you don't > count the cards that exists both for Sabbat and VTES, like Flash. And > the one I got 10 of is Corruption actually and because I actively have > been trading to get them all). Of course you have been trading for Corruptions. You have no limit on them. Wow, that's a shocker. > (e) Games probably lasts longer. Of course I'm gonna hear people say > it's not true, simply because you know there's no sure way to prove it. > But what you say won't change the facts. And I believe them to be that > they do last longer. It wa sonly a couple of weeks ago I saw a thread > where people here said tournament games are generally veyr fast. Well > ours aren't. So less long games is more fun than more short games? So your players don't mind waiting around until the next game starts. > No it doesn't but unfortunately many times it does. Those are generally > the same peole who like a pure Malk S&B deck. Probably because Malk S&B is a far superior deck strategy in a card limit environment , and > > (c) we are having just as much fun as you are. Again, So less long games is more fun than more short games? So your players don't mind waiting around until the next game starts. > > I will close by mentioning again that I used to play 4CL, then > switched > > and was glad I did. So I _do_ understand the arguments. > > > > To "cantila" I would only suggest that you misunderstand a lot about > the > > NCL environment. Few decks have 20+ of any cards. > > No I didn't think so either actually. I've sene many examples of decks > on the net to know it's not true. Please list them. But 8 of a kind is certianly not > uncommon. And make 5 cards with 8 each and you got half of the deck... No, in a ninety card deck 8x5 is only 40 which is actually less than half the deck., > Decks with that > > many, say, Majesties sound good on paper, but in practice they don't > > really work. You have said that you don't put a limit on Corruptions > > because of its unique effect. Would you be willing to raise the limit > > on other cards which have such a unique effect, like Immortal Grapple, > > Mind Numb, Aire of Elation, Cryptic Mission, Walk of Flame, etc.? If > > not, why not? > > No because these cards works as well alone. The cards a are no > dependant on the numbers per se. Corrpution specifically is made to be > stackable and the whole success of Corruption depends on how many cards > of it you have. The more ---> the higher vamp you have a chance to take > control over. With Mjeasties you'll be able to S:CE with that card > whether you have one or 20 in the deck, once you pull it. > > If you have only 4 Corrputions, then you have no chance of uysing it if > your prey has vamps all at cap 5 or higher. In this case you'll never > even get a chance to make the card useful. While all other cards has > their uses. With Cryptic Mission you can't run a vamp out of blood if its cap is over 4 with only four in the deck. So why can't you have more than 4 of those? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila wrote: > > In article <39B94BFC...@math.wisc.edu>, > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > He's including the Staredown for Dodge _and_ S:CE. The trade-off is > > that, as you say, he won't be able to S:CE at inferior. But it sounds > > like this deck wouldn't really want to have S:CE very often, just in > > some special cases. > > Exactly, so the blood cost for PE isn't an issue compared to the skill > cards you save. > > You're saying that a CL game is "more interesting" because it _forces_ > > people to play with cards they don't want to play with. > > Since we made up the rules together this isn't exactly "forcing" people. Well, sure it is. I might _want_ to play with 8 Bewitching Orations, but I _can't_ under your system. Maybe "requires" would be a more agreeable word? > You could also look at it as an icentive to come up with new uses for > cards you'd not considered to include before. There's thousands of > different cards for VTES too, a CL doesn't force people to include > cards they don't want to use at all. Sure it does. Let's say I want to have a deck with lots of Majesty, since I want to S:CE a lot, and I can use the untap effect to take other actions and be generally effective. Now, I can use S:CE alternatives, but none of them untap me. Similarly, I might want to play a Gangrel permanent intercept deck, and I would like to have lots of Earth Meld so that I can block, untap and block again. Now, I could use some of the other Protean S:CE cards, but they don't untap me. So now I _have_ to include inferior cards because of the card limit. What you call "incentive to come up with new uses for cards" I call "having to play with shitty alternatives to the card I really want to have 10 of". > > Even "cantila" agrees that the NCL > > game is at least functional; he/she just doesn't like it. > > wow I'm impressed someone managed to realise this finally. You'll have to forgive my colleagues. I think we've all been in this debate so many times that we start to get annoyed when someone needs to be "put right", as it were. > All I've > been talking about all the itme is that I think CL is justified in my > play group and even if it's not, if people have nothing agaisnt it it > still doesn't hurt. Please believe me when I say that all we're trying to do is convince you that NCL doesn't have the flaws you perceive. Be fair; you're not just saying "live and let live." You've made numerous statements as to why CL is actually better than NCL, and that's what people take issue with. You make arguments about why you think NCL is flawed, and people are refuting them. It's not personal. (At least, not from me.) > Once someone says that they'd like to try out a > deck with 15 Cryptic Missions and complains they cannot do so, then we > can actually say someone is hampered here. This hasn't been the case > yet. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't want to try such a deck. Someone might be reluctant to suggest such a thing because they believe strongly (as you do) that NCL is "bad." > And if people wantot go with NCL then I'd not be agains tit. What if a new person shows up who has been playing with NCL forever and doesn't want to change? Do you prevent them from playing? Would you allow them to play, but gang up on them? > Thing > is, with CL card collecting becomes so much easier, I would argue that since some of the "carbon copy" cards (like Awe) are rare, CL actually benefits the person with more money. If I come to your group and I have 4 Awe's _and_ 4 Bewitching Oration's, my vote decks will be much better than someone with only 4 BO's. > and the games are > longer (= more fun) and slightly more random, giving everyone a chance, > even those that aren't as good palyers (and now I don't talk about > cards, I'm talking about skill). Two things: longer is not always more fun. If I die quick, I don't want to have to wait forever for the next game to start. Also, if I'm a good player, I want to win because I'm a good player, and I don't want to lose because my deck is forced to suck by a card limit. Shouldn't the good players generally beat the bad players? > > "Cantila" is afraid that NCL makes for > > > > (a) overly powerful decks, > > (b) less interesting decks, and > > (c) less fun overall. > > (d) makes card collecting cheaper and easier (even commons costs > money and frankly I don't have more than 10 of ANY card if you don't > count the cards that exists both for Sabbat and VTES, like Flash. And > the one I got 10 of is Corruption actually and because I actively have > been trading to get them all). By this logic, you could have 10 of the commons you need (assuming you played under NCL) by actively trading. And once again, CL can accentuate the need for rares. Under CL I'll really want to have 4 Awes. Under NCL I'll just toss in 4 more BO's. > (e) Games probably lasts longer. Of course I'm gonna hear people say > it's not true, simply because you know there's no sure way to prove it. > But what you say won't change the facts. And I believe them to be that > they do last longer. This doesn't make any sense. You're saying that "games probably last longer [under CL]" is a "FACT" (emphasis mine) which cannot be proven but that no one can refute? Huh? > > "consistent" does not equal "boring" > > No it doesn't but unfortunately many times it does. Those are generally > the same peole who like a pure Malk S&B deck. That's your opinion. You seem to like decks that have to use shitty cards because (1) you're afraid of decks with no shitty cards (or too many copies of good cards) and (2) you like it when some one plays a shitty card because you can say "cool, they just used that shitty card that no one uses!" I like decks that do what I want them to do, when I want them to do it. The interesting part of the game then goes from "I wonder what shitty card they'll play next" to "how can I use the strategy my deck employs (consistently) to defeat that other (consistent) strategy". The game goes from card-level strategy to deck-level strategy. My opinion is that the latter game is much more engaging and interesting. > > To "cantila" I would only suggest that you misunderstand a lot about > > the NCL environment. Few decks have 20+ of any cards. > > No I didn't think so either actually. I've sene many examples of decks > on the net to know it's not true. But 8 of a kind is certianly not > uncommon. And make 5 cards with 8 each and you got half of the deck... Why is that a bad thing? > > Decks with that > > many, say, Majesties sound good on paper, but in practice they don't > > really work. You have said that you don't put a limit on Corruptions > > because of its unique effect. Would you be willing to raise the limit > > on other cards which have such a unique effect, like Immortal Grapple, > > Mind Numb, Aire of Elation, Cryptic Mission, Walk of Flame, etc.? If > > not, why not? > > No because these cards works as well alone. The cards a are no > dependant on the numbers per se. Corrpution specifically is made to be > stackable and the whole success of Corruption depends on how many cards > of it you have. The more ---> the higher vamp you have a chance to take > control over. With Mjeasties you'll be able to S:CE with that card > whether you have one or 20 in the deck, once you pull it. Think more about a deck-based strategy. Let's say I want to build a Tremere aggravated damage deck. I _can't_ unless I can have more than 4 Walk of Flame. You're correct that each individual WoF card functions well. But the _deck_ doesn't function because I can't use the card consistently. I think this issue of card-based strategy vs. deck-based strategy may be at the heart of the card limit debate. > > James > > > > ...trying to be civil, but coverin' up my head anyway... > > You certianly are so more than most others here... Well, I try. I got beaten to a bloody pulp in the last big thread I was on, so I'm understandably wary. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Please excuse me, I can't seem to get inside I only wanted to know if you're alive." -- Beth Orton

I just want to add my two cents regarding Cantila's belief that playing CL encourages diversity in playing clans, and that NCL encourages people to specialize in one clan. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then I think the "moral of the story" is not what he thinks it is. I am one of those NCL players he is talking about. I am well known locally for being a Nosferatu specialist. Hell, I'm even a Camarilla Nosferatu specialist -- my minions don't mix with those Sabbat scum! I typically have 3 or 4 distinctly different Nosferatu decks prepared at any given time, plus several dismantled designs that were good enough to record for future use. I have a deep-stealth bleed deck that uses the under-rated night-moves/spying-mission combo; a Lucretia deck; a Sheldon intercept & Destroy deck (he kicks ass!); a baby-factory political deck; a "bring out the clan" deck who's rather silly goal is to get all 23 vamps on the table; a "Power of the Camarilla" ventrue/nos deck (which will probably work better after Sabbat War is released); a basic nossie "rush" deck; not to mention several discarded designs. I'd have more, except that it can be exhausting to keep taking the decks apart again ... but I'm certainly not at a loss for ideas. I occasionally play other clans, with mixed success ... but there certainly seems to be more than enough possibilities to explore in the Nossies to keep me busy for life. All in all, I would say I play Nossies about 50% of the time. I might do so more often if limited supply of Nossie cards did not prevent me from having an unlimited quantity of different nossie decks prepared simulaneously, or if I did not worry that my playgroup might learn to exploit. Nobody complains that I am being boring when I play Nossies, because most of my decks are startlingly different from each other. Being subtly undermined by Aggrippina at +6 stealth is very different from having Sheldon rip your head off every time you dare take an action, which in turn is very different from a horde of weenie nossie princes who can vote themselves huge gobs of pool, and like to pull out disguised assault rifles when attacked. However, Cantila is probably right. Under 4CL, my creative options within the Nossie clan would probably be far more limited, and I would be forced to explore more clans more often in order to add sufficient variety to my decks and keep myself and other players from getting bored. I don't see this as a good thing, and I don't see how he could possibly see it that way either. More creative options = good. Less = bad. On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, James Coupe wrote: > In article <8p8ivu$29m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- > 6...@student.luth.se> writes > > I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players > > here has a few clans that they almost always play. > > Look harder > > > You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few > > decks/clans that they prefer to always play? > > I can tell you that there are people who have preferred clans. > > I dispute "almost always" as being wrong. > > >Only those with tons of > >cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 > >Lasombra decks etc that they never break down. > > That they never break down? No. And that's Lasombra, whose focus is > Lasombra decks, unsurprisingly. > > >I think that tells something... > > It tells me that you think a sample of 1 person is statistically > significant, which makes you a fool. > > >In my playgroup there's never been anything like "this guy 80% plays > >this specific clan". It seems very common at other places.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:27:25 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:53:02 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Goodness me, no. The concept of owning 60 Taste of Vitae is totally >>foreign to me, and given the current "rare" distribution, would force >>me to buy a ridiculous number of cards. Much better to just use a >>little restraint, a little forethought, and swap cards out between >>decks, since there are so very FEW cards that have the problems Taste >>does. > >Better yet to do something about this when planning the pack-out for >the new sets. It should be a golden rule in any CCG that the rares >should be unique and the uniques should be rare. This has not been >the case in VTES where there are many common vampires and unique >master cards which are just waste paper. These should have been cards >like Taste of Vitae. Eagle-eye hindsight for a set published in 1995. Unfortunately, it only serves to let us learn by experience. And SOME well-desired cards have to be rare, just to encourage people to buy a few more of them... Although they did have the good sense to make Immortal Grapple uncommon instead of rare in Sabbat. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, cantila wrote: > In article <dn5irs0ckj96sbugb...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than > > Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE > > Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that. > > > > Oh why don't I believe you? I have no idea why you don't. I think just like he does. Flexibility can be very important in card play. If you know you are going to have big vamps anyway, and disciplines at superior, then a choice of effects can be much more valuable than one single effect that is somewhat more powerful. One thing I've learned by playing decks with Superior OBF is that "Behind You" can be remarkably effective for combat defence (and very easy to trade for, since no-one else thinks it's any good). Yeah, sure, the effects themselves are no better than the disciplineless versions, but you get to choose what you need, and that's important. Staredown would work great in an intercept deck where you hope to damage those you block, but want to avoid getting too damaged yourself. Perhaps the plan is simply to dodge, while a ghoul retainer blasts with a flamethrower, or to dodge, and then additional strike. But before you have to choose, you find that the blockee has played all kinds of nasty effects and topped it off with a killer strike. Good thing this dodge doubles as a S:CE!!! -- John Whelan

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:01:59 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <q6hirs821i751rj2u...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:28:51 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> >> wrote: >> >> >If you have celerity on the vamp you rather use a cel dodge than a >> >presence! Why the heck would you use presence when you can use >celerity >> >and thus make the deck mroe focused? >> >> Because the superior of the card is S:CE, thus providing me two >> -totally separate- alternatives in one card. I could use >> Preternatural Evasion, but that costs me a blood at superior, which I >> don't like - that's a pool I could be gaining via a Blood Doll. There >> are plenty of reasonably cheap PRE/CEL vampires. Besides, I want PRE >> anyway so I can get some bleeds in - so as long as I have PRE, >> Staredown is a suitable (and FREE) option. > >You don't need PRE to bleed well, you do very fine with just pre. Throw >in Marjiava Ghouls if you want your bleed actiosn to go through. LM, SC >etc all do same bleed on inferior vs superior. Intimidation is the only >exception, and Aire of Elation, but Toereadors get another +1 bleed >anyway so it's negligible because most people try to block a Tor with >PRE anyway. Dude. You are illiterate. That's all there is to it. I don't want a fucking stealth-bleed deck, I want a deck that beats people up and bleeds as well. Marijava Ghouls, indeed. Not that THOSE don't cost blood off the vampires, which I'll need for blood gain through my Blood Dolls even if I DIDN'T want to have a stealth bleed deck. And Preternatural Evasion costs one blood, which I ALSO intend to use for blood gain, since Blur costs blood and .44s cost pool. Please, if you're not going to read what I'm saying, don't attempt to respond. You just look like a damned idiot. >Preternatural Evasion is the way to go here, sure it costs one blood to >use S:CE but if you use a celerity deck you're certianly more liekly to >use dodges than S:CE. S:CE comes for special occasions like when Uh, I don't know what world YOU play in, but Scorpion Sting and celerity-based combat is pretty damned prevalent in America. Not to mention stuff like Carrion Crows, which can't be dodged. Maybe your card limit doesn't let you do this sort of thing over there since you can't have more than 4 Blurs. >someone plays a Dawn Op, and 1 blood is a cheap way to get out of it. >Normally you'd dodge so you can use your additional strikes to do >damage. If you haven't made your combat oriented then you shouldn't >include blurs. Dodge is as good as S:CE in most cases if you have Did you even look at the deck? The whole thing is combat. And I am NOT satisfied with "most cases", I want *ALL CASES*. I do not want to be surprised by the Assamites. I do not want to be surprised by Scorpion Sting. Dumbass. >celerity and can play additional strikes. Ther'es no point in playing a >S:CE if you're combat oriented, then you'll be stuck with addition >strike-card that you don't get to cycle. I can tell that you didn't even bother to read my post. Please do so and then come back and respond to me. >IMO I thin youjust use the blood cost as a quite bad excuse to have >somehting to come up against me. One blood isn't much if you don't have >to play S:CE all the time, but then again you'd probably be better off >not doing a combat deck based on Celerity in the first place. IMO, you are a fucking idiot. I am tired of attempting to be civil to you. Use your HEAD, boy. Is a light even on in there? If I want to run my vampires down to 2 blood by Blood Dolls so I can pay for the guns and still get out 4 vamps, I can't afford to be paying even ONE unnecessary blood. But I see that this concept has totally passed you by, because you are stuck in your card limit environment where everyone's deck sucks. >Don't tell me I need more experience building decks, I've played the >game for 6 years. Read above, I think YOU need more experience if you And you obviously haven't learned a damned thing in 6 years. You need more experience building decks. You also need more experience READING what people SAY. >don't see my point. Jus thte fact that you just now "realised" that >Staredown is useful smells. Obviously you've been doing well without OK, so you're paranoid as well as an amateur. Small child, I would not WASTE my time making things up to fool you, and the fact that you even THINK I would reflects very poorly on you. >the card all the time since you've only got one and not btohered to get >more. They're commons so not that hard to get by for a devoted player >like us. well, they might be commons, but out of two boxes of Sabbat, I got one. Call me unlucky or whatever. I don't, really, because I doubt I'll ever need that many Staredown. It would have been amusing to make this deck though. >As I said, go for Preternatural Evasion. Costs a blood, DUMBASS. I want that blood to come back to my pool, not get spent elsewhere. Besides, what if someone intercepts me while I'm trying to hunt? Can't play PE if you have no blood on you. >Going Staredown instead of PE will save you a blood for the occassion >you choose to use S:CE. Let's say you do half the time (u're likely to >use it less than half the time) which would be 4 times. That's 4 blood. Which was going to be 4 pool. 4 pool pays for 2 guns. Do you think 4 blood doesn't matter? >Now by going Staredown you need to get PRE on the vamp, so you need to >throw in some extra Masters, and you're talking about saving spots in >your deck here... Extra Masters are not a problem, since they also provide pool gain from Legal Manipulations and I don't have very many Master cards in the deck to begin with. So by getting PRE on a vampire, I potentially gain a LOT of pool - from the Blood Dolls *and* from any successful LMs I play. EVERY SINGLE POOL MATTERS. Maybe your decks over there all suck and you haven't realized this yet. >Also you gae an example of Staredown+Blur. Corrct me if I'm wrong, but >doesn't that speak agaisnt the fact you didn't want to be dependant on >2 disciplines?? With PE you need only CEL and that's it. It's worht the Uh, no, I said I didn't mind being dependent on two disciplines at ALL. Not to mention my entire crypt has both Presence AND Celerity, so I can play Staredown/Blur with any single vampire. It's only when I want to end combat that I'll need to have superior PRE, and that shouldn't be a problem since half my crypt has PRE to begin with, and 4 skill cards should get me at least 3 active vampires with PRE, no problem. >blood cost for sure because you'll be able to use it on all your vamps, >while Staredown you need to add so you get PRE on the vamps. Every pool matters. Again, you don't seem to realize what sort of deck I'm playing here. I do not have heavy defense against bleed. I do not have heavy defense against votes. I had damn well better have good pool gain, or I am going to be ousted RAPIDLY. This appears to be foreign to you, but I see that you are used to playing in an environment where people's decks naturally suck. >> Because you aren't thinking about it all the way through, and because >> you don't have enough experience with NCL to understand the concept of >> "opportunity cost"? In CL, there is little to no opportunity cost - >> you stick in 4 of every cool card, and you never discard even if your >> hand looks like shit, because you know you have to use every card. In >> NCL, it requires much more skill to know where the fine line is. > >I'd say you learn more about opportunity costs with CL since you tend >to nee dmore cards to acheive the sae effect, and yet you want only >some 90 cards in your deck. This means you REALLY have to think of >which cards you include. So don't tell me I don't understand, you're >the one that doesn't. You can say it all you want, but you'll still be wrong. I see that you do not comprehend the meaning of "opportunity cost", either. That does not surprise me. NCL does not automatically produce decks which are over 90 cards - if you notice, my library was only 82 cards. >I know quite well what to ask myself when I make a deck. Go CEL and pre >in this case, *not* CEL and PRE since what you get for the ORE is only >slightly more bleed. Not worth it (to include Masters or it that is) >and the high cap vamps will have PRE anyway. No, what you get for the PRE is valuable pool gain, both off the vampires and off the Legal Manipulations. Do you read? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > People in my group don't play much of real pure stealth and bleed, > > because it's so friggin' boring and quite lame and IF they do they get > > quite gangbanged after the first game (if hey won). > > These are social considerations, and while I like the social aspect of > VTES and love table politics, I don't think that social bullying should > be part of the rules. Agreed. Especially since the Malky player is probably not some hyper-experienced skilled player with some huge card collection. More likely, it is some poor newby who is delighted to find that he/she can actually make a competitive deck with his/her small collection of mostly commons. If you want to teach such folks the error of their ways, then the correct approach is to find ways of defeating their decks. That way, you both learn something, and new players are not turned into social targets just for being smart and learning how to win. -- John Whelan

Accidentally hit "send" on the post before I was finished. Grrr. Picking up where I left off in previous message. On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:01:59 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >I know quite well what to ask myself when I make a deck. Go CEL and pre Obviously not, since you keep claiming in the other thread that "Vote defense" means having to know what type of vote deck is coming at you. >in this case, *not* CEL and PRE since what you get for the ORE is only >slightly more bleed. Not worth it (to include Masters or it that is) >and the high cap vamps will have PRE anyway. ...what high cap vamps? There's nobody in there bigger than a 6, and most of them are 5's. Just as a casual FYI, by the way, there IS no 3 or 4-cap with pre/CEL, and I wished to avoid putting both Presence AND Celerity skill cards in the deck, since that leads to madness. >and Scorp Stong there will be only 4 of with CL so you tend to dodge >more than S:CE in a celerity Tor deck. This is an NL deck, in case you missed it. Learn to READ, boy. However, 4 Scorpion Stings will get your vampire dead just as badly as 8 will, so you damn well better have something to deal with it. >> Turns out that to feel confident that you can survive other players' >> combat, you need both Dodge and S:CE. You could include Majesty and >> Sideslip, and either risk having the wrong one when you need it most, >> or having too many of both. Or you could include Staredown, which >> provides you both options in one card slot, and a few Presence skill >> cards for the guys who only have pre/CEL. That would work pretty >> well. >> >> This would be a good "first incarnation" of such a deck: (deck snipped) >So if you use PE you can skip the 4 skill cards (and add one celerity >if you really want) or you can skip 3 of the presence one. In any case, >there's slots to save here. Yes, and I can also kiss some of my pool gain goodbye. It is not important to "save slots" - I am 8 cards under the 90-card limit. I have no idea why you keep trying seize on this, other than you're just being deliberately obtuse, or maybe you realize you've been proven wrong and have no recourse. >> So tell me, is this deck broken or boring? It violates your 4CL in 8 >> different places. But it also makes use of a card that you previously >> didn't consider very useful at all, > >I didn't say it wasn't useful at all, I'd not have 4 of it in that >case. I jsut think you appreciate it MORE with CL. The fact you had >only one Staredown doesn't make a bell ring?? Yeah, it means I got unlucky when I bought my Sabbat, since Staredown is a common, according to you. Actually... I don't know if I'd say "unlucky", as I don't even use S:CE that often, much less a wack version of it like this. I notice you won't step up to the plate and call the deck boring, either. I figured you wouldn't, even though you claim that NL makes for boring decks. At least I got an amusing new idea out of proving you wrong. >> How many rares does it have, I wonder? Hmm. Well, it has 6 Psyche, >> and 4 Taste of Vitae, although the Tastes probably aren't all THAT >> necessary since your vamps won't be losing much blood. Damn, this >> looks like a deck full of commons and uncommons to me... and it also >> looks like it might be fairly effective, if it doesn't run into >> trouble equipping the guns. Even only one gun wouldn't be bad. It >> also looks a bit light on intercept, but one deck can't do everything. >> Might be worth it to rip out the Taste of Vitae and use 4 Sport Bikes >> instead. > >I assume you have quite many cards (at least more than any of my >players have except maybe one) and yet you had one Staredown. So how >are all my people going to get it? And 8 each??? How is this relevant? I am pointing out that your DELUSION that NL decks rely on tons of power-rares is, in fact, DELUSIONAL. Staredown, according to you, is a common. It probably is - it seems like it SHOULD be a common. So your claim that NL means lots of rare cards in a deck is also disproven. We're definitely getting somewhere here! Excellent. >> Which means more luck - if you happen to have a Staredown in hand when >> you really need a Majesty, you are just as screwed as if you had a >> Sideslip. It makes for inferior deck-building skills since you know >> you and everyone else will largely be relying on luck. > >It could be said the same for your deck, in fact there will ALWAYS be >occassions when you're Screwed. If the guy plays IG no Staredowns in >the world will help you. So does that make your deck-building inferior? >I guess it does. I doubt all that many IG decks are going to catch me at close range, since I have 8 maneuver cards in the deck and a built-in maneuver from the guns every combat. Not to mention that the Spirit's Touch cards ALSO provide a maneuver, if necessary. Sure, he might kill one vampire, but I'll bet I also get to kill at least one of his while he tries to chase after me. Obviously, if someone rushes a vampire of mine and it doesn't have a gun already, it can't use the maneuvers. But these things happen. If I Rush an IG deck, I will have a maneuver from the Rush action, a maneuver from the gun, and a maneuver from Flash or Pursuit. It will not catch me at close range. Is this a flaw in the IG deck? No, just circumstances. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one > > is > > > useless! > > > > Unless you use it as the basis for a Goodnight Sweet Prince/Possession > > deck, where you Goodnight Sweet Prince your own crypt and then using > > superior necromancy, pull the vampire into your ready region for free. > > Hmm that was a new one =) I never thought about using it on your own > ccrypt. It does make some strange deck though, requiring ravnos with > necromancy and then mix in some camarilla princes...not sure it's worth > that heh. But ok, it could be fun to try out =P an alternate deck that is out there involves GSP, Anson, and clan inpersenation... oh, with ravnos acceptance, of course. May have necromancy as well, can't recall. Looked fun to play. The Lasombra probably has a link to it somewhere on his site: http://www.members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/ INHO Dark Sov./AH made to many of their locations burnable as D actions. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > Better yet to do something about this when planning the pack-out for > the new sets. It should be a golden rule in any CCG that the rares > should be unique and the uniques should be rare. This has not been > the case in VTES where there are many common vampires and unique > master cards which are just waste paper. These should have been cards > like Taste of Vitae. I'm not sure you fully appreciate how well thought out the rarity system is. While they may have made a goof on a card here or there, the Jyhad designers put alot more thought into this than you seem to have. Uniqueness is indeed one of the factors that is used to determine rarity. There is only one common Unique card, and that is The Barrens -- a card ideally suited for making beginning decks more playable. All other uniques are uncommons, rares, or double-frequency rares (no double-frequency uncommons). Another factor used to determine rarity is clan-specific requirements (or other requirement). Clearly, cards that are only usable by one specific clan will not see play as often, or in as many decks, as a card that any clan can use. So it makes sense that they be more rare. Again, we see that this is the case: There are no common clan-specific cards ... all are either uncommon or rare. Among cards that are both unique AND clan-specific, all are either rares or double-frequency rares. The only exceptions to this are the Hunting Grounds Cards, and, I think, one other Uncommon per clan, which once again were seen as cards that beginning players would find useful. (HG's are also not *as* clan specific as many other cards, as once it is in play, any vamp can use it -- even if a beginning player has only 3 or 4 Nossies in his crypt, a HG card is still likely to be useful.) With a few exceptions, we see this principle applied throught the set: political cards that require a prince or justicar tend to be less common than ones that anyone can call, for instance. Another principle, which is kind of similar, is that cards that only work well as part of combos do not need to be as common as cards that work well on their own. Clearly, if card A works great by itself, but Card B only works well in combination with card A, then you do not need to have as many B's as you do A's. Some decks will have A by itself, and even a deck that uses them in combination, if it is well designed, will have somewhat more A's than B's. Perfect example is would be Undead Strengh as opposed to Growing Fury. Thrown Gate is a common, since it can be used to good effect in any combat. Well-Aimed Car, however, can only be used from long range on the second round of combat (requiring both a press and a manuever). Therefore it is uncommon. Example 2: Torn Signpost is Uncommon, and can be used to good effect in any combat. Fists of Death is clearly worse than Torn Signpost, because it costs a blood. Its advantage is that it is cumulative. Thus, it does not make sense to play Fists of Death unless you play Torn Signpost first. It makes perfect sense, then, for Fists of Death to be rarer than Torn Signpost (though in this case they ought to have been more common than they are, since they are clearly more usable than, say, Growing Fury or Well-Aimed Car; part of the problem is that they became more useful than originally intended due to the V:tES rules changes; another part is that press combat did not assume the importance intended for it due to its inability to compete with S:CE, and second-round specialty cards like Growing Fury thereby became wallpaper). I'm not sure what your point is regarding "common vampires". All vampires, of course, are equally common (approximately the same frequency as an "Uncommon"), and if you have an unusual sized heap of some vampire you regard as particularly useless, that is simply a result of random luck. Vampires, of course, are the very basis of play in Jyhad, and the designers needed to ensure that the beginning player would have enough of them to get started. The inevitable result is that players with large collections end up with a few too many of each. The situation, however, is a big improvement over that of Land Cards, which serve as the basis of play in M:tG -- you don't see Vampire player throwing out crypt cards by the truckload. The problem with Taste of Vitae is merely that it turned out to be far more useful and in demand than the game designers anticipated or intended. The designers probably thought of it as a disciplineless, inferior variant of a Tremere's "steal blood" effects, when actually it can be far more effective, because, unlike the latter, it can be combined with damage dealing strikes. In the minds of designers it was probably intended to be no more useful than Amaranth (also a disciplineless, uncommon, combat card). And how many folks complain that they don't have enough of them? -- John Whelan

> > > > OK. I agree that it is an important issue. As the only card game > > without an official card limit (as far as I am aware), V:TES has a > > unique place in the CCG world. People are correct to ask: can this > > game really work without a card limit? Even "cantila" agrees that > > the NCL game is at least functional; he/she just doesn't like it. > > > wow I'm impressed someone managed to realise this finally. All I've > been talking about all the itme is that I think CL is justified in my > play group and even if it's not, if people have nothing agaisnt it it > still doesn't hurt. Once someone says that they'd like to try out a > deck with 15 Cryptic Missions and complains they cannot do so, then we > can actually say someone is hampered here. This hasn't been the case > yet. No one in your ENTIRE PLAYGROUP has EVER wanted to run a deck with more than 4 of a card???? Wow! That is A-mazing! As you have said before, "Oh, why don't I believe you." > And if people wantot go with NCL then I'd not be agains tit. Thing > is, with CL card collecting becomes so much easier, and the games are > longer (= more fun) If I were being stretched on the rack, I wouldn't think longer = more fun. This is the philosophy of a mind with very little experience. I am almost willing to DARE your entire playgroup to play with NCL for six months. Would you then tell me that NCL is inferior to xCL? I bet you all would switch! And, eventually, you'll have most of the cards you would want for most of the decks you would want to put together. It has taken some of the senior members of this newsgroup (of which I am not one) literally YEARS to be able to put together some "perfect" decks. What did they do in the meantime, since they didn't have all the uncommons and/or rares they felt they needed AND they were in a NCL environment? Easy. They played different decks. With the cards they had. Decks that work. Decks that are focused. Decks that win. In a NCL envronment. > and slightly more random, giving everyone a chance, > even those that aren't as good palyers (and now I don't talk about > cards, I'm talking about skill). It would be quite boring for the > newbies to always lose (becuase they lack the skill to win). They lose > often still, but they have a better chance as it is now (because of > many factors, where randomness is one). I don't want everyone to have an equal chance, and I certainly don't want to impose a Mr. Rodgers make-believe arbitrary sanction upon the game. You can take the trolley every time your playgroup sits down to play if you want to. <ching! ching!> I'd rather play it the way it was intended to be played. I want the chances of doing well to be determined by several factors, being a newbie as only one of them. > You can be agaisnt it all you want, Almost all of us are. Even newbies like me. I was raised to know better. > but I've won enough of games to feel that "I have to win and it > comes before having fun or letting my other players have fun". Also if > the best players wins all the time Literally, statistically impossible. > the new ones will get bored because > they feel they need more cards (even commons they'd need more, and > borrowing from me aint possible because I would need ot use them myself > if CL was lifted). I lost more than I won when I first started playing. My friends in the group, some of the builders of this newsgroup even (lucky me!), showed me what I was doing right and wrong, and why, and how to improve, etc, etc. They slapped me around when I needed it and gave me a pat on the back when I luckily or skillfully ousted someone. The only time I am bored playing Jyhad is when someone is taking waaaaay too long on their turns and it is painfully obvious. > > As people who have been on this newsgroup for years and have had > > this discussion repeatedly, we know why a lot of people are (for lack > > of a better word are "afraid" of playing with NCL. "Cantila" is afraid > > that NCL makes for > > (a) overly powerful decks, > > (b) less interesting decks, and > > (c) less fun overall. > > (d) makes card collecting cheaper and easier (even commons costs > money and frankly I don't have more than 10 of ANY card if you don't > count the cards that exists both for Sabbat and VTES, like Flash. And > the one I got 10 of is Corruption actually and because I actively have > been trading to get them all). Wait wait wait. You wouldn't or can't spend, say, $120 US, once a year, to buy 2 *BOXES* of DS/AH, or <$100 US to buy *FOUR BOXES* of Jyhad? Maybe you EUers ARE as bad off as my former-European friends tell me. j/k j/k jeez :) > (e) Games probably lasts longer. Of course I'm gonna hear people say > it's not true, simply because you know there's no sure way to prove it. > But what you say won't change the facts. And I believe them to be that > they do last longer. It wa sonly a couple of weeks ago I saw a thread > where people here said tournament games are generally veyr fast. Well > ours aren't. And the slowness of your tourneys is a UNIVERSALLY good thing? EVERY TIME??? If you *averaged*, say, only 10-20 minutes less each game you played, would you be more interested in NCL? 30-40? 40-60? > > > > We can only assure him/her that > > > > (a) while NCL decks are generally more consistent, NCL tournaments are > > _not_ dominated by one or two deck types, > > (b) many people would argue that since many interesting decks are > > impossible under CL (IG rush, Cryptic Missons, some Gangrel and > Tremere > > decks), NCL provides for more interesting decks overall, and > > "consistent" does not equal "boring" > > No it doesn't but unfortunately many times it does. Those are generally > the same peole who like a pure Malk S&B deck. > > , and > > (c) we are having just as much fun as you are. > > > > I will close by mentioning again that I used to play 4CL, then > switched > > and was glad I did. So I _do_ understand the arguments. > > > > To "cantila" I would only suggest that you misunderstand a lot about > the > > NCL environment. Few decks have 20+ of any cards. > > No I didn't think so either actually. I've sene many examples of decks > on the net to know it's not true. But 8 of a kind is certianly not > uncommon. And make 5 cards with 8 each and you got half of the deck... Why not just freaking try the deck with 5 cards? Eventually, you'll get the 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 you want. Necessity is the mother of invention. In your group, in a xCL group, there must necessarily be less invention. You're OK with this? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, cantila wrote: > In article <q6hirs821i751rj2u...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > This is why you need some more experience building decks, something > > that NCL would provide you. You are totally missing the point. > > Don't tell me I need more experience building decks, I've played the > game for 6 years. These debates always go downhill at points like this. Without trying to insult you, I must say that, whatever your deckbuilding experience, it is clearly of a different sort or style than that of myself or Derek, and that you are too quick to dismiss the potential of cards whose usefulness is not *immediately* obvious. > Read above, I think YOU need more experience if you > don't see my point. Jus thte fact that you just now "realised" that > Staredown is useful smells. Not to me it doesn't. I have won tournaments by finding uses for cards that nobody else "realized" was useful. I suspect that this is the sort of "experience" that you have not had, judging by your attitude and comments. > Obviously you've been doing well without > the card all the time since you've only got one and not btohered to get > more. They're commons so not that hard to get by for a devoted player > like us. There are countless cards in my collection whose potential I have not even come close to fully investigating. Staredown did not leap out at me as having enormous potential at first glance, but I'm a Nossie specialist, so I did not give it too much thought. I have 6 staredowns by the way, so if your argument applies to Derek, if applies to me times 6. Had it been an Obfuscate card, I'm sure I would have examined it six ways to sunday and thought of a dozen ideas on how to put it to best use in a deck. My experience in those areas I have given most effort to shows me that even a second glance, or a third glance, or a week of deep thought are often not fully sufficient to uncover the full potential of cards. All S:CE cards are powerful, however. > As I said, go for Preternatural Evasion. > Going Staredown instead of PE will save you a blood for the occassion > you choose to use S:CE. Let's say you do half the time (u're likely to > use it less than half the time) which would be 4 times. That's 4 blood. > Now by going Staredown you need to get PRE on the vamp, so you need to > throw in some extra Masters, and you're talking about saving spots in > your deck here... > Also you gae an example of Staredown+Blur. Corrct me if I'm wrong, but > doesn't that speak agaisnt the fact you didn't want to be dependant on > 2 disciplines?? With PE you need only CEL and that's it. It's worht the > blood cost for sure because you'll be able to use it on all your vamps, > while Staredown you need to add so you get PRE on the vamps. I'm not sure what your point is here. S:CE is a very powerful effect, so even if some versions ARE objectively somewhat less useful than others, there is an advantage (under 4CL) to card lords who posess 4 of them all. But I do not believe that Staredown is objectively less useful, even under NCL. It depends on the type of deck you are making. Lets imagine, for instance, that the vampires in my crypt have mostly "cel PRE" (Mariana Gilbert being the youngest example). For these vamps, Staredown is superior to any Celerity dodge out their, because unlike ANY of those dodges it also offers a choice of S:CE. Mariana cannot use the superior version of celerity dodge cards, because she does not have superior celerity. None of those dodges will be as useful to her as staredown. Of course Staredown is clearly better than Preternatural Evasion even is she has CEL. PE is better only if your crypt focus is on CEL rather than pre. However, even a combat deck might want PRE if it also relies on voting. Depends on the deck you are making. If I have PRE, then Majesty is clearly the better choice for ending combat, if that is what my strategy is. However, if I have a Ghoul Retainer and a Flamethrower, I might prefer to dodge -- with an S:CE as a lifesaving alternative in situations where I have reason to believe that I'm about to get seriously hurt. Of course, I am unsure as to what specific sort of deck you have in mind, but can we get too specific in this kind of argument? Surely your argument depends on showing that Staredown is a much worse card in a far more general sense -- to the point where it is a much better choice than majesty in almost all situations. -- John Whelan

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > With Cryptic Mission you can't run a vamp out of blood if its cap is > over 4 with only four in the deck. > > So why can't you have more than 4 of those? In all fairness, I must say that I do understand his logic. Cryptic Missions *do* have a game-relevant effect, even if you play only one of them. They cause an opponent to lose blood or life, and the superior version gains you a blood as well. It's alot better than hunting! Corruption, however, clearly has no benefit unless the benefit is cumulative. A single Corruption action is a TOTAL waste, unless you corrupt a Caitiff. The card is clearly designed to be cumulative, in a way that does not apply to other cards. The distinction he is drawing between corruption and other cards makes sense to me. CL still sucks, though -- John Whelan

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 01:16:09 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Please, if you're not going to read what I'm saying, don't attempt to >respond. You just look like a damned idiot... <and much more in the same vein> I may not have much experience of VTES but I'm a veteran of Usenet debates and can tell from the torrent of abuse, ad homs and willy-waving that Cantila is winning the argument. As his first language presumably isn't English, I'm impressed. The unpleasantness of some folk here makes me reluctant to play with them - the game is vicious enough as it is. I've heard that the 7th Sea tournament scene is spoilt by a significant number of assholes and an incident I saw in the B5 final at Gencon UK looked off-putting too. Is VTES the same or is this the usual distorting effect of online discourse? And I'm still waiting to hear why two players dropped from the US championship final. Any connection? Andrew

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:23:40 -0400, John Whelan wrote: >Uniqueness is indeed one of the factors that is used to determine rarity. Good. >There is only one common Unique card, and that is The Barrens Why all the comments about Oxford U then - I also seem to have far more than I can use. >I'm not sure what your point is regarding "common vampires". All >vampires, of course, are equally common News to me - I thought that they came with different rarities. Just checking my Ventrue, I see that I have 3-9 of most of them. Why would I only have one copy of Luccia Paciola then? I've seen some discussion of raritities here and it seems more complex than for most CCG. Is there a checklist with accurate rarities online? Andrew

In article <8p9ifd$8on$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > In article <8p9e7j$3vg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire > > your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you, > > by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your > > addy. > > Hmm how can you admire my speedo connection if you don't know how fast > it is? ;) (it IS fast though, 10Mbit Ethernet). Because of the speed of your replies and the volume of your posts. > > And no, sorry to disappoint you but luth doesn't stand for what you > think. I'm by no means a theologist (I'm an atheist, Scandinavia tends > to have more of them and any other region I know of). the campus in my > DNS should give you a hint I'ma student ;-) luth stands for Luleå > Tekniska Högskola, or Luleå University of Technolgy as it's in English. > But to make it even more complicated, I'm not a technician, I'm doing > my 5th year Legal Science and I DO claim my right to play with CL if I > so have to go to court with it ;-) A LAWYER. *nods sagely* As Shakespeare so very movingly put it, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". > > Ok so now when you know my life history let's move on :P > > > > > > > I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided > > an > > > answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL > mainly > > > exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation > fo > > > Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single > > > specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the > > *exact* > > > same effect. > > > > > Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8 > > weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP > idea > > but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a > > tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be > > contradicted! > > > > On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't > > understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one > > card. > > No but the reason the deck is called ToGP is that that specific cards > plays the major role of the deck. No ToGP - no taking control of > vampires, which is what the deck is about. I by no means claim it's a > SIMPLE strategy, I never have. I just say it's a POWERFUL one, too > powerful if you ask me. And I suspect it's extremely boring and > frustrating to be faced by it after a couple of times. Of course one > fun thing could be to devote a deck just to counter it, which could be > fun, but in the long run it's really isn't. > That's a different argument which has nothing to do with card-limits. It IS arguable that ToGP and LoP are overly-powerful cards. You won't find either Rob or me arguing against that point, though in fact most people [except Rob and me] in our group think ToGP is OK balance-wise and that LoP probably ought to be either unique or burnable as an action. i do, however, think you ought to consider whether the right response to a troublesome deck is to seek the banning or limiting of that deck's key cards. Don't you think it might be more interesting to try to devise a deck that can survive it AND continue to be competitive generally? > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when > > the > > > deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure > > > though)!!? > > > > > [a] it didn't sweep last year [Rob and Barney tied for first on VP, > Rob > > won on TP, i was third overall] [b] Rob's a dam' fine player, not only > > technically but also psychologically, [c] i wanted second prize this > > year because it was signed Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both > > Sheldon and Ron SPencer. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing. > > > > >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the > > LoP > > > > >deck, > > > > Flatly contradict that. You weren't there. i was. i am right. You are > > wrong. > > > > <snip> > > > Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no > decks > > > ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of > > > Greater Power deck then? > > > Is that a BAD deck??? > > > > A good temptation deck has at most 7-8 of any one card. Trust me on > > this, or not, it doesn't matter. > > It's still well above 4. The idea of CL is also not to completely > destroy a tactic (at least not on purpose), you could play with 4 ToGP > and still probably do quite good. Thing is, you won't at least ALWAYS > draw that ToGP early in thegame, wihch makes the game a bit less > predictale and more fun. > Well no, sorry it won't. Unless everyone is playing with a limited card-pool, everyone will be sitting around wondering breathlessly whether the malky stealth-bleeder or the weenie presence tap/bleed deck is going to win tonight. And i'll be playing Netrunner. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using > 10 > > > > >Legacy of Pander. > > > > > > It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing. > > As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself. > > > > > CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem > to > > > be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some > > > diversity :) > > > > > Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm > > afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the > > other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too > > shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and > > understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and > > the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy > > Families. > > Please bring her on to the forum ;-) > > Also as I've stated already, I'd not mind playing games with NCL in > tournaments with you guys if I ever got an opportunity to. I just liek > CL better and it's the best solution under the current circumstances > where there's no cards to buy. > i think this is too defeatist. There ARE good ways to build competitive non-redundant decks using commons and uncommons plus a few rares for surprise value - that is what Happy Families is about. > > > > > Playing > > > > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., > > gives > > > > you a good chance against many vote decks. > > > > > > Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey > with > > > such a deck :) > > > > > Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A > > well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in > > favour of a table-vote deck. > > You know DI is extremely rare and I'm the onyl one having it (and I > paid $8 for it, who said you needn't be rich? ;-)). DT I don't know > what it stands for, so please enlight me. Delaying Tactics - Uncommon [i think] from the basic set and VTES. > > I once again ask you to keep in mind that CL is best for us in our > gaming environment. You keep assuming we have this and that card when > we don't. The whole point of CL here is that players here hardly have > any Sabbat and AH cards. Two sets that has some really great cards. > You can compete in this environment with Jyhad only cards. i tried this out in May or maybe June down here against all the UK monsters. Got to the final just fine, and i think my deck was probably 6CL legal. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I > > > find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues > > and > > > all. > > > > This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a > > theologian. > > Hey gimem that prize back! :) Theologian, lawyer, it's all the same. There were LOTS of vote decks. ALL the decks in the final were vote decks. For complex reasons the LoP got going in the final while we didn't. > > > <snip vast amount of stuff> > > > > Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm > happy > > that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going > > since the early days. > > I'm glad too, and even more glad if CL helps us to make the newbies > happy and conitnue to play this wonderful game. > > Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew > > "Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however, > share > > your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance > > of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and > > commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath > before > > digging yourself any further into the mire here. > > I didn't ask to get jumped on in the first place. All I want is to play > the game I like and take part of interesting ideas on this forum. I'd > never critisize anyone for using homesrules and frankly I don't see why > you do that on me. > > I made a post where I explained a houserule we had on Werewolf Pack and > nobody complained about that one. Our houserule doesn't follow how the > card was intended to be, yet no complaints? So why this fuzz about CL? > It's not like you guys ever will suffer from it. Your werewolf pack houserule is a nice idea. It's a way of taking a basically-useless card and making it useful. Nobody's criticising that because we think it's a smart notion. A house-rule of CL is having COMPLETELY the opposite effect, we think - it is stultifying your deck-design and wallpapering a load of cards that are really quite good. It's our cards, our > games, our fun, that YOU are trying to change, with no rights. No debate there - they ARE your cards and you can do WHATEVER you like with them. You are also entitled to listen to Rap music, over-cook your beefsteak and put tabasco sauce on your oysters, but you would be mistaken to do so unless you've tried the alternatives and REALLY don't like them. The difference between us [it seems to me] is that we think NL VTES/jyhad is just simply a better game than any possible CL version, and our criticism is meant to INCREASE your enjoyment of the game, not decrease it. Legbiter, Advocate of Raw Oysters, Rare beefsteak, NL VTES and Bareback Sex [first of three repeat-sigs to buffer message tailing]. Legbiter, Advocate of Raw Oysters, Rare beefsteak, NL VTES and Bareback Sex. Legbiter, Advocate of Ra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000909...@amanda.dorsai.org>, [ quoted text not captured ] Why shouldn't a solid Corruption-strategy be wallpapered just like a solid Cryptic Mission strategy. Corruption is far more powerful in game terms. So why can I play a deck that has 40 Corruptions in it and not on that has 40 Cryptic Missions. The Corruption deck is much scarier. BTW, I have seen decks posted that have that many Corruptions. I is not that the card is useless but rather that it hoses a whole strategy if you limit a card to 4 per deck. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 14:39:03 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 01:16:09 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Please, if you're not going to read what I'm saying, don't attempt to >>respond. You just look like a damned idiot... <and much more in the same vein> > >I may not have much experience of VTES but I'm a veteran of Usenet >debates and can tell from the torrent of abuse, ad homs and >willy-waving that Cantila is winning the argument. As his first >language presumably isn't English, I'm impressed. Actually, he's totally ignoring everything I'm saying, putting words in my mouth, and telling me what I'm thinking, which is usually the first thing that gets me VERY ticked off. It's the USENET equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalala", which you should be well aware of. If this is "winning", then I prefer to lose. >The unpleasantness of some folk here makes me reluctant to play with >them - the game is vicious enough as it is. I've heard that the 7th >Sea tournament scene is spoilt by a significant number of assholes and >an incident I saw in the B5 final at Gencon UK looked off-putting too. >Is VTES the same or is this the usual distorting effect of online >discourse? *shrug* I'll leave it up to others to explain what I'm like in person, but so far i'm told it's a positive improvement. ;) In general, V:TES players are much more pleasant in person, however, and I can't recall when ANY tournament I've been at had any significant asshole-ness. The one incident I know of involves a person known only as "Mr. Suitcase", who apparently spent most of his time attempting to cheat as well - and you'll get one of him in every game. =) >And I'm still waiting to hear why two players dropped from the US >championship final. Any connection? Beats me. I warn't there. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Legbiter, Advocate of Raw Oysters, Rare beefsteak, NL VTES and Bareback Have you tried Louisiana Hot Sauce or Louisiana Gold Pepper Sauce on your raw oysters as an alternative to Ta-blast-o. <shameless plug> Eat more Louisiana Stuff! Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:42:44 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > >> >> Legbiter, Advocate of Raw Oysters, Rare beefsteak, NL VTES and >Bareback > >Have you tried Louisiana Hot Sauce or Louisiana Gold Pepper Sauce on >your raw oysters as an alternative to Ta-blast-o. No, no, no. Oysters with a touch of lemon juice and Guinness. Sprinkle the oysters with lemon juice. Pick one up, scrape it off and give it a good chew. Then take a large belt of Guinness immediately after swallowing. Mmmmmmmmmmm. Excellent. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hqkrscqpru56rq29...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:42:44 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> Legbiter, Advocate of Raw Oysters, Rare beefsteak, NL VTES and > >Bareback > > > >Have you tried Louisiana Hot Sauce or Louisiana Gold Pepper Sauce on > >your raw oysters as an alternative to Ta-blast-o. Spookily enough i bought some of that today in the supermarket. i'll try it, on the grounds that [from personal experience] you Southr'n guys and gals sho do know how to cook, especially breakfast and seafood. > > No, no, no. Oysters with a touch of lemon juice and Guinness. > > Sprinkle the oysters with lemon juice. Pick one up, scrape it off and > give it a good chew. Then take a large belt of Guinness immediately > after swallowing. Mmmmmmmmmmm. Excellent. =) i'm SOOO in agreement with this. Hoegaarden [a Belgian White beer, and thanks to Phillipe Richer for the heads-up on this one] is a decent occasional alternative to Guinness. Champagne IME is not, because it puts the Brides of Legbiter into a bad mood. In the American Bar where we usually eat oysters you sometimes get a little vinegar-and-onion pickle as well as lemon juice for your bivalves. That's good too, and so is just Oyster au naturel. > > -- Derek > > "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > - C. Darwin, [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <o99irs8poi97qu137...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes > The concept of owning 60 Taste of Vitae is totally >foreign to me, and given the current "rare" distribution, would force >me to buy a ridiculous number of cards. Indeed. And 12 per deck seems a little excessive anyway. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

In article <4FB6EB438DDC081D.9FE08392...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >It should be a golden rule in any CCG that the rares >should be unique and the uniques should be rare. No it's not. It most certainly has never been a "golden rule" in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <BC19377A1824211D.A932EF02...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Just >checking my Ventrue, I see that I have 3-9 of most of them. Why would >I only have one copy of Luccia Paciola then? You do not understand how probabilities work. <HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS ALERT> Card X is set up with a specific distribution probability. It turns up in 1 out of every 3 starters so, for most people, you buy have a dozen starters, you'll probably get one. However, is it possible for me to buy starters and not get one? Yes, it is. I could buy that one and that one and that one, and not get a Card X - simply by picking the starters which don't have them. One might equally ask, given your numbers, why do you have 9 of some and 3 of another? You don't complain about that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9epf$4la$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes >Rush is the >counter to Stealth/Bleed. Rush is /a/ counter to Stealth/Bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8p9grk$6pl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >With NCL this card is certainly bad yes, a reason to not use NCL since >it limits your defence to only be deflects. Crap and utter unsubstantiated tosh. There are plenty of other ways to defend against stealth bleed using Elder Impersonation. That you cannot think of any does not mean that they do not exist. Under NL, people can and do defend against Elder Impersonation based stealth-decks. If they didn't, every deck out there would be Elder Impersonation stealth, or deflect. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pbfcr$fau$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes >So a 4 cl actually helps you, because you could play a better stealth >than someone else who doesn't have access to Elder Impersonation. The >other players, who under a NCL could play a deck with more than 4 Cloak >the Gathering, now can only play with 4 Cloaks but you can play with the > same 4 cloaks they can plus your 4 Elder Impersonation cards in >addition to any other stealth cards that they have. Indeed. I've noted several times that the xCL is substantially achieving an advantage for Cantilla over the rest of the playgroup. Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise for the interested student. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Tp6u5.156$QB6....@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes >James Coupe wrote (in response to Cantila) >> >Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es ! >> >Ventrue. >> >> So now bleed bounce is only playable by !Ventrue. Yay! > >And the Tremere, you evil evil bastard. :) I do it specifically to annoy you, Xian dearest. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pavhi$rgd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- 6...@student.luth.se> writes >In article <vtuITuBx...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In article <8p9aau$vba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- >> 6...@student.luth.se> writes >> >> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections. >> > >> >And My Enemy's Enemy >> >> Which doesn't bounce it the way you want. > >OMG talk about being picky. If it saves me from being ousted that's >pretty much worth it. "Picky". Perhaps you mean I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument? >> >> 9 times out of 10, a bounce will go to my prey, not my grand- >predator. >> >There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or >> >use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare >> >card). >> >> Protected Resources is not *quite* rare. It is, as stated, >ridiculously >> rare. > >If half of my playgroup have on it's not redicilously rare here. The word "here" is not relevant to a defence of xCL. Probabilities and luck of the draw (when buying boosters) can be startling bizarre things. >> >> >As I said before, Elysium has the same effect, >> >> It has the same effect as itself, not as S:CE. Since you get in >position >> to hit, S:CE causes you to waste cards. You won't waste cards setting >> range etc. if Elysium is tapped. > >But he wasted a Bum's Rush and an action. That does not mean that Elysium is the same as S:CE. The end effect - a wasted rush action - is achieved via a *very* different mechanism. If you rush me and I play Skin of Rock, stopping your Gangrel strike of Scorpion Sting and Claws, that doesn't make Skin of Rock the same effect as S:CE. >If he knows Elysium is up >he's not gonna bother attacking me before he knows a way to get around >it, Rushing twice is a useful one because, you know, S:CE isn't the same as Elysium. Elysium is one shot per turn. Oh no. Sorry. Under xCL he wouldn't be able to draw the rush cards he needs consistently, so you turn a balanced card like Elysium into a far more powerful card. Oh yes, how silly of me. >this it saves me a lot of trouble till he can. Which still does not make it the same as S:CE, a point which you have failed to refute. >S:CE is not suppsoed to be and-end-to-all-troubles card, I know you >guys like it when one card solves everything How do you "know" that? You really are talking ill-informed, ill- thought out, uneducated crap. >and makes you not have to >have more than a few different cards to come up with a good strategy, >but that's ot how we prefer to have it. If you preferred giving people paper cuts with Jyhad cards, would you advocate that too? And you have yet to address the fact that NL does not require, force or need you to play with a few different cards, in any way *at all*. It *allows* you to, it does not require. >> If you think Elysium has the same effect as S:CE, You Are Wrong. >> > Someone turns up and plays against you with ToGP. > >Who would that be?? And I was being picky above, apparently. Do you train to rant in such an infantile fashion, or does it come naturally? Imagine that one of your friends has squirreled away the cards for ToGP without telling *anyone*. And then turns up with a deck using them. >In 6 years nobody has ever "turn up" who didn't >belong to the 25 people I've mentioned before. People here don't travel >very far to get to play VTES and even if someone showed up for a day of >playing, then that's certainly not a reason to lift CL forever. This is >getting so redicilous. People are having a discussion and an argument. Your only defence thus far has been "my group", "my group", "my group", "my group". If that is your only defence, sod off and play with your group and never post here again, since you clearly don't give a fuck about the rest of the world. >> It is defeatable with mostly common card based decks. *notes that you didn't address this, at all* >> >> > While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk >> >about options here. >> >> You have many common options. *nor this point* >> >Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of >> >options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares >as >> >well. >> >> They give you more options, because they are other cards, with other >> options. But you can defend with common cards plenty well enough. > >And you defend with CL well enough against any strategy that follows >the CL too. Your S&B example etc doesn't cut it. We've never had real >trouble with it, if we had we'd changed our rules. We've never had any trouble with it != There is no trouble to be had with it. All it takes is a player to consistently play it in your group. What do you do? Gang up on him, creating social friction? Alter the rules specifically to kill *his* deck, creating social friction? Ah, what a wonderful play group you would have. >> >I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play >> >Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does. >> >> Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck, >> something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken >> environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at >> all. > >And you're supposed to be an experienced player?? Wow if what u're >saying is that you never do politics in your games then your games is >nothing I'd want to play. If you ever need to gang up on decks to deal with them, your environment is broken. Fact. That is not the same as politicking. > I saw one example before somewhere in this >long thread where I think Legbiter said that if someone goes for LoP >you could cooperate to bring him down. You could. As you could against any deck. You don't *need* to. > Isn't that the exact same thing >as ganging up on a S&B deck?? No. In your environment, you *need* to. >oh noo...wait..I forgot that same things >doesn't apply for you as it does for us because you're so almighty. >That's just the way things are huh? Confucius say: Man who no understand argument shouldn't argue with it. >You'd be a fool if you didn't try to prevent your opponents from >winning. Indeed. But you don't need to have all 4 players ganged up on the 5th to do that. >A S&B that is about to sweep the table is a threat Which is often caused by his predator and prey not being able to defend against him, because xCL stunts their defences. >and of >course u'd try get people gang up on him if you ever have the intention >of winning the game. But you being a white knight and all, of course >would have done nothing but let him win huh? All for the sake of being >honorable. Who said anything about "honor" before you introduced it? > >> >> If people aren't turning up with Malk S&B, you have no way to assert >> that xCL isn't broken. > >Oooh so we should play with NCL because it *might* be broken It *is* broken. Your players simply aren't intelligent enough to exploit it to win. >even when >it's never turned out to be so during 6 years of playing?? 6 years of playing in one group vs 6 years of playing in many groups and tournaments. Hmm... which is more statistically significant, boys and girls? Can we say "straw man"? >Come up with >something better pleeeease. The rest of us have been saying something similar to you. >I could say the same thig for you; "there >*might* be some strategy that you just haven't invented yet (based on >existing OR coming card), that *could* turn out to be overpowerful with >NCL, you just haven't discovered it yet, so you better get rid of that >NCL just in case!" NL works in a vastly different way. We don't stunt *all* cards for the sake of a few. We stunt the cards which are a problem, to allow the rest to carry on as before. That you do not understand this reveals that you have *no* idea what you're talking about. Learning to read might be a good option. >> >> >> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? >> > >> >This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup >> >doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive. >> >> You don't need to be a mind-reader to be competitive. > >Is that all you have to say? It is the truth. You do not have to be a mind-reader to be competitive. >You say you need to exploit holes but that >requires you to know what they'll be playing in first place. No it doesn't. That you believe this shows the floor in your ability to construct decks. Generic, flexible defences can be included which can be used against many common strategies. There are only about 5 or 6 common strategies anyway, the rest of the game bases round that. Bleed has many defences available against it, under NL. Vote has many defences available against it, under NL. Combat has many defences available against it, under NL. Huge blood gain has many defences available against it, under NL. Corruption has many defences available against it, under NL. Master card based scenarios have many defences available against it, under NL. >How can I >try exploit a hole in a deck that doesn't exist??? By being a thoughtful, skilful player, who puts time, thought, creativity and energy into deck construction. These are traits which appear to have passed you by, in favour of stopping people playing the deck they want. >I have to have a >deck to refer to, You do? And why do you need one? >how can I if I don't know what he'll be playing? Why do you need one? >Thus >I need to be a mind-reader, Untrue. >or the guy needs to play this deck at more >than one consecutive occassion Why? >and I also have to know that he intends >to do so. Why? >When we gather before gameplay we never tell each other what >decks we're going to play, because then they might throw in some cards >against it. Indeed. That's common under NL, except in a few situations - say, someone comes along and says that they want to try a specific new deck, and see how it stands up to combat, so would you mind terribly if we could have a practise session. >> >> >Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too, >> >although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have) >> >> Wrong. Mind Numb is perfectly balanced, as is Marijava Ghoul. > >Explain this further please. Mind Numb is balanced. It has an effect which costs an appropriate amount of blood, takes up the appropriate amount of space in your deck, has an appropriate opportunity cost, has an appropriate downside to playing it and so forth. That you think Mind Numb is broken shows just how laughable your arguments are. >I think that if you don't get intercepted, >being able to play some 10-15 Mind Numbs in a low cap presence deck is >damn powerful. Powerful when exploited in that fashion, yes. But let's say I'm playing a highly pro-active deck, where my vampires take a lot of actions. Your Mind Numbs become mostly useless to you, and start clogging your hand - because I don't have an untapped vampire for you to play them on. 15 of them will get in the way of drawing other cards. Problem solved. Or let's say I'm playing a politics deck. I Dramatic Upheaval myself out of the way, so I don't really care. I'm playing a rush intensive combat deck. Each turn, you bring out a couple of vampires. I rush them, they die. Problem solved. I'm playing an intercept deck. I block your actions. In a weenie presence deck situation, I don't need much more than 1 intercept, maybe 2 at most. Your actions don't come off, and then I send a vampire in with Fast Reaction to kill you. I play a lot of Wakes. The fact that you tap me doesn't bother me, since I have lots of Wakes in my defence. And Wake is useful against all sorts of decks. I play massive pool gain. Whatever your vampires do when you've tapped me, it doesn't bother me. I play a deck with other untaps available in it. Homunculus, Carrion Coffin, Masika, Rutor's Hand etc. The Homunculus is found in the wonderfully playable Out of Turn Malkavian rush deck. You can also see Masika and Madness Network turn up for Mad Masika' Harem, utilising untaps between turns, along with bleed, or Precognisant Mobility to get another vampire (perhaps one who is more expendable, or better prepared to bleed) to go for a bleed. My untaps allow me to do things that don't care about your Mind Numbs. I play one Guardian Angel in my deck, so I don't tap when blocking your vampires, or I could be basing a deck around Justine, Elder of Dallas. You're playing weenies, and so most likely want them to be expendable. Let's turn all of your two or three caps into three or four caps, by passing Masquerade Enforcement quickly, or I make Leandro ready quickly (Tomb, Info Highway etc.) and so make your transfers considerably more expensive. Or both. I've seen some fun ideas with a Leandro-Politics deck tried before. (It was teamed up with Necromancy, and so couldn't back itself up with stealth or unblockability properly, but the idea of Leandro Politics is a sound one. Just add Banishment.) I play a weenie deck. In any given turn, you can't draw enough cards to tap all my vampires successfully. My Malkavian deck has a Muddled Vampire Hunter in it, which provides an excellent way to go and pling your vampires, either torporising them, or wasting your combat defence. My Malkavian Antitribu deck finds Blessing of Chaos to fit onto a couple of vampires. So you tap that one over there, who cares? These two are fine, and they were my main vampires, since they had DEM. Your predator is playing a Corruption based deck. You keep finding that each turn, one of your vampires goes missing. I use Wakes against your actions, and then use Cats' Guidance to untap. Does it matter to me that I can't untap during my untap phase, when I'm untapped before hand anyway? Your predator is also attacking you with combat, against which your combat defence runs out. Your vampires need to gain blood somehow, else they can't play it, so I attack that as a point of weakness. I Arson your Palatial Estate, or your hunting ground. Since you're playing weenie presence, you also have the problem of supplying a clan to get them in the first place, which acts as a hindrance. If you're hunting to gain that blood back, I can block those actions. Your predator can also block them which, since he needs to oust you, is also in your interests. So you get battered from both sides, once people realise that the *hunt* action is quite vital. I've seen a lot of players dismiss blocking hunting actions to their detriment. They make a mistake, they lose out. But if they isolate the problem and attack there, they do well. You use something like Gird Minions to shift blood back on *to* your minions. So, you're generating pool gain in some other manner. I attack that - perhaps Suddenly Reversing your Short Term Investment. Maybe I decide that your Parthenon is more of a problem, allowing you to generate the pool more quickly - so I Arson that, Disputed Territory it, Suddenly Reverse it, Dominate Kine it. I find that a lot of people consider 2nd Tradition a very playable card. A lot of decks include it, so when you come to Mind Numb me, I play 2nd Tradition and Majesty against you, with your lack of stealth. I don't even need dedicated intercept for it. My Malkavian Antitribu deck throws a few Minds of Child over at you, causing your deck to stutter a little. I Graverob a few of your vampires. Weenies will sometimes hit torpor, and I just borrow a few of them over to my side. Your previous advantage over me of, let's say, 7 minions vs my 3 suddenly becomes 6 on 4, or 5 on 5. I play Hostile Takeover or ToGP against you. A few of your vampires go walk-about on the table, or you end up paying more for them. Either way, it disrupts your plans. Your Predator Mind Numbs you, and so causes you to be unable to reliably Mind Numb me. My Malkavian Antitribu play Kindred Spirits against you, allowing you to be ousted more quickly for the sake of my longevity. That I can get 4 VPs from the rest of table makes it worth giving my grand-predator one now. I see you play Mind Numb and decide that, each turn, I'll take an action with my most important vampire(s), solely to prevent you from doing anything to them with Mind Numb - which can't affect me if I'm tapped. So, you tap a couple of relatively insignificant vampires, and my other two carry on as before. My Setite deck throws a Temptation or three at you. You're playing weenie vampires, so it's not long before I start stealing them, and taking suicidal actions with them, removing as much blood as I can, or burning them, or being as detrimental to them as I possibly can, transferring any equipment and so forth off, or removing stuff from them with Heidelberg Castle. Weenie Presence vampires are quite popular. There's always the possibility that someone on the table will contest them, to your detriment (as well as theirs, probably). I throw Anarchist Uprising at you. You're playing weenies. All I've had to do is keep that one vampire tapped, so you can't do anything against them, and then I can try and pass a vote, which will do considerably more damage to you than me. Mind Numb taps my vampire, and they don't untap the next turn. So you can't play another one of them on me, so the following turn, it'll be free to act. Hmm... weenie Presence. There're a few Caitiff around with that, and my vote deck might have Tradition Upheld knocking around in it. If it doesn't, that's my fault. I call Ancient Influence. I gain pool, you lose pool. You do moderately well with Mind Numb, short term, and knock my pool down. So I Parity Shift your pool to me, or others. Do you want me to list some more? >Your prey won't be able to do nothing Rubbish. > anfd you can go on >bleeding with some presence cards. So you **might** get me this turn. Next turn, I turn round when my vampires untap. >> No, but if you cannot refute that xCL ends up revolving around luck >> *way* more so that NL, you lose a point in the argument. > >It's more luck yes, but a game shouldn't be too predicable. Put a die in the middle of the table. Every time you play a card, roll the die. If you get 5 or 6 on the die roll, your card goes into the ash-heap. Less predictable, so better, right? And half your problem comes from your inability to actually do things to other decks. If you put useful, workable, flexible defence in against tactics and strategies, rather than specific decks, no deck on the table is predictable. > We think >it's fun the extra luck invlved, If you want luck, play Snakes and Ladders. TCGs have a great deal more player skill involved in them, Jyhad very much so. > it doesn't change things at all as >mucha s you try to make ti seem. You clearly have no clue about what NL is. You cannot comment on how little CL changes the principles of NL, because you do not understand the principles of NL. >Obviously you haven't really tried out >CL then. And this is based on what, exactly? You do know that there are a number of strong NL advocates on the group who started off playing xCL, don't you? >> >while when I CL is too it's >> >suddenly "mindless blather". >> >> Because you were talking crap. > >Wow these well-founded arguments blow me away, you win, I have ntohing >to speak against that. Cool. Shut up and go home then? Promise? Playing against Legacy of Pander is an interesting challenge, which you singularly failed to be able to read. When your reading ability is up to snuff, I have a nice book for you. "See Spot run," it says. It might be a trifle difficult, I grant you. >> >> If I want that, I'd go play The X-Files card game, or maybe just toss >> coins like Guildenstern and Rosencratz. Or maybe snakes and >ladders. > >But you're not me, No, I'm not. We're arguing about xCL, not you. If you haven't figured that out.... >and nothing you say can prevent us from playing and >enjoying the game as WE want. No-one is trying to. However, many people are trying to point out the complete lack of logic and thought in your arguments. You are arguing that your game is better, because you don't understand what NL is about. >If that disturbs you, frankly that's your >problem, not ours. And if you get really annoying by this fact I think >you need to see a doctor, you take this game way too seriously then. So I'm not allowed to take Jyhad seriously. Why is this? >> >> >I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still >harder >> >to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting >> >titles can become an issue. >> >> You don't call that PS and call another one instead, because you have >> plenty on hand. *notes you can't argue about that* >> >Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a >> >hypothetical discussion. >> >> You oviously don't understand how the deck works then. >> >> If you think 15 Dread Gazes would be a hypothetical way to defend >> against Legacy of Pander, You Are Wrong. > >You're saying that 15 DG's in a deck won't prevent him from passing LoP >votes all the time?? I'm saying that it wouldn't be a way to defend against LoP. Why? Because your deck would be a bag of shit and just fall down anyway, with the slightest push. >> >> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made >> >> statements like "i haven't got time to read that." >> > >> >Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads?? >> >> You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis >> available. > >I read that page even before this thread started actually. Why are you repeating all the arguments that have been refuted there many times then? >The page is >seems written by pro-NCL and obviosuly the arguments written there >reflects that. There are arguments there in favour of CL, too. Perhaps your bigotry blinded you to them. >I can make my own webpage bringing up arguments for and agaisnt CL and >make it look like CL is easily the better we to go. You can produce a web page. You have thus far failed to produce logical arguments. >> >> >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL >> >> Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper. > >We don't have a CL in Corruption, try again thank you. There are plenty of other cards that are similarly shafted, the J+M page has some discussions of them. CL *does* make Corruption wallpaper. You are playing a variant thereupon. You were arguing about CL, not *your* CL. You need to learn to distinguish the two. It isn't that hard. >You gave ONE example which wasn't even valid since I already agree on >this and that's why we don't have a CL on that card. Give me a new >example please, it should be easy since CL creates so "many" wallpapers. Go and read Judith and Mark again, there are a number of examples there. > >> >> >Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts, >> >they think even $30 to get started is too much. >> >> Loan them a deck. Tell them to buy a pre-con starter when they come >> out. > >They will, but the pre-cons aren't out yet. You're saying that we >shouldn't have played with CL for 6 years because they were going to >give out pre-cons in October/November 2000? No, but if you'd bothered to lend someone a deck or cards, they don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to get into a game, unless you're *all* starting. And they can make perfectly workable NL decks with lots of commons. Against a player like you, with more rares than they can get in a half dozen starters, they can't make a deck with the same power as yours, because when you run out of common slotss, you can put in rares. When they run out of common slots, they can't put anything in. Again, xCL supports the rich player, not the new player. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <r54irsoe90b4ev7h5...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>It strikes me that a Prince with Obfuscate would be useful to the deck, >>maybe Selma, or someone like Volker (i.e. cheap) with skill cards. > >Possibly. It certainly changes the focus of the deck, since nobody is >larger than a 3-cap in the deck right now (and Watenda appears in the >crypt 3 times, since his special is just so cool for this instance). >Blood Hunt would be entertaining, though. It would be nice to see a deck using it. I've not seen on in a while, since a lot of princely combat decks opt for Archon as a more attractive proposition. (Which in some instances, it is, but this way doesn't need vote superiority *and* is permanent.) You have a couple of 7s knocking around, too - Gilbert Duane, Greger Anderssen and Murat. If your deck has any clan focus to it at all, you might also find a Clan Justicar card worth your while, since if you can get them out early, you'll have a few votes knocking around from the extra ones granted to the vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pe1b5$811$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <8hqkrscqpru56rq29...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:42:44 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Legbiter, Advocate of Raw Oysters, Rare beefsteak, NL VTES and > > >Bareback > > > > > >Have you tried Louisiana Hot Sauce or Louisiana Gold Pepper Sauce on > > >your raw oysters as an alternative to Ta-blast-o. > > Spookily enough i bought some of that today in the supermarket. i'll try > it, on the grounds that [from personal experience] you Southr'n guys and > gals sho do know how to cook, especially breakfast and seafood. I appreciate your purchase. My family makes the Original Louisiana Hot Sauce and Louisiana Gold Pepper Sauce, and I work in sales for the biz. Thanks, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:23:40 -0400, John Whelan wrote: > > >Uniqueness is indeed one of the factors that is used to determine rarity. > > Good. > > >There is only one common Unique card, and that is The Barrens > > Why all the comments about Oxford U then - I also seem to have far > more than I can use. My discussion was concerning the original set (Jyhad/Vampire) which, so far as I could tell, was what was being complained about. I'm also familiar with the Sabbat set, and what I discussed applies there as well. Indeed, the Sabbat set has so many clans and disciplines to service that the game cannot function as a standalone set unless the designers ensure that the common cards are the ones are widely usable, with clan-specific cards and uniques always being less common. One of the purposes of the rarity scheme is to ensure playability with a minimum number of cards. There were only 2 rarity levels in the Dark Sovreigns set, "Common" and "Uncommon". Oxford U is a "Common", which is not consistent with the Jyhad scheme. In Ancient Hearts they reintroduced 3 rarities again, probably because "Uncommon" had not turned out to be rare enough in the DS set, and people complained about getting too many of some things. > >I'm not sure what your point is regarding "common vampires". All > >vampires, of course, are equally common > > News to me - I thought that they came with different rarities. Just > checking my Ventrue, I see that I have 3-9 of most of them. Why would > I only have one copy of Luccia Paciola then? It is the luck of the draw. When you collect 100+ vampires, odds are it is sure to happen with certain cards. > I've seen some discussion of raritities here and it seems more complex > than for most CCG. Is there a checklist with accurate rarities > online? I don't know how accurate it is, but I just found one set of lists at www.gamecards.com/checklists.html. The "checklist" for Jyhad is sort of incomplete, as it does not show which rares and uncommons are double-frequency, but this *is* shown as part of the "spoiler lists". (Double frequency cards say "Rare 2, 3" for instance, instead of just "Rare 3"). -- John Whelan

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > The unpleasantness of some folk here makes me reluctant to play with > them - the game is vicious enough as it is. I've heard that the 7th > Sea tournament scene is spoilt by a significant number of assholes and > an incident I saw in the B5 final at Gencon UK looked off-putting too. > Is VTES the same or is this the usual distorting effect of online > discourse? I have to say that I've encountered a number of unpleasant people even at V:TES tournaments. I don't think this (or any) game is immune from such people. I'm curious: what was the incident you mentioned? > And I'm still waiting to hear why two players dropped from the US > championship final. Any connection? Heh. Maybe they had something better to do. (I'm going to go hide now.) James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:22:41 -0400, John Whelan wrote: > I only have one copy of Luccia Paciola then? > >It is the luck of the draw. When you collect 100+ vampires, odds are it >is sure to happen with certain cards. >I don't know how accurate it is, but I just found one set of lists at >www.gamecards.com/checklists.html. Thanks. I suspect that there's a bit more to the Vampire distribution. 111 is an odd number - maybe they had two sheets and only some of the Vampires were repeated twice. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] No vampires were printed twice, but you're right... there is more to the story. There were 120 slots on the vampire sheets. The remaining 9 were filled by Political actions. The following are the 9, and their rarity is typically listed as "Vampire" since they are just as rare as vampires. Kindred Restructure Kindred Segregation Lextalionis Masquerade Enforcement Parity Shift Praxis Solomon Reversal of Fortunes Dramatic Upheaval Archon If you ever open a new Jyhad starter or booster, check out the vampires. Usually you will get (I think) 4 of them per booster. Occasionally, you will get only 3, and one of the above cards will be mixed in among them. That is because the rule is not 4 vampires, but rather 4 cards from the "vampire sheet". If you check your supplies of these cards, you will likely find you have between 3 and 9 of them, just like with your vampires. I would guess that the odds of getting only one Lucia in a collection your size are less than 1 in 100, but since you have more than 100 vampires, it is no great surprise it happened to one of them. -- John Whelan

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Why shouldn't a solid Corruption-strategy be wallpapered just like a > solid Cryptic Mission strategy. Corruption is far more powerful in game > terms. So why can I play a deck that has 40 Corruptions in it and not > on that has 40 Cryptic Missions. The Corruption deck is much > scarier. BTW, I have seen decks posted that have that many Corruptions. > > I is not that the card is useless but rather that it hoses a whole > strategy if you limit a card to 4 per deck. Yes, but those are two different issues, so it is unfair to call him a inconsistent if he makes an exception for one case, but not the other. Bear in mind that I am not in favor of CL. I agree that it limits creative options, including (but not limited to) decks based on cryptic mission. Under CL, most of my decks would be disallowed. But Cantila evidently feels that he gains something from such a rule that is worth the sacrifice (and it is possible that he is right within the limited context of his playgroup -- I have more thoughts on that which I shall post later). That being his position, it would not make sense for him to start making 1,000 exceptions for specific cards. House rules, like errata, should be kept simple and to a minimum. If you want to accuse him of inconsistency, I suspect he is far more vulnerable on the issue of skill cards. These, clearly, will limit your decks design options if you can only use 4 of them -- which is the precise same issue as limiting cryptic missions. And skill cards are clearly not in the same category as Corruption -- they clearly ARE useful, even if you only play one of them. But if you play CL, and make just one exception, then Corruption is the clear and obvious choice. -- John Whelan

"James Coupe" wrote: [re ignoring the Tremere] > I do it specifically to annoy you, Xian dearest. ;) I knew it. It's all a vast conspiracy. That, along with Legbiter's mysterious trailing-off posts...it's all some big plan to do...something. I'll figure it out soon enough. Then you'll be sorry. Xian

<inr...@my-deja.com> wrote: > an alternate deck that is out there involves GSP, Anson, and clan > inpersenation... oh, with ravnos acceptance, of course. May have > necromancy as well, can't recall. Looked fun to play. The Lasombra > probably has a link to it somewhere on his site: I scanned, and didn't see it, but I believe that this was something Legbiter and I were trying to develop. I'm pretty sure the original idea was mostly Legbiter. Anyway, we tested it in JOL, it worked better for him, and at about that time, I think there was some mention of someone actually trying it out in...Atlanta? Somewhere down south? At any rate, the basic concept is: Anson + Parthenon/Rumors to get many master card phases. 4 max, I should say. A crypt full of Princes, about 1/4 to 1/3 Anson. Clan Impersonation for Anson or his childer. Anson impersonating is easiest. Play Goodnight Sweet Prince on your own deck. Pay 2 pool, surprise! It's a prince! You get 2 pool back! Prince goes to ash heap. Use superior NEC to Possess the ashed princes into your ready region. Use Redeem the Soul to get rid of excess Ansons in the Ash Heap. Voila! Instant beyond-the-grave voting power! Slow, but mightily funny, and if it gets the pool gain rolling, the vote lock is great. There's other stuff in there as well, but I can't remember what it was. Xian

listen to this piece of wisdom : "Rare cards *aren't* a way to win a game. A good deck is, and a good deck doesn't require 20 of any card, nor rare cards at all. " this was a quote from the grand James Coupe. His name shall be blessed by every one of us in this forum. This sentence makes me feel like V:Tes players are somewhat different from other TCG players. And, thanks again James for your wonderful "happy family" tool. reyda

[ quoted text not captured ] Why is it the clear and obvious choice? if you limit it to 4 now you can only corrupt weenies. You must base your deck around something else (stealth-bleed, stealth politics, mind-numb). Tough turds. My point is if you are going to defend CL then at least play by CL; not, CL with the exception of Action Card A or Master Card B. That is hypocrisy by making exceptions for one or two cards or even worse one or two types of cards. Hypocrisy is the very symptom that he cannot defend. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. X_Zealot [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6gRu5.105$hv.1...@news.uswest.net>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > Anson + Parthenon/Rumors to get many master card phases. 4 max, I should > say. 3 as Anson or Rumors only give you 2. With Anson and Rumors you still only have 2 master phases. > A crypt full of Princes, about 1/4 to 1/3 Anson. > Clan Impersonation for Anson or his childer. Anson impersonating is > easiest. > Play Goodnight Sweet Prince on your own deck. Pay 2 pool, surprise! > It's a > prince! You get 2 pool back! Prince goes to ash heap. > Use superior NEC to Possess the ashed princes into your ready region. > Use Redeem the Soul to get rid of excess Ansons in the Ash Heap. > Voila! Instant beyond-the-grave voting power! Only there is no prince with even nec, once a ravnos any prince looses its title (unless ravnos acceptance is in play), and Possession has no inherent stealth! Nice idea, not going to work. -- |\ _ | | | \ /\ /ua.ude.arrebnac.tneduts@716469u /llams os m'I '0.o'/ | | | \/ \/ snikmoT .F leahciM /rood eht rednu tif nac I =(___)= | | | /\ /\arrebnaC fo ytisrevinU/...yadretsey ereh saw I U | | | / \/ \.ailartsuA /.gnidrocer a si sihT

In article <8pgtog$a5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Since Corruption is cumulative while Army of Rats is not, I guess White Wolf are hypocrats as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek I don't know you in real life, and I'm damn glad I don't. It's pretty sad when someone takes a game so seriously that they can't do a discussion without resorting to call people by names. But don't worry, I'm not offended because you have nothing on me. I think the fact that you call me a small child says it all. I'm not going to waste my time reaidng your posts anymore, somethign you should have done to me a long time ago if you get so freaking annoyed by my posts. I'm sure it will save you from being hopsitalized due to high blood pressure. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Michael F. Tomkins" wrote: > 3 as Anson or Rumors only give you 2. With Anson and Rumors you still > only have 2 master phases. Could be. Been ages since I bothered to really think about it. > Only there is no prince with even nec, once a ravnos any prince looses > its title (unless ravnos acceptance is in play), and Possession has no > inherent stealth! Also all true. > Nice idea, not going to work. I believe something similar did work IRL (somewhere down south?)...anecdotes anyone? And no, it's not the *best* idea in the world, but I believe it sprang from a challenge to make Goodnight Sweet Prince a useful card. Not a bad effort all, in all. And I can't say as to whether or not Legbiter actually managed to oust anyone in his game of JOL, but I thought I heard reports that it was doing okay... Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:35:52 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >Derek I don't know you in real life, and I'm damn glad I don't. It's >pretty sad when someone takes a game so seriously that they can't do a >discussion without resorting to call people by names. But don't worry, >I'm not offended because you have nothing on me. I think the fact that >you call me a small child says it all. It explains your attitude perfectly. You have accused me of making things up, put words in my mouth, and totally failed to read most things I have said. If you are going to act like a small child, expect to be referred to as one. >I'm not going to waste my time reaidng your posts anymore, somethign Again, the USENET equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALA". >you should have done to me a long time ago if you get so freaking >annoyed by my posts. I'm sure it will save you from being hopsitalized >due to high blood pressure. When I see bullshit, I call "bullshit". Your posts were bullshit. And I am not surprised that you are taking your ball and going home. Though I am, frankly, glad, because it will save me from having to keep calling "bullshit". -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

In article <mKVu5.1066$ko1.3...@news.uswest.net>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > > "Michael F. Tomkins" wrote: > > 3 as Anson or Rumors only give you 2. With Anson and Rumors you still > > only have 2 master phases. > > Could be. Been ages since I bothered to really think about it. > > > Only there is no prince with even nec, once a ravnos any prince looses > > its title (unless ravnos acceptance is in play), and Possession has no > > inherent stealth! > > Also all true. > > > Nice idea, not going to work. It does work. i decided the best way to implement it was to have a vamp with superior NEC clan-impersonate to Ravnos, then GNSP, then Redeem the Soul or possession depending on the situation. i posted the deck just now, separately. But as i say, and in agreement with Xian, this idea DOES still need some work before it is really fierce. > > I believe something similar did work IRL (somewhere down south?)...anecdotes > anyone? > > And no, it's not the *best* idea in the world, but I believe it sprang from a > challenge to make Goodnight Sweet Prince a useful card. Not a bad effort all, > in all. And I can't say as to whether or not Legbiter actually managed to > oust anyone in his game of JOL, but I thought I heard reports that it was > doing okay... > > Xian > > > -- > > |\ _ | | | \ /\ /ua.ude.arrebnac.tneduts@716469u /llams os m'I > > '0.o'/ | | | \/ \/ snikmoT .F leahciM /rood eht rednu tif nac I > > =(___)= | | | /\ /\arrebnaC fo ytisrevinU/...yadretsey ereh saw I > > U | | | / \/ \.ailartsuA /.gnidrocer a s [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Why is it the clear and obvious choice? Depends on the criterion used to make exceptions. In this case, the justification is that the *card* was clearly designed to be used without limits, and becomes wallpaper if not used that way. Apply the same criteria to any other *card*, and I don't think you can make as good a case for it. > if you limit it to 4 now you > can only corrupt weenies. You must base your deck around something else > (stealth-bleed, stealth politics, mind-numb). Tough turds. My point is > if you are going to defend CL then at least play by CL; not, CL with the > exception of Action Card A or Master Card B. That is hypocrisy by > making exceptions for one or two cards or even worse one or two types of > cards. > > Hypocrisy is the very symptom that he cannot defend. I don't understand this focus on the "hypocrisy" issue. This is not exactly a moral issue, and it's not like he fails to practice what he preaches (however irrational you feel his justifications are). Is it not possible that 4CL serves some kind of function within the context of the low-supply card environment he plays in? Is it not a simple rule that is easy to remember? If so, might it not be equally true that 4CL, with 2 exceptions, may serve the same purpose, and still be simple enough for everyone to remember? But you say if he makes 2 exceptions, he should make 20 or 30 or 40, because otherwise he is a "hypocrite". That makes no sense to me at all. Even if it is conceded that his two exceptions are somewhat arbitrary, his system is still better than this alternative, because a CL rule with 30 or 40 exceptions is just to clumsy to be workable -- too complex to be easily remembered. A fourth option, of course, is to dispense with CL entirely, but that overlooks that possibility that CL might serve some helpful purpose within the context of his playgroup ... which is what he is claiming. There are plenty of excellent arguments you can make against CL. This is not one of them. All games have rules which have been defined on a somewhat arbitrary basis. Calling someone a "hypocrite" because his House Rules have arbitrary features makes no sense. -- John Whelan

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:35:52 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> > wrote: > > >I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts anymore, something > > Again, the USENET equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and > shouting "LALALALALALA". What is wrong with sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA"? It is an appropriate response to certain situations. Since your last posts to him have been flames, you have lost any right to suggest that that he is motivated by desire to avoid rational discussion. -- John Whelan

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:13:40 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >What is wrong with sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting >"LALALALALALALA"? It is an appropriate response to certain situations. ...If you're five. >Since your last posts to him have been flames, you have lost any right to >suggest that that he is motivated by desire to avoid rational discussion. *snort* By THAT logic, I could've quit responding to him long ago when he claimed that I was just making things up as necessary. And I would've been avoiding the discussion just as much. -shrug- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Since Corruption is cumulative while Army of Rats is not, If being cumulative is the nessasary qualification for exeption from the CL, then why isn't Legacy of Pander exept from the CL or how about Ritual Challenge, or Fists of Death? I guess White > Wolf are hypocrats as well. I guess they are not for two reasons 1) they have yet to even print cards for VTES; Wizards of the Coast did that. 2) You are wrong. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pc5sv$9qu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > Oh yes, wow you discovered my Master plan huh? > > Strange but true, 4cl will keep you as one of the top players in your > group. > > > The facts in short: > > > > 1) Without CL I'd not traded awya a LOT of my cards to those you > really > > needed my excess Cloaks etc. With NCL those CLoaks wouldn't have been > > excess, so I'd had 10 and they'd have 1-2. > > Oh so you would have alot more commons and some one else would have alot > more of another card. How is this relavent? Its relevant because I've made generous trades sicne I dind't need the excess commons. For example I maybe gave 10 commons they really wanted for a rare they don't need, which I otherwise wouldn't have. This doesn't only go for me, the other experienced players have done the same. > > > 2) In our neighbour city there's 17 palyers and they do CL too. And at > > least 5 people there has a lot of cards, maybe even as many as me. > > And your playing against them how much? Not very much, but on the other hand I don't play much VTES at all anymore..because I study far away form ym playgroup and can onyl go home during the holidays (3 times per year). But that's not the point, thing is, why would the people in Halmstad (neighbour city) stick to the 4 CL if the reason was the one you claim? > > Also > > I don't even have many cards compared to you guys. So I could as well > > say that you want NCL because it lets you use your ToGP strategy (just > > an example) that no one else can afford to try out. > > It allows all stratgies, including the 10 Sudden Reversal decks But only the ones with the most money can afford to try them. > > > > If you are not afraid of the other players being able to compete > with > > > you then try it out. Otherwise I believe you are just using your > > > stranglehold on rare cards to your own advantage. > > > > Believe whatever you want. Nobody has ever suggested goign back to > NCL, > > and if they did I'd not be agaisnt it like I've said wuite many times > > before. Just because you're not non-selfish doesn't mean others can be > > *shrug*. > > So you being the quintissential example of generosity allows them to > build decks which actually include as many cards as they themselves the > players own. I believe you have said otherwise. You have enforced No *I* have enforced nothing, why do you keep saying I'v done this and that? A long time ago some of our experienced players suggested this rule and I was still a relatively newbie. We had a discussion and agreed to try out the 4 CL. Eveyrone liked it and there's been no reaosn for change. There might be in the future, though. Only time can tell. Someone wondered what would happen if a new guy joined our group who was used NCL. The answer is that we'd bring up a discussion for a change if/and that becomes current. We're democratic and want eveyrone to be happy, and I dare to say people are under the current rules. However I do know people would be against a change into NCL (both newbie players and experienced ones) so why would we then change it and go from "everyone satisfied" to "only a few satisfied"? People here have spent their money on teh VTES and odn't intend to spend more (other thsn to buy Sabbat War)...a change to NCL would mean people (read the newbies...i.e. the ones who wants to spend the least money on this game) would need to buy more cards to get the extra commons they never bothered of get more than 4 of. Even I would probably need to buy more cards to get satisfied, although not as many. So this also means that I already then have an advantage (i.e. I don't need to buy many more boosters). an > artificial limit to the cards they themselves own while you own many > more different cards than they do giving yourself the advantage in a > limited format. > > Rah Rah, go Captain Generosity, [ quoted text not captured ]

> I don't understand this focus on the "hypocrisy" issue. This is not > exactly a moral issue, and it's not like he fails to practice what he > preaches (however irrational you feel his justifications are). Perhaps "Hypocrasy" is too strong a word as I actually wasn't meaning to disparage his character. How about Paradox or Oxymoron. It is a situaltion where an exception is given to the rule for an arbitrary reason. I felt hypocrasy was better suited as this is a governing situation that affects multiple people negatively rather than a statistical situaltion with a random element, thus my choice for stronger language. > > Is it not possible that 4CL serves some kind of function within the > context of the low-supply card environment he plays in? Surely, it may serve a function, but is it a good function or a bad function. Is it not a > simple rule that is easy to remember? It is a simply rule that cripples alot of strategies except for the one strategy that it makes an exception for, namely Corruption. > If so, might it not be equally true that 4CL, with 2 exceptions, may serve > the same purpose, and still be simple enough for everyone to remember? > > But you say if he makes 2 exceptions, he should make 20 or 30 or 40, > because otherwise he is a "hypocrite". First, I never called him a hypocrit. What I said was,"That is hypocrisy by making exceptions for one or two cards or even worse one or two types of cards. Hypocrisy is the very symptom that he cannot defend." I attacked his policy not his person. That makes no sense to me at > all. Even if it is conceded that his two exceptions are somewhat > arbitrary, his system is still better than this alternative, because a CL > rule with 30 or 40 exceptions is just to clumsy to be workable -- too > complex to be easily remembered. Actually to allieviate the "hypocrasy" or "paradox", he should have no exceptions to CL. It is the exception which lends itself to an accusation of hypocrasy. BTW Cantilla, who has the most corruptions in your group? I ask that not to accuse you of hypocrasy, but rather to show that in a CL playgroup with one card that is not limited, that card is lent more power than it normally would be. I imagine that people do not readily trade Corruptions as they do other cards that they have 4. > A fourth option, of course, is to dispense with CL entirely, but that > overlooks that possibility that CL might serve some helpful purpose within > the context of his playgroup ... which is what he is claiming. > There are plenty of excellent arguments you can make against CL. This is > not one of them. This is not an argument about CL, but rather an argument against exceptions to CL. Calling someone a "hypocrite" because his House I never called him a hypocrit. I called his policy "hypocrasy". You see one is a policy and one is a person. > Rules have arbitrary features makes no sense. Huh? Just rules do not. Please do enlighten me. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pittf$huk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > Since Corruption is cumulative while Army of Rats is not, > > If being cumulative is the nessasary qualification for exeption from the > CL, then why isn't Legacy of Pander exept from the CL or how about > Ritual Challenge, or Fists of Death? Actually let me remove Ritual Challenge and instead substitute Mark of Damnation. XZ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:13:40 -0400, John Whelan > <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > >What is wrong with sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting > >"LALALALALALALA"? It is an appropriate response to certain situations. > > ...If you're five. Not in the metaphor we're using here. There is nothing particularly "mature" about remaining permanently trapped in a flame-war. > >Since your last posts to him have been flames, you have lost any right to > >suggest that that he is motivated by desire to avoid rational discussion. > > *snort* By THAT logic, I could've quit responding to him long ago > when he claimed that I was just making things up as necessary. And I > would've been avoiding the discussion just as much. -shrug- You could have. It is both your prerogative and his. A person may leave a debate for any reason he chooses. -- John Whelan

In article <8ph5sn$j5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually i am sure you WOULD like Derek in real life. Same goes for the other NG Beasts namely Matt Green, james Coupe and LSJ who can all appear APPALLINGLY authoritarian on the NG and actually are deeply cultured, sensitive and intelligent people. Well, you probably guessed the intelligent bit from the fact they play Jyhad oops sorry VTES. The reason they are like that on the NG is because they are On A Mission. We DO have the best game in the world - no ifs, no buts, no apologies. The reason they [except LSJ - He is only hard on people who illogically persist in questioning his rulings] are all being so hard on you is that they think you are bright and thoughtful and need to be Shown the Light. Does this sound frighteningly evangelical? Sorry if so, but it is a funny kind of back-handed compliment, believe it or not! May you Crush Your Enemies, See them Driven Before You, Hear the Lamentation of the Women, and Sleep on the White Bellies of their Wives and Daughters. Buffer Line to Stop Message Tailing Buffer Line to Stop Message Tailing Buffer Line to Stop Mess [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pjhv2$bkr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] There's a difference between having a discussion or argument and to flame people. And one thing's for sure, it will certainly not help to promote VTES and get new people to play. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <bar1OzBk...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8pavhi$rgd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- > 6...@student.luth.se> writes > >In article <vtuITuBx...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> In article <8p9aau$vba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar- > >> 6...@student.luth.se> writes > >> >> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections. > >> > > >> >And My Enemy's Enemy > >> > >> Which doesn't bounce it the way you want. > > > >OMG talk about being picky. If it saves me from being ousted that's > >pretty much worth it. > > "Picky". Perhaps you mean I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument? No because you wanted a bounce, and My Enemy's Enemy is a bounce card. Very basic and very simple. You make it sound like My Enemy's Enemy is a bad card, I wonder why so many people want to trade for one then. I mean, you'd rather use a deflection or redirection wouldn't you? > > >> > >> 9 times out of 10, a bounce will go to my prey, not my grand- > >predator. > >> >There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or > >> >use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare > >> >card). > >> > >> Protected Resources is not *quite* rare. It is, as stated, > >ridiculously > >> rare. > > > >If half of my playgroup have on it's not redicilously rare here. > > The word "here" is not relevant to a defence of xCL. Why is it not? I'm defending xCL in my playgroup, not xCL anywhere else in the world, I never have and I really wonder how many times I have to repeat this until people like you understand this. It's definately relevant. > > Probabilities and luck of the draw (when buying boosters) can be > startling bizarre things. So booster drafts in tournaments is a bizarre thing? > > >> > >> >As I said before, Elysium has the same effect, > >> > >> It has the same effect as itself, not as S:CE. Since you get in > >position > >> to hit, S:CE causes you to waste cards. You won't waste cards setting > >> range etc. if Elysium is tapped. > > > >But he wasted a Bum's Rush and an action. > > That does not mean that Elysium is the same as S:CE. The end effect - a > wasted rush action - is achieved via a *very* different mechanism. > > If you rush me and I play Skin of Rock, stopping your Gangrel strike of > Scorpion Sting and Claws, that doesn't make Skin of Rock the same effect > as S:CE. > > >If he knows Elysium is up > >he's not gonna bother attacking me before he knows a way to get around > >it, > > Rushing twice is a useful one because, you know, S:CE isn't the same as > Elysium. Elysium is one shot per turn. > > Oh no. Sorry. Under xCL he wouldn't be able to draw the rush cards he > needs consistently, so you turn a balanced card like Elysium into a far > more powerful card. Hmmm 4 Haven's, 4 Bum's Rush, 4 Ambushes,(4 Bloodhunts if you play with princes). I've never had a problem with even 4 Haven's and Bum's Rushes. Cards that everyone has 4 of. > > Oh yes, how silly of me. > > >this it saves me a lot of trouble till he can. > > Which still does not make it the same as S:CE, a point which you have > failed to refute. > > >S:CE is not suppsoed to be and-end-to-all-troubles card, I know you > >guys like it when one card solves everything > > How do you "know" that? You really are talking ill-informed, ill- > thought out, uneducated crap. How do you know I do? I think the same of you. But unlike you, I can give some arguments as to why I think so. The whole idea with having say 10 Majesties instead of 5 Majesties and 5 Staredowns in a deck, is that for this particular deck you think the Majesties are better. Now this means that based on my Majesty deck Majesty will be my natural solution to most of my troubles. Else I'd not include that many of them and my deck wouldn't be a Majesty deck... Since you promote a rule where you can have as many of one card as you want, you also promote a strategy where one card could be "the universal solution" should anyone manage to find one. The idea with such a focused deck is that this card is so useful in your deck that you want a whole lot of it. Which does make your game easier than if you had to include 5 Staredown instead. If say white wolf printed a way too powerful card, you'd still allow people to have it in their decks, and as many as they want of it "because the rules says so" even if it screws up your game until there's an errata out to fix it. > > >and makes you not have to > >have more than a few different cards to come up with a good strategy, > >but that's ot how we prefer to have it. > > If you preferred giving people paper cuts with Jyhad cards, would you > advocate that too? > > And you have yet to address the fact that NL does not require, force or > need you to play with a few different cards, in any way *at all*. It > *allows* you to, it does not require. Which is not what this discussion is about. It's about the possibility, and that we don't want that possiblity to exist, because it creates many problems in our playgroup (yes I keep saying our playgroup, but Mr James you really need to read my thread over agian if you complain about this, because I never said YOU should play with CL, so you can't accuse me for not considering how a CL would affect YOU.) > > >> If you think Elysium has the same effect as S:CE, You Are Wrong. > >> > Someone turns up and plays against you with ToGP. > > > >Who would that be?? > > And I was being picky above, apparently. > > Do you train to rant in such an infantile fashion, or does it come > naturally? > > Imagine that one of your friends has squirreled away the cards for ToGP > without telling *anyone*. And then turns up with a deck using them. "Do you train to rant in such an infantile fashion, or does it come naturally?" > > >In 6 years nobody has ever "turn up" who didn't > >belong to the 25 people I've mentioned before. People here don't travel > >very far to get to play VTES and even if someone showed up for a day of > >playing, then that's certainly not a reason to lift CL forever. This is > >getting so redicilous. > > People are having a discussion and an argument. > > Your only defence thus far has been "my group", "my group", "my group", > "my group". If that is your only defence, sod off and play with your > group and never post here again, since you clearly don't give a fuck > about the rest of the world. I'm sorry James but you think I should read up on the archive and then you come up with this. Read my posts in this thread and read my reasons for why I am pro-CL. You obvously have understood nothing. (a hint: Am I against NCL in your playgroup or anywhere else in the world? The answer is no. Maybe you get the clue now. As you so eloquently express it, I do give a fuck about the world. However, you don't because you won't allow us to play with CL without coming here whining about it.) > > >> It is defeatable with mostly common card based decks. > > *notes that you didn't address this, at all* I have so damn many times. IG IG IG IG rings a bell? YOU haven't addressed how to deal with S:CE effectively with a common card. I wonder why you haven't?? > > >> > >> > While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk > >> >about options here. > >> > >> You have many common options. > > *nor this point* > > >> >Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of > >> >options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares > >as > >> >well. > >> > >> They give you more options, because they are other cards, with other > >> options. But you can defend with common cards plenty well enough. > > > >And you defend with CL well enough against any strategy that follows > >the CL too. Your S&B example etc doesn't cut it. We've never had real > >trouble with it, if we had we'd changed our rules. > > We've never had any trouble with it != There is no trouble to be had > with it. Do you change tyres on your car when they work perfectly well? Didn't think so. When a problem occurs, we'll fix it appropriately. Why is that so hard to understand? > > All it takes is a player to consistently play it in your group. > > What do you do? Gang up on him, creating social friction? Alter the > rules specifically to kill *his* deck, creating social friction? > > Ah, what a wonderful play group you would have. Yes it is, thank you. > > >> >I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play > >> >Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does. > >> > >> Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck, > >> something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non- broken > >> environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at > >> all. > > > >And you're supposed to be an experienced player?? Wow if what u're > >saying is that you never do politics in your games then your games is > >nothing I'd want to play. > > If you ever need to gang up on decks to deal with them, your environment > is broken. Fact. > > That is not the same as politicking. > > > I saw one example before somewhere in this > >long thread where I think Legbiter said that if someone goes for LoP > >you could cooperate to bring him down. > > You could. As you could against any deck. > > You don't *need* to. Twisting the truth here aren't we? In the example giving it was *needed* if they wanted to have a chance to win. Well unless they were really lucky with cards, but then again, you don't support a deck where luck is a vital part to survive, do you? Also I never claimed you HAD to gang up on the Malk. You jsut can, and people prefer to. But it's not necessary. > > > Isn't that the exact same thing > >as ganging up on a S&B deck?? > > No. > > In your environment, you *need* to. No. > > >oh noo...wait..I forgot that same things > >doesn't apply for you as it does for us because you're so almighty. > >That's just the way things are huh? > > Confucius say: Man who no understand argument shouldn't argue with it. So why do you continue? Your arguments are really worth crap. Especially fun is to read replies to my arguments (that has been supported by an example) and where you just say my arguments suck or things like "no" or "not true", but provide no further evidence. > > >You'd be a fool if you didn't try to prevent your opponents from > >winning. > > Indeed. > > But you don't need to have all 4 players ganged up on the 5th to do > that. I never said all ganged up or that they always did. You gang up when it's needed to save yourself. Naturally the guy sitting across the table in a 4-player game don't want to see Malk being ousted because then his prey gets 6 pool. > > >A S&B that is about to sweep the table is a threat > > Which is often caused by his predator and prey not being able to defend > against him, because xCL stunts their defences. > > >and of > >course u'd try get people gang up on him if you ever have the intention > >of winning the game. But you being a white knight and all, of course > >would have done nothing but let him win huh? All for the sake of being > >honorable. > > Who said anything about "honor" before you introduced it? Nobody. But tell me why you would do nothing then? Because that's what yous suggest when if you say shouldn't gang up on people to prevent them from sweepingthe table. > > > > >> > >> If people aren't turning up with Malk S&B, you have no way to assert > >> that xCL isn't broken. > > > >Oooh so we should play with NCL because it *might* be broken > > It *is* broken. Your players simply aren't intelligent enough to > exploit it to win. Oh well lucky us then. I'll counter this smart argument by saying that NCL is broken, your players simply aren't intelligent enough to exploit it to win. How about that? I just love your well-founded answers. > > >even when > >it's never turned out to be so during 6 years of playing?? > > 6 years of playing in one group vs 6 years of playing in many groups and > tournaments. Hmm... which is more statistically significant, boys and > girls? > > Can we say "straw man"? Can we say "Mr Coupe please get the facts straight before complaining?". I'm defending the use of CL in my group. Our group does not play in tournaments all over the world, sorry but the quality of your arguments are poor to say the least. But a guess that since you're Mr-all-experience-always-right guy we can't do what we like in our playgroup without your permission. Tell me, should I ask for your perimission to have a house-rule for Werewolf Pack if I wanted? If not, why not?? It should concern you just as much as CL i our playgroup seem to concern you (or be your business). > > >Come up with > >something better pleeeease. > > The rest of us have been saying something similar to you. > > >I could say the same thig for you; "there > >*might* be some strategy that you just haven't invented yet (based on > >existing OR coming card), that *could* turn out to be overpowerful with > >NCL, you just haven't discovered it yet, so you better get rid of that > >NCL just in case!" > > NL works in a vastly different way. > > We don't stunt *all* cards for the sake of a few. We stunt the cards > which are a problem, to allow the rest to carry on as before. We feel it's easier to stick to a few simple rules than to make tons of exceptions. > > That you do not understand this reveals that you have *no* idea what > you're talking about. Learning to read might be a good option. Coming form the guy who after 150+ posts in this thread still haven't understood the most fundamental thing in my arguments for CL. *It's what best my OUR playgroup. We do not promote CL anywhere else* After you've learned to read the above, hopefully I won't see arguments based on that we should go NCL because that's what's best in YOUR playgroup or anywhere else in the world. > > >> > >> >> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? > >> > > >> >This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup > >> >doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive. > >> > >> You don't need to be a mind-reader to be competitive. > > > >Is that all you have to say? > > It is the truth. > > You do not have to be a mind-reader to be competitive. > > >You say you need to exploit holes but that > >requires you to know what they'll be playing in first place. > > No it doesn't. Hmmmm I fele some very big lack of LOGIC here. How can you find a loophole in something that you're not aware of? Its like telling someone to find a loophole ina law they've never read. Care to explain this further? I keep finding answers where you bescially say "no, and I'm always right so I need no further grounds for my answer". > > That you believe this shows the floor in your ability to construct > decks. Generic, flexible defences can be included which can be used > against many common strategies. There are only about 5 or 6 common > strategies anyway, the rest of the game bases round that. > > Bleed has many defences available against it, under NL. > > Vote has many defences available against it, under NL. > > Combat has many defences available against it, under NL. > > Huge blood gain has many defences available against it, under NL. > > Corruption has many defences available against it, under NL. > > Master card based scenarios have many defences available against it, > under NL. And same thing applies for CL, because of the simple fact that while the defence is restricted, the offense is as well. It evens out. > > >How can I > >try exploit a hole in a deck that doesn't exist??? > > By being a thoughtful, skilful player, who puts time, thought, > creativity and energy into deck construction. > > These are traits which appear to have passed you by, in favour of > stopping people playing the deck they want. > > >I have to have a > >deck to refer to, > > You do? And why do you need one? Because a basic defence against somehting won't be enough against a deck specialized in the same area. If you have a a basic vote defence, you won't be able to stop a heavy vote-going Ventrue through your vote defence. And naturally, you can't have good defence in all areas. If youd id, then there would be no loopholes to exploit, which you yourself said always exists. With NCL that means that I can make my deck very very strong in one area and have it suck in most tohers, but if you don't make a very very good defence in the area I'm so storng in, then I'll win over you in that area. And done good enough I'll have a deck that will almsot always win, until you make a deck that specifically counters mine. But that requires you to know my deck dude. And you're saying you don't need to. If you've never faced a ToGP deck or heard of it, I find it quite unlikely that you'll win over it the first time you play. If you do, that's to the most part just luck (for example, you happeend to play a vote deck with lots of Wrath of Inner Circles ;) > > >how can I if I don't know what he'll be playing? > > Why do you need one? > > >Thus > >I need to be a mind-reader, > > Untrue. No it's true, read above and give a good answer if you want to convince me. > > >or the guy needs to play this deck at more > >than one consecutive occassion > > Why? So he learns his opponent's deck and then know how to counter it in the best way. Isn't it obvious? > > >and I also have to know that he intends > >to do so. > > Why? Because else I risk making a deck countering his and then he's changed deck and playing somehting totally different, that my new and revised deck isn't as good at countering. > > >When we gather before gameplay we never tell each other what > >decks we're going to play, because then they might throw in some cards > >against it. > > Indeed. That's common under NL, except in a few situations - say, > someone comes along and says that they want to try a specific new deck, > and see how it stands up to combat, so would you mind terribly if we > could have a practise session. Yeah, but then he can't expect to do as well as to how he'd done if his deck was a secret, but that isn't the point with a practice of course. > > >> > >> >Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too, > >> >although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have) > >> > >> Wrong. Mind Numb is perfectly balanced, as is Marijava Ghoul. > > > >Explain this further please. > > Mind Numb is balanced. > > It has an effect which costs an appropriate amount of blood, takes up > the appropriate amount of space in your deck, has an appropriate > opportunity cost, has an appropriate downside to playing it and so > forth. > > That you think Mind Numb is broken shows just how laughable your > arguments are. > You are really an expert of giving answers that bears absolutely no value. Tell me HOW all the above thinsg are appropriate, don't tell me they just are. If I said that what you said above is all untrue but gives no reasons as to why, how convincing is that? > >I think that if you don't get intercepted, > >being able to play some 10-15 Mind Numbs in a low cap presence deck is > >damn powerful. > > Powerful when exploited in that fashion, yes. > > But let's say I'm playing a highly pro-active deck, where my vampires > take a lot of actions. Your Mind Numbs become mostly useless to you, > and start clogging your hand - because I don't have an untapped vampire > for you to play them on. 15 of them will get in the way of drawing > other cards. Problem solved. This is really funny. Are you serious about this?? The reaosn we have a CL is NOT to prevent a deck like you describe (because that's not a powerful deck). We try to prevent unbalanced decks. Your example doesn't show my example wasn't unbalanced. > > Or let's say I'm playing a politics deck. I Dramatic Upheaval myself out > of the way, so I don't really care. Well you need to gather the voting power for that AND have a DU in your hand AND be able to take the action (quite hard when MN has been used on all your vampires). Even so, you need ot do all this before I oust you. I think I could oust you pretty fast with my deck. All I need is Presence. With that I can MN and bleed (and I can use Marijava Ghouls too so my MN are hard to block, I could even use some obf in my deck if it's needed). I'm nt claiming it's impossible to avoid, since clearly there's always a solution to every strategy. But you claim that in NL there's so many options but the example you gave is quite long-sighted and even though it solves your problem it won't help the guy that will be my new prey and eventually I'll oust all and then you'll be my prey again when it's only you and me left. > > I'm playing a rush intensive combat deck. Each turn, you bring out a > couple of vampires. I rush them, they die. Problem solved. This requires you to know my deck in advance. You claim to know you don't have to be a mind-reader. Sure it could be luck too, that you happened to have a rush deck and that was good against me. On the other hand, I could include a couple of Elysiums in my deck and a few S:CE. Since I tap most of your minions you won't get to cycle your cards very much and get IG's and BR's up + a dmg dealing combat card. Since I also play low cap vampires, I'll have quite many minions too. It's hard for you to bring out more vamps than me when I get in some good bleeds on you at the start becuase your vamps were tapped by MN. The effect of MN lasts for two turns. So let's see: You got 2 vamps...I got 2. I do MN on both yours in my turn, then I bring out a new vamp. In your turn you don't untap them, and you bring out a new vamp. In my next turn you'll have 1 untapped and 2 tapped. I have 3 untapped...I do MN on your untapped guy, and then I bleed you with one and MN with my 3rd, so you have only one untapped in your turn...sounds like you get to cycle a lot of cards huh? My bleed also reduces your pool and so it will be even harder for you to have enough of minions ot defend with. If you wake and block you would need stealth if I have Marijava, or I could play stealth (I make a deck with pre and obf vamps) or S:CE Majesty and play another MN on him. A low cap rush deck aint liekly to have intercept coming form disciplines. And sports bikes will be hard to get out when you only have one vamp to take an action with eveyr turn. I'm not saying you could never beat me with your deck, but even with the deck your describe that's probably one of the better against my type, it clearly looks like I got the advantage still. > > I'm playing an intercept deck. I block your actions. In a weenie > presence deck situation, I don't need much more than 1 intercept, maybe > 2 at most. With Marijava Ghould you need 2 to block MN if I got PRE (quite likely). I could also play setites with 4 Opium Dens in my deck (and Mummies Tongue is nice here too). While It's harder to get PRE I have obf to help me and the Opium den and Marijava Ghoul. Even if you manage to block, I can have Elysium or S:CE. Your actions don't come off, and then I send a vampire in > with Fast Reaction to kill you. Ohh a weenie deck that can has both potence and aus?? Hmm how is this going to happen? Especially since Fast Reaction requires a 2nd untapped vampire..quite hard when I go MN crazy. > > I play a lot of Wakes. The fact that you tap me doesn't bother me, > since I have lots of Wakes in my defence. And Wake is useful against > all sorts of decks. This is a better option, but I do have some stealth you have to deal with still. And then we have the Elysium or possible some wepon I could throw in and use with concealed weapon. > > I play massive pool gain. Whatever your vampires do when you've tapped > me, it doesn't bother me. How are you gaining your pool in your weenie deck? Give an example that I can counter. Pool gain through votes won't work, since you need your guys to be untapped to take a vote action. Also hard to get vote lock in a weenie deck where you can only take one action per turn. > > I play a deck with other untaps available in it. Homunculus, Carrion > Coffin, Masika, Rutor's Hand etc. The Homunculus is found in the > wonderfully playable Out of Turn Malkavian rush deck. You can also see > Masika and Madness Network Well this won't be a weenie deck then and I could possibly bleed you out before you got the clan imperonation done and equipped Masika etc. It *could* be a working deck...but should you relaly have to make this extreme deck to counter mine? The whole point was that you should be able to fight me with common cards...Madness Network is a rare..and you need a couple of it if you want to get it out fast. Also keep in mind that I am pro-CL for my playgroup only, because of the lack of cards. Nobody here has Madness Networ but me and one other guy. And we got only one each. This is an example of why I am pro-CL too. Because some counter strategies against NCL decks requires you to have rares or uncommons. Something people here has said not to be true. Well prove me how to defeat me with common cards then. turn up for Mad Masika' Harem, utilising > untaps between turns, along with bleed, or Precognisant Mobility to get > another vampire (perhaps one who is more expendable, or better prepared > to bleed) to go for a bleed. My untaps allow me to do things that don't > care about your Mind Numbs. And this also requires you to know my deck or just be really lucky to happen to made this deck when I choosed to do my MN deck u've never seen before. > > I play one Guardian Angel in my deck, so I don't tap when blocking your > vampires, hmmm? I think u mean Atonement. A card that can be burnt easily. Also, while you don't tap when blocking me, I'll make sure to use my MN's on tis guy till Atonement is burned. or I could be basing a deck around Justine, Elder of Dallas. doesn't prevent MN. Rutor's hand could help, but I'm not sure about the rules here. MN prevents you to untap in your untap phase, RH gives you two untaps but not two untap pahses...so that shouldn't help. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > You're playing weenies, Nope I don't play weenies, I play low cap vamps. Around 3-5 caps, although I'd use Lena Rowe. and so most likely want them to be expendable. > Let's turn all of your two or three caps into three or four caps, by > passing Masquerade Enforcement quickly, You need either vote lock or others with you (who might not be too fond of this) and even with ME I willd o fine because my Legal Manipulations will bring me pool back. Remember that a vote deck would be quite bad against me, because vote decks need to do many votes (= lot sof actions, which is hard when you're MN'd). Also vote decks usually need high cap vampires so MN is then particularly effective. or I make Leandro ready quickly > (Tomb, Info Highway etc.) and so make your transfers considerably more > expensive. ToR is a rare, and u need a couple of it. This rare is extremely hard to get by. You're just proving my point that in NCL you need ot be rich to be competitive. Or both. I've seen some fun ideas with a Leandro-Politics > deck tried before. (It was teamed up with Necromancy, and so couldn't > back itself up with stealth or unblockability properly, but the idea of > Leandro Politics is a sound one. Just add Banishment.) > > I play a weenie deck. In any given turn, you can't draw enough cards to > tap all my vampires successfully. Well change the 15 MN's to 25-30 :) Add some 10-15 Legal Manipulations. Then even the extra cost with Leandro isn't that bad. > > My Malkavian deck has a Muddled Vampire Hunter in it, which provides an > excellent way to go and pling your vampires, either torporising them, or > wasting your combat defence. Hmm Entrancement, I can steal it =) Or Lure of the Serpent if playing setite. You want to get the MVH out fast too, I can use Catatonic Fear and he'll die. > > My Malkavian Antitribu deck finds Blessing of Chaos to fit onto a couple > of vampires. So you tap that one over there, who cares? These two are > fine, and they were my main vampires, since they had DEM. This is a more unusual approach and could work. But BoC is a rare. And you need more than two if you want ot get out two before I oust you. Also since you're a Malk, my low cap vamps will outnumber yours and if you block me I have not much to fear. I won't have to use my S:CE much at all so I can save them for your Comas. > > Your predator is playing a Corruption based deck. You keep finding that > each turn, one of your vampires goes missing. This is a more interesitng one. I could use MN on him though to slow him down. But this deck could possibly work. In my playgroup however, nobody can play setites but me. Again keep in mind that I think CL is justified in *my playgroup* alone. In my group only one can play setites but me, and he doesn't ahve more than like 6 Corruptions I'd guess ( got most and I have 10..which is far from enough). Should he have to buy some 20 extra Corruptions just to counter my deck? That only proves my point fruther, that you need ot collect tons of cards to even be able to counter each and every possible strategy in VTES. My players don't want ot spend more money, should it be like that the richest players has the best chacnes? > > I use Wakes against your actions, and then use Cats' Guidance to untap. > Does it matter to me that I can't untap during my untap phase, when I'm > untapped before hand anyway? This is a better one. But unfortunately that makes you use 2 cards everytime I use one MN... And it doesnt allow you to take actions to recruit the needed retainers that gives you intercept. So while you are untapped, it's very hard ot block me if I'ma setite (which I more and more find to be the clan to go with). > > Your predator is also attacking you with combat, against which your > combat defence runs out. Yeah but this really can vary. If course this cna happen, but then you're suggesting gangbang is needed ot bring me down. It's not different than the gangbang on the Malk S&B that's been discussed about before and was so heavily despised. > > Your vampires need to gain blood somehow, else they can't play it, so I > attack that as a point of weakness. I Arson your Palatial Estate, or > your hunting ground. Since you're playing weenie presence, you also > have the problem of supplying a clan to get them in the first place, > which acts as a hindrance. If I play setites then we have the clan. While you can arson my stuff you need to get the cards up, and you need to be untapped in the first place. It could work, but doesn't sound like a very safe strategy, unless you include a lot of Arsons in your deck. But then we have the problem that you're building your deck only to counter mine, not to win yourself. It's hard to say if this deck would work, but it has the biggest potential of the ones u've mentioned so far. I still think that if I keep your vampires tapped, it's hard to do all arsons needed without help from others. > > If you're hunting to gain that blood back, I can block those actions. > Your predator can also block them which, since he needs to oust you, is > also in your interests. I get stealth for hunt, and I use stealth with obfuscate when really needed and I got Opium Den. Sure I can be blocked, but it's not easily done. My predator could help you, on the other hand he might need the intercept against his own predator. I don't think we should involve the predator in this discussion because I can get help from my grandpredator and stuff and it also depends on what he's playing to make this successful. So you get battered from both sides, once > people realise that the *hunt* action is quite vital. This is the bigegst problem with my deck but it's workable. I have to bleed you as much as possible and use blood dolls to fill my vamps up. I use pool I gain from LM and ousting you ;) I've seen a lot > of players dismiss blocking hunting actions to their detriment. They > make a mistake, they lose out. But if they isolate the problem and > attack there, they do well. Yes but you need the intercept too. And often the predator needs it against his grandpredator, and my prey...well he's tapped ;) > > You use something like Gird Minions to shift blood back on *to* your > minions. So, you're generating pool gain in some other manner. I > attack that - perhaps Suddenly Reversing your Short Term Investment. > Maybe I decide that your Parthenon is more of a problem, allowing you to > generate the pool more quickly - so I Arson that, Disputed Territory it, > Suddenly Reverse it, Dominate Kine it. > > I find that a lot of people consider 2nd Tradition a very playable card. > A lot of decks include it, so when you come to Mind Numb me, I play 2nd > Tradition and Majesty against you, with your lack of stealth. As a setite I'd include stealth cards. I don't > even need dedicated intercept for it. > > My Malkavian Antitribu deck throws a few Minds of Child over at you, > causing your deck to stutter a little. Quite blood expensive strategy and a Malk dekc needs to focus on prey and not predator, else you'll stall and your prey will grow big and jump on you :) > > I Graverob a few of your vampires. Weenies will sometimes hit torpor, > and I just borrow a few of them over to my side. Need stealth and also I need to go into torpor and not pick him up in my turn. Which means you need to punch them down (if my predator does I pick them up) and for this you need two untapped vampires. Your previous > advantage over me of, let's say, 7 minions vs my 3 suddenly becomes 6 on > 4, or 5 on 5. Even on 5/5 I win out since your vamps doesn't untap in your turns...you'd nee dmore vamps than me to be effective. And if I have say 6 vamps vs ur 3 ones your 3 vamps will always be MN'd so you'll never get to take and aciton, and I bleed you with my other 3 vamps... > > I play Hostile Takeover or ToGP against you. A few of your vampires go > walk-about on the table, or you end up paying more for them. Either > way, it disrupts your plans. You need a Justicar to start with, they're high cap vamps and then you don't even have more pool than me since I go low cap vamps. I could let you have the vamp and you'd be quite low on pool and I bleed you out. Also, both these cards are rare. > > Your Predator Mind Numbs you, and so causes you to be unable to reliably > Mind Numb me. Yes but that only proves that MN is the way to go :) If I get ousted by it, it means another MN deck won....it doesn't make the deck worse in any way. > > My Malkavian Antitribu play Kindred Spirits against you, allowing you to > be ousted more quickly for the sake of my longevity. That I can get 4 > VPs from the rest of table makes it worth giving my grand-predator one > now. Well then it's directly me vs you, and since you don't have too many vamps to bleed with (they're all or almost all MN'd) this will be a problem for you. (and my playgroup doesn't have Sabbat vamps except me and possibly one other guy...but I don't think he has enough to play !Malk effectively) > > I see you play Mind Numb and decide that, each turn, I'll take an action > with my most important vampire(s), solely to prevent you from doing > anything to them with Mind Numb - which can't affect me if I'm tapped. I can play MN on tapped vampires so they don't untap next turn. > So, you tap a couple of relatively insignificant vampires, and my other > two carry on as before. > > My Setite deck throws a Temptation or three at you. You're playing > weenie vampires, so it's not long before I start stealing them, and > taking suicidal actions with them, removing as much blood as I can, or > burning them, or being as detrimental to them as I possibly can, > transferring any equipment and so forth off, or removing stuff from them > with Heidelberg Castle. I can play Temptaion on you too ;) And temptaton is a rare (also remember that my group play mainly VTES vamps but they have some DS too). > > Weenie Presence vampires are quite popular. There's always the > possibility that someone on the table will contest them, to your > detriment (as well as theirs, probably). > > I throw Anarchist Uprising at you. You're playing weenies. All I've > had to do is keep that one vampire tapped, which one vampire tapped? u mean so i can't play MN? as far as I know, I can NM tapped vampires. Also, theother players might not be too fond of AU's and vote it down. so you can't do anything > against them, and then I can try and pass a vote, which will do > considerably more damage to you than me. > > Mind Numb taps my vampire, and they don't untap the next turn. So you > can't play another one of them on me, so the following turn, it'll be > free to act. > > Hmm... weenie Presence. There're a few Caitiff around with that, and my > vote deck might have Tradition Upheld knocking around in it. If it > doesn't, that's my fault. Not going to use any Caitiffs since 3-5 vamp caps. > > I call Ancient Influence. I gain pool, you lose pool. Yes but if you want ot gain mcuh u need ot bring out a high cap vamp..and any high cap vamps I'd make sure to keep down with MN naturally. > > You do moderately well with Mind Numb, short term, and knock my pool > down. So I Parity Shift your pool to me, or others. Well I'd probably keep your princes MN'd unless they were weenies, but then u'd have to vote them princes too. Delaying Tactics could be useful for me too. > > Do you want me to list some more? If you feel like it? However this took ages to repsond to. But I find the latter part of this big post was constructive with given examples, which is a lot better than just saying "no, because I say so" or similar attitude. > > >Your prey won't be able to do nothing > > Rubbish. Arguments like like this... Obviously they'll be able to take actions sometimes....but the idea is that they won't much at all. > > > anfd you can go on > >bleeding with some presence cards. > > So you **might** get me this turn. Next turn, I turn round when my > vampires untap. You vamps doesn't untap for a turn and that turn I play more MN's. > > >> No, but if you cannot refute that xCL ends up revolving around luck > >> *way* more so that NL, you lose a point in the argument. > > > >It's more luck yes, but a game shouldn't be too predicable. > > Put a die in the middle of the table. > > Every time you play a card, roll the die. If you get 5 or 6 on the die > roll, your card goes into the ash-heap. > > Less predictable, so better, right? shouldn't be *too* predicable, I said also...if u're so agaisnt randomness you shoudln't play Jyhad. Because the game is never predicable. Beofre you start the game u won't know who is going to win. > > And half your problem comes from your inability to actually do things to > other decks. If you put useful, workable, flexible defence in against > tactics and strategies, rather than specific decks, A lot of the decks you suggested above where quite specific and anti-MN ones. Although not all of them. no deck on the table > is predictable. > > > We think > >it's fun the extra luck invlved, > > If you want luck, play Snakes and Ladders. > > TCGs have a great deal more player skill involved in them, Jyhad very > much so. > > > it doesn't change things at all as > >mucha s you try to make ti seem. > > You clearly have no clue about what NL is. > > You cannot comment on how little CL changes the principles of NL, > because you do not understand the principles of NL. > > >Obviously you haven't really tried out > >CL then. > > And this is based on what, exactly? The same reasons that you can say I don't understand NL. > > You do know that there are a number of strong NL advocates on the group > who started off playing xCL, don't you? > > >> >while when I CL is too it's > >> >suddenly "mindless blather". > >> > >> Because you were talking crap. > > > >Wow these well-founded arguments blow me away, you win, I have ntohing > >to speak against that. > > Cool. Shut up and go home then? Promise? Nope, just because you don't like someone that prove you wrong doesn't mean I have to shut up :) > > Playing against Legacy of Pander is an interesting challenge, which you > singularly failed to be able to read. When your reading ability is up > to snuff, I have a nice book for you. "See Spot run," it says. It > might be a trifle difficult, I grant you. > > >> > >> If I want that, I'd go play The X-Files card game, or maybe just toss > >> coins like Guildenstern and Rosencratz. Or maybe snakes and > >ladders. > > > >But you're not me, > > No, I'm not. > > We're arguing about xCL, not you. And I'm the one enjoying it. > > If you haven't figured that out.... > > >and nothing you say can prevent us from playing and > >enjoying the game as WE want. > > No-one is trying to. So why do you keep talking? I never said I was pro-CL for other playgroups but ours. I let people play whatever they want and howeve rthey want. As long as it doesn't affect me I don't care. > > However, many people are trying to point out the complete lack of logic > and thought in your arguments. You are arguing that your game is > better, because you don't understand what NL is about. It's better under the current circumstances in my playgroup. Like half of all decks u mentioned above aint playble by my group in the first place. > > >If that disturbs you, frankly that's your > >problem, not ours. And if you get really annoying by this fact I think > >you need to see a doctor, you take this game way too seriously then. > > So I'm not allowed to take Jyhad seriously. You can do, but don't let it go out over me and my playgroup because we don't take it as seriously. What I mean with the above is, that if you're so annoyed by US playing like this then something is wrong. Because it doesn't affect you in nay way at all. If it did, I'd understand. > > Why is this? > > >> > >> >I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still > >harder > >> >to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting > >> >titles can become an issue. > >> > >> You don't call that PS and call another one instead, because you have > >> plenty on hand. > > *notes you can't argue about that* because there was still the other reasons. > > >> >Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a > >> >hypothetical discussion. > >> > >> You oviously don't understand how the deck works then. > >> > >> If you think 15 Dread Gazes would be a hypothetical way to defend > >> against Legacy of Pander, You Are Wrong. > > > >You're saying that 15 DG's in a deck won't prevent him from passing LoP > >votes all the time?? > > I'm saying that it wouldn't be a way to defend against LoP. Why? > Because your deck would be a bag of shit and just fall down anyway, with > the slightest push. > > >> >> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made > >> >> statements like "i haven't got time to read that." > >> > > >> >Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads?? > >> > >> You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis > >> available. > > > >I read that page even before this thread started actually. > > Why are you repeating all the arguments that have been refuted there > many times then? Because they didn't specifically deal with my playgroup. It's quite a different thing you know, since CL was made because of my playgroup's lack of cards. > > >The page is > >seems written by pro-NCL and obviosuly the arguments written there > >reflects that. > > There are arguments there in favour of CL, too. Perhaps your bigotry > blinded you to them. Maybe you should be more critical in your analyses then. They appear to be pro.CL but they were picked because the pro_NL has answers to them. Of course theyd idn't pick pro-CL questions where the pro-NL ones dind't have a good response to give. > > >I can make my own webpage bringing up arguments for and agaisnt CL and > >make it look like CL is easily the better we to go. > > You can produce a web page. > > You have thus far failed to produce logical arguments. > hmmm? why is this not logical? so u're saying that because there's Nazi- websites saying Jews are bad...that's the truth? > >> > >> >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL > >> > >> Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper. > > > >We don't have a CL in Corruption, try again thank you. > > There are plenty of other cards that are similarly shafted, the J+M page > has some discussions of them. > > CL *does* make Corruption wallpaper. You are playing a variant > thereupon. Ok that's true. But we were discussion my paygroups variant here though. As I said, I'm not against NL outside my playgroup. > > You were arguing about CL, not *your* CL. You need to learn to > distinguish the two. It isn't that hard. Well you failed to do that like 10 times previously in this post. > > >You gave ONE example which wasn't even valid since I already agree on > >this and that's why we don't have a CL on that card. Give me a new > >example please, it should be easy since CL creates so "many" wallpapers. > > Go and read Judith and Mark again, there are a number of examples there. post me the url. > > > > >> > >> >Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts, > >> >they think even $30 to get started is too much. > >> > >> Loan them a deck. Tell them to buy a pre-con starter when they come > >> out. > > > >They will, but the pre-cons aren't out yet. You're saying that we > >shouldn't have played with CL for 6 years because they were going to > >give out pre-cons in October/November 2000? > > No, but if you'd bothered to lend someone a deck or cards, they don't > need to spend hundreds of dollars to get into a game, unless you're > *all* starting. I do lend them out..but I'd definately not have enough cards for two decks without the CL. Since we have CL I could make 2 decent obfuscate decks for example..but without CL I couldn't > > And they can make perfectly workable NL decks with lots of commons. > Against a player like you, with more rares than they can get in a half > dozen starters, they can't make a deck with the same power as yours, > because when you run out of common slotss, you can put in rares. When > they run out of common slots, they can't put anything in. No because commons can't always replace a rare. You showed plenty of strategies above against a MN deck that my group couldn't play against me if I made such a deck. And they'd not be able to do an MN deck themselves either unless they bought a lot of MN's. (I can't either, but I could spend money to buy them and they couldn't). There's heaps of other "cool" startegies they can't tyr out for this reaosn...and buying commons gets xpensive too when you need to buy a lot of them since there's so many different commons. Besides they don't do nettrading either. Where to buy the cards? > > Again, xCL supports the rich player, not the new player. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) > "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful > they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why > it's possible I could get by." [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pk38v$ae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote a whole lot of stuff particularly: "I'm defending the use of CL in my group." Good for you. They are not attacking your group (although it may feel like it). They are attacking the idea of card limits (not very well). My only question is: Why do feel its necessary to defend what you do in your group? Many of the most respected posters to this newsgroup have at one time or another played with card limits. Many now do not. Some still do. Mark Langsdorf and others have posted a $150 reward for a new argument on behalf of card limits for all groups. Are you willing to take him up on it? All you have to do to get the money, is add something _new_ and correct. The arguments are here: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ Whether or not the current debaters are doing a good job (they aren't), the argument is longstanding, and you still haven't added anything new. Welcome to the flame wars, we end up watching this about twice a year. Please come up with something new and earn your well deserved reward. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:u6Ru5.103$hv.1...@news.uswest.net... [ quoted text not captured ] You know, it was so nice and idyllic here with Xian gone. What, he's back? Oh, I know - let's have a CL war! Legbiter, you confuse him, I'll distract him. Now, Derek, whack him over the head and ... Ooops... Was that supposed to be private e-mail?

Since you guys (Card Limits vs. No Card Limits) invaded our Talbot's Chainsaw thread, I'm going to invade yours... I want to talk about Talbot's Chainsaw. It's very pretty, as chainsaws go. It has a chain, and it can saw through things. It used to belong to someone, someone named Talbot, I think, but now IT'S MINE! The Sword of Judgement is also very pretty, but not as pretty as Talbot's Chainsaw. Has someone ever built a nasty Giovanni/Carlotta Necromancy deck specifically to screw with card limits? If you built it right, you could screw everyone at the table by bringing your 4 nasty broken cards back into play time and time again (You could also screw everyone at the table because they will all think you are clever and sexy!) Xian wrote in message ... >"Peter D Bakija" wrote: >[stuff about CLs and other junk] > >I liked the suggestion from someone who was vaguely pro-CL that all the old >fogies should shut up and let all the new kids babble about CLs. How >about...start threads with [CL] in them, and then all jack-booted thugs can >ignore those threads and go happily about our business of confusing everyone >(Legbiter, Xian)/plotting the next victory (Derek, Rob T)/figuring out new >methods of dishing out meaty justice (Peter, >http://www.theonion.com/onion3308/headscrackedin.html ) > >Everyone happy? > >Xian, obviously over-tired... > >

OK, I lied. Parts of this post are just too mind-numbingly stupid. I absolutely MUST respond. On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:09:50 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >Because a basic defence against somehting won't be enough against a >deck specialized in the same area. WRONG. This is the core concept that you have failed to grasp. - +1 intercept will abuse a Ventrue vote deck. This is basic. - Nossie vote decks get around +1 intercept. Dread Gaze, Surprise Influence, or titled vampires will slap that around. - Setite vote decks will get around both. Setite vote decks take forever to get started - a fast deck will beat them. Also, Setite decks tend to be a bit light on combat defense because it takes so many cards to make the deck go - a Rush deck will kill them. - Fortitude/Obedience will stop a Rush deck, so play the Ventrue. See how we've come in a big circle? A basic defense will be sufficient against most of what you will face. >If you have a a basic vote defence, you won't be able to stop a heavy >vote-going Ventrue through your vote defence. "basic vote defence: +1 intercept" The most likely (and most lethal) voters are the Ventrue. If you want to bet on the odds, include +1 intercept. If you KNOW Bob is playing his Nosferatu Vote Machine with Forgotten Labyrinth, better change your plan. But in general, +1 intercept and a few titled vamps will put a wrench in a lot of vote decks. Delaying Tactics will screw almost EVERY vote deck, but there's only so many you can put in your own. If you haven't considered votes at all, you lose 100% of the time. Better to give yourself a chance. >And naturally, you can't have good defence in all areas. If youd id, >then there would be no loopholes to exploit, which you yourself said >always exists. correct! See rock-paper-scissors example above. >With NCL that means that I can make my deck very very strong in one >area and have it suck in most tohers, but if you don't make a very very >good defence in the area I'm so storng in, then I'll win over you in >that area. And done good enough I'll have a deck that will almsot >always win, until you make a deck that specifically counters mine. But >that requires you to know my deck dude. And you're saying you don't >need to. And you are very, very wrong. Decks that almost always win are nearly unheard of. The Legacy of Pander deck does not almost always win. Todd Banister tried MANY times to make one go. We kept stepping on it, partly because he had horrible luck drawing a LoP in his opening hand. The TGP deck does not almost always win, and I saw Legbiter play it NUMEROUS times - it took a LOT of skilled play on his part to get the VPs he gained. It is not simply a case of "ok, my turn. I tempt that vampire. I Parity Shift. Next." and then lather, rinse, repeat! It is MUCH different. You Do Not Need To Know Someone's Deck. This Is Fact. Sometimes you will sit down next to a deck that just happens to be the antithesis of yours - for example, you may be playing a nice weenie bleed deck with no intercept and only Deflection, and the Ventrue Vote Machine sits down behind you. You may die miserably. (Actually, even then you have a chance to win by just outracing it.) These things happen. You will adapt and live with it, or fail. You could begin politicking to get help from the table. There are LOTS of things you can do. You are far from helpless. You refuse to believe this, but you have never played in an NCL environment, and you do not have the deck-building skills or play experience to understand how absolutely, completely true it is. You are also too stubborn and mule-headed to admit it. >If you've never faced a ToGP deck or heard of it, I find it quite >unlikely that you'll win over it the first time you play. If you do, >that's to the most part just luck (for example, you happeend to play a >vote deck with lots of Wrath of Inner Circles ;) If you've never heard of it, then the TGP player has the advantage of surprise from a new concept, and surprise counts as "deck building skill". If you HAVE heard of it, this still does not count as knowing someone's deck, as there are several ways to play a TGP deck, and you can't identify which they're using until they drop the TGP. Not to mention that if you built your deck specifically to counter TGP, then you will probably lose 3/4 of your games due to not sitting next to a TGP deck. (cantila's mythical Mind Numb strategy snipped) It really amazes me how you can blather so endlessly about something you obviously know nothing about. I refer you to... Card text for Mind Numb: (D) Put this card on any untapped vampire. Tap that vampire; he or she does not untap during his or her controller's untap phase. Burn this card at the beginning of your next untap phase. (S) As above, with +1 stealth. Notice where it says UNTAPPED VAMPIRE? All this glop you're spouting is totally pointless. Once you play one Mind Numb, I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever leave a vampire untapped again, unless I am packing intercept or have just transferred him out. Your 15 Mind Numbs will pathetically clog your hand, and you will be discarding one each turn while I laugh as you frantically search for bleed cards. Second, zero stealth actions don't mean shit to an untapped vampire, and +1 stealth actions aren't much more frightening. So what you need to get +2 stealth on your Mind Numb is: A Marijava Ghoul (costs 2 and a +1 stealth action to equip - and by the way, people go OUT OF THEIR WAY to block Marijava Ghouls), and superior Presence. Not so easy, now is it? Third, James listed about 20 counters to your deck, any of which might be in his. Since he doesn't know what you're playing, the odds are about 1 in 20 that he'll have any specific counter. But he'll have ONE, in some form or other. However, YOU only have one deck. You do not have room for the 20 counters to his 20 decks. You have to pick and choose. So you use Setites and OBF - that's great. You probably have no combat defense, and you lack superior PRE. Maybe you include a bunch of PRE and Marijava Ghouls - but you lose when he plays Rat's Warning on the zero-stealth bleed action, and Cat's Guidance afterwards - his Numb vampire is now untapped, and can take all the actions it wants. Use your HEAD for a change. Yes, Mind Numb is a good card. Yes, it can be very annoying. NO, it is not overpowered, because putting 10-15 in a deck would just screw yourself. Don't you think we'd hear about all those nasty Mind Numb decks otherwise? [ quoted text not captured ]

I would like to address your point on Malk stealth and bleed below where you say: > It can't run over a table more than the LoP deck did at the Gen*Con or > whatever else. You can certainly stop the Malk deck by having lots of > intercept and a few deflects/reduce bleeds. > > Throw in a Guardian Angel, a few Sports Bikes and a few loc-intercepts > and you got a decent defence. Sure Malky might get through but it's not > like you'll die on *one* bleed or two. I could go a voting deck and > vote myself lots of pool, or I could rush his vamps and kill him. I > could have Protected Resources (need only one of this card, and 4 ppl > here has it), I could use Archon Investigation..etc...*doesn't this > discussion feel very familiar somehow??* First of all, your arguement about being able to counter dedicated stealth with an equal amount of dedicated intercept is wrong. It requires approximately twice as much dedicated intercept to catch a dedicated stealth deck. The reason for this is Elder Impersonation. At superior, Elder Impersonation causes a block to fail. This card single handedly takes a vampire with alot of intercept on him out of the blocking scheme and therefore requires the blocking player to put an equal amount of intercept on a second vampire. Therefore it requires twice as much intercept on average to catch stealth in any environment CL or NCL. If you plan on playing Elder Impersonation, then it should be your last of a series of stealth cards with your intention being to draw out all of your prey's intercept. Second, Malkavians can go all out every turn and bleed you with each minion for two if you have Protected Resources, but if you have protected resources then you cannot bleed your prey so therefore you must play politics or you lose your Protected Resources. Therefore if you play Protected Resources then you can't use a rush strategy, because with rush you must always eventually bleed your prey out. Rush is the counter to Stealth/Bleed. Third, Archon investigation is a good defense against power bleeds, but if your predator even has a inkling that you might have one in your deck . He is either going to bleed you for no more than three or try to draw it out using a disposable vampire like a weenie. So it is good to suprise your predator with one of these, but it only works once and it costs you 3 pool. It is an expensive yet inconsistant defense. This leeds me to Derek's point about bounce. Bounce is the only definative defense against stealth and bleeds. It is convenient, cheap and extremely useful in helping you oust your own prey. To restate Dereks point in a card limit environment you are limited to at most having 12 of these in your deck (4 Redirections, 4 Deflections, 4 Telepathic Misdirections), and, as Derek said Redirections are the weak one out of that group. Of course you also have Telepathic Counters, but that is a paper shield against a stealth and bleed deck. That really only leaves one deck strategy to play if you want to win in a CL environment, and that is stealth bleed. Stealth, bleed is fast and powerful right out of the gate, and with your 4 card limit, a player cannot muster a substancial defence before they are ousted. Therefore if you want to win in a CL environment you play dedicated Stealth-Bleed. Do you like to win? So why would you play anything else? Why would anybody play anything else? Let's all play stealth and bleed because card-limits just wall-papered Rush Combat and politics is too fragile in a high speed environment. So now everyone plays stealth bleed. Yee Haw!! :) 2 cents, 2 pennys, 2 kopeks, 2 pesos, whatever... it is all pocket change. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp > > > > >> What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's > > >very > > >> different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been > > >ever > > >> since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES. > > > > > >But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I? You > tell > > >me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to > > >check how this single thread came to existance... > > > > I did. I tried to head the whole damn thing off by directing you to > > the archive, INSTEAD of encouraging you to post all this glop to the > > group, KNOWING that this would happen. Do you understand now why I > > did that? > > No I don't, because Norman made a remark that was wrong and I corrected > it and now it's my fault? > > CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL and nothing in the > archives makes me think differently and nothing you or anyone else have > said in all this long thread has made me think differently. And > everyhtign u've said has already been handled in the archives, so > OBVIOUSLY it would have been a watse of time to read them, I'm glad I > didn't. > > > > >Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused, > > >that just doesn't stand up, they are. > > > > The card itself is no less powerful with only 4 in a deck. And I > > still hesitate to call ToGP broken. > > A sudden will have more impact, and it also take slonger for you to > draw the ToGP's so meanwhile a lot of stuff could happen that speaks to > my favor. I'm not saying it's still not a good combo (I am NOT against > good combos!!) it's just not as likely to pull it all through. > > > > > >> You can play as many clans as you want under NL. > > > > > >But not effectively unless u're filthy rich. > > > > This is just wrong. What clan can't you play effectively under NL > > unless you're rich? > > No what I mean is that you need ot be filthy rich to buy enough card ot > be able to get vampires for all cards and all the cards that goes with > these vampires. If I for example don't have money to buy both AH and > Sabbat I can't play them either. With CL you don't need as many cards > of these to remain competitive, with NCL you need more cards because > you find that you want more than 4 of a card, say Guard Dogs, so you > need to buy more boosters to get them. And don't come and say you can > use Rat's Warnign instead, because then you're saying that 4 CL doesn't > harm you, since using Rat's Warning is what our players do now... > > > > > >You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few > > >decks/clans that they prefer to always play? Only those with tons of > > >cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they > > >never break down. I think that tells something... > > > > Yeah, we're telling you that THERE ARE, IN FACT, *NOT* TONS OF PEOPLE > > HAVING A FEW DECKS OR CLANS THEY ALWAYS PLAY. Those people who DO are > > invariably new to the game or inexperienced, and as soon as they're > > introduced to a different style of deckbuilding, they change over > > themselves. Some of our new players used to play nothing but Brujah, > > nothing but Tremere, etc. - they no longer do that, because they find > > it more fun to play with multiple different ideas. > > And they got more hooked ot thegame and were willing to spend more > money. Once our players have spent enough money to be able to pay most > decks they'll also have more rare and uncommon cards and then CL might > be lifted. But this hasn't happeend yet and the fact that it's > virtually impossible to buy new cards prevents this from happening. > > > > > >"In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a > > >Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be > blind. > > > > We haven't seen it. Quote us some websites, will you? Because I > > don't think you've seen it either. > > I actually came across one just the other day, I'll for sure post an > example when I find one. > > > > > >I dind't dsay they never tried others. But they play mainly one, and > > >that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent > > >their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's > > >not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed, without > > >being filthy rich. > > > > Again, this is just false. $750 spent over 2 years is not filthy > > rich, i'm sorry. And I can make pretty much almost any deck I want. > > Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts, > they think even $30 to get started is too much. Trust me I'm honest in > this, I think $30 is really nothing for the great fun you get, but > somehow they seme to think so. There was a guy who sold all his cards > (he had a big binder full of cards, both VTES, DS and AH, cards worth > maybe $300) and he was selling for $40 and people weren't interested. > The one who bought it is a guy who's as fanatic as me and who already > had quite many cards. The binder would have done a lot more good in the > hands of some newbies who plays with us all the time. > > > > > -- Derek > > Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta [ quoted text not captured ]

"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8pk38v$ae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > I have so damn many times. IG IG IG IG rings a bell? YOU haven't > addressed how to deal with S:CE effectively with a common card. > > I wonder why you haven't?? Perhaps because there was no need to create a *common* counter to S:CE. As a specialized case, an anti-S:CE card should be uncommon at best. Psyche is uncommon. Fast Reactions is uncommon, as is Hidden Lurker. IG (as of Sabbat) is uncommon, and arguably should have been uncommon in Jyhad/V:tES. Dog Pack is Rare, and perhaps rightly so. It's a nice retainer. Sticks around for quite a while. (All rarities are approximate...I don't really remember.) You can deal with S:CE relatively effectively if you are packing more Haven Uncovered and Bum's Rushes than the S:CE'er. However, this is a less elegant solution and tends to waste more cards than other methods. If you could only rely on these two cards, and no other effects to deal with S:CE, you would probably need to pack approximately twice as many as currently tend to go into a "killer" rush deck. Say 20 or so Bums' Rush and 8 Haven Uncovered. This takes up a lot of deck space that could be devoted to other stuff. A few cards providing an anti-S:CE effect aren't that scary because they are so specific. IG hoses S:CE, thaumaturgy and weapons for the first round only. Of these, in the tournament scene at least, S:CE is the only one that sees much play. Beyond that, all you get is a press and range-set for the next round. And that's at superior. Not a lot for placing the card in your deck. Psyche is a press at inferior, and at superior allows you to start a new combat. Maybe worse than IG, but offers advantages in possibly making the opponent blow 2 S:CE cards for your one card. Additionally, it has the alternate use as a press if necessary. This card is perhaps more generally useful than IG. Fast Reactions is pretty much the same, except it disallows a strike by the opposing minion on the first round and requires another ready untapped vampire. Same with Hidden Lurker. Nice, but harder to implement than either of our two previous choices. Dog Pack, which a) costs a pool, b) takes an action to equip, and c) is pretty darn fragile, is extremely useful for being placed in play until destroyed. Nice. If only more clans had stuff like this. It's powerful. Beyond that, as mentioned, BR & HU work, but only to a lesser extent. They require too much space devoted to them alone to act as an effective counter to S:CE. Anyway, the whole point here is that a common should not necessarily have a rarity that equates to its counter. S:CE is such a specific (and powerful) effect that it need not have a counter that can be acquired in the same quantities easily. I've been up for 24 hours, so perhaps I'm not entirely lucid at this point. Maybe someone else can translate for me. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

[btw cantila, could you perhaps snip more of the quoted text than you did this time? there seemed to be an awful lot more old text than new in this message...] In article <8pk38v$ae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > Why is it not? I'm defending xCL in my playgroup, not xCL anywhere else > in the world, I never have and I really wonder how many times I have to > repeat this until people like you understand this. It's definately > relevant. I understand this. However, your arguments against NCL (ie demonstrating how they'd be worse for your playgroup) seem to me to be somewhat inaccurate. > Because a basic defence against somehting won't be enough against a > deck specialized in the same area. > > If you have a a basic vote defence, you won't be able to stop a heavy > vote-going Ventrue through your vote defence. > > And naturally, you can't have good defence in all areas. If youd id, > then there would be no loopholes to exploit, which you yourself said > always exists. > > With NCL that means that I can make my deck very very strong in one > area and have it suck in most tohers, but if you don't make a very very > good defence in the area I'm so storng in, then I'll win over you in > that area. And done good enough I'll have a deck that will almsot > always win, until you make a deck that specifically counters mine. But > that requires you to know my deck dude. And you're saying you don't > need to. This is simply wrong. In NCL decks, everyone's offense fits into one of three basic categories: vote, bleed, combat. If you want to have defense in your deck, you put in defensive cards against vote, bleed, and combat. You don't have to know exactly how your opponents will be bleeding you, voting against you, or what they'll be playing in combat to put in cards that defend against their strategies. It's good to have some idea of what the more popular approaches to offense are, so that you pick the defensive cards that will be most effective most often, but Delaying Tactics works every time someone calls a vote, Obedience works every time a younger vampire attempts to enter combat with one of your DOM vamps, and Deflection works every time someone tries to bleed you. > If you've never faced a ToGP deck or heard of it, I find it quite > unlikely that you'll win over it the first time you play. If you do, > that's to the most part just luck (for example, you happeend to play a > vote deck with lots of Wrath of Inner Circles ;) Why not? You only lose automatically to decks that are "the perfect counter" to the one you're playing. If your deck is flexible and well-built, it has a chance of winning against anything you sit down next to. > Well you need to gather the voting power for that AND have a DU in your > hand AND be able to take the action (quite hard when MN has been used > on all your vampires). Even so, you need ot do all this before I oust > you. I think I could oust you pretty fast with my deck. All I need is > Presence. With that I can MN and bleed (and I can use Marijava Ghouls > too so my MN are hard to block, I could even use some obf in my deck if > it's needed). > > I'm nt claiming it's impossible to avoid, since clearly there's always > a solution to every strategy. But you claim that in NL there's so many > options but the example you gave is quite long-sighted and even though > it solves your problem it won't help the guy that will be my new prey > and eventually I'll oust all and then you'll be my prey again when it's > only you and me left. This Mind Numb thing is totally misguided, as far as I can see. Problem 1: You can only Mind Numb an untapped vampire, by card text. (Which is why always tapping out your vampires to take actions on your own turn is a total Mind Numb defense and has the added benefit of clogging the Mind Numb deck's hand with Mind Numbs.) Problem 2: Taking two actions to get a bleed through is inefficient and slow; three (with Marijava Ghouls) is even worse. I've seen people try to make Mind Numb decks, and they have never looked very powerful, because they simply cannot be that fast. [really big snip] > No because commons can't always replace a rare. You showed plenty of > strategies above against a MN deck that my group couldn't play against > me if I made such a deck. And they'd not be able to do an MN deck > themselves either unless they bought a lot of MN's. (I can't either, > but I could spend money to buy them and they couldn't). There's heaps > of other "cool" startegies they can't tyr out for this reaosn...and > buying commons gets xpensive too when you need to buy a lot of them > since there's so many different commons. The rares in Jyhad are almost always *not* power cards. They may be useful. They may be interesting. But they are not the staple cards of the no-card-limit game. There are about a zillion good bleed and vote cards that are common, not to mention stealth, intercept, and combat. The entire basis of the no-limits game is using a bunch of common cards to make your deck work. That's why you don't have to be rich to play no-limits Jyhad: You don't need a heap of rares. You just need a heap of commons. My interpretation of why your group likes card limits (and I apologize if this is offensive) is that, first of all, they don't like seeing the same card title a lot of times in a game - they find it amusing to see different cards used for the same effect instead. Second, nobody is interested in "playing to win" - your players don't believe that what's fun about the game is the competition for victory points, but something else. Taking actions and having combats and votes and such, maybe. But they're not interested in putting together cutthroat decks and trying their best to kill each other as effectively as they can, even by coming up with clever and bizarre new deck concepts. Third, they believe that if there were no card limits, the people with more cards would automatically win by being able to put in more copies of the "powerful" cards, and they are not interested in buying enough cards (a couple boxes of Jyhad each, maybe) to build the archetypal mostly-commons no-limits decks. Josh no-limits zealot (no relation to master p) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <skfYBaB3...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8pbfcr$fau$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes > >So a 4 cl actually helps you, because you could play a better stealth > >than someone else who doesn't have access to Elder Impersonation. The > >other players, who under a NCL could play a deck with more than 4 Cloak > >the Gathering, now can only play with 4 Cloaks but you can play with the > > same 4 cloaks they can plus your 4 Elder Impersonation cards in > >addition to any other stealth cards that they have. > > Indeed. > > I've noted several times that the xCL is substantially achieving an > advantage for Cantilla over the rest of the playgroup. > > Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise for the interested student. Well check out http://x60.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp? thitnum=10&mhitnum=108&CONTEXT=968785280.2015297549 then and answer that. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) > "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful > they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why > it's possible I could get by." > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000909...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > People in my group don't play much of real pure stealth and bleed, > > > because it's so friggin' boring and quite lame and IF they do they get > > > quite gangbanged after the first game (if hey won). > > > > These are social considerations, and while I like the social aspect of > > VTES and love table politics, I don't think that social bullying should > > be part of the rules. > > Agreed. Especially since the Malky player is probably not some > hyper-experienced skilled player with some huge card collection. More > likely, it is some poor newby who is delighted to find that he/she can > actually make a competitive deck with his/her small collection of mostly > commons. Actually the pure S&B decks are played by mixed players. Both experienced and non-experienced ones. And it's not like you gangbang them immediately, you try bring them down if they get too powerful in the game and thus is a threat for your own victory. just like you'd try prevent any player from winning with any deck but yourself. I really doubt that you guys don't do the same. Politics is a fun (and as I see, a very important) part of the game. > > If you want to teach such folks the error of their ways, then the correct > approach is to find ways of defeating their decks. That way, you both > learn something, and new players are not turned into social targets just > for being smart and learning how to win. > > -- John Whelan [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pk554$2ea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > In article <8pk38v$ae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote a whole > lot of stuff particularly: > > "I'm defending the use of CL in my group." > > Good for you. > They are not attacking your group (although it may feel like it). > They are attacking the idea of card limits (not very well). > > My only question is: > Why do feel its necessary to defend what you do in your group? Read on how this thread started. I only menation our playgroup played with CL and then someone commented CL was wrogn and I pointed out I thought it was justified in my playgroup and then the flames started. If someone says you're wrong when you think you're not, don't you try to prove that you're not? But I don't feel I need to defend our rules to anyone here because it's not really your business. However I feel that if people flame me they should at least have some substance in doing so. > > Many of the most respected posters to this newsgroup have at > one time or another played with card limits. Many now do not. > Some still do. > > Mark Langsdorf and others have posted a $150 reward for a new > argument on behalf of card limits for all groups. > > Are you willing to take him up on it? I'll chekc it out. But the problem with his so called reward is of course that he's the judge (I assume) or at least that pro-NL supports are the judge. What's considere "new" is a matter of perception. And even if I indeed DID come up with something new it has to be acknowledge as something new too. I strongly doubt he'd acknowledge that, becuase he'd then be $150 poorer. Also without chekcing out the rules for the contest, I'm sure there's a condition that the new argument has some importance. Again, that's a matter of perception. I don't think he's too eager to lose $150, thus I doubt it's possible to win that money unless someone comes up with something that even the majority of the pro-NL players agrees is something new. And I really can't see that happen, just as much as a pro-CL player would agree on soemthing "new" a pro-NL came up with. > > All you have to do to get the money, is add something _new_ and correct. > > The arguments are here: > > http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ > > Whether or not the current debaters are doing a good job (they aren't), > the argument is longstanding, and you still haven't added anything new. I don't think there HAS to be something new adde,d because a lot of the arguments that NL players counter the CL arguments with I don't think are good enough, just a smuch as you think mine aren't *shrug*. [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > Well check out http://x60.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp? > thitnum=10&mhitnum=108&CONTEXT=968785280.2015297549 then and answer > that. Answer what? That Elder Impersonation is a good argument for a card limit? The following is a truism. Read it carefully. A card that is unbalancing and detrimental to the game as whole is just as unbalanced in a NCL environment as it is in a xCL environment. In fact, in most cases it becomes even more unbalanced in xCL environments as the ability to counteract the card also becomes more difficult. The realitiy is that CL doesn't fix broken cards, it just makes them played less frequently...and if I use Carlotta Giovanni (or Necromancy cards) to go get the broken card out of my ash heap and back into my hand, card limits become totally pointless and others will not be able to reliably defend against it. As for Elder Impersonation, while one vampire may not be able to block, others can (and. like all action mods, only one Elder Intervention can be played per action) so only players with one available blocker (and no wakes) will be hurt by the card. If you're esp. worried about this card (or any others), perhaps adding a few Direct Interventions to your decks would be worthwhile. Granted it's a rough card, esp. when coupled with Seduction, but it is in no way is a good argument for card limits. That said, card limits are _not_ part of the game (regardless of whatever house rules you choose to invent) and the entire discussion of card limits is pointless. Regards, Noal McDonald Vampire: Elder Kindred Network Prince of Farmington Hills, MI National Jyhad League Rules Team Member -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:41:44 GMT, The Lasombra wrote: >Mark Langsdorf and others have posted a $150 reward for a new >argument on behalf of card limits for all groups. > >Are you willing to take him up on it? > >All you have to do to get the money, is add something _new_ and correct. > >The arguments are here: > >http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ This page seems to contain mostly arguments against card limits not for them. Is there some clear statement somewhere of this offer and the arguments that have already been used on the other side. I think it's easy to find something new to say but I'm not wasting my time on a wild goose chase. Andrew

"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8plvo7$7qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... [snip stuff re: reward] > I'll chekc it out. But the problem with his so called reward is of > course that he's the judge (I assume) or at least that pro-NL supports > are the judge. What's considere "new" is a matter of perception. And Well, I think that if you actually came up with something new and posted it to the newsgroup, there might be a little discussion as to whether or not it was actually new, but if it was, I feel that a majority of the people here are honest enough to admit it. Most of the long time posters here have (at one time or another) argued in favor of restrictions on cards that their favorite styles of decks depend upon. The example which sticks out in my mind is Peter and Josh agreeing with the modifications to IG...because they knew exactly how powerful it was. > even if I indeed DID come up with something new it has to be > acknowledge as something new too. I strongly doubt he'd acknowledge > that, becuase he'd then be $150 poorer. Also without chekcing out the It's actually a distributed award. I believe Mark only has about $25 to $50 personally invested...I pledged $25 last year or so...as little as 2 years ago, the reward was only at $100. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ZNPFLeC3...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <anngrsorqmkh93aem...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes > >There's always the potential option, in your own vote deck, of just > >burning the early single LoP's as they come out. > > You need Sabbat vampires to burn it. > > Understandable, since the respect the Pander have over Caitiff, is > solely internal to the Sabbat, but annoying. > > > A Prince with > >superior BO has 6 votes, which beats 5 Panders. > > What happens if I get two-pair? ;) Or if a Pander uses BO too... adding BO isn't a valid argument since panders could too. > > >(A Prince with Closed > >Session can snub the Pander completely, and Closed Session isn't > >always such a bad card.) > > I'm starting to think that a voting deck with Closed Session in it is > rapidly becoming a very attractive proposition indeed. Yes this I agree on. Especially when Sabbat War comes out and more people can actually put together a Sabbat deck. Till then that won't happen over here at least. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) > "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful > they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why > it's possible I could get by." > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <AB6C9D9A49C52873.E93B291C...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] The page is written by pro-NL people which really disqualifies it to be used as "proof" that NL is better than CL. The answers aren't unbiased and it's easy to leave out vital arguments that makes CL look like a better alternative and/or NL as a worse such. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8plvo7$7qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] By the way check out this for example: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/4Card/3CardLimit.html A redicilously lame atttempt to prove NL is better than CL. I truly doubt any pro-CL guy actually said the text in bold since the arguments he gave was tailored to make the pro-NL guy look right´ad the pro-CL one to look like a fool. [ quoted text not captured ]

"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8pm92d$jp4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > Andrew Davidson wrote: > > This page seems to contain mostly arguments against card limits not > > for them. Is there some clear statement somewhere of this offer and > > the arguments that have already been used on the other side. I think > > it's easy to find something new to say but I'm not wasting my time on > > a wild goose chase. I thought there was a specific page on there, as I know I've seen something in writing. I would recommend searching deja.com for Mark Langsdorf in r.g.t-c.j, but the complete archive is still unavailable. So, I have no suggestions for now unless Mark (or someone else) comes out of hiding and mentions what exactly the criteria for "new" are. > The page is written by pro-NL people which really disqualifies it to be > used as "proof" that NL is better than CL. The answers aren't unbiased > and it's easy to leave out vital arguments that makes CL look like a > better alternative and/or NL as a worse such. Actually, that page has articles from both sides. However, is any answer unbiased? It is notable that you haven't even attempted to come up with something new, instead, you are putting forth comments about the validity of the measurement and the prejudices of your assumed judges. Might your time not be more productively be spent in coming up with a new point that indicates some manner in which CL deals with broken cards in a manner superior to NCL? I have noted that it is not your stated mission to convert the rest of the Jyhad-playing world to CL, but your protracted arguments back and forth speak to the contrary. And answering a question that was posed elsewhere, I don't bother defending again and again a point if someone tells me that I'm wrong and think that I'm right. I try to explain myself once or twice, and then if they persist in telling me I'm wrong, I usually just say, "okay, whatever" and walk away. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pm92d$jp4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > In article > The page is written by pro-NL people which really disqualifies > it to be used as "proof" that NL is better than CL. The answers > aren't unbiased and it's easy to leave out vital arguments that > makes CL look like a better alternative and/or NL as a worse such. Name one vital argument that was left out. Please. Make a list of your "vital" arguments, put them in one post. I will put them on my website for your permanent approval. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

I think we are missing the point of the whole conversation, but I could be wrong... I have been wrong before...(I think it was 1986)...;-) This shouldn't be about CL vs. NCL. When the game was first designed, and produced and the rule book came out, as I can recall correct me please if I am incorrect, there was nothing stating card limits. I first played this game with a CL, I played at a Magic:TCH store. That says it all. I did however find out that the official rules of the game were to play with NCL, and I said oh well, and adapted my decks accordingly. Sure I had traded some cards away that I would have used in an NCL environment, but I got them back realizing that I wasn't following the rules. This CL that Cantila and friends have incorporated in their group (with approval of the other coterie members) is an arbitrary decision that they wish to follow. As long as they know they can't hold any sanctioned tourneys with CL's in place (judging by the threads this won't happen anytime soon) all should be well. They want to play this way, and it is truly up to them whether or not to play with CL's or not. This is where I get nasty... (sorry Cantila)... When I found out the CL we had in our coterie was not part of the rules, we banished it accordingly. Not playing by official rules is something I could not comprehend. If I was playing Scrabble, can I decide that Double Word Scores are actually Quadruple Word Scores? Would that make the game more fair? More fun? Hard to say... but I wouldn't play a game without following the rules to the letter. This is why alot of players feel that CL's are bad. They just don't want to admit that they are being good boys and following the rules. Playing with CL's in place is the equivalent of breaking the rules. Like I said upfront... this shouldn't be about CL vs. NCL... it should be about playing by official rules versus playing by your own set of rules. Just my opinion, and you know what an opinion is worth... NOTHING. oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:56:39 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <ZNPFLeC3...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In article <anngrsorqmkh93aem...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray >> <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >> >There's always the potential option, in your own vote deck, of just >> >burning the early single LoP's as they come out. >> >> You need Sabbat vampires to burn it. >> >> Understandable, since the respect the Pander have over Caitiff, is >> solely internal to the Sabbat, but annoying. >> >> > A Prince with >> >superior BO has 6 votes, which beats 5 Panders. >> >> What happens if I get two-pair? ;) > >Or if a Pander uses BO too... adding BO isn't a valid argument since >panders could too. So a Pander uses BO to pass his vote, and then I use BO to remove it. We go round in a little circle until one of us runs out of BO or LoP, except that I have an advantage - the status quo is in my favor, and I undoubtedly have superior Presence - something no Pander has inherently. For him, BO only produces a total of 3 votes. Titled vamps screw up LoP -badly-. (Although I need an Archbishop, not a Prince, to get the original two votes, since it needs a Sabbat vampire.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8plvo7$7qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > In article <8pk554$2ea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If someone says you're wrong when you think you're not, don't you try > to prove that you're not? But I don't feel I need to defend our rules > to anyone here because it's not really your business. However I feel > that if people flame me they should at least have some substance in > doing so. I find it incredibly funny that you question their substance. To date, you have not acknowledged a number of salient points by numerous posters, including, Noal McDonald, Derek Ray, James Hamblin, Lasombra and others. I'm sorry that you feel attacked. In fact, many of the posts in this thread were not the best worded in responded to you. However, that doesn't change the vast wealth of information on this topic. To say the comments were lacking substance shows that you have not paid attention, at least (even if you might still feel that they are wrong). > > Mark Langsdorf and others have posted a $150 reward for a new > > argument on behalf of card limits for all groups. > > Are you willing to take him up on it? > I'll chekc it out. But the problem with his so called reward is of > course that he's the judge (I assume) or at least that pro-NL supports > are the judge. What's considere "new" is a matter of perception. And > even if I indeed DID come up with something new it has to be > acknowledge as something new too. I strongly doubt he'd acknowledge > that, becuase he'd then be $150 poorer. Also without chekcing out the > rules for the contest, I'm sure there's a condition that the new > argument has some importance. Again, that's a matter of perception. I > don't think he's too eager to lose $150, thus I doubt it's possible to > win that money unless someone comes up with something that even the > majority of the pro-NL players agrees is something new. And I really > can't see that happen, just as much as a pro-CL player would agree on > soemthing "new" a pro-NL came up with. This isn't true at all. Preceding the Mark Langsdorf $150 reward, I had a reward offer up. At the time, the current tournament rules were not in place, and I drafted what would one day form the core of these rules (which are, as an aside, No-Limit). I challenged anyone to make a deck that was broken with the rules I had proposed, and I offered a reward to do so. The reason: I wanted people to either "put up or shut up". The old arguments about NL being broken had been hashed over too many times, and I was tired of people joining the conversation without actually adding things to it. I'm certain Mark feels the same. For over a year, no one was able to collect. Then, shortly after Ancient Hearts was released, someone did indeed break a deck with my rules set. The deck was the first Return to Innocence deck, and it abused the card quite ridiculously. Eventually, Return to Innocence was banned. While I was prepared to send a check, that particular player refused the money, mostly because he felt guilty because it was the card that was the problem and NOT the NL rules set. The subsequent banning of that card bears that out. > I don't think there HAS to be something new adde,d because a lot of > the arguments that NL players counter the CL arguments with I don't > think are good enough, just a smuch as you think mine aren't *shrug*. Examples, please. -- offNet: Adrian Sullivan @#$ Web Consultant - Game Theorist $#@ EFNet: Corrupter @#$ Writer - Eccentric - Hedonist $#@ USENET: The Corrupter @#$ Geek - Coffee Addict - HSTHSTS $#@ e-mail: thecor...@yahoo.com TaLeNa FOREVER! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorry, Jeff. I just played 5 Detections on you, and you can't vote... Mike

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I wrote 10 scathing pages, but couldn't bring myself to post them. Please? For me? > In article <8plvo7$7qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > -Read on how this thread started. I only menation our playgroup played > -with CL and then someone commented CL was wrogn and I pointed out I > -thought it was justified in my playgroup and then the flames started. > > I re-read how this thread started. > You brought up a totally unrelated item to an answer to > a question you had asked. Cantila's referring to my post here. (No surprise that I'm the one that stirred up the bees' nest.) I said that people that played with card limits were wrong...and that it was that simple. I was _attempting_ to cut off the CL argument by not giving any pros or cons. Let me try it again: Cantila, you are wrong. Period. Now shut the fuck up about the goddamn house rules you play with. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you play with card limits, one PA vote push per ready minion, thirty drops of real blood in a cup for pool or any other dumbass house rule you come up with. If you ask questions you must assume that the answers will reflect the rules of the game...and the rules of the game DO NOT INCLUDE CARD LIMITS. The rest of you stop responding to Cantila. If something annoys you, ignore it. It will go away. *shakes head* Even I know better than to start a thread about the merits of NJL rules vs. official rules. A difference of opinion need not take up this much bandwith. Besides which, a lot of the NJL rules reflects the different environment of an NJL tournament vs. a VEKN tournament. What works for us won't work for the entire VTES community and we recognize that. That said, Viva la Revolution! Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com writes: >On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:20:53 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >And there are some new facts to take into account now that the game is >being relaunched. Telling people to go and buy cheap boxes of Jyhad >to get the large multiples they need is a fading argument. At some >point there won't be any more boxes of Jyhad left and then what? This is a problem regardless of CL. Hopefully, White Wolf will have reprinted a "main set" so people can still go find some fairly inexpensive boxes that have staple common cards in them. But at some point someday in the future (however far), that game will die for lack of availabilty, whether played with CL or not. Fred

I wrote 10 scathing pages, but couldn't bring myself to post them. Here are my questions to the card limits group playing with cantilla. In article <8p8ivu$29m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: -So then we come back to the origin of this whole discussion -where someone claimed that CL creates wallpaper cards. Nice to -see someone from the NCL camp admitting they were wrong. No, the whole discussion started because you asked about what you thought were wallpaper cards, were told ways to make the card useful, and then said "no that won't work" because "we play with a card limit". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <8plvo7$7qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: -Read on how this thread started. I only menation our playgroup played -with CL and then someone commented CL was wrogn and I pointed out I -thought it was justified in my playgroup and then the flames started. I re-read how this thread started. You brought up a totally unrelated item to an answer to a question you had asked. You asked if people were using House Rules for Oxford University and other cards. Legbiter told you that under the official rules of the game, there is no need for house rules to make the card useful. (All discussion on this newsgroup is assumed to be based on the official rules, until questions like house rules come up.) Legbiter answered you with: > Oxford University is quite good really. Use it to vote-push > your weenie Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool > back by Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO. Then, from nowhere, you introduced card limits: "We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well." At no point did Legbiter mention a specific or recommended number of cards. You simply assumed that large quantities were necessary. Any "Brujah weenie" deck will have plenty of minions, and no more than 3-4 Consanguineous Boons will need to be called to have plenty of pool recouped. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <8p8ivu$29m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: -We play by the old vote rules, where you can throw one vote card -for ready vampire (IMO I think it's redicilous that was changed), -so he'll be able to gather votes that way plus Ventrue HQ and such -cards. Our newbies never had problems with voting so I don't see -how this is a problem. This was never a rule. Originally, you could play as many vote cards as you had in your hand, and keep cycling for more cards until you decided you were finished, or ran out of vote cards. Ready vampires had nothing to do with it. Are there any other rules you made up that you have forgotten to tell us about that make your card limits appropriate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <8p8ivu$29m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: -You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few -decks/clans that they prefer to always play? Only those with tons of -cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they -never break down. I think that tells something... What does it tell? That it is a collectable card game, not Monopoly? That the only way cards get printed is if people buy them? That the only way stores have cards in stock is if people buy the collectable card game? If people aren't buying cards, the game is dead. We've been playing a dead game for 4 years. Lets not kill it again with artificially deciding that money equals evil. Or, that money equals boring. Or, that money equals winning. It doesn't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <8p8ivu$29m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: -CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't -seem to be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks -with some diversity :) Does diversity in one single game in one single deck, overpower the need for diversity in the game as a whole? Take a set of all possible decks, subtract those that are prohibited by a card limit. By definition, card limits reduce diversity in the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I played and advocated card limits from 1994 until 1996 when the Sabbat came out. At that time, there was enough duplication in the function of the common cards, that the ridiculousness of a card limit became immediately obvious. I'm sorry you haven't had the fortune to have players interested in the game when it was available, because I never had problems buying the cards in the areas I played until 1998, and then I still had no problem finding the cards online. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <0DAv5.6663$Ld.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, Oaflord <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: >This is where I get nasty... (sorry Cantila)... > >When I found out the CL we had in our coterie was not part of the rules, we >banished it accordingly. Not playing by official rules is something I could >not comprehend. If I was playing Scrabble, can I decide that Double Word >Scores are actually Quadruple Word Scores? Would that make the game more >fair? More fun? Hard to say... but I wouldn't play a game without >following the rules to the letter. This is why alot of players feel that >CL's are bad. They just don't want to admit that they are being good boys >and following the rules. Playing with CL's in place is the equivalent of >breaking the rules. Like I said upfront... this shouldn't be about CL vs. >NCL... it should be about playing by official rules versus playing by your >own set of rules. Can I have some of what you're smoking?

> I wrote 10 scathing pages, but couldn't bring myself to post them. > Here are my questions to the card limits group playing with > cantilla. Would you if we paid you? With cookies? :p hehehe Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

In article <683urs4b7l9g5jttg...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >For him, BO only produces a total of 3 votes. Titled >vamps screw up LoP -badly-. Kind of. IME, you need to get them out quickly, and stall the LoP deck in the mean-time - which is possible. > (Although I need an Archbishop, not a >Prince, to get the original two votes, since it needs a Sabbat >vampire.) Not *necessarily*. You could use a Prince for their two votes and a Sabbat weenie PRE to call it. Obviously, a vamp with PRE and votes is probably the faster option since the smallest vampire with PRE in the Sabbat appears to be 5. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:17:16 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <683urs4b7l9g5jttg...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>For him, BO only produces a total of 3 votes. Titled >>vamps screw up LoP -badly-. > >Kind of. IME, you need to get them out quickly, and stall the LoP deck >in the mean-time - which is possible. Definitely. A little intercept, it go a long way, baby. >> (Although I need an Archbishop, not a >>Prince, to get the original two votes, since it needs a Sabbat >>vampire.) > >Not *necessarily*. You could use a Prince for their two votes and a >Sabbat weenie PRE to call it. Obviously, a vamp with PRE and votes is >probably the faster option since the smallest vampire with PRE in the >Sabbat appears to be 5. Yep. And it's Rigby from the Brujah Antitribu - not a noted voting clan. ;) I was more thinking of "gee, what sort of deck would I have an Archbishop and PRE in, as well as a lot of BO?" .. and the magic 8-ball came up and said "why, your toreador anti vote deck, silly." Biggest problem there is getting some votes out is either an 8 or a 9 (i'll head for Lachlan or Donatien over Jessica, in that deck), so that's usually 3 free turns for the LoP guy to have a shot at moving things along. And I won't have any intercept on the table myself at first. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8poef4$4it$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: > In article <8plvo7$7qs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > > In article <8pk554$2ea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > If someone says you're wrong when you think you're not, don't you try > > to prove that you're not? But I don't feel I need to defend our rules > > to anyone here because it's not really your business. However I feel > > that if people flame me they should at least have some substance in > > doing so. > > I find it incredibly funny that you question their substance. I don't question the substance of the more mature posts here. But many answers has been like things like "no, wrong" and nothing else to show why I am so. And some others has been pure flaming with no or very bad arguments to support the flaming. If I made it sound like all posts here has been without substance I apologize since that's certainly not true or what I meant. > > To date, you have not acknowledged a number of salient points by > numerous posters, including, Noal McDonald, Derek Ray, James Hamblin, > Lasombra and others. Because I feel I've told enough of times why NL doesn't work in my playgroup. Most posts here circulates around NL in *your* playgroups. Another reaosn is that I simply have no time to reply here even if I'd want to. I also wrote some quite long answers and then had my computer crash on me before I could post them *sigh*. So I kind of lost interest in writing them all over. Remember that you're like 10 people responding to me and I am alone having to read and answer it all. Maybe lack of time isn't a valid reason for you, but it is for me. I spent hours everyday trying to keep up, so I feel enough is enough. > > I'm sorry that you feel attacked. In fact, many of the posts in this > thread were not the best worded in responded to you. However, that > doesn't change the vast wealth of information on this topic. To say > the comments were lacking substance shows that you have not paid > attention, at least (even if you might still feel that they are wrong). > > > > Mark Langsdorf and others have posted a $150 reward for a new > > > argument on behalf of card limits for all groups. > > > > Are you willing to take him up on it? > > > I'll chekc it out. But the problem with his so called reward is of > > course that he's the judge (I assume) or at least that pro-NL supports > > are the judge. What's considere "new" is a matter of perception. And > > even if I indeed DID come up with something new it has to be > > acknowledge as something new too. I strongly doubt he'd acknowledge > > that, becuase he'd then be $150 poorer. Also without chekcing out the > > rules for the contest, I'm sure there's a condition that the new > > argument has some importance. Again, that's a matter of perception. I > > don't think he's too eager to lose $150, thus I doubt it's possible to > > win that money unless someone comes up with something that even the > > majority of the pro-NL players agrees is something new. And I really > > can't see that happen, just as much as a pro-CL player would agree on > > soemthing "new" a pro-NL came up with. > > This isn't true at all. If it was you would of course not admit it. Besides you aint Mark, while it was true for you it doesn't have to be with him. I agree there's no real broken card for NL in general but in my playgroup things would be different and even while some strategies still would be defeatable it would be mostly because of luck and the randomness in the drawing of cards. Also check out my response to myself where I posted a link to a thread at Mark's site. The first questions made in that post are redicilously worded in the favor of pro-NL people. > > Preceding the Mark Langsdorf $150 reward, I had a reward offer up. > > At the time, the current tournament rules were not in place, and I > drafted what would one day form the core of these rules (which are, as > an aside, No-Limit). > > I challenged anyone to make a deck that was broken with the rules I had > proposed, and I offered a reward to do so. The reason: I wanted > people to either "put up or shut up". The old arguments about NL being > broken had been hashed over too many times, and I was tired of people > joining the conversation without actually adding things to it. I'm > certain Mark feels the same. > > For over a year, no one was able to collect. Then, shortly after > Ancient Hearts was released, someone did indeed break a deck with my > rules set. The deck was the first Return to Innocence deck, and it > abused the card quite ridiculously. Eventually, Return to Innocence > was banned. > > While I was prepared to send a check, that particular player refused > the money, mostly because he felt guilty because it was the card that > was the problem and NOT the NL rules set. The subsequent banning of > that card bears that out. > > > I don't think there HAS to be something new adde,d because a lot of > > the arguments that NL players counter the CL arguments with I don't > > think are good enough, just a smuch as you think mine aren't *shrug*. > > Examples, please. An example for a new argument agaisnt NL is for example that NL can be bad in a playgroup where people have no Sabbat and AH and not enough moeny to even buy a lot of commons in the other sets. I think lakc of available cards to buy together with lack of money for the majority of the players ina group is a good reason for CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Xrxv5.458$RC1.1...@news.uswest.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] That just makes 6 people less willing to admit it. If something was really really new then you'd probably have to acknowledge it. But you know that's not going to happen. First of all you can always claim it's been mentioned before and secondly even if you don't you can say it's a modifcation of an already existing argument (which it probably would be in one aspect or another, I don't think there's somethign 100% new to come up with, sicne this has been discussed for so long, which of course you are all aware of too). > > -- > I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. > A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. > --_Shellshock_, New Order > www.waste.org/~xian > > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <58yv5.595$RC1.1...@news.uswest.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Not the answers, but the selection of the question and answers chosen to actually be posted on the site at least lets me understand the authors of the site are pro-NL. What I mean is that a site that claims to want ot bring up both side's arguments shouldn't have authors that have no opinion of the subject themselves whatsoever. As an analogy, I don't think anyone would take a discussion about pros and cons of democracy seriously if the debate was placed in Cuba and it was up to Castro to dictate the rules of the debate. It is notable that you haven't even attempted to come up with > something new, instead, you are putting forth comments about the validity of > the measurement and the prejudices of your assumed judges. Might your time > not be more productively be spent in coming up with a new point that indicates > some manner in which CL deals with broken cards in a manner superior to NCL? No because it's all wasted if I won't get my money anyway due to the prejudices of the judges. The only reason I'd even attempt to come up with something new would be for the reward, not because I think NL is bad or not workable. I'm just against NL in some certain and specific environments. Else I think it works fine, so why would I argue against it? > I have noted that it is not your stated mission to convert the rest of the > Jyhad-playing world to CL, but your protracted arguments back and forth speak > to the contrary. And answering a question that was posed elsewhere, I don't > bother defending again and again a point if someone tells me that I'm wrong > and think that I'm right. Same for me, which is another reaosn why I don't bother taking this discussion further. Wheter on deja or Mark's site. I try to explain myself once or twice, and then if > they persist in telling me I'm wrong, I usually just say, "okay, whatever" and > walk away. > > Xian > > -- > I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. > A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. > --_Shellshock_, New Order > www.waste.org/~xian > > [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Examples, please. > > An example for a new argument agaisnt NL is for example that NL can be > bad in a playgroup where people have no Sabbat and AH and not enough > moeny to even buy a lot of commons in the other sets. How does a limited total pool of cards have any relavence to a card limit being better than no limit? It would appear to me that in no limit you could use more of your cards, and that would be a good thing when you have a severly restricted pool of availible cards. I think lakc of > available cards to buy together with lack of money for the majority of > the players ina group is a good reason for CL. How does a card limit function better than no limit when their is no money to spend on cards and a lack of availibility to get them? Wouldn't it be better for no limit so that you could use more of your limited amount of cards, rather than limiting it to just a few. How does a card limit increase the amount of money a player will spend on a game? If the player doesn't have cards in the first place, then how does a card limit or no limit even affect them if they don't have enough to even meet the limit? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8ptcdq$s0b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > No because it's all wasted if I won't get my money anyway due to the > prejudices of the judges. The only reason I'd even attempt to come up > with something new would be for the reward [snip reasons why] Now you're just being insulting. I will put up $150, as will you, and we'll give it to some neutral party. We will get 5 pro-xCL and 5 NL players to judge the decks that are submitted to the board for consideration as "broken" under NL, and if *any* deck is judged so, you will receive your money back plus my $150. If, within a specified time period, *none* of the decks are judged as "broken", I will receive the $300. We can have LSJ act as the tiebreaking vote, or any other reasonably neutral party, as you wish. Remember, you can use *as many* rare cards as you want, since according to you they are unbalancing, and since you can use as many of them as you want, go for it! Enjoy!

In article <8pti8l$3o7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > Examples, please. > > > > An example for a new argument agaisnt NL is for example that NL can be > > bad in a playgroup where people have no Sabbat and AH and not enough > > moeny to even buy a lot of commons in the other sets. > > How does a limited total pool of cards have any relavence to a card > limit being better than no limit? It would appear to me that in no > limit you could use more of your cards, and that would be a good thing > when you have a severly restricted pool of availible cards. It's been stated in virtually all of my posts in this thread why CL for us is better than NL. A CL is good because the ones that do have the money to buy a lot of cards will then not be able to get too powerful. For example if someone needed X cards to defend against deck Y decently because deck Y has Z amount of card A that X is the best counter to, then with a limit, player with deck Y can only have 4 of card Y instead of 8. And if nobody or close ot nobody, can get a lot of card X, then this is a good thing. Else the player of deck Y could get more than 4 of card A and it wouldn't be a good thing. This problem might not seem big, for one certain card, but then imagine it applies to all of the Sabbat and AH cards things are different. > > I think lakc of > > available cards to buy together with lack of money for the majority of > > the players ina group is a good reason for CL. > > How does a card limit function better than no limit when their is no > money to spend on cards and a lack of availibility to get them? > Wouldn't it be better for no limit so that you could use more of your > limited amount of cards, rather than limiting it to just a few. With 4 CL you get to use almost ALL of your limited amount of cards, with some commons being the exception. On the contrary, a play with lots of cards, even uncommons, will be more limited and it helps those with fewer cards. A second thing is that this player will also trade away excess cards to the ones that doesn't have as many, so CL helps them twofold. How > does a card limit increase the amount of money a player will spend on a > game? It doesn't increase, it limits the amoutn of money you feel you have to spend on the game. So it's the opposite. If the player doesn't have cards in the first place, then how > does a card limit or no limit even affect them if they don't have enough > to even meet the limit? > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > X_Zealot > Archon of the Swamp > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <74Dw5.44272$Qx4.1...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, "Kevin M." <kjme...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote: > > "cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > news:8ptcdq$s0b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > No because it's all wasted if I won't get my money anyway due to the > > prejudices of the judges. The only reason I'd even attempt to come up > > with something new would be for the reward [snip reasons why] > > Now you're just being insulting. > > I will put up $150, as will you, and we'll give it to some neutral party. > We will get 5 pro-xCL and 5 NL players to judge the decks that are submitted > to the board for consideration as "broken" under NL, and if *any* deck is > judged so, you will receive your money back plus my $150. If I say that NL would be broken in my playgroup (for ealier mentioned reasons) then you can't neither say I'm right, nor that I'm wrong. That's one reason I don't bother :) I did write a damn long post to I think it was Lasombras post where he wanted comments from me about Mark's page and the arguments in it. But my computer froze (of course :( ) half-way and I haven't really bothered to write all that over again. But the post included reasons as to why many arguemnts on that site that are supposed ot be pro-CL are actually pro-NL. I guess I should attempt to write it again when I got the time. If, within a > specified time period, *none* of the decks are judged as "broken", I will > receive the $300. We can have LSJ act as the tiebreaking vote, or any other > reasonably neutral party, as you wish. > > Remember, you can use *as many* rare cards as you want, since according to > you they are unbalancing, and since you can use as many of them as you want, > go for it! As long as yu have the cards yes, which in turn requires a lot of money. So the players with most money will have a nice advantage. But thing is, it's expensive to buy even a large amount of commons, since they're so many of them and you need to get many of each of them as well. > > Enjoy! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <0DAv5.6663$Ld.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think it was nasty, you had some good points, but I'll respond to it further down > > When I found out the CL we had in our coterie was not part of the rules, we > banished it accordingly. Not playing by official rules is something I could > not comprehend. If I was playing Scrabble, can I decide that Double Word > Scores are actually Quadruple Word Scores? Yes if eveyrone in your coterie adopt this as the new rules. Rules are made up by humans, who are really to say that LSJ or any other is better at making a rule and someone else? The reason he helps making up the rules is to guide the players that wishes to play the game as it's written in the rulebook. That doesn't mean it's the most optimal or most fun way. I'm not saying it's not either, I just say that he's not more superior as human than anyone else. He wasn't born with a power to make up the rules in V:TES :) I say anyone has the right to make the rules. What decides if a rule is going to be an actual rule or just a breach to a rule, depends on who and how many adopts the new rule. The no repeat action rule, was for example not printed in the actual rulebook. So if you want ot follow the rules by the letter (as you said) then you shouldn't play by this rule. Although this rule is now printed in the on-line rulebook there' still tons of other interpretations made that's not. I also can't see why you can't comprehend that people don't play by the official rules. I can give you tons of example of other games and sports that have their own variants and are not played by the official rules. Our game is simply just a variant of VTES, just like people who have houserules for Werewolf Pack themselves don't play to 100% by the official rules. Do you play with houserules for some certain cards, have you ever done it? Then you "broke" the rules just as much as my playgroup does. When you play soccer (or when you did as a kid) did you play with a referee who could deal out yellow and red cards, and did you play with the odffside-rules? If not, then you dind't play real soocer. So why didn't you? Because it was more practical and more fun the other way. You played a variant of the existing game, and you'd never been able to pull it through on an official tournamnet. But did you care? I don't think so, because you only played for fun. That's what we do too. Would that make the game more > fair? More fun? Hard to say... but I wouldn't play a game without > following the rules to the letter. This is why alot of players feel that > CL's are bad. They just don't want to admit that they are being good boys > and following the rules. Playing with CL's in place is the equivalent of > breaking the rules. Like I said upfront... this shouldn't be about CL vs. > NCL... it should be about playing by official rules versus playing by your > own set of rules. I agree. > > Just my opinion, and you know what an opinion is worth... NOTHING. > > oAFLORD > aka > Thomas Kuster > V:EKN Prince of Caledon > > Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html > > "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit > Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste > Brought death into the world, and all our woe." > John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1. > > [ quoted text not captured ]

> It's been stated in virtually all of my posts in this thread why CL for > us is better than NL. A CL is good because the ones that do have the > money to buy a lot of cards will then not be able to get too powerful. > For example if someone needed X cards to defend against deck Y decently > because deck Y has Z amount of card A that X is the best counter to, > then with a limit, player with deck Y can only have 4 of card Y instead > of 8. And if nobody or close ot nobody, can get a lot of card X, then > this is a good thing. Else the player of deck Y could get more than 4 > of card A and it wouldn't be a good thing. This problem might not seem > big, for one certain card, but then imagine it applies to all of the > Sabbat and AH cards things are different. I hate to reiterate Deray Ray's point, but I think he already addressed this. Card limits hurt the players who don't buy the expansions because they can only have 4 of card A that performs Function B. On the other hand the player who buys the expansion gets 4 of card A and 4 of card C both of which perform Function C. So the player with the most money can play a more focused strategy. > > > > I think lakc of > > > available cards to buy together with lack of money for the majority > of > > > the players ina group is a good reason for CL. > > > > How does a card limit function better than no limit when their is no > > money to spend on cards and a lack of availibility to get them? > > Wouldn't it be better for no limit so that you could use more of your > > limited amount of cards, rather than limiting it to just a few. > > With 4 CL you get to use almost ALL of your limited amount of cards, > with some commons being the exception. On the contrary, a play with > lots of cards, even uncommons, will be more limited and it helps those > with fewer cards. This is inherently self-contradictory. You do not get to play with all of your limited amount of cards because you have put a card limit on those players whose ownership of cards exceeds your limit. >A second thing is that this player will also trade > away excess cards to the ones that doesn't have as many, so CL helps > them twofold. I believe you are wrong on this point. The definition of Trading is " an exchange, to give something in expectation of receiving something in turn." If you are trading then the amount of cards is still constant. Neither player increases nor decreases their collection. If player A starts with 50 cards and player B starts with 250 cards, and they both trade 10 cards to each other, then player A still has 50 cards and player B still has 250 cards. It does not increase the amount that player A has. > How > > does a card limit increase the amount of money a player will spend on > a > > game? > > It doesn't increase, it limits the amoutn of money you feel you have to > spend on the game. So it's the opposite. Actually, here you are wrong again. To quote Derek Ray again: Card limits hurt the players who don't buy the expansions because they can only have 4 of card A that performs Function B. On the other hand the player who buys the expansion gets 4 of card A and 4 of card C both of which perform Function C. So the player with the most money can play a more focused strategy. So players with less money lose to players with more money. > If the player doesn't have cards in the first place, then how > > does a card limit or no limit even affect them if they don't have > enough > > to even meet the limit? This seems to be a problem in your group. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <683urs4b7l9g5jttg...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] And then we comes to the interesting thing that nobody plays with Sabbat but me in my playgroup (there's one other guy that does occassionally). Hmmm I wonder how they're going to remove it? > > -- Derek > > "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > - C. Darwin, 1871 > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8q8613$uur$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] With NL the players with few cards wouldn't have more than they already do, but people with a lot of cards would (like me, I for example traded away most of my excess cards that I wouldn't have else, read further down for a comment about the trading). The player with msot money still have an advantage in CL, but it's less so. > > > > > > > I think lakc of > > > > available cards to buy together with lack of money for the > majority > > of > > > > the players ina group is a good reason for CL. > > > [ quoted text not captured ] Trading is an exchange, yes. That doesn't mean that I give one card and reciever another. There's plenty of times where I've given 5 commons for one uncommon. Sure that player won't have this uncommon anymore, but he'll now have 5 commons, some of them are from sets he doesn't want to buy (since he won't have any use of half of the cards in them because he doesn't collect on these clans/disciplines) but cards he still really want. An example of this is Guard Dogs. Usable by non- Sabbat and it's an Animalism card so it's a discipline they can play with. For them it's quite great to get some of these cards and they happily trade an uncommon they don't really need, for it. I on the other hand don't have any use for these excess commons and I get an uncommon card for it. I can afford to be generous in my trades. I've also actually sold commons to new players as well, which I wouldn't have if we played with NCL. This allowed new players ot get decent amount of cards fast, without having to buy boxes of VTES. With NCL they'd have to buy twice as many common cards than now, PLUS I'd want to have twice as many commons than now as well (I estime I'd want 8 of each common card, to be able to try out tons of tactics evolving around a common card "en masse" for the sake of fun). > > > How > > > does a card limit increase the amount of money a player will spend > on > > a > > > game? > > > > It doesn't increase, it limits the amoutn of money you feel you have > to > > spend on the game. So it's the opposite. > > Actually, here you are wrong again. To quote Derek Ray again: Card > limits hurt the players who don't buy the expansions because they can > only have 4 of card A that performs Function B. On the other hand the > player who buys the expansion gets 4 of card A and 4 of card C both of > which perform Function C. So the player with the most money can play a > more focused strategy. Read above about me wanting 8 commons and them wanting that as well...compared to 4 of each as it's now. With NCL, the only thing that will change is that I can use all my excess cards that I have now. They can too, but they're not many, so they'd need to buy more cards to keep up. Now they don't have to. For example, if they want a vote deck, they have 4 BO's now, they'd want to get at least 4 more. Now they save that money. > > So players with less money lose to players with more money. But not as much as under NCL, now it's manageable at least. > > > If the player doesn't have cards in the first place, then how > > > does a card limit or no limit even affect them if they don't have > > enough > > > to even meet the limit? > > This seems to be a problem in your group. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:20:55 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <8pti8l$3o7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >> How does a limited total pool of cards have any relavence to a card >> limit being better than no limit? It would appear to me that in no >> limit you could use more of your cards, and that would be a good thing >> when you have a severly restricted pool of availible cards. > >It's been stated in virtually all of my posts in this thread why CL for >us is better than NL. A CL is good because the ones that do have the >money to buy a lot of cards will then not be able to get too powerful. And you have been hit over the head, repeatedly, with arguments proving beyond a shadow of a doubt why this is a false statement, even for your playgroup. That you persist in keeping your eyes closed says something for your stubbornness, and probably some other things as well. >For example if someone needed X cards to defend against deck Y decently >because deck Y has Z amount of card A that X is the best counter to, >then with a limit, player with deck Y can only have 4 of card Y instead >of 8. And if nobody or close ot nobody, can get a lot of card X, then There is no such thing as card "X", though. Your theory is a fallacy. You refuse to grasp it, even though the combined experience of many players, which VASTLY surpasses your own, is sitting here and telling you this. There are always many counters to any strategy, and some of those counters ALWAYS involve common/uncommon cards. You just do not have to worry that much about someone playing with 10 of card "A", no matter how good card "A" is. Look at my "10 Disarm" thread. That deck falls over to either maneuvers (common), claws (common), or Fortitude prevention (common). Oh, or to "hit back harder" (extremely common). And Disarm is an EXTREMELY GOOD card! If you use a card limit, you just make it better for the person with more cards, since he has the rares to use in this fashion. Fact. The poor bastard who only bought one box of Jyhad and has all those commons sitting around that he can't use? He is screwed. Fact. These are not opinions. These are proven through YEARS of experience and testing. We are, in fact, RIGHT. You have yet to provide a suitable counter-argument, and have just gone over and over repeating the ones that were stuffed a long time ago, and are being stuffed now. Please... wake up. >With 4 CL you get to use almost ALL of your limited amount of cards, >with some commons being the exception. On the contrary, a play with >lots of cards, even uncommons, will be more limited and it helps those >with fewer cards. A second thing is that this player will also trade >away excess cards to the ones that doesn't have as many, so CL helps >them twofold. No, CL ONLY helps that player with lots of cards - he trades away all his extra commons and uncommons and gets 4 of every single card, and the poor buggers with few cards STILL get hosed since they have to trade away good rares and uncommons just to appeal to the player with lots of cards - since he already HAS all the commons he needs. This is another fictional argument, and I'm surprised that the people in your playgroup haven't realized it yet. Usually people getting this much of a shaft at least ask for lube. >It doesn't increase, it limits the amoutn of money you feel you have to >spend on the game. So it's the opposite. Which is why we're having to work our asses off to get Sabbat War promoted and out there in the first place, because of cheap bastards who won't bother to buy a few cards. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:01:36 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >> So a Pander uses BO to pass his vote, and then I use BO to remove it. >> We go round in a little circle until one of us runs out of BO or LoP, >> except that I have an advantage - the status quo is in my favor, and I >> undoubtedly have superior Presence - something no Pander has >> inherently. For him, BO only produces a total of 3 votes. Titled >> vamps screw up LoP -badly-. (Although I need an Archbishop, not a >> Prince, to get the original two votes, since it needs a Sabbat >> vampire.) > >And then we comes to the interesting thing that nobody plays with >Sabbat but me in my playgroup (there's one other guy that does >occassionally). Hmmm I wonder how they're going to remove it? Then you already have an advantage over them because you purchased Sabbat and they didn't. Fie on you, you money-spender! I thought card limits solved this problem?!#@ Rats. Have to go to the no-limit versions now, won't you, so they can include some of the OTHER defenses that are no good under a 4CL? However, this discussion originally revolved around Legacy of Pander in a tournament, No-Limits environment, so your statement is completely irrelevant to that discussion. If you were to play a LoP deck in your playgroup, it would be tantamount to rape, since you'd be deliberately taking advantage of something you knew they couldn't POSSIBLY have enough counters to - the built-in removal vote for LoP is supposed to be one of the major stumbling blocks for it. If nobody has Sabbat vamps to call the vote... sheesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:59:29 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >I hate to reiterate Deray Ray's point, but I think he already addressed >this. Card limits hurt the players who don't buy the expansions because >they can only have 4 of card A that performs Function B. On the other >hand the player who buys the expansion gets 4 of card A and 4 of card C >both of which perform Function C. So the player with the most money can >play a more focused strategy. My impression is that buying the expansions defocusses your collection rather than otherwise. If I buy more cards, my priority will be getting more VTES. Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, Sabbat (War) and the following set are all of little interest to me as they mostly develop other clans and these seem less interesting. Only after I'd bought enough VTES to get 10 or so power cards like Temptation of Greater Power, would I consider buying significant amounts of the other stuff. Andrew

cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes: >It's been stated in virtually all of my posts in this thread why CL for >us is better than NL. A CL is good because the ones that do have the >money to buy a lot of cards will then not be able to get too powerful. >For example if someone needed X cards to defend against deck Y decently >because deck Y has Z amount of card A that X is the best counter to, >then with a limit, player with deck Y can only have 4 of card Y instead >of 8. And if nobody or close ot nobody, can get a lot of card X, then >this is a good thing. Else the player of deck Y could get more than 4 >of card A and it wouldn't be a good thing. This problem might not seem >big, for one certain card, but then imagine it applies to all of the >Sabbat and AH cards things are different. The problem with analysis by conjectured example is that it ignores other examples that seem to show the opposite. And it ignores which conjuctures are likely to be more representive of the kind of stuff that happens in reality. The counter example to the above is when card limits help rather than hinder players who have a lot of money become more powerful. For instance, to run weeny political decks, you typically need some presense vote modifiers to pass your first few votes to put titles on you weenies and to overcome resistance in subsequenct votes that are close, for whatever reason. Without card limits, this is typically done with Bewitching Oration, a common-as-dirt Jyhad card. Put in card limits and you may not be able to run the deck unless you can throw in multiple copies of a several-bucks-a-pop Sabbat rare called "Awe". I've never played CL myself but the defenders of NCL claim these examples are far more important than the ones you're talking about. Since I've found very few rare, expensive cards I'd violate any reasonable card limits on, I suspect they're probably correct. The problem you're concerned about seems better addressed by some kind of point system that assigns points to how hard/expensive a card is to obtain. Then put some kind of point limit on decks. Fred

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:23:32 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >My impression is that buying the expansions defocusses your collection >rather than otherwise. If I buy more cards, my priority will be (head shake) It's the vampires and common cards for the existing disciplines in the expansions that you really want... NOT necessarily the expansion clans unless that's what you're looking for. Good examples include Thoughts Betrayed (Dark Sovereigns), Increased Strength (Ancient Hearts), Pursuit (Sabbat) ... actually, a TON of the Sabbat commons are very good to have. Sure, it's great if in that box of AH where you got 6-7 Increased Strength and a bunch of other toys, that you also were able to get a couple Absolution of the Diabolist and a Tomb of Ramses. But you also get all the AH vampires, and THOSE are great to have. Same with Dark Sovereigns, only more so. And Sabbat, of course, provides a multitude of similarly-disciplined vamps. >getting more VTES. Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, Sabbat (War) and >the following set are all of little interest to me as they mostly >develop other clans and these seem less interesting. Only after I'd >bought enough VTES to get 10 or so power cards like Temptation of >Greater Power, would I consider buying significant amounts of the >other stuff. Buying enough boxes to get 10 ToGP will take you, at a conservative estimate, forever. I have one (1). I bought a LOT of Jyhad boxes. I still have only 1, though. I recommend altering your goals. =) It's also worth noting that I only bought one box of Ancient Hearts, and I'm not sure if I would want another box - since in the chase for "uncommons" that I want, I would be saddled with PILES of common cards that I might never use. I also only bought two boxes of Dark Sovereigns and two boxes of Sabbat. This is a significant amount... but not really, in comparison to many others. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >My impression is that buying the expansions defocusses your collection >rather than otherwise. If I buy more cards, my priority will be >getting more VTES. Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, Sabbat (War) and >the following set are all of little interest to me as they mostly >develop other clans and these seem less interesting. Only after I'd >bought enough VTES to get 10 or so power cards like Temptation of >Greater Power, would I consider buying significant amounts of the >other stuff. Based on the above, it would seem to me that your impressions are clearly misguided. Chasing rare cards from any collection is a very inefficient and cost-intensive way of enhancing your strategic options and card choices, expecially if you have other options available, like obtaining commons and uncommons from other sets. By the time you collect 10 of each rare from the V:tES set, very likely you will have (unless you are buying rares individually) 40 of each uncommon and 140 of each common., as well as about 40 of each vampire. Clearly you could have done better to make a much smaller investment in AH/DS, Sabbat, and Sabbat War. This would have gotten you 8 extra vampires for your favorite Camarilla clan, a large number of new cards for your favorite disciplines, as well as a variety of other options. Vampires of new clans are often valuable in deck strategies that are not based strongly on clan affiliation. Tansu Bekir is a fine addition to a Nossie Obfuscate Deck, and the Anti-Brujah work great in most Brujah Combat decks. Vampires are the very basis of efficient deck design, and completing your collection of available vampires from any set should probably take precedence towards chasing obscure rares. There are no "power rares" in V:tES. Those few that were inadvertently printed have been errata'd. AFAIK, the "abusive" potential of Temptation of Greater Power was discovered only recently, and it is a good bet that the game designers themselves were unaware of it. Whether it needs to be errata'd is doubtful, as you are probably giving too little credit to the skills of the deck designer, and giving inadequate time for the metagame to adjust. Besides, if you are really concerned about ToGP you might want to invest in DS/AH and obtain a few copies of Fear of Mekhet and Wrath of the Inner Circle, which both hose Justicars. BTW, I am curious about the details of this abusive ToGP deck. Is it posted anywhere? -- John Whelan

In article <20000924053644...@ng-cs1.news.cs.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Not disputing any of that except that it should be deck designerS, ie plural. Lasombra, Tim eijpe and i all came up with the idea completely independently. Besides, > if you are really concerned about ToGP you might want to invest in DS/AH and > obtain a few copies of Fear of Mekhet and Wrath of the Inner Circle, which both > hose Justicars. > > BTW, I am curious about the details of this abusive ToGP deck. Is it posted > anywhere? > > -- John Whelan > [ quoted text not captured ]