Card Limits as a religion?

It seems to me that the fight over card limits has become somewhat heated. It reminds me of the religious strife in many countries, including my own (Ulster). I have noted many similarities between the religious fundamentalists and the people who post to this group. On both sides there has been signs of the basic principle that keeps religious factions at war; the inability to accept the full merits of the other side of the argument and a plain lack of respect for anyone who posts on the said matter before you have even read what they have had to say for themselves. No I suspect that this last statement will call for lots of replys, saying "It wasn't Me!", "It was all the NL/CL players's fault", "They started it". Now, before you put the metaphorical pen to paper let me remind you that no matter how flowery your writing, no matter how clever your wording you can't escape this basic fact. So think first, before you make yourselves sound even more petty. When it comes to religion, I, personally, rejoice in the mighty variety of faiths under gods eye. We may have our differences, but we all agree of the fundamental basics. It is the same with Jyhad (or V:tES, for any of you new agers). There is a huge variety of ways to play the game; NL, NL+GT, 3CL, 4CL, 5CL, 6CL and any of the above with 1CL on uniques added, and all of these games has its own slight differences of style of play and deck building. People presumably play the game that they best prefer (if not then this comes to a different matter entirely, so please don't pick me up on this minor point and waste the rest of the message). Like religion there will always be people calling for the game to be standardised to increase its popularity, but I say the opposite - standardising could alienate the players who prefer the style that becomes non-standard (perhaps sub-standard in many peoples minds), just like with religions. I think that it would probably be best to acknowledge the great variety that the game has to offer, and credit all of the possible styles with a fully unbiased account of each way of playing the game, so that WotC could publish it fully and allow people, with the free will that God has given them, to make up their own minds. I think that the rulebook, like the bible, is deliberately vague (on this matter at least - other matters are of no concern here). WotC seems to have been non-commital on this account, I suspect for the same reasons that I am putting forward here. It is surely true that they don't discount any style when considering new cards - how, for instance did both Archon Investigation (Essential for a fair CL game) and Corruption (Useful only in an NL game) come to be printed. I also think that there needs to be a distinction, when considering any merits of all styles of play, between tournament types and social game types of play. I would personally like someone compile a definitive, unbiased, account of the merits of every type of game, for all to view and comprehend - who knows maybe there will be a definate outcome in favour of one style, but I doubt it. But until this is produced (By a combination of NL and CL players, hopefully) any criticism of either style would seem pure speculation - as everyone with the inclination to argue has already a biased opinion one way or the other. I will look forward to the day when people will KNOW the true differences between CL and NL. Thankyou for your time, Annonymous

I'd like to think my groups reasons for playing CL or NCL are in fact reasons and not just dogma. Of course, we began playing with a 4CL because Jyhad had that limit. Yes S&B was a problem. Our group's solution was to shame people out of using it as a no-brainer strategy. Similarily, we had to shame people out of building Misdirection decks. With V:TES, there was NCL. Rumours floated around about a restricted list and we generally incorporated that. Restricting potentially abusive cards to a limit of 2. We stuck with the 4CL though because we felt it was not in any way crippling, or preventing us from making interesting decks. We had to make decks though that could never be focussed on a single card or pair of cards. To our minds, if we went to NCL, we would be opening ourselves up to obscene decks on a regular basis. It isn't the core group that we would worry about but the fringe player who would bring a monster to the table once in awhile. Recently we moved up to a 6CL as a way of experimenting, and removed the restricted list. Generally, most people just tossed a couple more cards into their old decks. Since doing it though we've seen a Ventrue tribe out with 6 blood dolls, another deck drop a misdirection every turn for 6 turns, and decks that WWEF 2 and 3 times a turn. We are going back to 4CL for the most part. Again it is being done by shame though. I'm not getting any flak for having 6 Corruption cards in my Settite deck..yet, but most of us are just shaking our heads over the decks we see in a 6CL. Logic tells us that a NCL would be more obscene. I think there is a sort of religion in all this though. It is that our group plays for the amusement and the interesting variations that we see. We've generally got no interest in tournaments or trying to win in an aggressive NCL environment. We prefer to walk away from the table when someone drops decks that are not fun to play against. CL and NCL are just a common focus for the schism. I think the religious differences are between those that go for the throat and enjoy having their throat gone for, and those others that aim for a kindler, gentler environment.

Hi Errol, On 25 Oct 1996, Errol T wrote: > Until I start reading in the paper how people are killing each other over > Vampire like fanatics do over Religion then do even compare them in the > same sentence. > Well, there are some definate similarities though. Let's look at them. 1) There is a debate between one side that uses logical argument, and another side that uses passionate argument. 2) One sides stand is based on history (that's the way we did it in m****) and one sides stand is based on changing conditions of a new game. 3) One side listens to the other sides arguments, then logically refutes it. The other side pretends to listen to the arguments, then ignores them and starts in with a fresh new passionate argument. 4) While some people claim we should agree to disagree, that is just about as likely as Martin Luther (the original) agreeing to disagree with the Catholic church... Seems like a pretty good comparrison to me... Algustas *****The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.***** Bertrand Russel

Until I start reading in the paper how people are killing each other over Vampire like fanatics do over Religion then do even compare them in the same sentence. Errol T.

On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Iain Paisley wrote: > It seems to me that the fight over card limits has become somewhat heated. It seems to be one of those things. I was here since the beginning of the group (albeit as a lurker then), and roughly every 2 to 3 months, the CL-NL debates heat up again. Usually they end in either, "let's agree to disagree" or with people heatedly leaving the newsgroup. Unfortunatly, I know of many good players who have left reading/contributing to this group (on both side of the NL/CL fence) because they were sick of hearing about it. > It reminds me of the religious strife in many countries, including my own > (Ulster). I have noted many similarities between the religious > fundamentalists and the people who post to this group. On both sides there > has been signs of the basic principle that keeps religious factions at war; > the inability to accept the full merits of the other side of the argument > and a plain lack of respect for anyone who posts on the said matter before > you have even read what they have had to say for themselves. I would welcome anyone to look at my posts via DejaNews (www.dejanews.com) and look for an example where I _ever_ do this. When I do, I _always_ apologize, but it just isn't something that typically happens. While in previous CL debates, I recall CL-supporters who did the same, the current one seems to have CL-supporters of the ilk you describe, with few exceptions. > No I suspect > that this last statement will call for lots of replys, saying "It wasn't > Me!", "It was all the NL/CL players's fault", "They started it". Now, before > you put the metaphorical pen to paper let me remind you that no matter how > flowery your writing, no matter how clever your wording you can't escape > this basic fact. So think first, before you make yourselves sound even more > petty. I don't mind sounding petty. :) <TOPIC=OFF> For anyone reading this, I always welcome comments, criticism, etc., for anything I might write. There is a reason I have the line "...Comments?.." in my .sig. Use it if you think it's necessary... </TOPIC> > When it comes to religion, I, personally, rejoice in the mighty variety of > faiths under gods eye. We may have our differences, but we all agree of the > fundamental basics. And even if we disagree on the basics (atheism v. monotheism v. polytheism v etc...), we should still respect each others opinions. However, I do have a problem with antagonistic street preachers in my own town of Madison. I _don't_ like how they attack those of different views _and_ avoid debate. I don't mind being challenged, but I want it to be honest _interaction_ and not simply a beleaguered bunch of dogma. As I said above (and I do apologize for the harshness of it, but I prefer brutal honesty), I feel that currently all that I hear from the CLers is dogma. As L. Scott said, rebuttal has been : "Stop countering my points! YOU aren't listening..." > It is the same with Jyhad (or V:tES, for any of you new > agers). There is a huge variety of ways to play the game; NL, NL+GT, 3CL, > 4CL, 5CL, 6CL and any of the above with 1CL on uniques added, and all of > these games has its own slight differences of style of play and deck > building. Quite. > People presumably play the game that they best prefer (if not then > this comes to a different matter entirely, so please don't pick me up on > this minor point and waste the rest of the message). Prefer implies that they know the alternatives. For many people with any of the above styles, this may not be the case. > Like religion there > will always be people calling for the game to be standardised to increase > its popularity, but I say the opposite - standardising could alienate the > players who prefer the style that becomes non-standard (perhaps sub-standard > in many peoples minds), just like with religions. While you could alienate those players who are on the other side of the fence, the game's future fan-base will be more secure. There is something telling about going to conventions and having people say to you, "Oh, Jyhad. It's broken". These people all played some varying variety of "Jyhad" that was usually nothing like other players' games. When I've run tourneys outside of Madison, support was minimal. Usually those few players who were interested (20-40) dwindled down to 10-20 because it wasn't the way they were used to playing (some old-DCI, some pure-NL, some 4CL, some old-old-DCI, some this some that some etc...), and they thought it wouldn't work and would support Killer Deck X (usually some Bleed deck complaint). The winners of those two tournaments, however, were a LifeBoon deck that actually withdrew (!!!) to win the finals, and an Apathy,blockbadstuffandrunawayfromcombatandeventuallybleedwithachingly beautifulvampiresagainandagainwhocaresifyougetblockedthey'realmostdead deck. Alienating players already happens now. With a decisive standard (something Robert Goudie and I were working on, and I hope have finally made a decisive impact on), people who start the game stay with the game and aren't turned away later on. > I think that it would > probably be best to acknowledge the great variety that the game has to > offer, and credit all of the possible styles with a fully unbiased account > of each way of playing the game, so that WotC could publish it fully and > allow people, with the free will that God has given them, to make up their > own minds. I think that the rulebook, like the bible, is deliberately vague > (on this matter at least - other matters are of no concern here). WotC seems > to have been non-commital on this account, I suspect for the same reasons > that I am putting forward here. It is surely true that they don't discount > any style when considering new cards - how, for instance did both Archon > Investigation (Essential for a fair CL game) <Aside> Archon Investigation is only "essential" in CL because CL makes Malk S&B so nasty that they need a card that is broken to destroy the brokenness of the strategy in that environment. Note that Malk S&B is one of the only strategies _totally_ unencumbered by CL. (Need reference? Judith and Mark's Jyhad page, link available from my .sig). AI, is IMHO, a Magic-card. As a single card that destroys a strategy (built up bleed strategy), it shouldn't have been printed. </Aside> > and Corruption (Useful only in > an NL game) come to be printed. I also think that there needs to be a > distinction, when considering any merits of all styles of play, between > tournament types and social game types of play. What is the distinction you suggest? > I would personally like someone compile a definitive, unbiased, account of > the merits of every type of game, for all to view and comprehend - who knows > maybe there will be a definate outcome in favour of one style, but I doubt > it. But until this is produced (By a combination of NL and CL players, > hopefully) any criticism of either style would seem pure speculation - as > everyone with the inclination to argue has already a biased opinion one way > or the other. Thomas Doehne has offered to start it. I'll house it on my page or contribute, as needed. I had long been considering something of this sort myself, but haven't taken the time. > I will look forward to the day when people will KNOW the true differences > between CL and NL. I would amend this to "when MORE people will know...". Currently, I think there are a lot of people who do (R. Garfield being one of them. He plays NL-Jyhad, BTW) (Sorry, just had to throw in a cheap, meaningless comment to get jumped on! ;) [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)> @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?

Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@pacificcoast.net> writes: >I'd like to think my groups reasons for playing CL or NCL are in fact >reasons and not just dogma. Of course, we began playing with a 4CL >because Jyhad had that limit. Yes S&B was a problem. Our group's solution >was to shame people out of using it as a no-brainer strategy. Similarily, >we had to shame people out of building Misdirection decks. Jyhad has never had a 4CL, except as a house rule (a house rule more than occassionally adopted by tournament-runners in the olden days). 4CL has never been official, nor has it ever been part of the DCI rules. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | I don't suffer from insanity. http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | I enjoy every minute of it. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |