Balance Thoughts

Game Balance.. How often we've heard that recently.. Here's some more you can think on to "restore" the Balance. These are my personal beliefs, and are a bit off of the recent topic (rulings debacle of 7/7) - Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never played as if they were able to be). - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. - When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt. - If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? - V:TES Aggravated Damage worked fine for the last 2 years, take the old JYHAD rules off the pedestal and get over it. - Ban Fame. Period. The only people that will miss it are those that use it in the worst possible combos. No errata will fix this one. - Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition. If ya'll want to debate over these thoughts, I really don't care.. They're MY opinions, and have some thought behind them. Of course, many folks here simply knee-jerk a response without thinking first. It's about what I've come to expect.

Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > > Game Balance.. > > How often we've heard that recently.. > > Here's some more you can think on to "restore" the Balance. > These are my personal beliefs, and are a bit off of the recent > topic (rulings debacle of 7/7) > > - Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never > played as if they were able to be). What was so unbalanced to make you decide this is necessary? (*) > - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with > Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. See (*). > - When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered > Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt. See (*). > - If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, > why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? A Bum's Rush _is_ able to target any Methuselah. It says so on the card. And Political Actions "targeting" someone is not the same as directing an action to them. > - V:TES Aggravated Damage worked fine for the last 2 years, > take the old JYHAD rules off the pedestal and get over it. Except that most people were upset about the V:tES rule, in that it became way too easy to burn vampires. The Jyhad rules worked for years _before_ the V:tES rules came out. Just because you're used to the V:tES rules doesn't mean we shouldn't use a better rule. > - Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. > Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition. Oh, don't even get me started. Besides which, a maximum deck size is a good thing. > They're MY opinions, and have some thought behind them. > Of course, many folks here simply knee-jerk a response without > thinking first. It's about what I've come to expect. Thanks for the gratuitous insult. Now if you _really_ wanted intelligent responses from people who disagree with you, you might want to get off of _your_ pedestal. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

In article <6p3j4c$oo7$1...@server3.mich.com>, Bernie Bresnahan <ber...@mich.com> wrote: >Game Balance.. >How often we've heard that recently.. Often, and it's just like the early days. >- Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never > played as if they were able to be). If you mean DotB, sure; if you mean I can't play two Flashes in a round, I'll have to disagree. This is far too general to implement, in my opinion. A few cards need 'no more than one foo may be played in a round' added to their text, but Drawing out the Beast is the only one that's close to being a problem, and my personal feeling is that it's not big enough of a deal to be worth it. >- First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with > Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. Well, now *that* would be a dramatic rules rewrite. Nothing in the 6/23 or 7/7 RTRs has mucked with the fundamentals of the game that severely. First Strike working this way would not only hose Dodge and SCE (as Immortal Grapple does currently), but it would also hose *any opposing strike*, if the First Strike sufficed to induce torpor. Shades of TB. I think this is a really bad idea. >- When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered > Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt. This (like your 6CL comment below) is imposing Card Limits on the game, a topic that's seen holy wars come and go. Every time the argument can be reduced to rational discussion, the No Limits camp comes out ahead. It's not often people come out and ask for 1CL on the crypt, though. Would you care to tell the group why you feel multiples in the crypt are bad? >- If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, > why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? Bleeds require specific cardtext to affect a non-prey Methuselah, per definition of 'bleed'. Bum's Rush *can* affect a cross-table Methuselah. >- V:TES Aggravated Damage worked fine for the last 2 years, > take the old JYHAD rules off the pedestal and get over it. The old Jyhad aggro rules haven't been in effect since the VtES aggro rules were introduced; the 7/7 aggro rules are distinct from either. >- Ban Fame. Period. The only people that will miss it are those > that use it in the worst possible combos. No errata will fix this one. This is part of the whole ban vs. fix discussion, on which I've yet to make up my mind. >- Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. > Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition. Ick. See my comments on your 1CL proposal, above. >If ya'll want to debate over these thoughts, I really don't care.. Whee. >They're MY opinions, and have some thought behind them. As do my comments. >Of course, many folks here simply knee-jerk a response without >thinking first. It's about what I've come to expect. Tell me, does the chip on your shoulder induce a noticeable limp? gomi

Okay, bad example on my part. I picked Bums Rush as an example of a (D) Action founded in combat decks. My mistake that it isn't affected by the rulings of 7/7. The point I was shooting for was a target on consistency. >- If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, > why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? Bleeds require specific cardtext to affect a non-prey Methuselah, per definition of 'bleed'. Bum's Rush *can* affect a cross-table Methuselah >>They're MY opinions, and have some thought behind them. >Tell me, does the chip on your shoulder induce a noticeable limp? Actually No, as I have chips of equal weight on each shoulder. Balance is good, right? >gomi

Oopps, Sorry I forgot that every word and intent must be meticulous least somebody could mistake an opinion as something substancial. James Hamblin wrote in message >Bernie Bresnahan wrote: <altered some of my text below in an attempt to clarify> >> Here's some more you can think on to "restore" the Balance. >> These are my personal beliefs, and are a bit different from the recent ramblings (rulings debacle of 7/7). >> >> - Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never >> played as if they were able to be). This brings combat cards in line with No Repeat Actions & no Vote Pushing. As noted in numberous postings, Vote Pushing is being denighed (sp?) in part due to the large number of cards that get cycled during votes. Why should Combat Decks have this advantage when no other deck Archetype does? As far as I'm concerned Action Modifiers fall under the same category, being okay to add more stealth/bleed to an action, but only through the use of a different card. >What was so unbalanced to make you decide this is necessary? (*) > >> - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with >> Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. Actually this had less to do with balance than consistency, First Strike was a concept taken directly from Magic:TG. If you're going to borrow a game mechanic it should be consistent in translation. There's not that many cards in V:TES that have First Strike, so it shouldn't hamper Game Balance dramatically. >See (*). >> - When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered >> Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt. It might encourage greater variety in deck design, instead of the same ol' 6 vampires that always show up in an archetype. "Hey! It's Jimmy Dunn.. Who Knew?" It might even give Necromancy a bit more viability, or not.. >See (*). > >> - If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, >> why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? > Answered in a different post. > >> - V:TES Aggravated Damage worked fine for the last 2 years, >> take the old JYHAD rules off the pedestal and get over it. > >Except that most people were upset about the V:tES rule, in that it >became way too easy to burn vampires. The Jyhad rules worked for years >_before_ the V:tES rules came out. Just because you're used to the >V:tES rules doesn't mean we shouldn't use a better rule. Maybe people were pissed 2 years ago, seems to me there are more folks now that would rather have it untouched. And your latter sentence sounds like opinion to me.. Bravo! >> - Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. >> Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition. > >Oh, don't even get me started. Besides which, a maximum deck size is a >good thing. 6 Card Limit is my opinion, not worth a debate. The 60 card + deck size idea is to clean up the rule book. "gee if you have 2 players -use this many cards, 3 players - use this many cards, etc.." A RuleBook should be able to deliver the absolute basics of the game in as clear a manner as possible, neither the Jyhad or V:TES booklet delivered. And it doesn't get much more basic than determining the minimum size of your deck. >> They're MY opinions, and have some thought behind them. >> Of course, many folks here simply knee-jerk a response without >> thinking first. It's about what I've come to expect. > >Thanks for the gratuitous insult. Now if you _really_ wanted >intelligent responses from people who disagree with you, you might want >to get off of _your_ pedestal. But I like my pedestal, how else would I be able to see the rest of ya'll.. >James >-- >James Hamblin Okay, I apologize for that last bit. I'm just feeling a bit embittered lately. Much having to do with the rulings of 7/7. Of course all of our opinions are correct, and nobody is wrong. Not that anything we have to say means beans to the folks that make the big decisions. That's what it feels like over here in this corner of the world. As for the KneeJerk Reaction portion, I've pretty much only haunted the V-List Digest recently. Most posts to the digest seem a bit more thought-out than the postings on the Newsgroup, and there aren't 40+ messages per day to sift through. My reasoning for this is that with the Digest you see all the responses for a full day before you make a reply. On the newsgroup, the updates fly in minutes encouraging more inflammitory (sp?) attitudes. Hopefully I was a bit more clear this time round..

"Bernie Bresnahan" <ber...@mich.com> wrote: > - If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, > why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? Political Actions never target a Methuselah - across the table or otherwise. The referendum called as a political action might, but all political actions are undirected actions (VTES rules: 18.3) (D) Bleed cannot because of the rules. All bleeds (even cardless) are directed - which is to say "all bleeds are (D)" - the "(D)" is used to denote a directed action (VTES rules: 18.1) - it doesn't alter the action. Bum's Rush can (card text). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

In article <6p3s6b$pou$1...@server3.mich.com>, "Bernie Bresnahan" <ber...@mich.com> wrote: > Oopps, Sorry I forgot that every word and intent must be meticulous > least somebody could mistake an opinion as something substancial. With the way you ended your original post, I wouldn't expect anything less than a few scalding replies. > Why should Combat Decks have this advantage [being able to cycle] > when no other deck Archetype does? Do you know how hard it is to win with a combat deck? Having one advantage means having other disadvantages. Combat decks are difficult to make effective if you have to dilute it with non-combat cards. There are very few combat cards where playing multiples gives you any kind of advantage. Weather Control (hurts you, too), Drawing Out of the Beast (arguable with +1 hand damage to opposing vampire), Increased Strength, and Trap come to mind. I would hardly call this cycling as this means you won't have the second copy of the card when the opponent might S:CE or prevent your damage. > As far as I'm concerned Action Modifiers fall under the same category, > being okay to add more stealth/bleed to an action, but only through the > use of a different card. So what you really want is for all decks to be able to dump cards when they feel that they have too many of something in their hand? What ever happened to good deck building? It really has nothing to do with balance but with making deck building less punishing if you put too many of a card in. > Actually this had less to do with balance than consistency, First > Strike was a concept taken directly from Magic:TG. First Strike was a _term_ taken directly from M:TG (what would you call it?). In M:TG, there's no strike declaration, no pressing to fight another round, no additional strikes...... Why does V:tES have to be consistent with Magic? If I wanted to play Magic, I'd play Magic. > If you're going to borrow a game mechanic it should be consistent > in translation. There's not that many cards in V:TES that have > First Strike, so it shouldn't hamper Game Balance dramatically. Actually, this would be great for the Assamites. They have three different cards that give them first strike. Are you one of the proponents of weapons vs. TB? What happens when you face a Potence minion destroying your Submachine Gun with first strike and you can't dodge? Weapons become even more worthless with your rule. > It might encourage greater variety in deck design, instead of the > same ol' 6 vampires that always show up in an archetype. > "Hey! It's Jimmy Dunn.. Who Knew?" > It might even give Necromancy a bit more viability, or not.. So what about the clans that have only 10 vampires to use? You can't use them or you have to include out-of-clan vampires. No thanks. > >Except that most people were upset about the V:tES rule, in that it > >became way too easy to burn vampires. The Jyhad rules worked for years > >_before_ the V:tES rules came out. Just because you're used to the > >V:tES rules doesn't mean we shouldn't use a better rule. > > Maybe people were pissed 2 years ago, seems to me there are more > folks now that would rather have it untouched. And your latter sentence > sounds like opinion to me.. Bravo! Would you please decide if you'd rather have more powerful or less powerful combat decks? Your previous "balance" of not allowing the play of multiples of a combat card is countered by making aggro much more effective at burning. > 6 Card Limit is my opinion, not worth a debate. Meaning you think it is obvious to use or that it has been needlessly and endlessly debated already? > The 60 card + deck size > idea is to clean up the rule book. "gee if you have 2 players -use this > many cards, 3 players - use this many cards, etc.." Agreed, but why put the minimum at 60? If you have 2 players, you can use between 40-60, 3 players 40-70, 4 players 40-80. It just needs to be worded better. To be honest, I think it should just be a guideline. If you want to use a bigger deck, that's fine. I'll use the metagame until I have an efficient deck that forces you to reduce your deck size. > A RuleBook should be able to deliver the absolute basics of the game in > as clear a manner as possible, neither the Jyhad or V:TES booklet delivered. > And it doesn't get much more basic than determining the minimum size of your > deck. I didn't think it was _that_ difficult to figure out legal deck sizes (not minimums, probably just a typo). It should have been worded as: "You can use 40 cards plus 10 cards for every player in the game to build your deck." Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@shout.net "Sell crazy somewhere else; we're all else." [ quoted text not captured ]

> Game Balance.. > > How often we've heard that recently.. Since : 1) Balance is an integral part of a well-designed game 2) This is a newsgroup regarding a game 3) The nature of a newsgroup is to generate discussion ...it logically follows that we would speak about game balance. > Here's some more you can think on to "restore" the Balance. > These are my personal beliefs, and are a bit off of the recent > topic (rulings debacle of 7/7) > - Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never > played as if they were able to be). Why shouldn't they be? The stackability of combat cards, with some few exceptions, has never created probems in 'game balance'. > - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with > Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. Again, why? I'm not adverse to the idea (it would make Muddles a bit more potent) but I don't see the fact that FS isn't that way as unbalancing... > - When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered > Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt. I like the Followers of Set (They're weak, they're underpowered, and I always play them with a Peter Lorre imitation... "You despissse me, don't you Rick..?"). The Followers of set have 10 vampires, and of those 10, only the largest has all the disciplines at superior. Most of them lack the essential Obf/Pre combination that would make the FoS really effective. Why would I play FoS if I had to water-down the Crypt? > - If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, > why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush? Because the emphasis of the game is to defeat your prey. (As has been pointed out, a Bum's Rush has always been omnidirectional). > - V:TES Aggravated Damage worked fine for the last 2 years, > take the old JYHAD rules off the pedestal and get over it. This statement says nothing about why the VtES rules are better than those of Jyhad/modified. It is not an argument (conditional) but an order (imperitive). > - Ban Fame. Period. The only people that will miss it are those > that use it in the worst possible combos. No errata will fix this one. It appears that this is probably the only course of action. > - Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. > Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition. Why should a game 'encourage creativity'? I play CL (playgroup's choice) and NCL (tournaments). If the card base were broad enough, then I'd say 'okay' to CL, but the fact is that certain deck styles simply don't work in 6CL (Followers of Set Corruption decks, frex). > If ya'll want to debate over these thoughts, I really don't care.. Then why post them? > They're MY opinions, and have some thought behind them. It's got to be behind them, because it isn't apparent what the thought might be. (Don't read this as negative - the statements above reveal nothing but the finished product of such thought trains...) > Of course, many folks here simply knee-jerk a response without > thinking first. It's about what I've come to expect. ...oooooOOOOOOO-KAY! G'night Everyone! Alan (aj) ...knee-jerk response specialist.

Alan Flesch wrote: > > Why should a game 'encourage creativity'? I play CL (playgroup's > choice) and NCL (tournaments). If the card base were broad enough, > then I'd say 'okay' to CL, but the fact is that certain deck styles > simply don't work in 6CL (Followers of Set Corruption decks, frex). Just out of curiousity, would you go along with CL (if there were more cards to use) begrudgingly, or willingly? Do you really believe that card limits make things more creative? I think that if every card had a duplicate (maybe slightly altered) I could go along with 6CL. I don't think I've ever put more than 13 of a single card in a deck (that case being 13 IG's in my Rush deck). But even with this 12CL, there would be deck that could not be made. Steve Wampler's weenie Presence deck, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6p3s6b$pou$1...@server3.mich.com>, Bernie Bresnahan <ber...@mich.com> writes >Oopps, Sorry I forgot that every word and intent must be meticulous >>> - Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never >>> played as if they were able to be). > >This brings combat cards in line with No Repeat Actions & no Vote >Pushing. As noted in numberous postings, Vote Pushing is being >denighed (sp?) in part due to the large number of cards that get >cycled during votes. > >Why should Combat Decks have this advantage when no other >deck Archetype does? > Does your group/Do your tournaments have a lot of powerful combat decks present at them? If yes, then I could see that this might be one way of dealing with them. But I don't recall (correct me if I'm wrong) ever seeing you complaining about the power of combat decks being too high. *If* the power of a combat deck is not that great, what does it matter if it has a slight advantage over bleed based decks and vote decks which, in my experience, tend to do much better at tournaments. >>> - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with >>> Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. > > >Actually this had less to do with balance than consistency, First >Strike was a concept taken directly from Magic:TG. >If you're going to borrow a game mechanic it should be consistent >in translation. But we're not playing Magic: The Gathering. Just because there are superficial similarities between Jyhad/V:TES and M:TG, it doesn't mean that we have to adopt anything they do wholesale. I mean, I like the fact that we have to tap our minions to block, that our minions still fight even if they are tapped, that you are ousted the moment your pool reaches zero and can't do something like wait till the end of your turn and play cards to get you more pool in the interim (e.g. Art Scam). These are all things we could take from Magic but I don't believe we shuold. If you were arguing that First Strike should be placed where you say is from a power point of view, that's different. We could then argue over valid points of whether Backstab should be foiled by Earth Meld and compare cost/power ratios etc. But arguing for a change simply because it uses the same name as a piece of Magic terminology isn't an argument I'd hold to. >>> - When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered >>> Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt. > > >It might encourage greater variety in deck design, instead of the >same ol' 6 vampires that always show up in an archetype. >"Hey! It's Jimmy Dunn.. Who Knew?" >It might even give Necromancy a bit more viability, or not.. I know, for myself, that I rarely create a crypt with LOTS of duplicate vampires in it (it isn't unknown) but I don't see why I shouldn't be able to. There are some things that would be stifled by the lack of being able to double up on vampires. If I wanted to create an esoteric discipline combination, it would be difficult to find enough vampires to put in the deck. What if I want to create a deck with largely Assamites in it? I don't even have 12 different vampires to choose from. If I wanted to play cel and obf more strongly, I could go to other vampires (City Gangrel, some of the Malks etc.) but if I wanted to play lots of quietus as well, or cel/qui or obf/qui or something like that, I'm in a much worse position. And if I double up on vampires which are very popular, there's always the chance of me contesting those vampires. If I have lots of them in my crypt, spending a few pool on drawing vampires isn't going to help me that much because I might draw more. And Necromancy will only help me if my vampires are burned. If I have good combat defence, I wouldn't need it anyway. >>> - Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. >>> Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition. >> >>Oh, don't even get me started. Besides which, a maximum deck size is a >>good thing. > >6 Card Limit is my opinion, not worth a debate. The 60 card + deck size >idea is to clean up the rule book. "gee if you have 2 players -use this >many >cards, 3 players - use this many cards, etc.." >A RuleBook should be able to deliver the absolute basics of the game in >as clear a manner as possible, neither the Jyhad or V:TES booklet delivered. >And it doesn't get much more basic than determining the minimum size of your >deck. > The Rules Book is fine as it is. It delivers Vampire's absolute basics of the game in as clear a manner as possible. What you are advocating isn't a clearing up of the wording to make it more intuitive for other players to pick up but an outright change in the rules. What makes that so different from the 7/7 rules errata? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> > Why should a game 'encourage creativity'? I play CL (playgroup's > > choice) and NCL (tournaments). If the card base were broad enough, > > then I'd say 'okay' to CL, but the fact is that certain deck styles > > simply don't work in 6CL (Followers of Set Corruption decks, frex). > > Just out of curiousity, would you go along with CL (if there were more > cards to use) begrudgingly, or willingly? It depends on when you asked me. I would simply go along with it. :) > Do you really believe that > card limits make things more creative? Aside : this is a very debatable area even outside of game- development. There is a real argument in literary studies that fixed poetry (poetry with rhyme/meter schemes) is 'better' than free verse, simply because the structure imposed on the text forces the poet to look at the work with a greater intensity-of-thought, since he can no longer fall back on the conventions of ordinary speech. This argument also goes in for art issues : is a Jackson Pollock 'drip-painting' more creative than a Rembrandt, because it has fewer strictures concerning its composition... In one sense, the strictures of deck-creation _do_ force the designer to increase creativity, since no longer can he rely on the 'optimal' set of cards to use. He has to rely on 'second-rate' cards with similar effects which may have unfortunate costs/ restrictions absent in the preferred card. The deck is more 'creative' in that it requires more card-selection forethought, and requires a greater skill-of-play to get the most mileage out of an inefficient deck. A NCL deck, however, is designed for optimal performance, given the parameters of construction. The creativity in such a deck is enhancing the _modes of operation_ for the deck by removing anything which does not carry out the main function of the deck archetype. A card which produces the right effect will by definition make the deck work most efficiently. The creativity here comes from minimizing the weaknesses of an overspecialized machine while maximizing the effectiveness of the deck. > I think that if every card had a > duplicate (maybe slightly altered) I could go along with 6CL. I don't > think I've ever put more than 13 of a single card in a deck (that case > being 13 IG's in my Rush deck). But even with this 12CL, there would be > deck that could not be made. Steve Wampler's weenie Presence deck, for > example. I concur. The trick is to bring the CL/NCL to being an 'academic' distinction. That is, there is no pragmatic difference between a 6CL and a NCL. I personally find objectionable any deck which has less than 5 different kinds of cards in it, in the same way that I object to a song which has only 5 individual notes in it -- it just jars when played for too long. Frex, at one tournament, I played adeck which consisted entirely of Govern the Unaligned/Form of Mists. Essentially, it was unblockable (it just added 1 more stealth to the action when combat was reached) could bleed well (+2 average) and could bring out younger vamps when necessary. It was a clever deck, but very boring to play against. Was it creative? Yes - in that it was VERY efficient at what it did (though it lost against a Weenie Vote deck consistently. No - in that it only had 3 cards in it. (IIRC, it had Redirections in it to pass along RTI's.) Alan (aj)

> > Why should a game 'encourage creativity'? I play CL (playgroup's > > choice) and NCL (tournaments). If the card base were broad enough, > > then I'd say 'okay' to CL, but the fact is that certain deck styles > > simply don't work in 6CL (Followers of Set Corruption decks, frex). > > Just out of curiousity, would you go along with CL (if there were more > cards to use) begrudgingly, or willingly? Do you really believe that > card limits make things more creative? I think that if every card had a > duplicate (maybe slightly altered) I could go along with 6CL. I don't > think I've ever put more than 13 of a single card in a deck (that case > being 13 IG's in my Rush deck). But even with this 12CL, there would be > deck that could not be made. Steve Wampler's weenie Presence deck, for > example. > Personally, I would go along with a 12CL (or a 6CL if every card had a minor variation). But this would not be a willing transition. If there are 2 different versions of each card, why should I be limited to only 6 of each. If I really want Catatonic Fear over Majesty, why do I have to put in Majesty if I need more S:CE? If I want GtU-type cards, but don't have blood to spare, why can't I load up on Scouting Missions. The coolest thing about the subtle variations is that you are given a choice, and your deck-building skills are challenged. The (relatively) simple choice between Scouting Mission and GtU, for instance... Do you think you'll have the blood to use GtU. Do you have enough big vamps to use Scouting Mission's superior, or should you just go with either Computer Hacking or GtU? If you do want to use the superior, are there more 3 and 7 capacities or 2 and 6 capacities? This is so much more interesting than... I need 12 bleed cards. Okay, 6 GtU and 6 Scouting Mission. Not to mention... what if I want a really oddball deck. Suppose I want to Catatonic Fear my opponents to death. Well... even though Majesty and Catatonic Fear are almost the same, Majesty won't fit into this deck. So, now matter how many subtle variations there are, there are always going to be strategies that need a lot of a single card and can't use substitutes. On top of that... I think card limits are just plain arbitrary. A 4CL (or less), I can see, although I have other, deeper problems with it, and don't feel that Jyhad works under 4CL. But once you start getting into 6CL or 8CL or 12Cl... well, then it just seems silly to place any restriction at all. One of the greatest tenets of deck-building in CL environments is, put in as many as possible of the cards you use. Therefore, most Magic decks will have 4 copies of each of their really important cards. Most L5R fate decks consist of exactly 10 different cards, 3 of each (although this changes a bit with the new 40 card minimum). With 4CL, at least this tenet is kept intact. When you get to higher card limits, the tenet no longer applies, and you simply put in as many as you need of each card (better IMO). Well then... why force a limit to the number you're allowed to "need." Further... the game is balanced without CL. CL's have always been put in games to balance decks. We don't need them. We have balance. As for encouraging creativity... well, I think I've stated my stance on them a number of times. More decks are possible under NCL, thus more creativity is possible. Plus, even if CL did encourage creativity, it's kind of annoying for game rules to require you to be creative. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35B619...@calvin.usc.edu>, Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: >Aside : this is a very debatable area even outside of game- >development. There is a real argument in literary studies >that fixed poetry (poetry with rhyme/meter schemes) is >'better' than free verse, simply because the structure imposed >on the text forces the poet to look at the work with a greater >intensity-of-thought, since he can no longer fall back on the >conventions of ordinary speech. This argument also goes in >for art issues : is a Jackson Pollock 'drip-painting' more creative >than a Rembrandt, because it has fewer strictures concerning >its composition... Aside**2: That the likes of Pollock and <spit!> Warhol can be considered 'art' is a travesty. Nothing's done more to remove art from public accessibility than 'meta-art,' self-involved works more about the nature of media and of the human social interactions that are the 'art world' than about the original mission of art: the transmission (and occasionally, the imposition) of emotional states on the person experiencing the work. >In one sense, the strictures of deck-creation _do_ force the >designer to increase creativity, since no longer can he rely on >the 'optimal' set of cards to use. He has to rely on 'second-rate' >cards with similar effects which may have unfortunate costs/ >restrictions absent in the preferred card. The deck is more 'creative' >in that it requires more card-selection forethought, and requires >a greater skill-of-play to get the most mileage out of an inefficient >deck. >A NCL deck, however, is designed for optimal performance, given >the parameters of construction. The creativity in such a deck >is enhancing the _modes of operation_ for the deck by removing >anything which does not carry out the main function of the deck >archetype. A card which produces the right effect will by definition >make the deck work most efficiently. The creativity here comes >from minimizing the weaknesses of an overspecialized machine while >maximizing the effectiveness of the deck. This is possibly the most objective and succinct summation of the NCL/CL issue I've ever seen in the froup. Could an archivist snap this up, please? Hell, it'd make a great monthly FAQ. >I concur. The trick is to bring the CL/NCL to being an 'academic' >distinction. That is, there is no pragmatic difference between a >6CL and a NCL. ...or there will be once enough 'near duplicates' are in print (hypothetical situation). i follow your reasoning, however; it's often used in the revolving ncl/cl flamewar (periodicity: 6 months). [FoM/GtU deck snipped] >No - in that it only had 3 cards in it. (IIRC, it had Redirections in >it to pass along RTI's.) my, that would've been meat for a combat deck (i know, they don't see much of those in tourney settings), or even strong bleed bounce. gomi that deck sure failed to minimize its weaknesses

First of all, I would like to commend you; this is the best article I've seen in a long time. Kudos. Alan Flesch wrote: > > > Do you really believe that > > card limits make things more creative? > > Aside : this is a very debatable area even outside of game- > development. There is a real argument in literary studies > that fixed poetry (poetry with rhyme/meter schemes) is > 'better' than free verse, simply because the structure imposed > on the text forces the poet to look at the work with a greater > intensity-of-thought, since he can no longer fall back on the > conventions of ordinary speech. Well said. Another example of this (from my recent experience): I've been taking German for the last six weeks. Yesterday I decided to listen to Brahms' "A German Requiem", one of my favorite pieces. As I was following the German text from the liner notes (which rhymed in ABAB format), I noticed that the English translation was not exact. I'm not talking about idiomatic considerations, just that the English translator clearly meant the translation to be able to be sung along with the music. But sometimes German can say something in one word which takes English four, and vice verse. My point is that I enjoyed the original German text better. How does this relate to the Jyhad situation? Well, the text used by Brahms was under some restrictions: it had to rhyme and had to sound good with the music he had composed. The English translator had _more_ restrictions: not only did the text have to follow the music, it had to be a translation of the German, and so some of the original meaning was lost, and the text suffered as a result. So while restrictions can stimulate creativity, _too_ many restrictions can stifle it. [snip: stop-on analysis of "creativity" in NL and CL] Right on! > I personally find objectionable any deck which has less than 5 different > kinds of cards in it, in the same way that I object to a song which has > only 5 individual notes in it -- it just jars when played for too long. Well, sure. I object to so-called "cheezy" decks, too. But I don't try to prevent them from existing; I just do my best to get around them and berate the person using it. :) [snip: deck with 3 cards] > It was a clever deck, but very boring to play against. You probably already know this, but it's well-proven that any such deck is far too narrow to be successful in general. If you're not prepared for it, it can kick your ass, but these kind of decks shouldn't be prohibited. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu ... es geht mir gut! ...

(part 2) Bernie wrote: "- V:TES Aggravated Damage worked fine for the last 2 years, take the old JYHAD rules off the pedestal and get over it." It has nothing to do with a pedestal. It has to do with that the game was designed so you couldn't burn a vampire with 1 point aggro hits. The VTES aggro rules made the Ivory Bow, Wolf Claws, and Pulled Fangs _far_ more powerful than they were meant to be. "- Ban Fame. Period. The only people that will miss it are those that use it in the worst possible combos. No errata will fix this one." Can't argue with this :-) "- Decks Size should be defined as 60 or more cards with 6 card Limit. Encourages Creativity, and cleans up the rule books definition." 6CL is a bad idea for countless reasons. Sure, you can still build most decks semi-effectively, but you lose all the subtleties between the similar cards. Sure, I could build a Rush deck with 6 BR and 6 Ambush, but I don't want to. I don't like Ambush. While they both accomplish the same thing (attack someone) Ambush has what I consider a severe disadvantage (balancing out the draw a card advantage over Bums Rush). Many decks use more than 6 of some cards, and while there are many "duplicate" type cards, I would prefer to be able to select my cards based on the strengths and weaknessess of the specific card, not cause I already have 6 of one of them and need more similar cards to make my deck work. That, and there aren't "duplicates" of many vitally important cards that decks tend to be built around, like Immortal Grapple, Bewitching Oration, Taste of Vitae, Theft of Vitae, Psyche!, Behind You, Bonding, etc. This means that decks relying on these cards would be at a severe disadvantage against decks that rely on cards that provide generic Stealth/Intercept, S:CE, multiple strikes, etc. "If ya'll want to debate over these thoughts, I really don't care.." Of course I want to debate these points. That is why I'm here :-) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "To this vast wasteland we will set a flame This is the beginning of our burning farm" -Shonen Knife

(part 1) Bernie wrote: "- Combat cards shouldn't be stackable within a round (we never played as if they were able to be)." This makes permanent manuvers and pressess far more useful than they should be, and makes Fortitude far weaker than it should be. It also gives advantage to disciplines that have similar effects in cards with different titles (like Flash and Pursuit, for instance). As such, say, Celerity has 2 or 3 cards that give manuvers at inferior while Obfuscate only has 1. The Obfuscate card (Behind You!) already has a significant disadvantage (balancing the "Cel is a combat discipline and Obf isn't" argument), and if you could only use 1 per round, it would be completely pointless to try and compete with Cel, or permamnent manuvers, with Obf as your manuvering discipline. The only situation where the stacking of combat cards ever comes into play is the process of pressing and manuvering, which would become completely hamstrung by such a rule, and Fortitude, which would become useless with such a rule. "- First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE." Perfectly viable. "- When building your crypt, Vampires should be considered Unique. No duplicates in your Crypt." Very bad idea. Makes weird decks completely unworkable. That stupid Nosferatu spawning deck I was playing saturday night (or my "Deck that only works if you get Marty Lechtansi out") at Origins is an Obf/Pre Nosferatu vote deck that uses 3 Harrods and 3 Amadeos. It is a very stupid deck, but fun to play, and would be completely unbuildable with this rule. It also makes it impossible to build decks out of any of the non Camarilla clans (Ravanos, Assamite, any Sabbat). Multiple vamps in a crypt already has a disadvantage in drawing multiples is bad. "- If Political Actions can target a Methuselah across the table, why shouldn't a (D) bleed be able to? Or Bum's Rush?" I would say that Bleeding already has a severe advantage over Rush combat in that Bleeding directly works tward your goal -ousting your prey-where Rushing does not. Rush combat has a bit of flexiblity in that you can Rush people across the table if you want to. Granted, it is always highly sketchy to do anything to someone other than your predator or prey, as it usually makes someone other than you stronger and no one that is hurting you weaker. The only situation where you "need" to bleed/rush/vote across the table is when the table is faced by a highly degenerate deck, and all of the recent rules exist to put an end to this sort of degeneracy. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35B605...@calvin.usc.edu>, Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > > > - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with > > Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. > > Again, why? I'm not adverse to the idea (it would make Muddles > a bit more potent) but I don't see the fact that FS isn't that way > as unbalancing... Let me give you my opinion on First Strike: Back in the days of Jyhad, we played with First Strike happening before Dodge, but not before S:CE. Now, I still think that it should be played that way. Why? Well, I have 2 major points: 1.) The logical, stick to the rules, point. A strike done with FS resolves *before* a strike without FS, that's according to the rules. (If both minions have FS, strikes would resolve normally.) Dodge is a strike, I think everbody will concur, and as such is resolved normally. But, if a minion strikes with first strike, the other minions dodge would resolve *after* the FS. This representing the the FS is a bit quicker than the normal strike. If the dodge should resolve at the same time, than the dodger would have to dodge with FS! You see, with Jyhad it had been that way, and in V:TES this rule was changed, so that dodge now takes precedence (sp?) over FS. That's not consistent. S:CE is a different story: even in Jyhad it beat FS. 2.) There aren't that many FS's in the game. The Assamites have some FS, but they are seldom used. I don't know, but do many players fear FS? Not a few stated that *weapons suck* - so if they suck already, why fear the steal/destroy weapon cards? It makes no difference. IMHO, FS beating dodge(unless FS-dodge) doesn't have an impact on play- balance, and it helps the Assamites. It also adds an interesting touch to combat strategies... So what do you think? Is this worth a debate or not? Who would like to see FS working like in Jyhad and who of you fears the power of FS? Time to make a stand (and Backstab someone :) ) -Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6p5hsn$acm$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > In article <35B619...@calvin.usc.edu>, > Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > >In one sense, the strictures of deck-creation _do_ force the > >designer to increase creativity, since no longer can he rely on > >the 'optimal' set of cards to use. He has to rely on 'second-rate' > >cards with similar effects which may have unfortunate costs/ > >restrictions absent in the preferred card. The deck is more 'creative' > >in that it requires more card-selection forethought, and requires > >a greater skill-of-play to get the most mileage out of an inefficient > >deck. > > >A NCL deck, however, is designed for optimal performance, given > >the parameters of construction. The creativity in such a deck > >is enhancing the _modes of operation_ for the deck by removing > >anything which does not carry out the main function of the deck > >archetype. A card which produces the right effect will by definition > >make the deck work most efficiently. The creativity here comes > >from minimizing the weaknesses of an overspecialized machine while > >maximizing the effectiveness of the deck. > > This is possibly the most objective and succinct summation of the NCL/CL > issue I've ever seen in the froup. Could an archivist snap this up, please? > Hell, it'd make a great monthly FAQ. Yes, I really like this analytic statement of the CL/NL issue. We should take it and end the debate. I for my part am playing CL, but I also want to play NL. The problem is, nobody wants to play NL with me!! So what? > > >I concur. The trick is to bring the CL/NCL to being an 'academic' > >distinction. That is, there is no pragmatic difference between a > >6CL and a NCL. > > ...or there will be once enough 'near duplicates' are in print (hypothetical > situation). i follow your reasoning, however; it's often used in the > revolving ncl/cl flamewar (periodicity: 6 months). Is this now a good thing or a bad one, that this flamewar repeats itself? [ quoted text not captured ]

Lam...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6p711h$7ka$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <35B605...@calvin.usc.edu>, > Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > >> >> > - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with >> > Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. >> >> Again, why? I'm not adverse to the idea (it would make Muddles >> a bit more potent) but I don't see the fact that FS isn't that way >> as unbalancing... > >Let me give you my opinion on First Strike: > >Back in the days of Jyhad, we played with First Strike happening >before Dodge, but not before S:CE. >Now, I still think that it should be played that way. >Why? Well, I have 2 major points: Hey, folks, listen up: Strike:Dodge and Strike:Combat Ends have all been errated to be "First Strike." They just forgot to put it on the cards. There. Are you happy now? Can we quit beating this dead horse into the ground? -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

Gomi no Sensei (go...@best.com) wrote: : In article <35B619...@calvin.usc.edu>, : Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: : >Aside : this is a very debatable area even outside of game- : >development. There is a real argument in literary studies : >that fixed poetry (poetry with rhyme/meter schemes) is : >'better' than free verse, simply because the structure imposed : >on the text forces the poet to look at the work with a greater : >intensity-of-thought, since he can no longer fall back on the : >conventions of ordinary speech. This argument also goes in : >for art issues : is a Jackson Pollock 'drip-painting' more creative : >than a Rembrandt, because it has fewer strictures concerning : >its composition... : Aside**2: That the likes of Pollock and <spit!> Warhol can be considered 'art' : is a travesty. Nothing's done more to remove art from public accessibility : than 'meta-art,' self-involved works more about the nature of media and : of the human social interactions that are the 'art world' than about : the original mission of art: the transmission (and occasionally, the : imposition) of emotional states on the person experiencing the work. This is getting awfully tangential, but I'm surprised that an otherwise enlightened person would say this. ;-) You may be right about the lack of accessibility - but I don't think there's any reason art should try to be accessible. Self-involved? Art's always self-involved. The only person you can be sure it has any meaning for is the artist. If the audience gets something out of it, that's great. But I don't think it's necessary. Art doesn't have a mission. Art is its own reward. Josh doesn't know what he likes, either

In article <6p711h$7ka$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Lam...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <35B605...@calvin.usc.edu>, > Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > [snip] > Let me give you my opinion on First Strike: > > Back in the days of Jyhad, we played with First Strike happening > before Dodge, but not before S:CE. > Now, I still think that it should be played that way. > Why? Well, I have 2 major points: > > 1.) The logical, stick to the rules, point. A strike done with FS > resolves *before* a strike without FS, that's according to the rules. > (If both minions have FS, strikes would resolve normally.) Dodge is > a strike, I think everbody will concur, and as such is resolved normally. > But, if a minion strikes with first strike, the other minions dodge would > resolve *after* the FS. This representing the the FS is a bit quicker than > the normal strike. If the dodge should resolve at the same time, than the > dodger would have to dodge with FS! > You see, with Jyhad it had been that way, and in V:TES this rule was > changed, so that dodge now takes precedence (sp?) over FS. That's not > consistent. S:CE is a different story: even in Jyhad it beat FS. > > 2.) There aren't that many FS's in the game. The Assamites have some FS, > but they are seldom used. I don't know, but do many players fear FS? > Not a few stated that *weapons suck* - so if they suck already, why fear > the steal/destroy weapon cards? It makes no difference. > IMHO, FS beating dodge(unless FS-dodge) doesn't have an impact on play- > balance, and it helps the Assamites. > It also adds an interesting touch to combat strategies... > > So what do you think? Is this worth a debate or not? > Who would like to see FS working like in Jyhad and who of you > fears the power of FS? > > Time to make a stand (and Backstab someone :) ) > > -Carl > Personally, I agree with you. I think that First Strike should beat Dodge for both of the reason that you have mentioned above. That is: (1) that First Strike beats all other strikes, all Dodge should only resolve at the same time as normal strikes, and not at the same time as First Strikes; and (2) that allowing First Strike to beat Dodge will make it slightly more useful while still not turning any of the cards that use First Strike into broken cards. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play with First Strike cards. They're just too hard to use properly. Even if your opponent doesn't Dodge or play Combat Ends, then you still have to hurt them badly enough that their own strike doesn't get to resolve (i.e, burn the opposing minion, or send it torpor). If you can't do that, then you might as well not bother using a First Strike card. The only card that I have ever seen use First Strike successfully, is the Muddled Vampire Hunter, and that's only useful against Weenie vampires. I give my wholehearted support to allowing First Strike to resolve before Dodge, and hope that other people do too. Justicar. (just...@my-dejanews.com) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6p7ck7$ho0$1...@amdint.amd.com>, "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > > Lam...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6p711h$7ka$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >In article <35B605...@calvin.usc.edu>, > > Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > > > >> > >> > - First Strike should happen before all other Strikes (in line with > >> > Magic:TG) including Dodge and S:CE. > >> > >> Again, why? I'm not adverse to the idea (it would make Muddles > >> a bit more potent) but I don't see the fact that FS isn't that way > >> as unbalancing... > > > >Let me give you my opinion on First Strike: > > > >Back in the days of Jyhad, we played with First Strike happening > >before Dodge, but not before S:CE. > >Now, I still think that it should be played that way. > >Why? Well, I have 2 major points: > > Hey, folks, listen up: > > Strike:Dodge and Strike:Combat Ends have all been errated to be > "First Strike." They just forgot to put it on the cards. > > There. > > Are you happy now? Can we quit beating this dead horse into the ground? Is it really so? LSJ? Why ? That's nonsense, the rules for S:CE, Dodge, FS were, surprisingly, clear in the V:TES rule-book. FS is really >weak< in the errated way. Again: who thinks that FS is unbalanced if it happens before dodge? Who fears the might of FS? ;) Btw, why has something to be errated, what is clear in the rules???? I don't get it. -Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

Lam...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > > Lam...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6p711h$7ka$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >Let me give you my opinion on First Strike: > > > > > >Back in the days of Jyhad, we played with First Strike happening > > >before Dodge, but not before S:CE. > > >Now, I still think that it should be played that way. > > >Why? Well, I have 2 major points: > > > > Hey, folks, listen up: > > > > Strike:Dodge and Strike:Combat Ends have all been errated to be > > "First Strike." They just forgot to put it on the cards. > > > > There. > > > > Are you happy now? Can we quit beating this dead horse into the ground? > > Is it really so? LSJ? Why ? There is no errata, because it already works that way without such errata. If the way it works bothers some people, those people should feel free to treat the situation as if it had the errata Mark mentioned, if it'll make them feel better. Either way, it works the same. > That's nonsense, the rules for S:CE, Dodge, FS were, surprisingly, clear > in the V:TES rule-book. > FS is really >weak< in the errated way. Not errata. VTES rulebook is clear, as you say: 8.3. Special Combat Effects Dodge: A "dodge" deals no damage, but it prevents the effect of the opponent's strike that round, even if the opponent's strike was delivered with First Strike. Combat Ends: This effect ends combat immediately before any damage is dealt or a strike card's effects take place. If the acting minion's strike is "combat ends", the blocking minion may still use a strike card, but this strike will have no effect. Note that "combat ends" is not affected by a dodge and cancels a First Strike. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Lam...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6p74vc$bki$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6p5hsn$acm$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, > go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >> In article <35B619...@calvin.usc.edu>, >> Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > >Yes, I really like this analytic statement of the CL/NL issue. We should >take it and end the debate. I for my part am playing CL, but I also >want to play NL. The problem is, nobody wants to play NL with me!! >So what? Try to convince them to play for a weekend with NL, just as an experiment. Maybe they'll like it enough to switch over. >> >I concur. The trick is to bring the CL/NCL to being an 'academic' >> >distinction. That is, there is no pragmatic difference between a >> >6CL and a NCL. >> >> ...or there will be once enough 'near duplicates' are in print (hypothetical >> situation). i follow your reasoning, however; it's often used in the >> revolving ncl/cl flamewar (periodicity: 6 months). > >Is this now a good thing or a bad one, that this flamewar repeats itself? It's an annoying thing, really, but the worst of it has been dying down. Most of the eloquent articles are archived at my site by now and no one has really refuted them. So I just post the URL and that slows things down some. I do wish a CL player would write a couple of really good refutations, so I could put those up. But as it is, 2-3 year old articles suffice to hold the line for the NCL players. [ quoted text not captured ]

> "Bernie Bresnahan" <ber...@mich.com> wrote: <Snip> >> Why should Combat Decks have this advantage [being able to cycle] >> when no other deck Archetype does? > >Do you know how hard it is to win with a combat deck? Yes I do.. In fact, combat decks did very well at Origins (Peter and James H. were terrors to behold). And yes, combat decks typically do have a harder time winning tournaments. > Having one advantage means having other disadvantages. Combat > decks are difficult to make effective if you have to dilute it with non-combat > cards. There are very few combat cards where playing multiples gives you >any kind of advantage. Weather Control (hurts you, too), Drawing Out of the >Beast (arguable with +1 hand damage to opposing vampire), Increased >Strength, and Trap come to mind. I would hardly call this cycling as this means > you won't have the second copy of the card when the opponent might >S:CE or prevent your damage. That's the cross that all decks achetypes have to bear. Seems to me cards like hidden lurker (Obf), Immortal Grapple (Pot), Psyche (cel), owl companion (ani), fast reactions (aus), etc.. were printed to help combat decks finesse their strike abilities. If you don't want to play with any other cards besides strike modifiers, that's fine too. >> As far as I'm concerned Action Modifiers fall under the same category, >> being okay to add more stealth/bleed to an action, but only through the >> use of a different card. > >So what you really want is for all decks to be able to dump cards when they >feel that they have too many of something in their hand? What ever happened >to good deck building? It really has nothing to do with balance but with >making deck building less punishing if you put too many of a card in. Hmm, somehow you interpreted my statement in the reverse. Let me try again.. Action Modifiers should fall under the "non-repeat" idea. Where you may play a Lost in crowds for steath, and if you need to play additional stealth (due to someone blocking) you must play a card other than the LIC to gain it. Hopefully the example clarified my idea. We do the same in our group with combat cards. >> Actually this had less to do with balance than consistency, First >> Strike was a concept taken directly from Magic:TG. > >First Strike was a _term_ taken directly from M:TG (what would you call >it?). I believe I called it a concept. It didn't exist until the creation of Magic:TG to the best of my knowledge. > In M:TG, there's no strike declaration, no pressing to fight another >round, no additional strikes...... Why does V:tES have to be consistent >with Magic? If I wanted to play Magic, I'd play Magic. Because consistency lessens the learning curve for new prospective players, they can pick up a card printed "First Strike" and know exactly what it means. >> If you're going to borrow a game mechanic it should be consistent >> in translation. There's not that many cards in V:TES that have >> First Strike, so it shouldn't hamper Game Balance dramatically. > >Actually, this would be great for the Assamites. They have three different >cards that give them first strike. Are you one of the proponents of >weapons vs. TB? What happens when you face a Potence minion destroying >your Submachine Gun with first strike and you can't dodge? Weapons become >even more worthless with your rule. Actually, I like the errata from 7/7 on Thoughts Betrayed. It actually reads like errata as opposed to a complete re-write (nuff said). <snip> >> >Except that most people were upset about the V:tES rule, in that it >> >became way too easy to burn vampires. The Jyhad rules worked for years >> >_before_ the V:tES rules came out. Just because you're used to the >> >V:tES rules doesn't mean we shouldn't use a better rule. >> >> Maybe people were pissed 2 years ago, seems to me there are more >> folks now that would rather have it untouched. And your latter sentence >> sounds like opinion to me.. Bravo! > >Would you please decide if you'd rather have more powerful or less powerful >combat decks? Your previous "balance" of not allowing the play of multiples >of a combat card is countered by making aggro much more effective at burning. Prior to LSJ's recent appointment, I recall that combat cards were being interpreted to create a higher likelyhood to burn Vamps. That has died down a bit since he's taken the mantle. That's a good thing. However, the ability for a combat deck to whack a 4 cap vampire with 12 points of damage and not burn it seems a bit ludicrous. >> 6 Card Limit is my opinion, not worth a debate. > >Meaning you think it is obvious to use or that it has been needlessly and >endlessly debated already? It's been debated to death, where you are either for or against. At this point it is moot to argue unless another expansion were to be released. If more "similar" cards were printed I think folks would be more likely to find CL a bit more appealing. (does this ring true James?). <Snip> <Ideas about setting deck size min. to 60 cards> >I didn't think it was _that_ difficult to figure out legal deck sizes (not >minimums, probably just a typo). It should have been worded as: > >"You can use 40 cards plus 10 cards for every player in the game to build >your deck." > >Mike Okay, here's an example: I'm at a tournament with my 90 card deck. Typically at a tournament you'll be at a table or 4 or 5. My deck is fine if I get placed at a table of 5 people, but if I get sat at the table of 4 then by definition my deck is invalid by deck construction design. Granted, this scenario has probably never been enforced. But it makes you think. Bernard Bresnahan

James Hamblin wrote: > > Alan Flesch wrote: > > > > Why should a game 'encourage creativity'? I play CL (playgroup's > > choice) and NCL (tournaments). If the card base were broad enough, > > then I'd say 'okay' to CL, but the fact is that certain deck styles > > simply don't work in 6CL (Followers of Set Corruption decks, frex). > > Just out of curiousity, would you go along with CL (if there were more > cards to use) begrudgingly, or willingly? Do you really believe that > card limits make things more creative? I think that if every card had a > duplicate (maybe slightly altered) I could go along with 6CL. I don't > think I've ever put more than 13 of a single card in a deck (that case > being 13 IG's in my Rush deck). But even with this 12CL, there would be > deck that could not be made. Steve Wampler's weenie Presence deck, for > example. I've got a handful of decks that couldn't be made. A 30-card limit wouldn't suffice for the deck in the next Official V:EKN Caitiff Newsletter. :-P -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <6pdeld$ojs$1...@server3.mich.com>, "Bernie Bresnahan" <ber...@mich.com> wrote: [ First Strike consistency with Magic ] > Because consistency lessens the learning curve for new prospective players, > they can pick up a card printed "First Strike" and know exactly what it > means. But Magic doesn't have dodge or damage prevention (in the same way that Jyhad does). In Magic, first strike deals its damage first. In Jyhad, it's the same way if that's the way you explain it. > Prior to LSJ's recent appointment, I recall that combat cards were being > interpreted > to create a higher likelyhood to burn Vamps. That has died down a bit since > he's > taken the mantle. That's a good thing. However, the ability for a combat > deck to > whack a 4 cap vampire with 12 points of damage and not burn it seems a bit > ludicrous. Vampires are not easy to kill. The only real ways to kill them in WoD, if I remember correctly, is diablerie, fire, sunlight, and decapitation. Hitting them REALLY hard is just going to send them to torpor for longer. :) > Okay, here's an example: I'm at a tournament with my 90 card deck. > Typically at a tournament you'll be at a table or 4 or 5. My deck is > fine if I get placed at a table of 5 people, but if I get sat at the table > of > 4 then by definition my deck is invalid by deck construction design. > Granted, this scenario has probably never been enforced. But it > makes you think. But the tournaments have their own rules. In the DCI Tournament Rules for V:tES it says "The library will contain a minimum of 60 (sixty) cards and maximum of 90 (ninety) cards total." So you can make a deck that would be technically against the rules in the rulebook if you sat at a four person table. Tournament rules supercede rulebook rules. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP "Sell crazy somewhere else; we're all stocked up here." [ quoted text not captured ]

Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > > Yes I do.. > In fact, combat decks did very well at Origins (Peter and James H. > were terrors to behold). And yes, combat decks typically do have a > harder time winning tournaments. Heh, heh. Now, it's clearly the case that combat cards were intended to be stackable. Otherwise it makes no sense for Fists of Death to cost 1 while Torn Signpost is free. Why does FoD cost more? Because it's stackable. [can't play duplicate Action Mod.] > We do the same in > our group with combat cards. Why? Is there some perceived problem with combat decks cycling? Or is this yet another case of "we always played it this way and we're too stubborn to change"? > >First Strike was a _term_ taken directly from M:TG (what would you call > >it?). > > I believe I called it a concept. It didn't exist until the creation of > Magic:TG to the best of my knowledge. And because they borrowed an idea, everything has to be exactly the same? You may not have noticed, but there's no Dodge or S:CE in Magic. > Because consistency lessens the learning curve for new prospective > players, they can pick up a card printed "First Strike" and know exactly > what it means. I would bet that an astute player would still ask how Dodge and First Strike interacted unless it was explicitly stated in the rulebook (i.e., "First Strikes happen before other strikes, including Dodges"). [card limits] > It's been debated to death, where you are either for or against. At this > point it is moot to argue unless another expansion were to be released. > If more "similar" cards were printed I think folks would be more likely to > find CL a bit more appealing. (does this ring true James?). No. I would not find card limits appealing at all. Unless the limit was so high so that there is no appreciable difference between CL and NL, and in that case, why even bother? I think it's moot to argue even if there _were_ another expansion released. The fact that the CL environment has since Sabbat more closely resembled the NL game is not an argument for the limit. If the limit makes such a small difference in the game, why continue to insist on it? You seem to be arguing that you don't need to switch to NL because your decks resemble NL decks anyway. This makes no sense to me. If you feel like you're basically playing NL anyway, why not _actually_ play NL? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6pdeld$ojs$1...@server3.mich.com>, Bernie Bresnahan <ber...@mich.com> writes >>> Actually this had less to do with balance than consistency, First >>> Strike was a concept taken directly from Magic:TG. >> >>First Strike was a _term_ taken directly from M:TG (what would you call >>it?). > >I believe I called it a concept. It didn't exist until the creation of >Magic:TG >to the best of my knowledge. Not in CCGs, of course, since Magic was the "first" one. But such ideas have been rattling round in table-top wargames for ages - ideas such as initiative which determined who went first and who got the chance to cast spells in what order, rather than everything happening at once. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <en9khSA6...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <6pdeld$ojs$1...@server3.mich.com>, Bernie Bresnahan ><ber...@mich.com> writes >>>> Actually this had less to do with balance than consistency, First >>>> Strike was a concept taken directly from Magic:TG. >>> >>>First Strike was a _term_ taken directly from M:TG (what would you call >>>it?). >> >>I believe I called it a concept. It didn't exist until the creation of >>Magic:TG >>to the best of my knowledge. > >Not in CCGs, of course, since Magic was the "first" one. But such ideas >have been rattling round in table-top wargames for ages - ideas such as >initiative which determined who went first and who got the chance to >cast spells in what order, rather than everything happening at once. The only thing original in Magic was the distribution/collectability and build your own deck approach -- and even those are arguably done elsewhere first. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`