Alternate Card Limit Suggestion...

Ok... after the immense response that began with one question unrelated to the current problem at question I began to look for an alternative restriction on cards... I also refuse to respond to anything posted in that thread because it's just going to become too time consuming for a point I've made that no one has given definitive points that make one side more attractive than another... I believe in limits because I know how they can be abused in our group and I consider myself one of those "Mr. Suitcase" type of people in our groups and I know how I could abuse it... I don't think they add to the fun of the game in any... well anyway back to the purpose of this posting I came up with one that goes back to the original rule for design of decks in jyhad...in that for each game you're allowed to build a forty card deck and add up to ten cards per player... a general rule of thumb though for decks is to make them at least 60 cards for tournement play... and keep them under 90 for the same reason... ok that's irrelevan but gave me the idea to consider rules under the same general ideas... for every ten cards in your deck you can play 1 copy of a card... for example... a 60 card deck would fall under the 6CL limits anyway... if you actually built a 40 card fun deck.. a limit to 4 of any card... ok... so the point is that people who despise limits aren't limited by a steadfast card limit... granted in a tournement deck you would be limited to 9 of a card... I haven't heard to many people advocate for more than that of a particular card in any deck... pros: obviously it eliminates my bitching and moaning over the need for limits... influences almost no one's decks as is... but defines a set of rules that one person could not overload half of his deck with a particular card... the most a deck could be overloaded is to 1/10 of the deck... not half like I have seen with some combos like form of mist decks... there aren't many decks though that I have seen that use more than 8 majesties or 8 imortal gr apples... cons: it's still a restriction and people that play the ridiculous decks are going to complain... I want comments regarding specifically to this post in particular idea... ... NOT CLs in general... I think I've heard it all and no one has influenced my opinion overall... Vince

Vince Johnson wrote: <snip> > I came up with one that goes back to the original rule for design of decks > in jyhad...in that for each game you're allowed to build a forty card deck > and add up to ten cards per player... a general rule of thumb though for > decks is to make them at least 60 cards for tournement play... and keep them > under 90 for the same reason... Interesting notion. A vairable card limit. I agree; not many people *should* complain, but they will anyway. Count one vote in favor of petitioning to sanction this concept. Even though I have several decks that run on 20+ of a central card; I would willingly limit the number used through this system. Madjack

Vince Johnson wrote: "ok that's irrelevan but gave me the idea to consider rules under the same general ideas... for every ten cards in your deck you can play 1 copy of a card..." The 10% card limit (which is what you described above, but in way more words than necessary) is a very common compromise usually adopted by CL groups who are moving towards NCL, and usually lasts until the group realizes that it isn't really needed. While the 10% CL is much, much better than, say, 4CL, it still reduces the effectiveness perfectly reasonable decks that need more than 9 of a particular card (Corruption, IG, Cats Guidance) and does nothing to curb the effectiveness of the decks that most people want card limits to curtail. However, if a group is chosing between 4CL and 10% CL, go with 10%, as it is that much closer to the actual game. "cons: it's still a restriction and people that play the ridiculous decks are going to complain..." As this keeps coming up, I am curious. Please give me an example of a deck that you consider "ridiculous", citing specific reasons for what makes it "ridiculous" and what effect it has on play balance, as you see it. Please be as specific as possible (i.e. post a deck design, don't just say "a deck with 30 Form of Mist"). Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious I would have it all if I'd only have this much" -Liz Phair

In article <36AAD1CA...@postoffice.swbell.net>, Vagabond <ill...@postoffice.swbell.net> writes >> I came up with one that goes back to the original rule for design of decks >> in jyhad...in that for each game you're allowed to build a forty card deck >> and add up to ten cards per player... a general rule of thumb though for >> decks is to make them at least 60 cards for tournement play... and keep them >> under 90 for the same reason... > >Interesting notion. A vairable card limit. I agree; not many people *should* >complain, >but they will anyway. Count one vote in favor of petitioning to sanction this >concept. Erm, it *is* the sanctioned way. The minimum is changed to sixty cards, but a Tournament should be played with 5 players at a table. So maximum is 90. What point are you trying to make? Do we have to sanction things which are already official? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <78dmd6$7po@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >I also refuse to respond to anything posted in that >thread because it's just going to become too time consuming for a point I've >made that no one has given definitive points that make one side more >attractive than another... Ah, you appear to have mis-spelt "I refuse to participate in that thread because other people know how to argue a point and I don't. I also am entirely unable to refute people's posts point by point so write general sweeping things, missing out the subtleties of their argument, because I am a clueless fool." >I believe in limits because I know how they can >be abused in our group and I consider myself one of those "Mr. Suitcase" >type of people in our groups and I know how I could abuse it... I don't >think they add to the fun of the game in any... You've just made the point against limits - probably unintentionally but still. A Mr. Suitcase has x (where x is your card limit) copies of every card. When he can't put a common "version" of a card in (due to running out) he has a rare version sitting there. Now, Mr. Newbie has a lot of commons, but not many rares. When he can't put a common "version" of a card in, he doesn't have any other cards left to put in. So, Mr. Suitcase runs away with his vote deck, because he can use Bewitching Oration and Awe (x each) whereas Mr. Newbie can only use x Bewitching Orations and maybe 1 Awe. Simple as that. Card Limits end up making people have to use the rarer card which provide a similar effect, and so help Mr. Suitcase. Please, tell me how you feel that Card Limits hinder Mr. Suitcase, given this. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78dmd6$7po@simba>, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > Ok... after the immense response that began with one question unrelated to > the current problem at question I began to look for an alternative > restriction on cards... I also refuse to respond to anything posted in that > thread because it's just going to become too time consuming for a point I've > made that no one has given definitive points that make one side more > attractive than another... I believe in limits because I know how they can > be abused in our group and I consider myself one of those "Mr. Suitcase" > type of people in our groups and I know how I could abuse it... I don't > think they add to the fun of the game in any... > > well anyway back to the purpose of this posting > > I came up with one that goes back to the original rule for design of decks > in jyhad...in that for each game you're allowed to build a forty card deck > and add up to ten cards per player... a general rule of thumb though for > decks is to make them at least 60 cards for tournement play... and keep them > under 90 for the same reason... > > ok that's irrelevan but gave me the idea to consider rules under the same > general ideas... for every ten cards in your deck you can play 1 copy of a > card... > > for example... a 60 card deck would fall under the 6CL limits anyway... if > you actually built a 40 card fun deck.. a limit to 4 of any card... > ok... so the point is that people who despise limits aren't limited by a > steadfast card limit... granted in a tournement deck you would be limited to > 9 of a card... I haven't heard to many people advocate for more than that of > a particular card in any deck... > > pros: > obviously it eliminates my bitching and moaning over the need for limits... > influences almost no one's decks as is... but defines a set of rules that > one person could not overload half of his deck with a particular card... the > most a deck could be overloaded is to 1/10 of the deck... not half like I > have seen with some combos like form of mist decks... there aren't many > decks though that I have seen that use more than 8 majesties or 8 imortal gr > apples... > > cons: > it's still a restriction and people that play the ridiculous decks are going > to complain... > > I want comments regarding specifically to this post in particular idea... > ... NOT CLs in general... I think I've heard it all and no one has > influenced my opinion overall... > > Vince This looks like a good idea, but like you said there will always be those that see any kind of limit as bad, ("If there was a limit my ****** deck would be unplayable.). Well if that's the only deck that you can build and play then you need a little help in the creativity department. Our original group has played with a 4cl for several years and we have had no problems with this until we started to play with some new people that hav'nt played for that long. As an example one of them played a deck that he said would be really fun, (ya right ;>). It consisted of mainly, 10+ Flash, 10+ Thrown Gates, 10+ Thrown Sewer lids, and 10+ Blur, as well as several bums rushes and so on. Even if I was not his prey, I still would not have liked to see that deck. Alot of the current errata and text changes would not be needed if there where card limits. Wake 4-5 per deck, no need to delay redraw and so on. For fun relaxed games the 4cl is really good, it makes people think about what to put in the deck to get it to do what you want. The games don't take any longer either, usuall they last from 30-70 minutes. Then for tourny decks the 4/40,6/60,9/90 limit would be a way to limit the cards without limiting the playability of the deck. I Hope that this gets some consideration. Sea ya. Umbradomo, The Shadow Mage. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 21:11:41 GMT, umbr...@rocketmail.com wrote: >In article <78dmd6$7po@simba>, >This looks like a good idea, but like you said there will always be those >that see any kind of limit as bad, ("If there was a limit my ****** deck >would be unplayable.). Well if that's the only deck that you can build and >play then you need a little help in the creativity department. Our original >group has played with a 4cl for several years and we have had no problems >with this until we started to play with some new people that hav'nt played >for that long. As an example one of them played a deck that he said would be >really fun, (ya right ;>). It consisted of mainly, 10+ Flash, 10+ Thrown >Gates, 10+ Thrown Sewer lids, and 10+ Blur, as well as several bums rushes >and so on. Even if I was not his prey, I still would not have liked to see heh. I have a deck that is very much like that - but before you assume that my deck is abusive, please rest assured that I have worked on it for quite some time and it is far from it. The deck in the form you listed will do just wonderfully at beating up vampires, assuming you put in enough Psyche to deal with S:CE and enough rush to get into combat. But it won't win games. It'll just beat up its prey, oust its predator for lack of any better defense, and provide 3 quick VPs for its grand-predator. it took me many revisions adding in lots of blood gain, bending the crypt around so it was functional, shuffling masters and strikes as necessary, until it finally was able to get 3 honest VP's one night, one of them through an S:CE Ventrue deck. It will STILL have trouble when faced with either a fast-bleeding predator or a hard-core S:CE prey, just by the nature of the deck itself. (Against fast bleed, its only option seems to be to go ahead and oust its predator as well in hopes of a slower grand-predator. I haven't figured out how to cram enough blood gain in to survive multiple bleeds of 6 and still have the deck be able to kill vampires consistently - partly because of the large crypt a pot/CEL deck requires, partly because with a max 90 card limit... well.. you DON'T have much room for blood gain if you're going to play a card-intensive style of combat.) It is lots of fun to play, though. =) >that deck. Alot of the current errata and text changes would not be needed if >there where card limits. Wake 4-5 per deck, no need to delay redraw and so >on. For fun relaxed games the 4cl is really good, it makes people think about >what to put in the deck to get it to do what you want. The games don't take >any longer either, usuall they last from 30-70 minutes. Then for tourny decks >the 4/40,6/60,9/90 limit would be a way to limit the cards without limiting >the playability of the deck. 4cl? bleh. you put in some wake, some intercept, some untap, some blood gain, some combat, some bleed, some wacky master stuff, etc. etc. ad nauseam. you get decks that do everything half-assedly instead of decks that do one thing well and other things not at all. >I Hope that this gets some consideration. > >Sea ya. >Umbradomo, The Shadow Mage. > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Cz7jELA3...@obeah.demon.co.uk... >In article <36AAD1CA...@postoffice.swbell.net>, Vagabond ><ill...@postoffice.swbell.net> writes >What point are you trying to make? Do we have to sanction things which >are already official? > the point I was making is that people that are making decks even for fun make them at those limits to begin with anyway because generally people want play against tournement decks... buuut... you had to go and read all into things... it is official for 60 to 90... my point is that people playing for fun generally make them that big anyway... but since you decided to waste time and space by commenting on something that had nothing to do with the major topic of the article.. I decided to elaborate with a similarly time and space wasting article (i.e. this one)... so I'm taking up space here with this response... I hope this long winded response to something pointless was what you wanted... Vince... "the ultimate space waster"...Johnson

Vince, Just wanted to say that the 10% limit is a pretty slick idea, or at least is something that I hadn't seen proposed nor pondered myself. Kudos, Bernie

>Ah, you appear to have mis-spelt "I refuse to participate in that thread >because other people know how to argue a point and I don't. I also am >entirely unable to refute people's posts point by point so write general >sweeping things, missing out the subtleties of their argument, because I >am a clueless fool." Ah .... back to wasting more space and time... you mis-spelled the word "mis-spelled".... just thought I'd waste your time pointing that out...oh but while we're on the point... I refuse to participate because the original point of that thread is wasted... last time I checked there were over 50 posts that had nothing to do with Zip Guns... now stop wasting my time... you're not getting anywhere with your argument when you only point out how much of a waste it is for me to post in that thread... I AM able to refute what people are saying... I HAVE had people that are unable to refute MY arguments... I think that's a pretty successful argument... as for the clueless fool... go take a rhetoric class... get a clue about persuasive writing...because name calling is the tool of those using propaganda or those without reasonable backing for their argument... > >>I believe in limits because I know how they can >>be abused in our group and I consider myself one of those "Mr. Suitcase" >>type of people in our groups and I know how I could abuse it... I don't >>think they add to the fun of the game in any... > >You've just made the point against limits - probably unintentionally but >still. hmmm... where did I say that I want no limits?... nowhere... most argue: "that when we have limits it becomes a game for Mr. Suitcase".... by stating that I am one of those people... and how I feel that we NEED limits... because I know how to abuse the no limits rule and how unfair it is for people who don't have the rarer cards... it may seem contradictory... but as one of these people... I see by the quantity of cards I have that I could easily abuse the system under no limits... > >A Mr. Suitcase has x (where x is your card limit) copies of every card. >When he can't put a common "version" of a card in (due to running out) >he has a rare version sitting there. > >Now, Mr. Newbie has a lot of commons, but not many rares. When he can't >put a common "version" of a card in, he doesn't have any other cards >left to put in. > ahh....so this point comes up again... now... I put it in your hands again... you state "Mr. Newbie has a lot of commons but not many rares"... ok... to get commons... you obviously have rares... you either bought boxes/packs or traded them off for those commons(quite foolishly I might add)... in either case... it's not a logical choice because I HAVE built commons decks that do work... for instance it is very easy to build an S/B deck with commons only... >So, Mr. Suitcase runs away with his vote deck, because he can use >Bewitching Oration and Awe (x each) whereas Mr. Newbie can only use x >Bewitching Orations and maybe 1 Awe. hmmm... I think that mr suitcase would win this situation anyway because you CAN'T use Oration on his votes... and chances are he's not playing enough of either card to make a difference under the card limit rules(i.e. his deck already conforms to the deck limit rules)... ...card limitations are not a function of the number of cards a person has... it is a function of the power of an individual card in quantity... by limiting the probability a person will see that particular card... you limit their dependance on the card... it's a simple case that the newbie play a smaller sized deck... 60 card decks do make it through 5 player games believe it or not... so while this enables Mr.S to play a 90 card deck and keep the same percentage of vote boosters(orations and awes which would make an overwhelming 15% of the deck...) as the newbie with only6 orations and 1 awe... (based on orations only that's 10% of his deck which is reasonable... since vote decks need to win both sides of the vote... ones on your actions and those other's call when it's not your turn which is why I go into the use of praxi)... now you migt point out 2 things... #1... he's playing 15% vote compared to my 10%... weellllllllllll.......look at it this way ... in a no limits environment... if you were to play 15% and a 90 card deck to match his... he would be able to play Awe AND oration on the same vampire...(very slim argument... but when it applies to cards like stealth cards... it tends to make things overwhelming... a deck of all lost in crowds for stealth will not do as well against an intercept deck as a deck with an equal number of stealth card but uses faceless night, lost in crowd, cloak, and swallowed by night)now suddenly in no limit environment he's allowed to play those rares in quantities you might not be able to handle... #2 ...the other is that "what is stopping him from playing a 60 card deck"... the answer is: nothing... but now he's got 12 cards out of that 60 card deck devoted to voting which raises the percentage significantly... almost to a quarter of the deck... entirely tooooo many because he still has to have cards that will help his deck win, which the votes by themselves do no help him do...chances are, voluntarily he will opt to lower his own limitations... there's also a 3rd that may erupt too... that some rares are just too powerful that under restrictions you might not be able to win against them... that is the easiest to answer because an argument in this direction makes no sense for your side... if you're saying that a particular rare by itself is too powerful to deal with in limited environments... it means it's going to be immensely overpowering in a no limits environment where Mr.S has that "unlimited" access to it these two examples are under limits more restrictive than the one I've posted and show you how the system works with limits and doesn't work with NL... my system falls inbetween... This is also a specific example given to the type of deck you decided to chose... >Simple as that. Card Limits end up making people have to use the rarer >card which provide a similar effect, and so help Mr. Suitcase. > like I said if all you have are bewitching orations... you're going to lose your first vote to him anyway... or if Mr. S. only has them... he's going to lose to your first vote... and speaking from experience on vote decks... that first vote can be crucial to setting the speed or flow of hte rest of the deck against any other vote deck... and if you're not playing any politic stop... it doesn't matter what kind of politics he's playing... he'll usually only need one card that provides continuous votes (ie... a prince or justicar he gets out of that first vote)....so what this leads us to ... is the power of the praxi... not his orations and Awe...last time I checked there 10 in the first set alone... even under 4CL(which I am not advocated but giving the most strictest of examples)... you could play 40 praxi in your deck... and with praxi in every set... they tend to show up often enough for a player to have entirely too many to ever play... especially Mr. Suitcase... if he has 8 of every rare... he's got 80 seizures from the first set alone... and as a Mr.S myself I know I have many that I'd be willing to dump off for some of the uncommons that for some reason I only have a dozen or so of instead of the average 20....and probably for some of your commons that you have way too many of... I could always add to my Army of Rats collection >Please, tell me how you feel that Card Limits hinder Mr. Suitcase, given >this. Also you did not comment on my system... at all... which i will interpret to mean that you either don't understand it... or you have no argument against it... BTW I noticed you didn't comment on the level playing field... I'll take it that you understand the only TRUE level playing field is one under which everyone has the same limitations because there is always someone out there that has more cards than every player... and by this reasoning that means there is only one true Mr. Suitcase... by your reasoning Mr. Suitcase is the "ultimate"(I use this lightly because most people that have the cards tend to only have the cards because they either suck at trading... or have no clue how to build decks and think they need to have every card because they think that will help their decks) player because he can fill in the gaps you can't with his treasure trove of cards... Also... don't attack me... go find something better to do... arguing over a game is pointless... which is why I find your insults to be such a waste of my time... I don't know you... you don't me... don't presume to make comments unless that changes... otherwise you are making blind comments and showing how truly weak your argument is...I hope I've wasted your time efficiently and you'll take me seriously in your response Vince

In article <78ji9e$1bn@simba>, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: [snip bickering and argument over American vs. British spelling...] > I AM able to refute what people are saying... I HAVE had people that are I'm not going to take up what is and is not effective argument. However, it has seemed that you are avoiding a number of point-by-point posts under different threads that you have not yet boycotted. This (to some) indicates that you are unwilling or unable to disprove these points. [snip] > >>I believe in limits because I know how they can > >>be abused in our group and I consider myself one of those "Mr. Suitcase" > >>type of people in our groups and I know how I could abuse it... I don't > >>think they add to the fun of the game in any... > > > >You've just made the point against limits - probably unintentionally but > >still. > > hmmm... where did I say that I want no limits?... nowhere... most argue: I believe that (James? I think...) was pointing out that as a 'Mr. Suitcase,' you indicate that you *know* how you are able to abuse limits. [snip commons vs. rares] > >So, Mr. Suitcase runs away with his vote deck, because he can use > >Bewitching Oration and Awe (x each) whereas Mr. Newbie can only use x > >Bewitching Orations and maybe 1 Awe. > > hmmm... I think that mr suitcase would win this situation anyway because you > CAN'T use Oration on his votes... and chances are he's not playing enough of > either card to make a difference under the card limit rules(i.e. his deck > already conforms to the deck limit rules)... ...card limitations are not a I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I'll attempt to rebut this from what I understand. How do we know Mr. Suitcase is going to draw either an oration or an awe first? I think it is safe to presume that each deck also has voting-defense, so it is not guaranteed that whoever votes first wins. Also, I don't understand the phrase "he's not playing enough of either card to make a difference under the card limit rules(i.e. his deck alread conforms to the deck limit ruels)..." Do you mean that Mr. Suitcase does not have enough cards in his deck to make it effective, or the other player likely doesn't have enough cards to beat Mr. Suitcase? I just really don't get that sentence... > function of the number of cards a person has... it is a function of the > power of an individual card in quantity... by limiting the probability a > person will see that particular card... you limit their dependance on the > card... it's a simple case that the newbie play a smaller sized deck... 60 > card decks do make it through 5 player games believe it or not... I think this is a weak argument. Limiting the probability that a card comes up does not reduce the power of the card, it merely makes it more of a matter of luck when it is drawn. Seriously. Pick a card. Any card that you believe to be powerful. Put a lot of them in a deck. Return to Innocence, even. I don't think that one specific card can make or break a whole game. It may hurt one or two people, but...well...this whole discussion is going on in the 30-card deck thread... > so while this enables Mr.S to play a 90 card deck and keep the same > percentage of vote boosters(orations and awes which would make an > overwhelming 15% of the deck...) as the newbie with only6 orations and 1 > awe... (based on orations only that's 10% of his deck which is reasonable... As someone else said, the 10% rule is interesting, but it seems more like a soft limit that will eventually get its limits tested...hey...if you like it, play it. > since vote decks need to win both sides of the vote... ones on your actions > and those other's call when it's not your turn which is why I go into the > use of praxi)... now you migt point out 2 things... > > #1... he's playing 15% vote compared to my 10%... weellllllllllll.......look > at it this way ... in a no limits environment... if you were to play 15% and > a 90 card deck to match his... he would be able to play Awe AND oration on > the same vampire...(very slim argument... but when it applies to cards like So? There are a number of cards you can play in response. Pulling Strings, that one dominate card from Ancient Hearts, Dread Gaze (on multiple vamps), Delaying Tactics... > stealth cards... it tends to make things overwhelming... a deck of all lost > in crowds for stealth will not do as well against an intercept deck as a > deck with an equal number of stealth card but uses faceless night, lost in > crowd, cloak, and swallowed by night)now suddenly in no limit environment > he's allowed to play those rares in quantities you might not be able to > handle... Rares? Are you referring to the presence cards or the obfuscate? None of the obfuscate cards you mentioned are rare. If you are indeed referring to the obfuscate, if he puts that much into a deck, what else is he going to put in? Also, why does an intercept have to match up exactly with a stealth deck? I think this is one mistake CL players sometimes make. Because of your draw, intercept decks often can't compete with stealth decks. Why not just deflect? Why not rush the bleeder instead? There are also a number of votes & masters you can use against nasty people. Why does it have to be that intercept must oppose obfuscate directly? > #2 ...the other is that "what is stopping him from playing a 60 card > deck"... the answer is: nothing... but now he's got 12 cards out of that 60 > card deck devoted to voting which raises the percentage significantly... > almost to a quarter of the deck... entirely tooooo many because he still has > to have cards that will help his deck win, which the votes by themselves do > no help him do...chances are, voluntarily he will opt to lower his own > limitations... I'm sorry, again I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please try to re- explain this? > there's also a 3rd that may erupt too... that some rares are just too > powerful that under restrictions you might not be able to win against > them... that is the easiest to answer because an argument in this direction > makes no sense for your side... if you're saying that a particular rare by > itself is too powerful to deal with in limited environments... it means it's > going to be immensely overpowering in a no limits environment where Mr.S has > that "unlimited" access to it Wrong. I invite you to play a game (perhaps a JOL game) where you take a very high number of 'powerful rares' versus other regular decks. You may get a victory point or two. I doubt that many many 'powerful rares' will win the game for you. For example, what are you going to do with 10 Tomb of Ramses III? I just don't see it happening. Rares are generally not as powerful in Jyhad as they are in magic. They're most often flavor-ish cards. > these two examples are under limits more restrictive than the one I've > posted and show you how the system works with limits and doesn't work with > NL... my system falls inbetween... True, your system does fall inbetween. I don't think that you've shown that NL has a problem, though you may feel that you have. Again, I invite you to examine the other threads that you have not forsaken already. > like I said if all you have are bewitching orations... you're going to lose > your first vote to him anyway... or if Mr. S. only has them... he's going to > lose to your first vote... and speaking from experience on vote decks... > that first vote can be crucial to setting the speed or flow of hte rest of > the deck against any other vote deck... and if you're not playing any > politic stop... it doesn't matter what kind of politics he's playing... Why would you play a vote deck without some sort of political defense? > he'll usually only need one card that provides continuous votes (ie... a > prince or justicar he gets out of that first vote)....so what this leads us > to ... is the power of the praxi... not his orations and Awe...last time I > checked there 10 in the first set alone... even under 4CL(which I am not > advocated but giving the most strictest of examples)... you could play 40 > praxi in your deck... and with praxi in every set... they tend to show up > often enough for a player to have entirely too many to ever play... So...Praxis Seizures, which are rare, are common enough for the poor player to have many? This doesn't make sense me either. > BTW I noticed you didn't comment on the level playing field... I'll take it > that you understand the only TRUE level playing field is one under which > everyone has the same limitations because there is always someone out there Or one in which everyone has *no* limitations. Okay...here goes. You mentioned decks made entirely, or nearly entirely out of commons. I believe that a deck constructed entirely of commons will beat a deck constructed entirely of rares any day. [snip some more...didn't feel like getting into the argument about personal attacks. Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:02:44 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >>Ah, you appear to have mis-spelt "I refuse to participate in that thread >>because other people know how to argue a point and I don't. I also am >>entirely unable to refute people's posts point by point so write general >>sweeping things, missing out the subtleties of their argument, because I >>am a clueless fool." > >Ah .... back to wasting more space and time... you mis-spelled the word >"mis-spelled".... just thought I'd waste your time pointing that out...oh He's British. Clue check. Here, take two... they're small. >but while we're on the point... I refuse to participate because the original >point of that thread is wasted... last time I checked there were over 50 >posts that had nothing to do with Zip Guns... now stop wasting my time... That's because you wouldn't respond to anything about Zip Guns anymore. Should I quote where you said "give the zip guns a rest already" to me earlier, or can you find it yourself? >you're not getting anywhere with your argument when you only point out how >much of a waste it is for me to post in that thread... We'd like you to quit posting until you start posting in English. At least I would. It's a pain to decipher them. >I AM able to refute what people are saying... I HAVE had people that are Not that I can see, you're not. You don't respond to any points I make, you pull statements out of thin air to attempt to refute tangents to the original points, and then I have to go off on the tangent too and point out that the validity of THOSE statements is in question - and then you throw your hands up and claim you win. This isn't the way any sort of real debate works, guy - you have to read what other people are saying too. >unable to refute MY arguments... I think that's a pretty successful >argument... as for the clueless fool... go take a rhetoric class... get a >clue about persuasive writing...because name calling is the tool of those >using propaganda or those without reasonable backing for their argument... Or those who are trying to get your attention, since you are doing the USENET equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA". regarding persuasive writing... i'll take a course in it when you take English 101. >hmmm... where did I say that I want no limits?... nowhere... most argue: >"that when we have limits it becomes a game for Mr. Suitcase".... by stating >that I am one of those people... and how I feel that we NEED limits... >because I know how to abuse the no limits rule and how unfair it is for >people who don't have the rarer cards... it may seem contradictory... but as >one of these people... I see by the quantity of cards I have that I could >easily abuse the system under no limits... Take your fingers out of your ears. Over and over and over and over again, people have pointed out (in the two paragraphs below, notably) that people who don't have the rare cards are actually hurt MORE by the card limit since they can't put enough in. Best example: I want to have a card that helps me pass votes by gaining votes. There are three cards that do so. Bewitching Oration. Business Pressure. And Awe. Business Pressure and Awe are both rare. I personally have 9,000,000 Bewitching Orations (i counted), 4 Business Pressures, and 1 Awe. Under 6CL, I can put in 6 BO, 4 BP, and 1 Awe, and I have 11 "gain votes" action modifiers, 4 of which really stink in comparison to the other 7. Mr. Suitcase puts in 6 BO and 6 Awe, and he has 12 "gain votes" action modifiers, none of which stink at all. Mr. Suitcase's vote deck is disgustingly more effective at passing his own votes -already-, and it's only going to go downhill from here. >>A Mr. Suitcase has x (where x is your card limit) copies of every card. >>When he can't put a common "version" of a card in (due to running out) >>he has a rare version sitting there. >> >>Now, Mr. Newbie has a lot of commons, but not many rares. When he can't >>put a common "version" of a card in, he doesn't have any other cards >>left to put in. > >ahh....so this point comes up again... because you aren't listening, reading, or in any way permitting information to reach your brain. >now... I put it in your hands again... you state "Mr. Newbie has a lot of >commons but not many rares"... ok... to get commons... you obviously have >rares... you either bought boxes/packs or traded them off for those >commons(quite foolishly I might add)... in either case... it's not a logical >choice because I HAVE built commons decks that do work... for instance it is >very easy to build an S/B deck with commons only... This paragraph is tangential, irrelevant, and mindless. Why is it here? Why is it prefaced with "i put it in your hands again"? Do you realize how many DIFFERENT rare cards there are? If you buy 5 boxes of Jyhad, you will get bazooka-loads of all the common cards you need, but you won't have very many of each individual rare you might need, because there are so many different ones. And some rares just plain suck. No, really! Some do! When was the last time you saw Lextalionis flung around? But it's RARE... so you have a few of those that you'll never use, and some Business Pressures that are spend-pool-for-votes (YUCK) where you really wanted a few more Immortal Freaking Grapples... er, anyway. >>So, Mr. Suitcase runs away with his vote deck, because he can use >>Bewitching Oration and Awe (x each) whereas Mr. Newbie can only use x >>Bewitching Orations and maybe 1 Awe. > >hmmm... I think that mr suitcase would win this situation anyway because you >CAN'T use Oration on his votes... and chances are he's not playing enough of Mr. Suitcase has a minimally easier time passing his votes, since Awe is a 900lb gorilla when it comes to "THIS SHALL PASS DAMMIT". But Mr. Suitcase can't use Awe on YOUR votes either, and Bewitching Oration's 4 votes are nothing to sneeze at - so if you're facing Mr. Suitcase at a table, you probably have just as easy a time passing your votes IF you can put as many BO's in to match the number of BO's and Awes he has in. If you're just replacing Mr. Suitcase at a table and asking yourself "Did I really need Awe to pass this vote?", you will find that you are more often than not saying "Nah. 4 votes would've been enough." If you are in a situation where BO is insufficient and you consistently -need- Awe to pass your votes, you are being raped and are merely fighting a holding action. =) >either card to make a difference under the card limit rules(i.e. his deck >already conforms to the deck limit rules)... ...card limitations are not a er ... I'll jam 12 BO's into a 90 card deck. That violates any card limit rules I've seen you or anyone else post. >function of the number of cards a person has... it is a function of the >power of an individual card in quantity... by limiting the probability a >person will see that particular card... you limit their dependance on the >card... it's a simple case that the newbie play a smaller sized deck... 60 >card decks do make it through 5 player games believe it or not... Awe is still a 900lb gorilla, whether we see it 12 times in a game or only 6. When it shows up, it usually means "This vote passes" unless someone has Delaying Tactics, Pulling Strings, or Kindred Coercion - both of which, if you'll note, are not "gain vote" reactions, they are "cancel voter" reactions.. Dread Gaze is a "gain vote" reaction which serves to effectively cancel a Bewitching Oration... but Awe will take no more notice of Dread Gaze than a M1-Abrams would of a squirrel in its path. >so while this enables Mr.S to play a 90 card deck and keep the same >percentage of vote boosters(orations and awes which would make an >overwhelming 15% of the deck...) as the newbie with only6 orations and 1 >awe... (based on orations only that's 10% of his deck which is reasonable... >since vote decks need to win both sides of the vote... ones on your actions >and those other's call when it's not your turn which is why I go into the >use of praxi)... now you migt point out 2 things... No. A KRC-based vote deck only has to pass its own votes to oust its prey, then the next prey, then the next prey, and in the meantime blood-gain itself silly. Why should it care if someone across the table is voting their own prey out, until they become the predator of the vote deck itself? Then it gets messy. Including vote defense in your vote deck that isn't based on "gaining permanent vote lock via titles" (praxis seizures, you mentioned) is a very tricky proposition, as you may draw a Dread Gaze when you really need a Bewitching Oration. Or you may have Dread Gaze in your hand and NO competing vote decks. D'oh! So it's much safer and better advised to just design your deck to acquire vote lock, either by temporary means (BO) or by permanent means (Praxis backed by BO, or just raw abuse of titled vampires). Then you don't have to waste cards stopping other vote decks. >#1... he's playing 15% vote compared to my 10%... weellllllllllll.......look >at it this way ... in a no limits environment... if you were to play 15% and >a 90 card deck to match his... he would be able to play Awe AND oration on >the same vampire...(very slim argument... but when it applies to cards like Yes, this is a very slim argument. If he *needs* to play Awe and BO BOTH to pass a vote, he's being raped and had better be using those to pass Praxis Seizures and Justicars, or he is just wasting time 'til he gets ousted. I haven't ever seen a situation where someone has actually played both Awe and BO to gain votes. Usually one or the other is sufficient. >stealth cards... it tends to make things overwhelming... a deck of all lost >in crowds for stealth will not do as well against an intercept deck as a >deck with an equal number of stealth card but uses faceless night, lost in >crowd, cloak, and swallowed by night)now suddenly in no limit environment >he's allowed to play those rares in quantities you might not be able to >handle... All those cards you mentioned are first, common... and second, you point out YOURSELF that a deck of all lost in crowds is mindless and will fail lots, and everyone would pretty much agree with you. This is exactly the NL crowd's point - why play a CL, since you seem to have temporarily realized what NL people know - decks that go crazy on one card invariably flop miserably. Even if it's 30 Conditionings or whatever. >#2 ...the other is that "what is stopping him from playing a 60 card >deck"... the answer is: nothing... but now he's got 12 cards out of that 60 >card deck devoted to voting which raises the percentage significantly... No, he just takes out Bewitching Orations until he converts the percentage back to one that's appropriate for a 60 card deck. You are assuming that Mr. Suitcase is a moron here, which he's not. And worse, if he has 6 Awe and 1 BO, while you have 6 BO and 1 Awe, ... just do the math, OK? =) Your BO may fail occasionally because someone happened to draw a Dread Gaze, or brought out another Prince while you weren't looking. His Awe takes a lot heavier artillery than piddly little titled votes or Dread Gazes to stop. The advantage he has is now even MORE significant. Are your fingers out of your ears yet? >almost to a quarter of the deck... entirely tooooo many because he still has >to have cards that will help his deck win, which the votes by themselves do >no help him do...chances are, voluntarily he will opt to lower his own >limitations... See above. > >there's also a 3rd that may erupt too... that some rares are just too >powerful that under restrictions you might not be able to win against >them... that is the easiest to answer because an argument in this direction >makes no sense for your side... if you're saying that a particular rare by >itself is too powerful to deal with in limited environments... it means it's >going to be immensely overpowering in a no limits environment where Mr.S has >that "unlimited" access to it That's why errata is made to those cards, such as Tomb of Ramses, Zip Gun (oops, I'm not supposed to talk about Zip Gun anymore), or Return to Innocence. If the card is abusable in NL, it's just as abusable in CL. You don't need more than 4 RTI to grind your way to multiple victory points. You don't need more than 4-5 Tombs for a good chance of a draw on the first turn. You only have to be hit with one RTI to be ousted. Your predator only has to get 1 Tomb off to bring out Arika early. Thoughts Betrayed was a COMMON card - worse. You only have to be hit once with the "you may play no cards" for your 8-cap to be Blood Fury/press/Blood to Water/Walk of Flame, and BURNED without a prayer of saving himself. Or worse, the old Pulled Fangs - you only have to have 1-2 vampires burned by the "it's only 1 point" agg damage before you realize that it's JUST TOO DAMN EASY for a combat deck to burn vampires with it. The point stands that if a card is broken in NL, it is NO LESS BROKEN under CL, you just see it less often. It doesn't make it more fair to the poor bastard who's hit with it. >these two examples are under limits more restrictive than the one I've >posted and show you how the system works with limits and doesn't work with >NL... my system falls inbetween... So far you haven't shown us anything. You have, however, mindlessly repeated the pro-CL arguments which several people long ago disproved, that we're disproving AGAIN, and which they're offering a lot of money if you can come up with DIFFERENT arguments that actually refute points, instead of go "lalalalala". >>Simple as that. Card Limits end up making people have to use the rarer >>card which provide a similar effect, and so help Mr. Suitcase. > >like I said if all you have are bewitching orations... you're going to lose >your first vote to him anyway... or if Mr. S. only has them... he's going to >lose to your first vote... and speaking from experience on vote decks... >that first vote can be crucial to setting the speed or flow of hte rest of >the deck against any other vote deck... and if you're not playing any Nah. The first vote is only crucial if your deck relies on getting vote lock via Praxis Seizures. If your deck relies on getting out titled vampires, well, a good Ventrue deck will get out a minimum of 6 votes worth of titles, Elysium: Marseilles (+1 vote to each Prince, etc.), Ventrue Headquarters (tap for 3 votes), and if it STILL doesn't have enough to pass then it can play a BO and pretty much have done with it. What votes do you put in your deck? Buckets of KRC, of course. Oh, and the occasional Conservative Agitation. Consanguineous Boon is nice but Voter Captivations are often almost as good or better since those will reload your voting vampires after you Minion Tap 'em. A few Parity Shifts, and a couple Disputed Territories... No problem. Classic Ventrue vote deck. First vote, who cares. It'll get its votes, don't you worry. >politic stop... it doesn't matter what kind of politics he's playing... >he'll usually only need one card that provides continuous votes (ie... a >prince or justicar he gets out of that first vote)....so what this leads us If you're depending on your first vote to get you a title, your vote deck is EXTREMELY dependent on the environment and your prey and predator not being able to find +1 intercept. I have seen people tap the KRCG Radio, pay a pool, and give +1 intercept to a person across the table so they could stop someone with no titles from becoming a Prince, because any vote deck naturally threatens the entire table. (Once it gets vote lock, you MUST have intercept or you will die.) >to ... is the power of the praxi... not his orations and Awe...last time I >checked there 10 in the first set alone... even under 4CL(which I am not >advocated but giving the most strictest of examples)... you could play 40 If you're not advocating it, don't say it. A Praxis Seizure is a Praxis Seizure is a Praxis Seizure. They have a TOKEN difference in the actual locations. To forbid people from playing with more than 4 Immortal Grapples, but to permit vote decks to include 12-15 "I make myself a prince" cards, is some of the worst sort of hypocrisy i've ever seen. As if things weren't stacked enough towards the vote deck anyway under card limits, now you'll permit them to TOTALLY bypass the limit? =) >>Please, tell me how you feel that Card Limits hinder Mr. Suitcase, given >>this. > >Also you did not comment on my system... at all... which i will interpret to >mean that you either don't understand it... or you have no argument against >it... Good job of answering his request. In fact, good job of keeping your fingers firmly in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA YOU IGNORED MY DUMB IDEA I MUST BE RIGHT LALALALA." I'll comment on the system. Tourney decks are 90 cards max. 9 card limits are sufficiently high that most cards automatically fall underneath them (note my "8 wakes or none" earlier in another thread), so why have them in the FIRST PLACE... or sufficiently low that decks who rely on 12-15 of a particular card are still hampered. The classic "weenie vote" deck includes 15 Praxis Seizures, because it MUST draw one before anyone gets a chance to get votes out on the table or get the Edge - or it will be hosed as nobody who's ever seen a weenie vote deck in action will permit it to get any votes at all. The system is, as is anything which increases the card limit, more effective than a hard 4CL or 6CL. But it is still too restrictive compared to NL. There you go. Happy? >BTW I noticed you didn't comment on the level playing field... I'll take it >that you understand the only TRUE level playing field is one under which >everyone has the same limitations because there is always someone out there >that has more cards than every player... and by this reasoning that means No, he and the rest of us have already refuted it RE-PEAT-ED-LY, but you're too busy with your fingers in your ears to listen. True statements: 1. A level playing field is one in which everyone has the same limitations. 2. There is always a Mr. Suitcase out there. False assumption: Card limits provide the same limitations for everyone. This is refuted by the Bewitching Oration/Awe thing up above, as well as numerous other examples we've provided. (Need Animalism untap in response to a bleed? Under 6CL you have 6 Rat's Warnings and 6 Guard Dogs. Didn't buy Sabbat? You have 6 Rat's Warnings and your deck is noticeably inferior. Under NL you have as many Rat's Warnings and Guard Dogs in any form as you need - notice that the superior version of each provides a different thing. If you didn't buy Sabbat, you can still cram in as many Rat's Warnings as you need and get the untap you need.) Since card limits do NOT provide the same limitations for everyone... what does? The paradox that people can't seem to see is that when you get down to it... there is no way to limit how many cards people buy, and therefore the only acceptable limit is... no limits. This is universally true in anything in life. If someone spends enough money, they will generally be able to do thing "X" better than a person who spends little or no money. Exceptions are everywhere, but they are few and far between. The only way to level the playing field in life is to attempt to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make as much money as they can. This holds true by extension for Jyhad. To completely abuse the concept of "analogy", consider another game. Consider pool. Equipment matters in pool. A ratty old house cue costs you no money, but has dents and is probably warped, whereas someone's $500 stick will have no dents, no warps, and much better balance and feel - not to mention look a hell of a lot better. Does this make a difference? Yep. Huge difference, especially at the middle levels. But do you see the pro billiards tours limiting people to a maximum of $200 worth of pool cue + equipment? Of course not. There are people out there playing with $5,000 cues. Isn't this an unlevel playing field? Well... I fit the definition of a Mr. Suitcase in pool. I -do- have a $400 stick, and a second cue for breaking, and a nice case full of all sorts of shaft conditioners and sanders and tip shapers and stuffs and things I don't even know are in there anymore, like the x-acto knife. With that cue and the tools to make it perform properly, I have a huge advantage over Joe Average who plays with his bar cue with the warp in the middle. I have the "rare cards" in pool, so to speak. And I'll beat Joe soundly should I play him, and Joe will complain about how I have the fancy stick and a bunch of other crud, because that would seem to be the obvious reason. Know what? I can put all my stuff back in the case, and pick up Joe's cue and use it, the one with the ugly warp in the middle, and I'll still rip Joe a new one, even if we let him use my cue, and he better wash his hands first. Why? Because just as in Jyhad, the "rare cards" don't matter as much as the knowledge of the person playing the game. They really don't. I've said it repeatedly - you can build a deck out of commons and uncommons that will clobber any one specific deck, no matter how many rares the second deck contains. That's why we want No Limits play. No Limits play actually REMOVES the limitations from the people who don't have many rares - they are able to substitute as many commons or uncommons as they need, and while the people with the rares will still have a SLIGHT advantage, it won't be very much at all. To wander back to my obnoxious analogy briefly - if I am playing another person who is exactly my level of skill, and I am using my cue, and they are using Joe's cue, I will probably win more often than not. Say we play 40 games - I'll probably win 23 while they win 17. If we play a 'race to 7', I'll probably win 7 to 5. The equipment does matter. The rares do matter. But not as much as anyone thinks. >there is only one true Mr. Suitcase... by your reasoning Mr. Suitcase is the >"ultimate"(I use this lightly because most people that have the cards tend >to only have the cards because they either suck at trading... or have no This throwaway comment aggravates me. "suck at trading". Hm. So I should con my friends out of good cards that will help me while getting rid of useless cards that they only THINK will help them? Do you have friends anymore? I wouldn't if I acted like this. >clue how to build decks and think they need to have every card because they >think that will help their decks) player because he can fill in the gaps you >can't with his treasure trove of cards... I have a lot of cards because I like to keep a lot of different decks built. I have 9 or 10 sitting around at the moment. The problem with keeping decks "built" is that there are a lot of common cards (blood doll is #1 on my list) that I like to stick in -every- deck I make, and so I run out. Instead of trading my friends out of their Blood Dolls, an extremely useful card, I simply buy another $7 box. In the process I also end up with some more rares and a buttload more commons. (I notice the price has gone up to $10 these days. Oops.) Eventually, I have one of every card. I am under no delusions that somehow it will help my decks, other than that I will have enough Blood Dolls so that i don't have to dismantle one of my other decks to test out my latest crazy idea. ("No, really. Nothing but Celerity weenies. Cmon. Watch. It'll be funny.") Nor are the rest of the people who happen to have a lot of cards. My one Tier of Souls is not going to make that much difference in an Animalism deck. A bunch of them would do nicely, though, and probably still fit in under the 6CL. (see the problem yet?) >Also... don't attack me... go find something better to do... arguing over a >game is pointless... which is why I find your insults to be such a waste of >my time... I don't know you... you don't me... don't presume to make >comments unless that changes... otherwise you are making blind comments and >showing how truly weak your argument is...I hope I've wasted your time >efficiently and you'll take me seriously in your response Would that you would take us seriously in yours. I don't know about everyone else, but I keep responding because I dislike wilful ignorance, and if you're going to post things that are wrong, I'm going to refute them so that new players can know the difference. I also don't care for your condescending, "of course i'm right, and I don't have to prove it" attitude - shown in this last paragraph where you mention "waste of my time", "don't presume", and "go find something better to do", all of which are very much talking "down" to us. Not surprising we tend to speak up and rap you sharply on the forehead, eh? [ quoted text not captured ]

Following by Xian > Following by Vince Johnson > > BTW I noticed you didn't comment on the level playing field... I'll take it > > that you understand the only TRUE level playing field is one under which > > everyone has the same limitations because there is always someone out there > > Or one in which everyone has *no* limitations. Okay...here goes. You > mentioned decks made entirely, or nearly entirely out of commons. I believe > that a deck constructed entirely of commons will beat a deck constructed > entirely of rares any day. Or the one that is completely limited! A zero card limit where the Methuselahs used spitballs instead of cards to determine the winner would be a lousy game, but it would be a perfectly level and even environment. It would also violate every crypt and library minimum known to man, but hey, it's fair. Another silly "level" field would be the 1CL which would actually allow you to play the game, but would make decks horribly unfocused and still fail to "fix" the powerful rares. I can go on about 2CL, then 3CL, but most people have seen this before, and I hope the rest of the people can see what Xian was saying about no limits being the true level playing field. *whew* Got it out of my system. :) Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

ok... I decided not to respond to the last statement when I read about the "equivalent to to sticking fingers in my ears" comment... because all you did before that was insult my intelligence... popular to what you believe... I AM speaking English... I AM in an advanced Rhetoric class (you know the kind that deal with proper persausive speach)... I am reading what people are writing and I am refuting their claims... I refused to read what you wrote... if you want to repost in a more civilized manner I will consider listening to what you have to say... Vince

>> I AM able to refute what people are saying... I HAVE had people that are > >I'm not going to take up what is and is not effective argument. However, it >has seemed that you are avoiding a number of point-by-point posts under >different threads that you have not yet boycotted. This (to some) indicates >that you are unwilling or unable to disprove these points. > no it means I have better things to do with my time that to read and write a response to every post other people put... I thought that would be a generalized understanding since many people are complaining about the size of some of the posting threads. I find it particularly hard to respond when there are several tangents under one thread that no longer have anything to do with the original threads... I'll also point out that I commented that I can refute everything that people are saying... but another thing I thought people would understand is that facts are facts... but that doesn't always mean that certain facts are better than others... I'm trying to get my point across... at the same time I do see that some points other people are making are valid and some aren't... and all I'm getting in return are posts meant to pick fights because other people won't try to consider my argument at all when I give them an inch of leeway in their argument... the reason I'm trying to post is to try to show people flaws in their arguments and persaude them to think my way and unfortunately you can't have an argument if their is no dispute over certain facts... if there was no dispute there would be no argument... giving a person an inch of leeway in their argument is fine... as long as that person doesn't assume I'm giving them the entire argument which too many people in this newsgroup seem to do...I think that it's rather obvious, you can not run an argument when one side is proposing propaganda and the other side is forced to defend... then it becomes a pissing contest and is no longer constructive.... Vince

Robert F. Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:36AE0A7F...@eos.ncsu.edu... >Following by Xian >> Following by Vince Johnson >> > BTW I noticed you didn't comment on the level playing field... I'll take it >> > that you understand the only TRUE level playing field is one under which >> > everyone has the same limitations because there is always someone out there >> >> Or one in which everyone has *no* limitations. Okay...here goes. You >> mentioned decks made entirely, or nearly entirely out of commons. I believe >> that a deck constructed entirely of commons will beat a deck constructed >> entirely of rares any day. > >Or the one that is completely limited! A zero card limit where the >Methuselahs used spitballs instead of cards to determine the winner >would be a lousy game, but it would be a perfectly level and even >environment. It would also violate every crypt and library minimum known >to man, but hey, it's fair. > limited was the point... through limitations you level the paying field... BTW I agree with that post above that A deck of commons will beat a deck of Rares... haven't I been saying that all along?... and I'm saying it UNDER the guise of a deck limit... regardless of the type of limit... here's an example of someone flaming my idea with a zero card limit... first off, it's ridiculous in every sense... at least if he mentions 1CL(Highlander Rules) but the 0CL is ridiculous because by definition you don't have a deck... and thus aren't playing the game... BTW I like the spitball idea... have to try it sometime... >Another silly "level" field would be the 1CL which would actually allow >you to play the game, but would make decks horribly unfocused and still >fail to "fix" the powerful rares. > ever try to draw one particular card in even a 60 card deck?... it's rather difficult to get it in the first few turns and you're usually burning useless cards to speed through your deck... so you need to win with that one cards... which is very difficult to do if your opponent has a way to stop it... which is the most general case... >I can go on about 2CL, then 3CL, but most people have seen this before, >and I hope the rest of the people can see what Xian was saying about no >limits being the true level playing field. ok... now I think I should point out that I'm not advocating any of these CL ... I am advocating a 10% rule... if you didn't get that implication... please reread my original post... Vince

In article <78jebp$5v@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >but since you decided to waste time >and space by commenting on something that had nothing to do with the major >topic of the article.. You'll actually find that I was pointing out to someone else that what they thought should be official was official, and that I was commenting on their article. Perhaps you would prefer that people don't know what is or isn't official. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78ji9e$1bn@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >I AM able to refute what people are saying... I HAVE had people that are >unable to refute MY arguments... I think that's a pretty successful >argument... as for the clueless fool... go take a rhetoric class... get a >clue about persuasive writing...because name calling is the tool of those >using propaganda or those without reasonable backing for their argument... Please, get a clue about writing in general. Such things as grammar, punctuation and lucidity would go a long way to help people understand what you write. And I am also entirely capable of using the English language. You might like to ask Cambridge University, England, about that one. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78ji9e$1bn@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >Also... don't attack me... go find something better to do... Cheers, I do it all the time. My posting record indicates that. Ever heard of Dejanews? > arguing over a >game is pointless... Then WTF are you doing on a newsgroup, participating in an argument about a game? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I snort. Loudly. And what you posted didn't insult MY intelligence? If you don't think it did, you need to go reread your own post, or better yet, read the BOTTOM of mine. Get with the program, kid. You may be reading what people are writing, but your arguments don't show it since you just repeat yourself instead of responding to their counter-arguments. You are not refuting their claims. You may speak English, but you sure as hell don't type it and you can't seem to put a complete sentence together. Rhetoric deals with persuasive speech, but relying on rhetoric is also a common tactic when one really has no substance or only weak substance to one's argument... which is exactly what you seem to be doing, although I would suspect from your previous messages that you may be failing your class. DEBATE, on the other hand, deals with addressing arguments point-by-point and providing counter-arguments. Failure to provide counter-arguments concedes the point - which is why i'm very careful to respond to everything that needs responding to in your posts, mostly just repeating my counter-arguments since you are not providing any different arguments from the ones we've all repeatedly countered already. If you wish to expand on your position, feel free! I enjoy good debate. I am not enjoying this, because I hate repeating myself. Am I insulting your intelligence again? YES. IN A LOUD VOICE. Why don't you try to prove me wrong instead of sitting on your high horse and saying "I shall not respond to you because you called me a mean thing." I maintain that you are saying this and refusing to respond because you CANNOT refute any of my points, and you are hoping not to look even more foolish than you currently do. Prove me wrong. Be sure not to quote me out of context if you attempt to. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:33:56 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >ok... I decided not to respond to the last statement when I read about the >"equivalent to to sticking fingers in my ears" comment... because all you >did before that was insult my intelligence... popular to what you believe... >I AM speaking English... I AM in an advanced Rhetoric class (you know the Oh, yeah. I forgot to say this. The phrase is "CONTRARY to what you believe," not POPULAR. sheesh. Is English your second language? If it is, I will immediately apologize for all my insults regarding your phrasing, typing, or grammar. If it's your first language,... see previous post. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:54:52 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > >Robert F. Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message >news:36AE0A7F...@eos.ncsu.edu... >>Following by Xian >>> Or one in which everyone has *no* limitations. Okay...here goes. You >>> mentioned decks made entirely, or nearly entirely out of commons. I >believe >>> that a deck constructed entirely of commons will beat a deck constructed >>> entirely of rares any day. >> >>Or the one that is completely limited! A zero card limit where the >>Methuselahs used spitballs instead of cards to determine the winner >>would be a lousy game, but it would be a perfectly level and even >>environment. It would also violate every crypt and library minimum known >>to man, but hey, it's fair. > >limited was the point... through limitations you level the paying field... >BTW I agree with that post above that A deck of commons will beat a deck of >Rares... haven't I been saying that all along?... and I'm saying it UNDER >the guise of a deck limit... regardless of the type of limit... But if you would bother to read my insulting posts, or a couple other people's not-so-insulting posts, then you would find counter-arguments detailing exactly why, under a card limit, a deck of commons only will not necessarily beat a combined deck of commons and rares - and, more to the ORIGINAL point instead of yet another tangent, why, under a card limit, a deck composed of commons only will be nowhere near as effective as an identical deck composed of commons and rares. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:46:09 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >I'll also point out that I commented that I can refute everything that >people are saying... but another thing I thought people would understand is Then you'd better start backing it up or start backing down. >that facts are facts... but that doesn't always mean that certain facts are >better than others... I'm trying to get my point across... at the same time >I do see that some points other people are making are valid and some >aren't... and all I'm getting in return are posts meant to pick fights >because other people won't try to consider my argument at all when I give Perhaps it's because our playing experience has shown us that your argument is flawed and will, no matter how much Advanced Rhetoric you apply to it, remain flawed. James Coupe is one person you would do VERY well to listen to, as he used to play under card limits for a long time and is now a strong NL advocate. >them an inch of leeway in their argument... the reason I'm trying to post is >to try to show people flaws in their arguments and persaude them to think my >way and unfortunately you can't have an argument if their is no dispute over >certain facts... if there was no dispute there would be no argument... >giving a person an inch of leeway in their argument is fine... as long as >that person doesn't assume I'm giving them the entire argument which too >many people in this newsgroup seem to do...I think that it's rather obvious, >you can not run an argument when one side is proposing propaganda and the >other side is forced to defend... then it becomes a pissing contest and is >no longer constructive.... Good. Please tell us what propaganda we are proposing and why it is propaganda? Please also note that the emphasis is on the WHY, not merely repeating your previous argument that was just refuted. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In article <36AAD1CA...@postoffice.swbell.net>, Vagabond > <ill...@postoffice.swbell.net> writes > > >Interesting notion. A vairable card limit. I agree; not many people *should* > >complain, > >but they will anyway. Count one vote in favor of petitioning to sanction this > >concept. > > Erm, it *is* the sanctioned way. The minimum is changed to sixty cards, > but a Tournament should be played with 5 players at a table. So maximum > is 90. > What point are you trying to make? Do we have to sanction things which > are already official? Friend; I am aware of the regulations for tournament play. You mistook Vince's statement for mine I believe. My statement was for the advocation of a 10% cap on a card due to deck size. However; the percentages change (to draw a certain card) the larger the deck is (obviously). I was suggesting sanctioning the 10% concept as *that* is what is not official. Sorry to have confused you. Madjack

In article <FC2877396CB8FB9E.C7137C76...@library-proxy.airnews.net >, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > James Coupe is one person you would do > VERY well to listen to, as he used to play under card limits for a > long time and is now a strong NL advocate. This got me thinking about whether I ever posted anything in the old CL vs. NL debates. Sure enough, I did, but it was some hybrid thing talking about the Golden Tenents (no repeat actions and no vote push). If you want a good laugh at yourself (which I got after reading this old post), I suggest going to DejaNews and having a look. Here's mine: http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=174057675 Things don't change on the newsgroup. Only which people are on which side or the cards involved. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78kaus$j7t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes >> advocated but giving the most strictest of examples)... you could play 40 >> praxi in your deck... and with praxi in every set... they tend to show up >> often enough for a player to have entirely too many to ever play... > >So...Praxis Seizures, which are rare, are common enough for the poor player to >have many? This doesn't make sense me either. Indeed. And they don't turn up in every set anyway. My Camarilla vote deck cannot be helped by the Sabbat in this respect, since they don't have any PSs. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78lchk$gkl@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >I AM speaking English... I AM in an advanced Rhetoric class (you know the >kind that deal with proper persausive speach)... A "Basic Writing and Grammar" class would be more useful, I feel. By the way, for persuasiveness, you rank a big fat 0 out of 10 - "not relevant, won't answer" really persuades people. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <FC2877396CB8FB9E.C7137C7675BA3773.BCC9886A61B04429@library- proxy.airnews.net>, Derek S. Ray <lor...@nospam.nineball.org> writes >James Coupe is one person you would do >VERY well to listen to, as he used to play under card limits for a >long time and is now a strong NL advocate. Actually, no, not me - but there are a few, PDB6 for one, I think. But someone who has played a lot of other games with a card limit (Magic, Shadowrun, Lo5R being the major ones, familiar with a fair few other games) and has seen them simply as an excuse to over-power a card thinking "Well, there'll only be x in a deck." [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:25:51 +0000, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Actually, no, not me - but there are a few, PDB6 for one, I think. But >someone who has played a lot of other games with a card limit (Magic, >Shadowrun, Lo5R being the major ones, familiar with a fair few other >games) and has seen them simply as an excuse to over-power a card >thinking "Well, there'll only be x in a deck." Or maybe, I just can't remember names worth dogsnot. =) Wonder who the person I was thinking of is then? It wasn't PDB6, cause I thought of him after posting this and was like "oops. Could've put him in." oh, poop. Oh well. Come out, come out, whereever you are. I know some of you have done my original paragraph, and you've said you have on the group =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78ji9e$1bn@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >Ah .... back to wasting more space and time... you mis-spelled the word >"mis-spelled" Darling: Regret to inform you that the past tense of the verb 'to spell' is, indeed, 'spelt.' I do hope this won't unduly put you out. Wet, sloppy kisses, the gomester -- you say they taught you how to read and write yeah, they taught you how to count i say they taught you how to buy and sell your own body by the pound

In article <78lchk$gkl@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: <gibberish elided> gomi%whois tcnj.edu Registrant: The College of New Jersey (TCNJ-DOM) 2000 Pennington Road PO BOX 7718 Ewing, NJ 08628 US Domain Name: TCNJ.EDU Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Sivy, Shawn (SS2862) ss...@TCNJ.EDU 609-771-3474 (FAX) 609-637-5115 Billing Contact: Sivy, Shawn (SS2862) ss...@TCNJ.EDU 609-771-3474 (FAX) 609-637-5115 Record last updated on 18-Sep-98. Database last updated on 28-Jan-99 04:31:51 EST. Domain servers in listed order: BEAST.TCNJ.EDU 159.91.15.220 SEUSS.TCNJ.EDU 159.91.13.135 SNUFFY.TCNJ.EDU 159.91.8.25 The InterNIC Registration Services database contains ONLY non-military and non-US Government Domains and contacts. Other associated whois servers: American Registry for Internet Numbers - whois.arin.net European IP Address Allocations - whois.ripe.net Asia Pacific IP Address Allocations - whois.apnic.net US Military - whois.nic.mil US Government - whois.nic.gov gomi% <insert obligatory lame New Jersey joke here> gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

>gomi%whois tcnj.edu > > {some snipped garbage about my domain... feel free to read the info in the post above this one.... or visit the college at: http://www.tcnj.edu } > >The InterNIC Registration Services database contains ONLY >non-military and non-US Government Domains and contacts. >Other associated whois servers: > American Registry for Internet Numbers - whois.arin.net > European IP Address Allocations - whois.ripe.net > Asia Pacific IP Address Allocations - whois.apnic.net > US Military - whois.nic.mil > US Government - whois.nic.gov > >gomi% > ><insert obligatory lame New Jersey joke here> > >gomi Did you need to actually waste your time posting all of that useless dribble?... Anyone could have gotten that crap from the @tcnj.edu... and the fact I've already said I go to college and that .edu would have tipped many people off that tcnj probably is the college... it doesn't take much to look that up. Second...the fact I live in New Jersey isn't anything anybody is going to be able to say because *I* personally make fun of New Jersey and can't wait until I find a better opportunity to go somewhere else.... you want to make fun of someone for where they live, go post somewhere else because it's just flaming the person out. Third... this post had nothing to do with Jyhad/Vampire... go bother some other newsgroup with this kind of stuff. Vince

>Darling: > >Regret to inform you that the past tense of the verb 'to spell' is, indeed, >'spelt.' I do hope this won't unduly put you out. Oh but it is you who are mistaken, the past tense is the word "spelled." The infinitive of the verb is "to spell" there is nothing irregular about the verb and thus you add "-ed" to the end forming "spelled", or in this case "misspelled." I've looked through books, magazines and everytime I find an example of this word, it's spelled exactly as I have it spelled. (I'm sensing the excessive use of redundancy here) Spelt, isn't even a word according to Webster's dictionary (although "spelter" is, but has nothing to do with the verb "to spell"). Vince

In article <78t600$qgk@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >Did you need to actually waste your time posting all of that useless >dribble? O Best Beloved: I don't consider mockery a waste of my time, but rather a nigh-holy calling. And it didn't take long at all. But yes, I freely admit the post was (a) off-topic, (b) puerile, and (c) probably undeserved by the greater populace of New Jersey. That being said: Your repeated, redundant, repetitious, recursive, vestigially coherent, ellipsis-riddled, defensive, evasive, stultifying posts are a greater waste of my time than what I expend in showering you with the opprobium you both crave and deserve. [ quoted text not captured ]

Vince Johnson wrote: > >Darling: > > > >Regret to inform you that the past tense of the verb 'to spell' is, indeed, > >'spelt.' I do hope this won't unduly put you out. > > Oh but it is you who are mistaken, the past tense is the word "spelled. Oh good. Two grammar/spelling arguments in less than seven days. I don't remember which of you started this one, but allow me to say: you've both spelled it correctly. To say that the other has not is incorrect. > The > infinitive of the verb is "to spell" there is nothing irregular about the > verb and thus you add "-ed" to the end forming "spelled", or in this case > "misspelled." Spell can be an irregular verb. The regular conjugation is the more common usage, but the irregular is still acceptable. > I've looked through books, magazines and everytime I find an > example of this word, it's spelled exactly as I have it spelled. (I'm > sensing the excessive use of redundancy here) Try a dictionary: mis.spell vt. -spelled or -spelt, -spelling, -spells. (Webster, 1984) spell v. spelled or spelt, spelling, spells. (Webster, 1984) The on-line version identifies the "spelt" form as "chiefly British", for what it's worth. > Spelt, isn't even a word according to Webster's dictionary (although > "spelter" is, but has nothing to do with the verb "to spell"). "spelt" is, indeed, a word: spelt is type of wheat (in addition to being the past and past particple form of "spell"). To those of you who feel oblidged to "correct" someone's English in the future, I respectfully suggest that you refrain. If you cannot, then at least check a (recent) dictionary first - not to see if your spelling is correct, but to verify the the spelling in question is incorrect. See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html