Tournament Rules

I was considering running a tournament in my hometown, however, I dont have any guidelines. I've already decided on this: 4 card limit no Monocles Fame is not cumulative If anyone has any other advice or a list of guidelines, please post them. Thanx

gsf5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg Faulkner ) wrote: >I was considering running a tournament in my hometown, however, I dont >have any guidelines. I've already decided on this: >Fame is not cumulative > Try using Fame as a unique master instead of non-cumulative. If someone brings out a second fame, the two Fames contest, vampires paying a blood each round until 1 yields. Scott Larabee smla...@uci.edu

You might also want to limit unique cards to one per deck. This eliminates lots of problems with decks consisting of alot of Catiff or weapons. (... O.K. Igo burns and I turn over,... surprise ! Another Igo.) I'm also toying with the idea of changing the size of each round. (i.e. 2-player first round, 3-4 player second round, 5-7 final round) This makes people build decks that have to work for all purposes. Just some suggestions. Scott.

Greg Faulkner <gsf5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote: >I was considering running a tournament in my hometown, however, I dont have >any guidelines. I've already decided on this: > >4 card limit A very bad idea, unless you want the only decks that win to be Malkavian sneaky bleed decks. See elsewhere in this newsgroup for extended discussions on why, or email me if these have all expired. Go with no card limits. Jyhad does not need them, and applying any card limit (especially the MtG inspired 4 card limit) breaks the game badly (in favor of Malks). >no Monocles Good idea :) >Fame is not cumulative It's been ruled that Fame is Unique, which fixes this. >If anyone has any other advice or a list of guidelines, please post them. A couple days ago, Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) posted a series of three posts. One of them was a collated list of the offical errata/rulings. One was a rules reference, very handy for a referee to be familar with. The other was a set of suggested fixes/house rules this newsgroup has come up with. For running a tourny, though, I'd be very conservative with applying any rules that are not offical, unless you want to piss off your players. Also, someone recently posted what looked like a good tourny scheme - tables of 5 players, play for 2 hours, give people points for outsting their prey, and for being alive after two hours (I forget the point values). Then mix up the tables, and do it again (repeat several times). Group the top five point getters into a final round, and play a standard game (no time limit, victory points for ousting prey) to find the Champion. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

William S. Westermann <west...@vp2242.pms.ford.com> wrote: > >You might also want to limit unique cards to one per deck. This eliminates >lots of problems with decks consisting of alot of Catiff or weapons. >(... O.K. Igo burns and I turn over,... surprise ! Another Igo.) Unique cards are already limited by theur very uniqueness - look at the contesting rules! If I put 4 Igo's in my crypt, well, I'll get one out, but the rest are so much dead wood unless Igo gets burned. And burning vamps (esp. cheapo ones that aren't worth diablerizing) is reasonalby rare. A house rule tht would fix this, without any card limits - something unique, once destroyed, cannot be brought back into play. >I'm also toying with the idea of changing the size of each round. >(i.e. 2-player first round, 3-4 player second round, 5-7 final round) >This makes people build decks that have to work for all purposes. but 2 player jyhad is such an extremely lame game. Why would I want to go to a tourny to waste time playing 2 player jyhad, when 5 player jyhad is so much more fun? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Jul 1995, Greg Faulkner wrote: > I was considering running a tournament in my hometown, however, I dont have > any guidelines. I've already decided on this: > > 4 card limit > no Monocles > Fame is not cumulative > > If anyone has any other advice or a list of guidelines, please post them. > > Thanx > Hi Greg, I suggest you use the official erratta and throw out the silly 4 card limit. If you use the four card limit don't call it a Jyhad tournement, call it "Greg's tournement with Jyhad cards." The errata will fix everthing else, including fame and the monocle of clarity. Just my opinion. Algustas *****Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace.***** Theodore Roosevelt

In article <3tji99$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> gsf5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg Faulkner ) writes: >From: gsf5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg Faulkner ) >Subject: Tournament Rules >Date: 7 Jul 1995 15:02:01 GMT >I was considering running a tournament in my hometown, however, I dont have >any guidelines. I've already decided on this: >4 card limit loose this one, break out of the Magic mold and let Jyhad flourish to it's fullest potential. There is no need for card limits, the rules don't call them, don't put them in >no Monocles Allow monocles, they are part of the game. What has been ruled is the the "cheese questions" (will you answer yes to my next monicle question?) have been deemed illegal >Fame is not cumulative Fame is now considered unique. >If anyone has any other advice or a list of guidelines, please post them. Let the game play. Stop trying to restrict it like is was Magic. It is actually a well thought out game with many pluses. The best CCG going. Because I guarentee, once you start making card limit tournoments, only one type of deck will win, S&B. Then where will the fun be in having tournements if everyone is forced to play the same deck. >Thanx

In article <3tkdip$3...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: |> Unique cards are already limited by theur very uniqueness - look at the |> contesting rules! If I put 4 Igo's in my crypt, well, I'll get one out, but |> the rest are so much dead wood unless Igo gets burned. And burning vamps |> (esp. cheapo ones that aren't worth diablerizing) is reasonalby rare. Maybe. But what about contesting vampires with yourself ? (i.e. Igo's in torpor, I turn over another Igo, and give up the one in torpor.) I forget the ruling on this, but remember it being discussed. |> |> A house rule tht would fix this, without any card limits - something unique, |> once destroyed, cannot be brought back into play. Agreed. (Which is why we play that way around here.) |> >I'm also toying with the idea of changing the size of each round. |> >(i.e. 2-player first round, 3-4 player second round, 5-7 final round) |> >This makes people build decks that have to work for all purposes. |> |> but 2 player jyhad is such an extremely lame game. Why would I want to go to a |> tourny to waste time playing 2 player jyhad, when 5 player jyhad is so much |> more fun? |> O.K. More players are more fun, but I've played alot of 2-player games that I enjoy to. The one thing is that, strategies are significantly different. Deflections and the like become useless, and you don't generaly get to much help from others with your votes,... etc. Granted it's more like Mt$ then most people like, but if you've got a lot of people playing in a tournament, you can eliminate half in the first round, and it shouldn't take to long. ( 1/2 hour or so ) This way you can play your rounds to completion, instead of putting time-limits. Also, you can do it without caring how many people want to play. The number of rounds can be pretty much the same,... so same amount of time. Example Rounds 20 people 100 people After 1st 10 50 After 2nd 3-4 ~15 After 3rd 1 3-4 Scott. --

William S. Westermann <west...@vp2242.pms.ford.com> wrote: >aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: > >|> Unique cards are already limited by theur very uniqueness - look at the >|> contesting rules! If I put 4 Igo's in my crypt, well, I'll get one out, but >|> the rest are so much dead wood unless Igo gets burned. And burning vamps >|> (esp. cheapo ones that aren't worth diablerizing) is reasonalby rare. > >Maybe. But what about contesting vampires with yourself ? (i.e. Igo's in >torpor, I turn over another Igo, and give up the one in torpor.) >I forget the ruling on this, but remember it being discussed. I forget the ruling, but not letting someone contest a card with themself would be a very rational fix. >O.K. More players are more fun, but I've played alot of 2-player games that >I enjoy to. The one thing is that, strategies are significantly different. >Deflections and the like become useless, and you don't generaly get to much >help from others with your votes,... etc. > >Granted it's more like Mt$ then most people like, but if you've got a lot of >people playing in a tournament, you can eliminate half in the first round, and >it shouldn't take to long. ( 1/2 hour or so ) This way you can play your >rounds to completion, instead of putting time-limits. This is another problem. Elimination tourneys suck. With your plan, you've just told 1/2 your contestants "thanks for your 1/2 hour, now go away". That's not much fun at all! Round robin style things lets everyone do what they came to your tournament to do - play Jyhad. Personally, I think two player Jyhad is about as much fun as two player Diplomacy. I'd rather play MtG if there's just two players - MtG was designed for 2 players. Jyhad was designed for multi-players. The major disadvantage of a multi player game is that it can be hard to gather multiple players together to play the game. A tourny totally eliminates this problem - why not take advantage of the opprotunity to play Jyhad as it was designed?? >Also, you can do it without caring how many people want to play. The number >of rounds can be pretty much the same,... so same amount of time. The same with the round-robin tourny format that was mentioned earlier, only more so. You group people into tables of 5. These tables play for two hours. Then you mix up the tables, and do it again. This is an _exact_ schedule - play as many two hour rounds as your schedule allows! Doesn't matter how many people show up, as long as there are enough tables for them (and some tables might be short a player or two due to odd numbers). Give people a point for each Victory Point they get in these two hour games, and a half point for surviving till the two hour mark. Group the top five point getters after several rounds in a final match where the person who ousts the most other players wins, with no time limit on the championship round. Playing with standardized table sizes is important for Jyhad in another way - the deck construction rules say that the max size of a deck varies with number of players. Unlike Magic, making a minimum sized deck is not the optimal strategy for Jyhad. Playing with a standard table size (5 players, max 90 cards) eliminates the need for between-rounds deck reconstruction. [ quoted text not captured ]

Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: >> I was considering running a tournament in my hometown, however, I dont have >> any guidelines. I've already decided on this: >> >> 4 card limit >> no Monocles >> Fame is not cumulative >> >> If anyone has any other advice or a list of guidelines, please post them. >Hi Greg, > I suggest you use the official erratta and throw out the silly 4 >card limit. If you use the four card limit don't call it a Jyhad >tournement, call it "Greg's tournement with Jyhad cards." The errata will >fix everthing else, including fame and the monocle of clarity. Just my >opinion. Here in New Zealand we generally play with a 5 card limit and have found it to play very smoothly and actually improves the gameplay. 4 was found to be a tad restrictive and 6 or above was deemed unfair to those who couln't afford a large sum of money. Just a Humble Opinion. -- _________________________ | man...@utf.gen.nz Mandos D (_ hadow (_ pawn | ___________)________) Esq | I shot Mr Burns! |

In article <mandos.805941045@utf>, man...@utf.gen.nz (Mandos) writes: >Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: > <stuff about card limits deleted...> I recently talked to a friend of mine who played in a Jyhad tourney at Origins. The winning deck consisted of: 25 Kine Resources Contested 25 Conservative Agitation 20 Praxis Seizures Argue all you want about how effective a deck like this is, but I think it makes a very good case for why card limits would be a good thing. Around here, no one has more than 5 of any card, so card limits never become an issue, though, which is nice. bret

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually I can think of two reasons that card limits wouldn't hurt this deck. First, card limits would restrict intercept cards and other vote defence cards making it more likely that your votes would pass. Second, you can quite easily substitute other vote cards to the point where your deck falls within a card limit scheme without weakening it much at all. There are plenty of useful vote cards besides KRC, CA, and PS. If you fall short at the end, just insert garbage vote cards that are just used to push votes. If "vote pushing" was not allowed this deck would still be possible, but it would be as easy to shut down as any other deck. CARD LIMITS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!! --------- Paul Schaaf sch...@u.washington.edu

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91j.95071...@saul3.u.washington.edu>, Paul Schaaf <sch...@u.washington.edu> writes: >Actually I can think of two reasons that card limits wouldn't hurt this >deck. First, card limits would restrict intercept cards and other vote >defence cards making it more likely that your votes would pass. Second, Even with card limits you could build decks with enough interecept to stop that sort of deck. People don't though (at least around here), since no one expects his/her opponent to be playing a deck with nothing but 3 kinds of vote cards in it. Besides, doing so makes your own deck narrow and weak in many ways (just like the one you're trying to stop, though nowhere as bad or lame). >you can quite easily substitute other vote cards to the point where your >deck falls within a card limit scheme without weakening it much at all. >There are plenty of useful vote cards besides KRC, CA, and PS. If you >fall short at the end, just insert garbage vote cards that are just used >to push votes. I don't quite believe this. With card limits I think this deck would be less effective. You mean to tell me that in the course of a game, this guy passed 4 or less of Kine Resource Con, and Con Agitation each? (which is how many would be in the deck if there were card limits) Happily, Jyhad doesn't come near Magic when it comes to the abusive spoilers (IMO), so you may be right, card limits might not be the answer. I like it simply for the fact that it enforces some variability: even if the above deck were just as effective with garbage vote cards added, the cheese factor would go down by several orders of magnitude (munchkin decks, and yes I consider that a munchkin deck, annoy me). >If "vote pushing" was not allowed this deck would still be possible, but ?vote pushing = using vote cards for votes? >it would be as easy to shut down as any other deck. It would also make vote decks less effective in general (when competing against non-vote decks). Do you think vote decks are too powerful? > >CARD LIMITS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!! Then why is a deck like this winning a major tourney? bret

bamb...@pomona.edu (Kali-Yuga) wrote: >I recently talked to a friend of mine who played in a Jyhad tourney at Origins. >The winning deck consisted of: > 25 Kine Resources Contested > 25 Conservative Agitation > 20 Praxis Seizures > >Argue all you want about how effective a deck like this is, but I think it >makes a very good case for why card limits would be a good thing. >Around here, no one has more than 5 of any card, so card limits never become an >issue, though, which is nice. Peace Bret, Well, I played in that tournament (three five-player games; only 1 1/2 hr for each game; score based wholly on number of ousts [this obviously encourages KRC/Malk S&B] and the guy who won was lucky to not have to play against me. I played my Brujah deck (previously posted) but I had to remove 10 cards (for some silly reason you were restricted to btwn 60-80 cards). None of the three games that that deck faced involved any serious intercept or rush combat. He was lucky. The 11 decks that I played against (played vs. same player twice) were all very realistic/ balanced decks and I enjoyed the game play very much. The tournament rules (time limit & card limit) were very silly (overly pro-speed decks) and WotC should have allocated more time for the games [geez, they spent several days on the Mt$ tourney]. This doesn't prove that card limits are necessary, it just proves that nothing is weenie/degeneracy proof. Card limits have been shown (several times) to prohibit certain deck strategies (rush combat, for example). If WotC forced voting to be as written (can't push your own votes) this problem would go away. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: <deleted> >Now this problem with all-vote decks is a pretty nasty one. Garfield is >an excellent game designer, and WotC's playtesting resources were pretty >extensive by the time they made Jyhad. Would they really have left a hole >so big you could drive a truck through? (i.e., win at Origins) I think >not. > >Check the rulebook (either one) and it says that any OTHER methuseleh can >throw in political action cards for votes. The caller can only use the >vote from the card he used to call the referendum. There's no provision >that allows the Meth calling the vote to throw any additional political >action cards. This is a mighty peculiar rule - until you realize that it >shuts down all-vote decks (KRC or otherwise) while not appreciably >restricting normal, healthy, vote decks. Hmm, you're right, maybe I should get a clue before posting about such things. Then again, nobody else I play with has noticed it either. If this is the case, then why are KRC decks winning, though? I suppose if you get enough titles out in the early game, you'll be ok. Thanks for pointing this out, though. I dunno, I come from more of a Magic perspective, where card limits make sense, and so when I see a deck like this, I automatically think "Hmm, card limits will do the trick," but at least in this case, restricting vote-pushing seems to make more sense to me now. bret

In article <3ugnbl$9...@tierra.santafe.edu>, Bret Ambrose <ambrose> wrote: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >>Now this problem with all-vote decks is a pretty nasty one. Garfield is >>an excellent game designer, and WotC's playtesting resources were pretty >>extensive by the time they made Jyhad. Would they really have left a hole >>so big you could drive a truck through? (i.e., win at Origins) I think >>not. >> >>Check the rulebook (either one) and it says that any OTHER methuseleh can >>throw in political action cards for votes. The caller can only use the >>vote from the card he used to call the referendum. There's no provision >>that allows the Meth calling the vote to throw any additional political >>action cards. This is a mighty peculiar rule - until you realize that it >>shuts down all-vote decks (KRC or otherwise) while not appreciably >>restricting normal, healthy, vote decks. > >Hmm, you're right, maybe I should get a clue before posting about such >things. Then again, nobody else I play with has noticed it either. >If this is the case, then why are KRC decks winning, though? I suppose >if you get enough titles out in the early game, you'll be ok. >Thanks for pointing this out, though. I don't think Curt was so much pointing out your imagined cluelessness as he was pointing out the Design Teams gross inability to correctly interpret the rulebook in the way that the rules were intended to be used. The official position is that KRC decks should win (actually, that's a paraphrase - the official position is that Political Action cards can be used to push a vote) Obviously, this is a BadThing. Curt (and others) sees the rules as denying the acting Methuselah the option of playing more PAs for votes (pushing the vote). Alan Kwan (and others) sees the rules as denying the option of playing more than one PA by any one Methuselah to push a vote. Both of these options can easily be read from the rules, and both are effective ways to limit the utility of a KRC deck without detracting from other, legitimate strategies. Personally, I like the balanced nature of Alan Kwan's reading (no more than one PA-card-derived vote from per Methuselah), but that's simply a style choice. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

bamb...@pomona.edu (Kali-Yuga) writes: >I recently talked to a friend of mine who played in a Jyhad tourney at Origins. >The winning deck consisted of: > 25 Kine Resources Contested > 25 Conservative Agitation > 20 Praxis Seizures At Manafest (SF, July 1st) the winner in the second round was running a relative of this deck. In the first round nobody had tried. >Argue all you want about how effective a deck like this is, but I think it >makes a very good case for why card limits would be a good thing. >Around here, no one has more than 5 of any card, so card limits never become >an issue, though, which is nice. This has come up before, and the discussions have been long and involved enough that the above type of deck has a name - the "KRC" deck. I'm going to reiterate my previous arguments, with some changes and reorganizations. I apologize to those who have seen this before, but it is the nature of netgroups to rehash subjects since membership changes so constantly. There are three problems with fixing this deck with card limits: 1) A successful fix of this problem carries a horrible price. 2) Any fix of this problem via card limits is inherently temporary. 3) The rules already are written to handle the problem this deck is an example of (and the problem is much more fundamental than KRC decks) Admittedly, our friends at the design team insist we should ignore the rulebooks (both of them) on this one, although I'm completely at a loss for a reason for that. As a bit of background, the KRC deck is only an implementation of a very fundamental problem, the "all vote" deck. Consider the following generalization of the above deck: 2 of each Praxis Seizure 50 Votes. A couple of cards to get out more vampires - Effective Management, 3rd Tradition, etc. Lots of weenies in the crypt. Now by the DT rules, this deck will frequently pop out a swarm of vampires, title most of them, and then proceed to call an absolute blizzard of votes. It can basically get 5-8 votes for any referendum called via pitching cards from its hand (which is obviously mostly votes), plus any votes from previous title seizures. It can pretty much pass any vote in the deck for as many times as the vote is present. There's too many vampires to rush, too many votes called to intercept, and too many votes for to Debate (Surprise Influence/Dread Gaze/etc.) Only decks with large numbers of specialty cards have a good chance against this (Delaying Tactics and Justine). Essentially you have a vote deck which can bypass most of the standard anti-vote strategies. At the same time, unlike every other kind of Jyhad decks, which must assemble combinations to take actions, it can use political actions to both call and pass votes. The deck avoids the two of the critical controls on Jyhad decks - general purpose counterstrategies and the need for combinations. That's lethal Now the way card limits "fix" this problem is by restricting the number of useful aggressive votes. With only 5 KRC and 5 CA, damage to prey in a 5 player game is limited to 35 pool, less intercepted votes and less the deterioration of CA as the number of players drops. More typically, many of the aggressive votes get intercepted, and the actual maximum is far less than that. It can't win. But the same limits apply to EVERY vote deck! Actually, they are much worse for other vote decks. The other (healthy) vote decks must still deal with the usual need to assemble combinations in their hands (political actions plus votes to pass them) and must deal with all the traditional anti-vote strategies (intercept, rush, and debate). To stop the KRC deck, you've stopped ALL vote strategies. Jyhad stands on a tripod of strategies (bleed, combat, and vote), and you've just kicked out one of the legs. That's the horrible price you pay. Now the exact # of cards that turns off a KRC deck isn't clear. You can actually do a little more than just KRC and CA - Sabbat Threat, 1st Tradition, and Anarch Revolt fit in nicely - but no matter what your limit, the all-vote decks trump all other vote decks. If an all-vote deck doesn't do great, no other vote deck even does well. Further card limits haven't fixed the real problem, just papered it over (really all they ever do). If we ever get any expansions for Jyhad, you can be sure there will be more votes to hurt prey, one way or another. Once you have enough anti-prey votes, all-vote KRC decks will romp forth in all their foul glory - and the fact that the pictures on their cards show a little more variety won't amount to a hill of beans. Now this problem with all-vote decks is a pretty nasty one. Garfield is an excellent game designer, and WotC's playtesting resources were pretty extensive by the time they made Jyhad. Would they really have left a hole so big you could drive a truck through? (i.e., win at Origins) I think not. Check the rulebook (either one) and it says that any OTHER methuseleh can throw in political action cards for votes. The caller can only use the vote from the card he used to call the referendum. There's no provision that allows the Meth calling the vote to throw any additional political action cards. This is a mighty peculiar rule - until you realize that it shuts down all-vote decks (KRC or otherwise) while not appreciably restricting normal, healthy, vote decks. The earlier (playtest) rule had been that political action cards did NOT provide any votes (Garfield, The Eternal Struggle). If you switch to the rulebook rules, healthy vote decks aren't much affected - they gain one vote, and most opponents will not be running vote decks and hence have no PA cards to throw. They still have titles, Bewitching Orations, Bribes, Scorn of Adonis, Telepathic Vote Counting, and Charming Lobby. If the rules weren't so clear (and so odd), I'd write this off to a mistake. Jyhad is a well-balanced CCG and they obviously caught most of the problems, but they did miss a few things - the untap cards, and a few others. But claiming the missed a major (and simple) game problem AND accidentally miswrote the rules in such a way as to fix it strains credulity. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, Kali-Yuga wrote: > Even with card limits you could build decks with enough interecept to stop > that sort of deck. People don't though (at least around here), since no one > expects his/her opponent to be playing a deck with nothing but 3 kinds of > vote cards in it. Besides, doing so makes your own deck narrow and weak in > many ways (just like the one you're trying to stop, though nowhere as > bad or lame). You could build one with enough intercept to stop it with card limits, but you couldn't build one with enough rush combat to do so. > >you can quite easily substitute other vote cards to the point where your > >deck falls within a card limit scheme without weakening it much at all. > >There are plenty of useful vote cards besides KRC, CA, and PS. If you > >fall short at the end, just insert garbage vote cards that are just used > >to push votes. > > I don't quite believe this. With card limits I think this deck would be > less effective. You mean to tell me that in the course of a game, this > guy passed 4 or less of Kine Resource Con, and Con Agitation each? (which > is how many would be in the deck if there were card limits) I haven't tried it with a 4 card limit and I don't intend to, but there are plenty of other useful vote cards besides KRC, CA, and PS. I made a weenie vote deck similar to this just to see how nasty it would be. I don't have more than 7 of any of the "selfish vote" cards. I easily took out everyone despite the fact that I lost about 2 minions to torpor every turn. I think I could have made it almost as nasty with a four card limit. > >If "vote pushing" was not allowed this deck would still be possible, but > > ?vote pushing = using vote cards for votes? yes, that's what I meant > >it would be as easy to shut down as any other deck. > > It would also make vote decks less effective in general (when competing against > non-vote decks). > Do you think vote decks are too powerful? If vote pushing and unlimited Majesties/Earth Meld/Form of Mist are allowed, then yes I do. I made a Gangrel/Ventrue vote deck with all of my Form of Mist, all of my Majesty, and most of my Earth Meld in it that I don't think I could design a deck to beat unless I had an unlimited number of Immortal Grapples. > >CARD LIMITS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!! > > Then why is a deck like this winning a major tourney? Because vote pushing is allowed. --------- Paul Schaaf sch...@u.washington.edu

Wow!! 25 cards Hell even 5 cards per deck seems outrageous, our group rules consist of no more than 2 of one card! I have found this to be plenty. This style i have found does not lengthen the game either and even with only 2 of each card all style of decks are very competative.

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >In article <3ugnbl$9...@tierra.santafe.edu>, Bret Ambrose <ambrose> wrote: >>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >>>Check the rulebook (either one) and it says that any OTHER methuseleh can >>>throw in political action cards for votes. The caller can only use the >>>vote from the card he used to call the referendum. There's no provision >>>that allows the Meth calling the vote to throw any additional political >>>action cards. This is a mighty peculiar rule - until you realize that it >>>shuts down all-vote decks (KRC or otherwise) while not appreciably >>>restricting normal, healthy, vote decks. > >>Hmm, you're right, maybe I should get a clue before posting about such >>things. Then again, nobody else I play with has noticed it either. >>If this is the case, then why are KRC decks winning, though? I suppose >>if you get enough titles out in the early game, you'll be ok. >>Thanks for pointing this out, though. >I don't think Curt was so much pointing out your imagined cluelessness >as he was pointing out the Design Teams gross inability to correctly >interpret the rulebook in the way that the rules were intended to be used. Bingo. There's no "cluenessness" involved here. The rule is a very counterintuitive rule that serves a good purpose. >The official position is that KRC decks should win (actually, that's a >paraphrase - the official position is that Political Action cards can be >used to push a vote) >Obviously, this is a BadThing. >Curt (and others) sees the rules as denying the acting Methuselah the option >of playing more PAs for votes (pushing the vote). >Alan Kwan (and others) sees the rules as denying the option of playing >more than one PA by any one Methuselah to push a vote. >Both of these options can easily be read from the rules, and both are >effective ways to limit the utility of a KRC deck without detracting from >other, legitimate strategies. >Personally, I like the balanced nature of Alan Kwan's reading (no more >than one PA-card-derived vote from per Methuselah), but that's simply a >style choice. I also agree that Alan's suggestion would make for more interesting games; I just can't see his reading of the rules. Unfortunately, he hasn't got net access during the summer to defend his suggestion. The standard reading of the rules (Bret's earlier reading) IS very natural. When I first read the rulebook, I saw that the rules prohibited pushing your own vote - and promptly dismissed that as "ridiculous". *Obviously* the rules were in error. Only when the weenie vote got discussed a while back did I realize what an excellent rule prohibited pushing your own votes was. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd like to see you make a Brujah rush deck with those limits. Ain't gonna happen. --------- Paul Schaaf sch...@u.washington.edu

I've made a Brujah\Gangrel deck and then sat there and pummeled my opponent while all his vampires were sitting in topor i finished the game,i don't have to rush anything! Card restrictions make the game harder and more challenging any idiot can play with 10 lost in crowds or 10 blurs or better yet 10 wolf claws no card restrictions = no strategy. I have made every kind of deck using different variants and have have won with every one of them. Yes i lost a few too, but i had so many different cards in my deck my opponent never knew what was going to happen next. i enjoy the length of the game so quick kill decks don't interest me, if they did i would still be playing magic.

[ quoted text not captured ] Peace Errol, Please, post your Brujah combat deck with the two card restriction. As some- one who has done well with Brujah (no limits), I'm interested in how you can do any effective combat with the two card restriction. I do not consider Brujah rush combat decks to be quick kill, as you cannot afford the space for Presence bleed modifiers. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >Errol Trepanier <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: > >>I've made a Brujah\Gangrel deck and then sat there and pummeled my >>opponent while all his vampires were sitting in topor i finished the >>game,i don't have to rush anything! > >He shouldn't have intercepted if he couldn't fight you. A rushless >Brujah/Gangrel combat deck is toast before a good Malk or selfish vote >deck. > >>Card restrictions make the game >>harder and more challenging any idiot can play with 10 lost in crowds or >>10 blurs or better yet 10 wolf claws no card restrictions = no strategy. > >If you think 10 Claws makes for an incredible deck you haven't been >playing well-designed combat or anti-combat decks. 10 LiC ain't that >great either. > >If you play card limits, lots of Claws and lots of Stealth do seem like >winning strategies, because with 4-card, they are. But they're not >winners in Jyhad the way it was designed (no limits), just good components >to certain decks. > >Also, strategy comes from intelligent and directed attempts to jam up your >opponent, and focused Jyhad decks are fully vulnerable to that. Under >card limits, you don't have strategy, you have luck of the draw - did you >draw a Dodge just prior to his Claw? > >>I have made every kind of deck using different variants and have have won > >>with every one of them. Yes i lost a few too, but i had so many different > >>cards in my deck my opponent never knew what was going to happen next. i >>enjoy the length of the game so quick kill decks don't interest me, if >>they did i would still be playing magic. > >If you have made every kind of deck, then it's because of 4-card. By my >estimate, there nearly 100 fundamentally different decks. Of course, >under 4-card most of them go away, so maybe that's why you think you've >played every deck. > >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) He either Blocked or got bleed. 10 claws,10 LiC was just an exagerated example, i didn't actually think that this comprised a good deck. If you put in the write components you have an intelligent deck. You say your Brujah rush deck has stradegy, i feel it doesn't because redundent repitious cards are not strategic, its simply a race to the end of the blood pool and its simply whoever gets out of the starting gate first. There are 437+ cards in Jyhad I simply find that using 2 card Restriction allows more card components into the game. More components=more Stradegy. In my Brujah\Gangrel deck I didn't have to worry about luck of the draw because i was going through my cards quickly. I didn't mean to say that i've played every deck imaginable just more of the common ones, S&B, Vote, Topor Decks, Malkavian Suicide decks which are fun because they piss people off. I have beaten a malkavian S&B 4 card restriction deck with a 2 card vote deck. Should have seen the look on his face when the KRC took him out of the game. Though this was not a great accomlishment because he tried played conditioning and bonding in the same round, what an idiot. Your estimate is only opinion, not fact.

P.S. Hope I didn't offend,would like to here more from people on thier favorite decks and card combo's. One of mine is Wolf Claws and Amaranth on my oppents more powerful vamp. Hope to here from everyone soon.