Pardon me for being new to your group

I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only play six cards. How Sad The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with me some time. The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And react to a new predator for that matter. I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda sad.

I noticed this too, and was kind of surprised - people don't usually jump all over each other like that around here. While I don't agree with 4 card limits (too much like the dreaded Magic), the folks that I play with use a house rule of a 10% limit. (For example, you've got a 90 card deck, you can have 9 of a particular card.) The reason 4CL's work in Magic, but not in V:TES is simply because, on the average, V:TES decks seem to run about twice as large as Magic decks. If you have a limit of 4 cards, you may never get the cards you need. (To illustrate this, try playing a 90 card deck in a Magic Tourney...) At any rate, I agree with you that decks made up of 40 Wakes, etc. are extremely boring, not to mention darn annoying. You ought to try that 10% idea, though - it keeps the spirit of variety alive, while not limiting decks. Andy lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: : I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. [ quoted text not captured ]

lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: : I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. : I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to : stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to : mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out : for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. Oddly enough, we've been playing cards too. I hope you don't feel the need to go off in a huff because people have disagreed with your ideas. The internet is characterized by many people with more opinions than tact. : Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same : 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by : the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole : deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five : minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only : play six cards. How Sad No, that's not the case at all. Did you actually play no-limits games at first and then decide to switch to 4cl for some reason? It doesn't make any sense to switch to 4cl to 'curb' the Malkavians, since they are far less impeded in their main strategy (stealth and bleed) than the other archetypal decks by going to 4cl, due to Malks having many 'substitute' cards (cards that do the same sort of thing but have a different name, thus escaping the 4cl) available whereas other disciplines have fewer. : The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's : and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with : me some time. : The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of : Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey : to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have : something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And : react to a new predator for that matter. If your deck actually adjusts on the fly, I'd like to hear about it. I've never before seen a Jyhad deck that literally changed while you were playing it. Flexibility can mean having many different kinds of cards in your deck, giving you some ability to do a lot of different stuff, but it doesn't make your deck do what you want when you want it to. : I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to : work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I : thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week : And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda : sad. 4CL decks *are* unreliable, compared to their no-limit cousins. If you can only put 4 copies of a particular card into your deck, you are less likely to draw it than if you can put in 8 or 10, and if there are no good substitutes for the card you want to use, your deck will be less reliable because of it. Your characterization of our decks as having only six different cards in them is pretty inaccurate, I think. I've recently been playing a deck that's based on small vampires with celerity, mostly Brujah, and a bunch of allies, and guns. I'm using 10 Arms Dealers, and I'd like to have more. If I were playing under a 4CL, I wouldn't be allowed to use so many Arms Dealers; yet they're the most useful ally for this deck because they don't cost any pool, and they can even go find the guns for me if I'm not drawing them. Another deck I'm playing is a serious bloodgain deck using mostly large Ventrue, with 7 Minion Tap and about 8 Fifth Tradition. Minion Tap/5th Trad isn't reliable when you can only have 4 of each of them. Most importantly, 4 card limits don't stop abusive combos from happening. They just make them happen less often. Have you noticed that most decks built under a 4CL have exactly 4 copies of every card they consider most useful? Doesn't this indicate that the 4CL isn't 'encouraging creative deckbuilding' but merely forcing people to use inferior cards when they're not allowed to use the good ones anymore? Wouldn't it encourage creativity even more to simply ban all the relatively powerful cards? Josh converted long ago from the school of four card limits

In article <35446507...@pop.mpls.uswest.net>, lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net writes >Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same >6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by >the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole >deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five >minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only >play six cards. How Sad Erm, no. This is not quite what the argument over 4CL/NCL has to be about (of course, it can be about it). Let's just say that you want to play a Setite Corruption deck. It isn't necessarily going to be the best or most effective of decks but it's what you want to play. If 4CL is in place, you can't do it effectively because you can only use 4 of them. Now, in a NL environment, you could maybe put something up to 20 of them in which might be about right. Then you could have assorted masters, assorted modifiers, a few actions, maybe a vote or two, a bit of equipment. The thing is, NCL isn't about cutting down the number of different cards you have in your deck - it's about allowing you to have as many cards as you need of each type in a deck. If you look at many of the decks on the group or on the Not the Jyhad Deck Archive, you'll often see that they require a large number of one or two cards but then they diversify off into lots of other little cards which only have one or two of each in the deck to provide back up. I mean, in almost every deck I play I have Sudden Reversals, Blood Dolls, maybe an STI or two, a few of each of the skills I'm using (I tend to use odd combos for a bit of fun but which means most vamps don't have both at superior), maybe a bit of stealth, a bit of equipment possibly, a few vote cards (even if it's something like Surprise Influence). And then, if I was playing a heavy stealth deck (for instance) I would use lots of different stealth cards to give me the flexibility to tap out your vamps (Faceless Night), that maneuver I need (Swallowed), that extra stealth from my other vamps (Cloak) etc. etc. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: >I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. >I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to >stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to >mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out >for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. Here's some of the key points on this I've heard to date, in no particular order, and in no particualr response to any particular point you've tried to make; 1. Most strategies which people try to control in Jyhad with a card limit have access to simple variants of card names, and thus avoid limitation (Malk sneak 'n bleed, and vote decks, primarily). Decks which rely on a particular few cards (usually rush combat) have a more difficult time under card limits. 2. Esoteric deck construction, a long standing hobby for many, is completely devalued under CL. Oddball clans are used even less. Setite Corruption, Ravnos SenseDep, some Assamite concepts, are not just difficult, but impossible to do. As such, more outlandish deck concepts aren't explored as often. 3. If you only want four of each card, you're more than free to do so under NCL... 4. Jyhad doesn't "ratio up" the way M:t$ does... Having a higher amount of a particular card hardly guarantees a win, it just means you have to find a way to play it more often. (this stems from the higher card flow rate in Jyhad, and the fact that each individual card has less impact on the ultimate outcome of the game...) 5. Card limits don't do much to fix "broken" combos, they simply don't happen as often. This was true of M:t$ as well; the real stability of the game came from the introduction of the concept of Type II, and the phasing out of overpowered cards by retirement of expansions. By then, though, everyone was so used to the 4CL, there was little reason to switch. Officially, there's no card limit to the basic rules of M:t$, either... That's a tournament thing. More to follow if I think of them... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver & V:EKN Prince of Boston, MA

Lklee wrote: "Apparently you guys have been hashing this out for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards." Yup. Us too. "Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same 6 to 10 cards over and over and over." This statement does little more than convince me that you have never actually played with NL for any extended period of time, and your reasoning for 4CL is backed by lack of understanding. "Friends come over ...How Sad" As opposed to having friends come over and having great fun cause this time you drew a Disgused Weapon, while last time you drew a Buisness Pressure? Jyhad is a game of consistency, not a game of "see what you can do with what card you happen to draw this turn". When making Jyhad, Garfield specifically designed it to be a game where there are no card limits. The game works very well with no card limits. While the game is fun with Card limits, it really isn't the same game. "The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with me some time." Umm, yeah. Malkavian S+B is completely unhindered by 4CL, as there are so many variations of Obfuscate and Dominate cards. Under 4CL, however, you can't make a reliable Rush Combat deck, a reliable Animalism based Intercept deck, a Setite Corruption deck, etc. I played 4CL for about a year when the game originally came out (not because we played NL and found it was bad, just cause we thought the game "needed it", like Magic, and didn't know any better), and have been playing NL for the last 2 years. Again, 4CL can be fun, but NL is how the game was designed to be played, and it works much better. "The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey to prey." This is completely correct, card limit or no. With card limits, however, you have a far greater restriction on how you make a versitile deck. "I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to work on your deck building skills." No, by defenition, a deck that has 4 Bum's Rushes will be less reliable at attacking vampires than a deck with 10 Bum's Rushes. You don't need 40, just 10. The main deckbuilding skill required by someone playing under 4CL is how to get around the 4CL, cause you already used 4 of every important card. "I'm sorry if I pissed you all off." You didn't piss anyone off. This is how the internet works. You say something, and people disagree with it. If ya get all huffy everytime some random people disagree with you on the internet, you aren't going to have any fun here at all. "I thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda sad." Nope. lots of people play. And most of them play NL. Or, they start out playing 4CL, and switch to NL after hanging around here a while (just like me...). And they don't use 6 card decks. 6 card decks don't work. However, if you need 10 Bum's Rushes to make your deck work, or 9 Immortal Grapples to deal with Strike:Combat Ends, or 12 Computer Hackings, you can use them. 4CL does little more than substantially limit they types of decks that can be truly effective, and make Stealth and Bleed far more effective than it should be. There is alot of good information on the web about this very discussion. Try Mark and Judith's Jyhad web page, the Corrupter's web page, and the Rulemonger's web page. They have tons of handy info, strategy articles, and deck designs. Check them out. And don't be under the impression that you are being personally attacked cause some folks disagree with you. That is life on the internet. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "We are vain and we are blind I hate people when they're not polite." -Talking Heads

A few points from a NCL believer. What I can appreciate about card limits: 1. CL means fewer cards to collect. I AM SUITCASE BOY.... which can really suck. Do you know how hard it is to get 6/8 Tombs and 6/8 RTI's without being willing to trade my other rares? I just can't trade a bunch of cards to make sure I can create my new 'killer deck', and then a couple of months later, trade those cards for my new killer deck. I am a sick sick boy....I need help. No...I will not give all of my cards away just to alleviate my sickness:) 2. CL encourages different combos to try to get the same result. You get an appreciation for some wallpaper cards with CL that you don't necessarily use with NCL. Is this truly a good thing? Not sure of that, but I could see where a NCL player could learn a few 'tricks' playing CL. One of those "Hmmmm, I didn't think of that" kind of things. It won't happen often to a good player, but it could. I remember reading a post on this group about a year ago, regarding a tournament in Europe - 1 card limit. Wow. I don't even know what to think about that, but it would be interesting to see. 3. If most have 200-300 cards to make their decks, and the local card bully has waaaayyy more, then CL may level the playing field a little. My arguement is not to play with a card bully, buttt sometimes you do what you have to do. I'm running out of stuff that I can appreciate here....yup, I'm about done with that. However....VTES is a NCL game, some of the things I love about NCL. 1. Variety in deck types. Only in NCL would you see ET's 'Everyone Dies Deck'. Using many, many Caitiff's to play many Anarch Revolts and a Smiling Jack as needed to kill every Meth at the table - with you being last. (It was posted to The Corruptor's site if you want to look at it). You would never see this deck, or most others, in CL - it simply would not be effective. Which brings me to point #2.... 2. Effectiveness. Why is S&B so effective? It only requires two components (S&B) and so requires fewer cards to pull off the combo. A rush deck, by comparison, requires many more cards to get going, to whit: 1. An action (or master) card to get into combat. 2. Combat cards to stay in combat (a combat deck can be foiled by many different methods - Elysium, Mariel, a simple dodge or maneuver) by limiting movement, restarting combat after S:CE, etc. This can take several cards on occasion. Note, a Mariel in a secure haven can destroy all but the most robust Rush Combat decks - something CL cannot give you. 3. Combat cards to cause damage. After you have got into combat, and stayed in combat, you have to hurt the vamp you attack. This takes more cards. To summarize. A S&B deck requires a simple combo of two types of cards. A good Rush Combat deck (like many) requires more types of cards to be successful. VTES is a game of combos, the harder the combo is to pull off - the less effective the deck (even when the rarer combo has great results when it does work). CL makes multi-card combos very hard to pull off. There are so many more arguements as to why CL kills so many decks (the discipline arguement come to mind), but that is for another day. I have said too much already. No, really, I have.

In article <35446507...@pop.mpls.uswest.net>, lk...@uswest.net wrote: > > I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. > I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to > stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to > mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out > for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. > > Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same > 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by > the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole > deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five > minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only > play six cards. How Sad > > The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's > and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with > me some time. > > The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of > Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey > to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have > something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And > react to a new predator for that matter. > > I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to > work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I > thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week > And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda > sad. > > I find it cool that you play by the 4CL. I'm from Vienna and we all play under 4CL. I think most Europeans do. I think all you said was right. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm from Vienna, and I'm pleased to tell you, that we play with a 4CL, because of the argumentsyou mentioned. Your statement is absolutely true, there is nothing I could say is wrong. Perhaps there is a general difference in playstyle between US players and European players (as you can see by the negative response of US players to the 4CL-issue). But I'm very pleased to notice that even in the US there are 4CL players. Are there more? I think in Europe it's quite common to play under the 4CL rule. Any other obdervations?

Joshua Duffin wrote: > lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: > : I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. > : I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to > : stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to > : mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out > : for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. > > Oddly enough, we've been playing cards too. I hope you don't feel > the need to go off in a huff because people have disagreed with your > ideas. The internet is characterized by many people with more opinions > than tact. agreed > > > : Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same > : 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by > : the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole > : deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five > : minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only > : play six cards. How Sad > > No, that's not the case at all. Did you actually play no-limits games > at first and then decide to switch to 4cl for some reason? It doesn't > make any sense to switch to 4cl to 'curb' the Malkavians, since they > are far less impeded in their main strategy (stealth and bleed) than > the other archetypal decks by going to 4cl, due to Malks having many > 'substitute' cards (cards that do the same sort of thing but have > a different name, thus escaping the 4cl) available whereas other > disciplines have fewer. yes I did play no limit games for the first couple of years. we switched because of the Malk'splaying govern+cond+lost in crowds+cloak the gathering every vampire every turn.some of the most boring times I've ever had playing Jyhad. > > > : The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's > : and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with > : me some time. > > : The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of > : Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey > : to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have > : something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And > : react to a new predator for that matter. > > If your deck actually adjusts on the fly, I'd like to hear about it. > I've never before seen a Jyhad deck that literally changed while you > were playing it. Flexibility can mean having many different kinds of > cards in your deck, giving you some ability to do a lot of different > stuff, but it doesn't make your deck do what you want when you want > it to. not absoulutely but ,by careful playing and maximizing the effectiveness of each card my decks can take out ANY deck type. I'm not completely hosed if my prey has "THAT" deck. > > > : I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to > : work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I > : thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week > : And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda > : sad. > > 4CL decks *are* unreliable, compared to their no-limit cousins. If you > can only put 4 copies of a particular card into your deck, you are less > likely to draw it than if you can put in 8 or 10, and if there are > no good substitutes for the card you want to use, your deck will be > less reliable because of it. you must have confused reliable VP's with the ability to play the same tired old combo over and over. > > > Your characterization of our decks as having only six different cards > in them is pretty inaccurate, I think. I've recently been playing a > deck that's based on small vampires with celerity, mostly Brujah, and > a bunch of allies, and guns. I'm using 10 Arms Dealers, and I'd like > to have more. If I were playing under a 4CL, I wouldn't be allowed to > use so many Arms Dealers; yet they're the most useful ally for this > deck because they don't cost any pool, and they can even go find the > guns for me if I'm not drawing them. but a tremere deck with only 4 cryptic missions timed well can shut off almost all access to your gunshowever if you had a couple AL's or a couple vast wealth ...... my point 4CL or NCL versatility is the key > > > Another deck I'm playing is a serious bloodgain deck using mostly large > Ventrue, with 7 Minion Tap and about 8 Fifth Tradition. Minion Tap/5th > Trad isn't reliable when you can only have 4 of each of them. > > Most importantly, 4 card limits don't stop abusive combos from happening. > They just make them happen less often. so you get a single VP instead of running the table. making for a more competative environment. > > > Have you noticed that most decks built under a 4CL have exactly 4 > copies of every card they consider most useful? Doesn't this indicate > that the 4CL isn't 'encouraging creative deckbuilding' but merely > forcing people to use inferior cards when they're not allowed to use > the good ones anymore? Wouldn't it encourage creativity even more > to simply ban all the relatively powerful cards? no offense but so far the only people I've heard mention banning cards all play NCL?????? Thanx for your time. Eric Prince of Minneapolis [ quoted text not captured ]

Josef Dvorak wrote: > lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: > > > I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. > > I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to > > stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to > > > > mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out > > > > for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. > > > > Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the > > same > > 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and > > by > > the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole > > deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of > > five > > minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and > > only > > play six cards. How Sad > > > > The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the > > Malk's > > and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play > > with > > me some time. > > > > The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of > > Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from > > prey > > to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have > > something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And > > > > react to a new predator for that matter. > > > > I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to > > work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. > > I > > thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week > > And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda > > > > sad. > > I'm from Vienna, and I'm pleased to tell you, that we play with a 4CL, > because of the argumentsyou mentioned. > Your statement is absolutely true, there is nothing I could say is > wrong. > Perhaps there is a general difference in playstyle between US players > and European > players (as you can see by the negative response of US players to the > 4CL-issue). > > But I'm very pleased to notice that even in the US there are 4CL > players. Are there more? > I think in Europe it's quite common to play under the 4CL rule. Any > other obdervations? Thanx for the support. I think that many players in the US want to play fast pace magic like games though some of them claim to hate magic .My opinion is that longer games that take time to develop are more enjoyable to play. The 4CL helps to acomplish just that.With NCL one card is Pretty much the same as the next.Combos develop more quickly, and the games are much bloodier.A lot of these folks fail to realize that I played NCL for the first two years. I prefer the long term stratigic approch to the short turn tactical aproch. NCL forces you to play fast and hard with the same boring though effective combos.I prefer a long game with my freinds a 5 hour affair with plenty of beer and conversation.I'm not trying to get in 5 short games just to rack up a few EASY victory points. Another reason a lot of people play NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a 4CL game focues on the players. again thanx for your support Eric Prince of Minneapolis

Greetings... lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: > I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. > I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to > stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to > mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out > for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. > Welcome to the group. We've been playing cards as well. Lots ofcards. My group plays several times a month, usually for 3 or 4 hours at a time... > Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same > 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by > the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole > deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five > minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only > play six cards. How Sad This is just plain silly. Have you ever actually played NCL? If you didand were only using 6 to 10 cards, I'm suprised you ever won. We played 4CL for the first year that we played (since the very beginning), and ended up switching to no limits. Our games are a million times better. It was pretty nice for me playing a Brujah light intercept/rush deck, and just counting how many Majesty's you played so I knew when you were out of them and then I could just pummell you into the dirt. How is that good? > > > The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's > and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with > me some time. > Malk's thrive under the 4CL. They are the least hindered. Ecspecially nowwith all the new Stealth cards. > The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of > Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey > to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have > something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And > react to a new predator for that matter. > While I agree that versatility is good, I'd like to know how it is youcan plan on every contingency. How do you, in a single game, deal with Brujah rush combat, Gangrel Aggro combat, Malk S&B, and Ventrue votes/bleed? Simply, you can't. Not effectively anyway. There is always something that will trip you up. If you are, then I'd say the people you play with aren't doing their jobs very well... > I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to > work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I > thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week > And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda > sad. I would encourage you to build a Settite Corruption deck, not a Presence/Obfuscate bleed deck, a Corruption deck under 4 CL. Make it for a 4 Player game. You'll need a decent number of cards. Or build a Brujah Rush deck that can stop a Malkavian S&B deck under 4CL before it gets ousted in the 3rd or 4th turn. Or a Giovanni deck that can do anything, anything at all, with or without a 4CL :) Just my 2 cents... Chris rho...@msnotes.wustl.edu

lk...@uswest.net writes: >Josef Dvorak wrote: >> lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote: >> > I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. >> > I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to >> > stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to >> > mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out >> > for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. >> > Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same >> > 6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by >> > the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole >> > deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five >> > minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only >> > play six cards. How Sad >> > >> > The Reason we started the JCL in the first place was to curb the Malk's >> > and anyone who says the malk's dominate a 4CL game should come play with >> > me some time. >> > >> > The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of >> > Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey >> > to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have >> > something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And >> > >> > react to a new predator for that matter. >> > >> > I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to >> > work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I >> > thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week >> > And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda >> > sad. >> >> I'm from Vienna, and I'm pleased to tell you, that we play with a 4CL, >> because of the argumentsyou mentioned. >> Your statement is absolutely true, there is nothing I could say is wrong. >> Perhaps there is a general difference in playstyle between US players >> and European >> players (as you can see by the negative response of US players to the >> 4CL-issue). >> >> But I'm very pleased to notice that even in the US there are 4CL >> players. Are there more? >> I think in Europe it's quite common to play under the 4CL rule. Any >> other obdervations? >Thanx for the support. I think that many players in the US want to play fast >pace magic like games though some of them claim to hate magic .My opinion is >that longer games that take time to develop are more enjoyable to play. The 0CL would help toward this goal even more (no library, just vampires - that'd be nice and slow to develop :-) But, since there's that pesky rule about having a 40-card library minimum, I guess 1CL would be as close as you could get to this "pinnacle" of evolutionary game play. >4CL helps to acomplish just that.With NCL one card is Pretty much the same >as the next.Combos develop more quickly, and the games are much bloodier.A As long as we're over-generalizing: With 4CL, one deck is pretty much the same as the next, since you're opportunities for variety are curtailed. >lot of these folks fail to realize that I played NCL for the first two >years. I prefer the long term stratigic approch to the short turn tactical So do I. >aproch. NCL forces you to play fast and hard with the same boring though CL forces you to play with the same boring mix of cards. >effective combos.I prefer a long game with my freinds a 5 hour affair with >plenty of beer and conversation.I'm not trying to get in 5 short games just >to rack up a few EASY victory points. Another reason a lot of people play >NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than CL is easier to play. It takes a good deal more thought to find the right balance of cards when you don't just automatically throw in 4 of each of the ones you need for the deck. >thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a >4CL game focues on the players. The grande argument: * The game was designed for NL play. All other arguments (such as my arguments above) are purely subjective and amount to nothing. Which may be why this argument goes on so long: it's fun to argue and no one ever gets "proved" wrong. -- In sum: I play NL. I play in the US. I "want to play" the game the way is was meant to be played (by Garfield). My games last from a minimum of 1 hour for a three player game (which usually goes for 90 minutes to two hours), and up to seven hours for a six player game (which we finally had to just quit on at 3am instead of finishing). The average game is a 4 to 5 player game that lasts for three or four hours. Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll play something else (like RoboRally :-) I build many different decks (I don't beleive I've ever built the same deck twice, and I've played since the game came out). It's fun to tweak a deck a couple of times to find out what the best mix of cards is. I enjoy playing different (non-archetypical) themes: Recently: * All Prince/Justicar Progeny deck (uses 10 3rd traditions and Presence skill cards, 6 Consang. Boons and Voter Caps but no more than 5 of any other card) * Ravnos (with only 2 Sensory Dep.s) - any Ravnos deck is non-archetypical, I think :-) * Tremere/Assamite Cel/Tha second-round combat deck. * Toreador stealth-bleed (!) using Alacrity for stealth (needs a lot of blood-gain, esp. to use the Aire of Elations and Pulse of Canailles that are sprinkled in the deck - 5th Traditions, etc.) * (An Archetypical deck, not possible under CL): Settite Corruption. -- And so on. We never have any problem with falling into a rut and playing the same deck composed of 4-6 distinct cards. I don't think anyone does. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | History teaches us that we http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | learn NOTHING from history. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > snip( we've all read it several times if not move up a level) :-)-~ > > >Thanx for the support. I think that many players in the US want to play fast > >pace magic like games though some of them claim to hate magic .My opinion is > >that longer games that take time to develop are more enjoyable to play. The > > 0CL would help toward this goal even more (no library, just vampires - > that'd be nice and slow to develop :-) funny > > > But, since there's that pesky rule about having a 40-card library minimum, > I guess 1CL would be as close as you could get to this "pinnacle" of > evolutionary game play. > > >4CL helps to acomplish just that.With NCL one card is Pretty much the same > >as the next.Combos develop more quickly, and the games are much bloodier.A > > As long as we're over-generalizing: > With 4CL, one deck is pretty much the same as the next, since you're > opportunities for variety are curtailed. saying NCL games are more bloody is not over generalizing it's the truth. > > > >lot of these folks fail to realize that I played NCL for the first two > >years. I prefer the long term stratigic approch to the short turn tactical > > So do I. > > >aproch. NCL forces you to play fast and hard with the same boring though > > CL forces you to play with the same boring mix of cards. > > >effective combos.I prefer a long game with my freinds a 5 hour affair with > >plenty of beer and conversation.I'm not trying to get in 5 short games just > >to rack up a few EASY victory points. Another reason a lot of people play > >NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than > > CL is easier to play. It takes a good deal more thought to find the right > balance of cards when you don't just automatically throw in 4 of each of > the ones you need for the deck. using the NL approach as to the what cards are needed 4 of each wouldn't make the 40 card minimum as a matter of fact it would only be about 1/4" thick :-) > > > >thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a > >4CL game focues on the players. > > The grande argument: > > * The game was designed for NL play. by Mr. Garfield the great idea man of gaming history, but don't forget he's also the man who brought us Juzam Dijinn. One of the most broken cards in history. > > > All other arguments (such as my arguments above) are purely subjective > and amount to nothing. Which may be why this argument goes on so long: > it's fun to argue and no one ever gets "proved" wrong. > > -- > > In sum: > > I play NL. > > I play in the US. > > I "want to play" the game the way is was meant to be played (by Garfield). see above > > > My games last from a minimum of 1 hour for a three player game (which > usually goes for 90 minutes to two hours), and up to seven hours for > a six player game (which we finally had to just quit on at 3am instead > of finishing). The average game is a 4 to 5 player game that lasts for > three or four hours. > > Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table > talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. > If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll > play something else (like RoboRally :-) We play very serious. a 12 pack among 5 guys doesn't hinder anyone's ability to play hard. > > > I build many different decks (I don't beleive I've ever built > the same deck twice, and I've played since the game came out). > > It's fun to tweak a deck a couple of times to find out what the > best mix of cards is. sure and when you increase the number of cards to choose. It becomes more of a challenge thus more fun :-) > > > I enjoy playing different (non-archetypical) themes: > > Recently: > > * All Prince/Justicar Progeny deck (uses 10 3rd traditions and Presence > skill cards, 6 Consang. Boons and Voter Caps but no more than 5 of > any other card) > > * Ravnos (with only 2 Sensory Dep.s) - any Ravnos deck is non-archetypical, > I think :-) > > * Tremere/Assamite Cel/Tha second-round combat deck. > > * Toreador stealth-bleed (!) using Alacrity for stealth (needs a lot of > blood-gain, esp. to use the Aire of Elations and Pulse of Canailles that > are sprinkled in the deck - 5th Traditions, etc.) > > * (An Archetypical deck, not possible under CL): Settite Corruption. > > -- > And so on. We never have any problem with falling into a rut and playing > the same deck composed of 4-6 distinct cards. I don't think anyone does. a lot of them did got bored left the game. Sales dropped Thus no more expansions. See it's all your guys's fault :-) > Eric Prince of Minneapolis

>Quite frankly I don't see how you get any pleasure from playing the same >6 to 10 cards over and over and over. Friends come over sit down and by >the time your first vampire hits the table everybody knows your whole >deck all your strengths and weaknesses. Then everybody takes all of five >minutes to size up the table. Then spend the next 2 to 4 hours and only >play six cards. How Sad I've never played with a card limit in Jyhad.. I've also never built a deck with more than 8 of a single card in it, and probably never one with more than 3 cards having more than 4 copies each. Using those decks, I've done pretty well in an NL environment. Just because you would design NL decks using lots of copies of only a few cards does not mean that's the only way to design NL decks, or the best. Putting 20 wakes and 20 majesties in a deck will certainly make it annoying, but it won't make it win. If you make an NL deck out of only a few different cards, it will not do very well compared to intelligently designed decks using a wider variety of cards. >The strength of my decks is their versatility and in a large game of >Jyhad versatility will quite frankly save your ass as you move from prey >to prey. Allowing yourself to adjust your deck on the fly to have >something that can get past anything your prey might throw at you. And >react to a new predator for that matter. Remember that you can still design a 4CL deck under NL. Playing NL in no way reduces the flexibility of a deck unless you choose to do so. You seem to be under the impression that the best decks in NL are 15 copies each of 4 different cards. If that were the case, then your points would be valid. But it's not. That's not something I can prove to you in a brief explanation, but if you play NL for a significant period of time and with access to enough cards to make most decks you would want to try, I think you'd agree. >I even heard 4CL decks are unreliable. If that's the case you need to >work on your deck building skills. I'm sorry if I pissed you all off. I >thought only 8 people even knew about this game last week >And it appears you guys only play with 6 card decks. It's really kinda >sad. 4CL decks are unreliable at getting out specific combos, not necessarily unreliable in general play. If you think we all play with 6 card decks, look at the sample decks that are posted here pretty frequently. Most of those are designed for NL play. -Dave

lk...@uswest.net wrote: > > L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > > > > But, since there's that pesky rule about having a 40-card library minimum, > > I guess 1CL would be as close as you could get to this "pinnacle" of > > evolutionary game play. > > > > >4CL helps to acomplish just that.With NCL one card is Pretty much the same > > >as the next.Combos develop more quickly, and the games are much bloodier.A > > > > As long as we're over-generalizing: > > With 4CL, one deck is pretty much the same as the next, since you're > > opportunities for variety are curtailed. > > saying NCL games are more bloody is not over generalizing it's the > truth. > Agreed, I think it has produced a greater degree of bloodthirsty combat. When someone sets out to make a combat deck under NCL they (myself included) try to make something happen - the more over the top the better. In such an environment you will see the mulitple majesties, and the resultant majesty killers. It can lead to boring/frustrating play. Majesty is particularly unwelcome when you are fielding a combat light deck against it. On that level I understand the desire for a CL. > > CL forces you to play with the same boring mix of cards. > > > > >effective combos.I prefer a long game with my freinds a 5 hour affair with > > >plenty of beer and conversation.I'm not trying to get in 5 short games just > > >to rack up a few EASY victory points. Another reason a lot of people play > > >NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than In NCL you will often purge any card that doesn't go to the overall goal of the deck. In NCL decks are generally leaner and more focused. Cards like "Betrayer" or "Society of Leopold" are more likely to appear in a 4CL deck because you will have slots to fill that have only minimal relevance to the overall deck-concept. So why not put in a card that is just plain fun? On that level 4CL is cool. > > > > * The game was designed for NL play. > Magic was designed for NL play too. Jyhad was designed with repeat actions and vote push. The game was hardly perfect from the start. The game design was/is great, but after years of play there is still room for experimentation. > > > > My games last from a minimum of 1 hour for a three player game (which > > usually goes for 90 minutes to two hours), and up to seven hours for > > a six player game (which we finally had to just quit on at 3am instead > > of finishing). The average game is a 4 to 5 player game that lasts for > > three or four hours. > > > > Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table > > talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. > > If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll > > play something else (like RoboRally :-) > > We play very serious. a 12 pack among 5 guys doesn't hinder anyone's > ability to > play hard. > I wish our playgroup drank while playing. Wrong crowd though. Although I don't believe NCL does promote sobriety, although that would change this whole argument, wouldn't it? "All you 4CL people are a bunch of lushes!! You too drunk to put together a real deck!!" "Oh yeah, You NCL are a bunch of teetotaling prudes!!", etc. > > > > > > I build many different decks (I don't beleive I've ever built > > the same deck twice, and I've played since the game came out). > > > > It's fun to tweak a deck a couple of times to find out what the > > best mix of cards is. > > sure and when you increase the number of cards to choose. It becomes > more of a > challenge thus more fun :-) > > > > > > > I enjoy playing different (non-archetypical) themes: > > > > Recently: > > > > * All Prince/Justicar Progeny deck (uses 10 3rd traditions and Presence > > skill cards, 6 Consang. Boons and Voter Caps but no more than 5 of > > any other card) > > > > * Ravnos (with only 2 Sensory Dep.s) - any Ravnos deck is non-archetypical, > > I think :-) > > > > * Tremere/Assamite Cel/Tha second-round combat deck. > > > > * Toreador stealth-bleed (!) using Alacrity for stealth (needs a lot of > > blood-gain, esp. to use the Aire of Elations and Pulse of Canailles that > > are sprinkled in the deck - 5th Traditions, etc.) > > > > * (An Archetypical deck, not possible under CL): Settite Corruption. > > Now, this is where I have a problem with card limits. It doesn't much allow for the new clan disciplines (I mean, I don't think I have much variety in dementation, and if I want to make a deck with 4CL how many useful dementation cards can I put in a 80-card deck.... about 8? - well, skip that then.) While CL does promote a certain level of variety it kills another level of variety, and that is the eccentric/alchemical deck. i.e. any deck that relies on the unusual combination of cards/disciplines. I've seen a deck based around 8 or so Jackals, only because I kept pulling Jackals from every expansion pack I got! My friend took the Jackals, made a Uriah Winter/Settite/Anamilism deck. The Settites would Reveal the Sire on Uriah, somebody would get a Jackal, et voila! Your prey has a ready Settite and you have +1 stealth. Next turn you corrupt Uriah back or play Betrayer. Now, maybe it isn't the greatest deck concept - but it is fun and unusual and totally undoable in a 4CL environment. I've been trying to make an allies deck that uses the widest variety of allies possible. Again, it isn't a great deck (it is 1 for 3) but it would be unthinkable without plenty of fake-outs, dodges, and computer hackings. I had a Ravnos deck that would try to Illusions of the Kindred/wolf claws/amaranth. It would work maybe twice in a game. All these decks I feel have a level of variety to them, all are kinda lame, but each would be unthinkable under 4CL. Under 4CL you are less likely (in my opinion) to build a deck around a concept and more likely to build around some skills and a mish-mash of cards, during the game you might have a lucky surprise, whereas with NCL it is more likely that the surprise will be premeditated. I love any deck that inspires the question, "what the hell are you doing?" and when the follow up comes, it is too late. I suppose you have to measure your own playgroup. Our group resists any deck that requires 10 majesties (although they do happen), we try not to play straight immortal grapple combat, or straight stealth bleed (but this happens too). We try to make decks that are fun for us to play, and others to watch. Which is the ultimate point isn't it? (oh, and to win occasionally)

In article <35471D59...@uswest.net>, lk...@uswest.net writes >NCL forces you to play fast and hard with the same boring though >effective combos. Nope. Though it is true that playing said combos can allow you to do very well, I have seen NCL games go on for a long time. Sam at the Cardiff tournaments has a tendency to play intercept decks which just sit there and slow the game so that HE can decide what happens. He's done a Prince/Justicar based one (so that he can 2nd Tradition you or just Wake normally) and then pummel you with Celerity and guns (it was Toreador) but can also pull your votes down in the mean time. He's also done a very nice Gangrel one where you just basically sit there and build up one very cool vampire supplemented by one or two others who can untap and stop any action. He could basically have drawn the game out for as long as he wanted whilst others depleted their pools trying to oust him. The only reason the game was a little shorter was because, unfortunately, the DCI rules do mean that you have to finish a game after a set time period (normally, 2 hours). In a normal game played amongst friends, his deck could easily have been the 5 hour affair you wanted. Lots of talking, diplomacy, jibes etc. as people tried to take out Raven/Camille, lots of opportunity for fun. >I prefer a long game with my freinds a 5 hour affair with >plenty of beer and conversation.I'm not trying to get in 5 short games just >to rack up a few EASY victory points. NCL doesn't force you to play the game like that. Clever deck construction and design can force the game to slow down. You just need to know what you're doing. And, no offense, a stalwart 4CL player isn't likely to be able to construct a deck under NCL to do that, simply due to the lack of experience (of course, that goes the other way round). > Another reason a lot of people play >NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than >thier skill in playing them. Not necessarily. Just because I have 8 Taste of Vitaes in a deck instead of 4 doesn't mean I necessarily play them more effectively etc. And part of the emphasis of NCL is that of deck design. The generalised argument here is as follows. Let's say I choose to create an intercept deck, from Auspex. Under 4CL, I might want to say have 5 different Auspex cards with 4 cards each. Maybe a few more, whatever. The thing is, part of the special-ness, the individuality of each card is lost because you look at The Spirit's Touch and Precognition and think "Hey, cool, here are two different cards which give me +1 intercept. I'll have to have both of these." The same would go for cards to get you reliably into combat, reliably get stealth, reliably prevent damage, reliably bleed etc. Okay, now, if I get into the same situation where I'm deciding to put intercept cards into a deck, I'm put in the position of deciding what's more important for me in the deck. Should I try and use The Spirit's Touch to try and get the maneuver so that I can get away from the people I block and hit them at range? Should I use Precognition so that I can stay at close range, prevent their hand strike and hit them back? But what happens if they hit me with a BIG hand strike and I can't prevent it all? And what happens if that isn't enough intercept? Should I throw some Enhanced Senses in just in case? But then that stops my ability to defend myself in combat....... And if someone tries to hit me with a cross-table vote.... maybe I should try and drop a couple of Eagle's Sight in there, just in case..... That's another aspect of skill which comes into NCL more than 4CL. In NCL, you have to consider the impact of any given card from all points of view. I want to do presence based bleed... what's going to be better for me? Social Charm, Enchant Kindred or Legal Manipulations. Each is distinct - Legal Manipulations has the blood cost... does my deck have the blood gain for it.... >in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a >4CL game focues on the players. Well, an NCL game focuses on the cards just as much as a 4CL can. It's just we have very different decisions to make. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3546F257...@uswest.net>, lk...@uswest.net writes >> Have you noticed that most decks built under a 4CL have exactly 4 >> copies of every card they consider most useful? Doesn't this indicate >> that the 4CL isn't 'encouraging creative deckbuilding' but merely >> forcing people to use inferior cards when they're not allowed to use >> the good ones anymore? Wouldn't it encourage creativity even more >> to simply ban all the relatively powerful cards? > >no offense but so far the only people I've heard mention banning cards >all play NCL?????? Well, maybe. I wouldn't know about the player demographics. But I mean look at Magic where there is a virtually mandatory 4CL (except, possibly, for Sealed Deck tourneys (maybe) where 4CL could restrict you if you had an unlucky set of boosters etc.) The thing is, there are cards there which are just plain-brown wrong and so the idea of Type II was born for two reasons. 1) Keep the playset moving so everyone has to buy new cards 2) Get rid of some of the old bust cards so that new players have access to the cards that everyone else is using and don't have to spend quite as much money. Even in Type I, there are plenty of banned cards and others are restricted to one per deck. And the thing is, just because power cards turn up less frequently, it doesn't make them less bust when they do turn up. For some, the game would turn into a race to get to one of your RtoIs first. Or you would significantly alter the balance of play if you got to your Tomb first. The point of banning cards is irrespective of CL/NCL. The point is to get rid of the broken cards, to create a fairer playing field. The Mr. Suitcase idea does not really work. I mean, look at how many people play JOL and there everyone is a Mr. Suitcase (figuratively speaking) but lots of people still lose and with Jyhad, unlike <insert other card game here> Rare doesn't necessarily equal Powerful or Necessary. In almost any deck, you need cards such as: Blood Doll, Tribute to the Master, Minion Tap: Get back pool from vamps Ascendance, Short Term Investment, Protracted Investment, Slave Auction: Get back pool with master phase actions Arson, Rampage, Disputed Territory: Deal with locations as and when Peace Treaty, Shattering Blow, Blessing of Durga Syn, Fast Hands: Deal with equipment/weapons as and when Faceless Night, Cloak, Lost in Crowds: Common stealth cards Spirit's touch, Enhanced Senses: Common intercept cards Bewitching Oration, Dread Gaze, Charming Lobby All of these cards are very necessary for different basic decks types. A beginner can easily acquire many copies of these in NCL. I have copious amounts of some and would rarely use more than, say, ten in a deck. But look at it this way. I can quite easily have a lot of voting prowess with Bewitching Oration when I am calling a vote. I can maybe throw down a few PAs from my hand but I'd like to keep most of them to call, right? If I play 4CL, a presence based vote deck would then have to look at other ways of getting additional votes. Okay, lots of Praxis Seizures - it's possible a beginner has one (I got PS: Houston in my first Jyhad booster, for example). But that's rare. I can use an Awe as well, but that's uncommon. Ventrue Headquarters is uncommon. Okay, so the broken cards might turn up less frequently in 4CL. When they do turn up, they're no less bust but whatever. What I would like to ask you is this. If I, a random, hypothetical beginner, decide I like the looks of the political aspect of the game rather than the other sides (say, my boosters and starters were quite heavily skewed in that direction) would you require me to only use 4 of my Bewitching Orations (which I can get very easily) and have to scrape by with 0 or maybe 1 copy of Awe? But I can go into a shop and buy commons for 10p over here (about 15 cents) and could easily pick up several Bewitching Orations. Now, a Sabbat Uncommon, that's getting more pricey and they're always harder to find as well. But no, I can't use my extra copies of Bewitching Oration so that's my idea for a Presence based vote deck all washed up. :( Okay, so once I do have a couple of copies of the rares, I can compete, but in the mean time, I can't use my excess commons (which you inevitably get) even though they'd give me a fighting chance of competing. [ quoted text not captured ]

lk...@uswest.net wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Oddly enough, we've been playing cards too. I hope you don't feel : > the need to go off in a huff because people have disagreed with your : > ideas. The internet is characterized by many people with more opinions : > than tact. : agreed Well, I'm glad we can agree on something. ;-) I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the reason I keep arguing things like this is that I just can't resist a good argument. Especially when I know I'm right. ;-) : yes I did play no limit games for the first couple of years. we switched : because of the Malk'splaying govern+cond+lost in crowds+cloak the : gathering : every vampire every turn.some of the most boring times I've ever had : playing : Jyhad. But why don't the Malks still do that in your 4cl games? Because they *could*, you know. Make a deck of, say, 60 cards, updated with the good DOM bleed and OBF stealth cards from the expansions, and you have something that should rack up at least as many VPs in 4cl games as you used to see it do in your NL games. : > 4CL decks *are* unreliable, compared to their no-limit cousins. If you : > can only put 4 copies of a particular card into your deck, you are less : > likely to draw it than if you can put in 8 or 10, and if there are : > no good substitutes for the card you want to use, your deck will be : > less reliable because of it. : you must have confused reliable VP's with the ability to play the same : tired : old combo over and over. Ah! I didn't realize we were using 'reliable' in different ways. Yes, what I meant by 'reliable' was that an NL deck is relatively much more likely to be able to implement its designed strategy on a consistent basis than its 4CL cousin - hence the NL deck is comparatively more 'reliable' in the sense that it does what it's supposed to (ie draws the right cards at the right time). It's true that reliably getting victory points is another thing entirely. In my experience, in fact, very few decks really reliably get VPs. Each game is different, and no matter how good a deck is, if the competition is also good, there can be wild variation in how many VPs you get. : > Your characterization of our decks as having only six different cards : > in them is pretty inaccurate, I think. I've recently been playing a : > deck that's based on small vampires with celerity, mostly Brujah, and : > a bunch of allies, and guns. I'm using 10 Arms Dealers, and I'd like : > to have more. If I were playing under a 4CL, I wouldn't be allowed to : > use so many Arms Dealers; yet they're the most useful ally for this : > deck because they don't cost any pool, and they can even go find the : > guns for me if I'm not drawing them. : but a tremere deck with only 4 cryptic missions timed well can shut off : almost : all access to your gunshowever if you had a couple AL's or a couple vast : wealth ...... my point 4CL or NCL versatility is the key Actually, my deck does have an Al's Army Apparatus in it, just for fun. But I really don't have any trouble drawing the guns in most cases; there are enough guns that I usually draw a bunch of them without using the Arms Dealer's ability. The real reason for the Dealers is (1) humor value, and (2) they're no-pool minions. (Which is to say, I don't think having my Arms Dealers killed via Cryptic Mission would significantly harm my deck. It's not a very good deck in the first place, you see...) : > Most importantly, 4 card limits don't stop abusive combos from happening. : > They just make them happen less often. : so you get a single VP instead of running the table. making for a more : competative environment. There's another difference in our philosophy. While it may be that the 4CL version only gets one abusive VP, that is (I've found) very little consolation to the victim who got abused for the VP. : > Have you noticed that most decks built under a 4CL have exactly 4 : > copies of every card they consider most useful? Doesn't this indicate : > that the 4CL isn't 'encouraging creative deckbuilding' but merely : > forcing people to use inferior cards when they're not allowed to use : > the good ones anymore? Wouldn't it encourage creativity even more : > to simply ban all the relatively powerful cards? : no offense but so far the only people I've heard mention banning cards : all play NCL?????? As long as we're throwing generalizations about, this is obviously because we're more concerned about game balance. ;-) But seriously, since we NL players believe ourselves to be playing a balanced game (or at least we want to play a balanced game), we often find ourselves looking for ways to fix the areas we perceive as imbalanced. My playgroup, for example, uses a number of house rules to deal with cards or combinations that we find abusive. Josh and she was moving very slowly, rising up above the earth...

lk...@uswest.net wrote: [snip] : Thanx for the support. I think that many players in the US want to play fast : pace magic like games though some of them claim to hate magic .My opinion is : that longer games that take time to develop are more enjoyable to play. The : 4CL helps to acomplish just that.With NCL one card is Pretty much the same : as the next.Combos develop more quickly, and the games are much bloodier.A : lot of these folks fail to realize that I played NCL for the first two : years. I prefer the long term stratigic approch to the short turn tactical : aproch. NCL forces you to play fast and hard with the same boring though : effective combos.I prefer a long game with my freinds a 5 hour affair with : plenty of beer and conversation.I'm not trying to get in 5 short games just : to rack up a few EASY victory points. Another reason a lot of people play : NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than : thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a : 4CL game focues on the players. Good lord, five hours for *one game*? If that's what you mean by 'strategic' then you're right, I do prefer the tactical approach. I don't play the 'train games' (1830 and company) because I can't deal with spending so long playing one game that moves so slowly. I like the strategic-planning nature of Jyhad, but I also like a faster pace in my games. Mind you, it's no Magic. Our four-player games typically take well over an hour, at a minimum, and they can run quite long, but five hours... I haven't played a game of Jyhad that took that much time for probably a couple years. It was fun at the time, but it's really kind of grueling. (and while we're making unfair generalizations - 4CL forces you to play slowly and weakly with the same boring and ineffectual combos. ;-) Josh i got some groceries, some peanut butter, to last a couple of days...

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at writes: > I find it cool that you play by the 4CL. I'm from Vienna > and we all play under 4CL. I think most Europeans do. > I think all you said was right. Actually, everyone I know here in Finland plays no limits. We haven't run into any problems, either in casual play or tournaments. 4CL (or something similar) would make many fun deck types impossible (how on earth do you build a working rush deck under 4CL?). //Petri

daniel frey <daniel_fr...@bcpress.com> writes: >> L. Scott Johnson wrote: >> > >> > * The game was designed for NL play. >Magic was designed for NL play too. Jyhad was designed with repeat No, it wasn't. It was designed to be limited by the number of cards people had - and that included the idea that people wouldn't be buying entire cases of cards. That idea was proven false, and Jyhad was designed for true NL. >actions and vote push. The game was hardly perfect from the start. The >game design was/is great, but after years of play there is still room >for experimentation. Vote push was not part of the original design (see Alan Kwan's excellent analysis of the Jyhad rulebook <3o3pra$q...@ask.cs.cornell.edu>). Even so, the answer to the problems of infinite loops and vote push is *not* card limits - it's no vote push and no infinite loops, by definition. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeff Endres wrote in message <35491...@hotmail.com>... >A recent discussion went like this: > >LSJ says: >Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table >talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. >If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll >play something else (like RoboRally :-) > >"Eric" says: >We play very serious. a 12 pack among 5 guys doesn't hinder anyone's >ability to play hard. > > >Daniel Frey says: > I wish our playgroup drank while playing. Wrong crowd though. Although >I don't believe NCL does promote sobriety, although that would change >this >whole argument, wouldn't it? Anybody else come up with Jyhad, the drinking game? We decided to implement it a couple of times...whoever gets the edge takes a shot, oust gets double... Since we're not heavy drinkers, simple Raspberry Schnapps is effective and suited to the atmosphere... It's kinda amusing to take the edge back from someone with a low-bleed deck...and if you rely too heavily on bleeding, you get wasted pretty quick... I won't recommend it to everyone, and I'm sure there are a number of other options, but every once in a while it's entertaining to see the Setite stealth-bleed deck player lolling back in his chair after the shots start to impair his playing ability...

In article <7x3eevs...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> writes [ quoted text not captured ] The standard argument here is that you have five real cards for it: 1) Bum's Rush 2) Ambush 3) Haven Uncovered 4) Archon 5) Bloodhunt/War Party I put number 5 as one because you're unlikely to be able to play both in the same deck. Bum's Rush is Bloodhunt and Haven Uncovered are quite similar in that they act like a kind of semi-permanent. The thing is, any rush deck with teeth will be able to take out a vampire in one or two combats hopefully. None of the last three provide any maneuvers for your vamps (I don't think Archon does) and one of the nice points about Bum's Rush and Ambush is that they have that nice maneuver which can encourage people to block the action (allowing nasty surprises with Hidden Lurker). In a heavy rush deck, your master phases may well be taken up with a few blood gain cards (The Rack (also encourages people to steal it so you can (D) it back and hope they block) and hunting grounds) and maybe a few long term pool gain cards since these take up few master card slots in your deck but can use the master phase slots in the game. Playing only one Haven Uncovered per turn really limits you and having to purchase a Parthenon makes it more expensive for you as well and leaves you less pool for vamps. You can't use 4 or 5 if you can't pass the votes easily so in a standard rush deck, only the first three are viable. Ambush won't work if the vampires tapped and if you're having to ensure vampires are tapped (Anarch Troublemaker, say) then that takes other cards from your deck. Of course, some decks thrive with Ambush but what's the point of using other cards in your deck to tap out your prey's vampires when you're only going to be using it for four cards? And things like Anarch Troublemakers take away from playing your Haven Uncovered's, and if you're taking actions such as Mind Numb or Jar the Soul (as you could do in a Giovanni deck), well, that's your Bum's Rush/Ambush actions made more difficult, isn't it? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35477B30...@uswest.net>, lk...@uswest.net writes >L. Scott Johnson wrote: > >> snip( we've all read it several times if not move up a level) :-)-~ >> >> >Thanx for the support. I think that many players in the US want to play fast >> >pace magic like games though some of them claim to hate magic .My opinion is >> >that longer games that take time to develop are more enjoyable to play. The >> >> 0CL would help toward this goal even more (no library, just vampires - >> that'd be nice and slow to develop :-) > >funny > But it is simply an extension of the argument that you want a slow game with less actions to library resources on a reliable basis. >> >> >> But, since there's that pesky rule about having a 40-card library minimum, >> I guess 1CL would be as close as you could get to this "pinnacle" of >> evolutionary game play. >> >> >4CL helps to acomplish just that.With NCL one card is Pretty much the same >> >as the next.Combos develop more quickly, and the games are much bloodier.A >> >> As long as we're over-generalizing: >> With 4CL, one deck is pretty much the same as the next, since you're >> opportunities for variety are curtailed. > >saying NCL games are more bloody is not over generalizing it's the >truth. No, it's not the truth. As LSJ has said himself, in NL it's quite possible for a game to go a couple of hours very easily. I mean, the DCI rules are strictly NL but they have this little time limit which is set at a minimum of 2 hours. If NL was so bloody, it wouldn't be there. And I've seen games which got stopped because of the time limit. > >using the NL approach as to the what cards are needed 4 of each wouldn't >make the >40 card minimum as a matter of fact it would only be about 1/4" thick >:-) > Let's see... one of the versions of the Marty Lechtansi (a very, very powerful combat deck) has 18 different cards in it. At 4CL, you can easily take that to be 72 cards. Henrietta - a very reliable intercept deck - has about 27 different cards in it. Go Duck Go has 42 cards in it. All of these are decks without 4CL and they're all very playable decks. Go Duck Go variants did very well in my playgroup for a while. Henrietta reliably blocks almost every action it sees. Marty Lechtansi - well, we never played that one ourself, but that is one mighty fine ass^h^h^hdeck. >> >> >> >thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a >> >4CL game focues on the players. >> >> The grande argument: >> >> * The game was designed for NL play. > >by Mr. Garfield the great idea man of gaming history, but don't forget >he's also >the man who brought us Juzam Dijinn. One of the most broken cards in >history. > Juzam Djinn = card NL = game mechanic Big difference. Magic, when first designed, was actually a very elegant game - it just got lynched by people determined to squeeze every last drop out of the rules and screw everyone else over with them (this is called a Magic Tournament, for those of you who haven't seen one in action :) >> >> >> My games last from a minimum of 1 hour for a three player game (which >> usually goes for 90 minutes to two hours), and up to seven hours for >> a six player game (which we finally had to just quit on at 3am instead >> of finishing). The average game is a 4 to 5 player game that lasts for >> three or four hours. >> >> Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table >> talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. >> If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll >> play something else (like RoboRally :-) > >We play very serious. a 12 pack among 5 guys doesn't hinder anyone's >ability to >play hard. I think the point is, though, is that you want to have a bit of a laugh, a joke, swap gossip etc. with each other. LSJ seems to be advocating a slightly more serious style of play group. Obviously, both ways can play the game hard. > >> >> >> I build many different decks (I don't beleive I've ever built >> the same deck twice, and I've played since the game came out). >> >> It's fun to tweak a deck a couple of times to find out what the >> best mix of cards is. > >sure and when you increase the number of cards to choose. It becomes >more of a >challenge thus more fun :-) But the thing is, though, say you want to build a deck which prevents all damage from a strike a fair bit. So that'll be Skin of Steel, Leather Jacket, that Sabbat one I can't remember. In NL, we have to decide how many of each we'd like and juggle the limiting factors. In 4CL, you don't have that choice. It's either that card or nothing - you can't swap one card's quota for another card as you do in NL. > >> >> >> I enjoy playing different (non-archetypical) themes: >> >> Recently: >> >> * All Prince/Justicar Progeny deck (uses 10 3rd traditions and Presence >> skill cards, 6 Consang. Boons and Voter Caps but no more than 5 of >> any other card) >> >> * Ravnos (with only 2 Sensory Dep.s) - any Ravnos deck is non-archetypical, >> I think :-) >> >> * Tremere/Assamite Cel/Tha second-round combat deck. >> >> * Toreador stealth-bleed (!) using Alacrity for stealth (needs a lot of >> blood-gain, esp. to use the Aire of Elations and Pulse of Canailles that >> are sprinkled in the deck - 5th Traditions, etc.) >> >> * (An Archetypical deck, not possible under CL): Settite Corruption. >> >> -- /me notes no argument from the 4CL player as to how these different and varied deck styles would function under 4CL. >> And so on. We never have any problem with falling into a rut and playing >> the same deck composed of 4-6 distinct cards. I don't think anyone does. > >a lot of them did got bored left the game. Sales dropped Thus no more >expansions. >See it's all your guys's fault :-) But you get that anyway. Surely people who you have taught Jyhad to under 4CL have dropped out. Some people just don't like Jyhad. They like <insert plus point of game here> of <insert game name here> instead of the <backplot/intrigue/diplomacy/etc.> of V:TES. It isn't a game to suit everybody. For instance, I really like the look of Babylon 5 at the moment (haven't played it yet) but I know that it wouldn't be for everyone simply because some card games just plain aren't. And, though I know you intended it jokingly, though we would all dearly love another expansion for V:TES, there aren't that many card games which go to a revised basic set and then three expansions, are there? I wouldn't have thought so (though am willing to be proved wrong). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6ia6mt$4...@epx.cis.umn.edu>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > Jeff Endres wrote in message <35491...@hotmail.com>... > >A recent discussion went like this: > > > >LSJ says: > >Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table > >talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. > >If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll > >play something else (like RoboRally :-) > > > >"Eric" says: > >We play very serious. a 12 pack among 5 guys doesn't hinder anyone's > >ability to play hard. > > > > > >Daniel Frey says: > > I wish our playgroup drank while playing. Wrong crowd though. Although > >I don't believe NCL does promote sobriety, although that would change > >this > >whole argument, wouldn't it? > > > Anybody else come up with Jyhad, the drinking game? We decided to implement > it a couple of times...whoever gets the edge takes a shot, oust gets > double... > Sure, we call it Vampire: the Eternal Shtruggle [hips!].

A recent discussion went like this: LSJ says: Beer and conversation are kept to a minimum - except for the table talk - which may be why the games are slightly quicker than yours. If we're not in the mood for a "serious" gaming session, we'll play something else (like RoboRally :-) "Eric" says: We play very serious. a 12 pack among 5 guys doesn't hinder anyone's ability to play hard. Daniel Frey says: I wish our playgroup drank while playing. Wrong crowd though. Although I don't believe NCL does promote sobriety, although that would change this whole argument, wouldn't it? "All you 4CL people are a bunch of lushes!! You too drunk to put together a real deck!!" "Oh yeah, You NCL are a bunch of teetotaling prudes!!", etc. My comments: Hmm, I think that is an interesting point. It seems the 0CL advocates do have somewhat of a win at all costs mentality. But 4CL IMHO, is a little restrictive and with the "multiples" of cards it doesn't really make much sense. My old play-group, which I have just left :-(, played seriously the key term here being "played". We sometimes had a few beers and had a good time in general. Our CL rule? Basically if you were too predictable, you were "coerced" into making a more interesting deck. This generally resulted in about say a 10% card limit. I played a "slim" 80-90 card Setite deck which had about 12 S:CE in Majesties and Stare Downs and copped a bit of abuse. Though since a couple of guys were playing with Pot and Ani it didn't always work that well. In summary a CL needn't cripple your fun or deck ability, and open CL needn't either. If your having fun who cares???? -- Jeff Endres

Xian wrote: > Anybody else come up with Jyhad, the drinking game? We decided to implement > it a couple of times...whoever gets the edge takes a shot, oust gets > double... > I love this! It's too damn bad that almost everyone I play with is pretty much a tea-totaller, or a one beer only for me thanks sort. And I have to side with LSJ - when we want to drink and play, Settlers of Catan or even Taboo comes out instead of the green and brown cardboard. Chris -- Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin ino...@ix.netcom.com "It was Tuesday. That meant steak-and- suspicious-organs pie at the Thieves' Guild... On the whole, he reflected, it could have been a lot worse." Pratchett

Xian wrote: > <snip> > Anybody else come up with Jyhad, the drinking game? We decided to > implement > it a couple of times...whoever gets the edge takes a shot, oust gets > double... > > Since we're not heavy drinkers, simple Raspberry Schnapps is effective > and > suited to the atmosphere... > > It's kinda amusing to take the edge back from someone with a low-bleed > > deck...and if you rely too heavily on bleeding, you get wasted pretty > quick... > > I won't recommend it to everyone, and I'm sure there are a number of > other > options, but every once in a while it's entertaining to see the Setite > > stealth-bleed deck player lolling back in his chair after the shots > start to > impair his playing ability... Almost enough to make me wanna take out a bleed deck again :) David Naseby

lk...@uswest.net wrote: > Another reason a lot of people play > NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than > thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a > 4CL game focues on the players. > > I like to compare 4CL to poker. 4CL, like poker, depends in large part on the luck of the draw. NCL, on the other hand allows the player to significantly reduce if not eliminate the luck factor from the draw (although there are other luck factors, such as what decks your predator and prey are playing, etc). I can't think of a non-collectible card game that is similar, but it does remind me alot of the Games Workshop games, particularly Warhammer and 40K - you spend a lot of time getting your army ready in advance, and then it turns out that your opponent is playing the exact army that is the foil to yours. My NCL group has fizzled out, while a 4CL group is now playing. My mindset is now totally against 4CL, but I may have to breakdown, just to keep playing. We'll see I guess. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote: > lk...@uswest.net wrote: > > > Another reason a lot of people play > > NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than > > thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards while a > > 4CL game focues on the players. > > > > > > I like to compare 4CL to poker. 4CL, like poker, depends in large part on > the luck of the draw. NCL, on the other hand allows the player to significantly > reduce if not eliminate the luck factor from the draw Eliminate luck of the draw?????? why not just allow pre game deck stacking?half the fun is making the cards you have get the job done. and in my group thats the mark of a good player. > (although there are other > luck factors, such as what decks your predator and prey are playing, etc). I > can't think of a non-collectible card game that is similar, but it does remind > me alot of the Games Workshop games, particularly Warhammer and 40K - you spend > a lot of time getting your army ready in advance, and then it turns out that > your opponent is playing the exact army that is the foil to yours. > My NCL group has fizzled out, while a 4CL group is now playing. My mindset > is now totally against 4CL, but I may have to breakdown, just to keep playing. > We'll see I guess. I don't know if you've tried 4CL but after playing for an extended time you'll find yourself using cards that you never used before in ways you never thought of. My recomendation try the 4CL group It'll breath new unlife into your Jyhad experiance .:-) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > > Let's just say that you want to play a Setite Corruption deck. It isn't > necessarily going to be the best or most effective of decks but it's > what you want to play. If 4CL is in place, you can't do it effectively > because you can only use 4 of them.Now, in a NL environment, you could > maybe put something up to 20 of them in which might be about right. > I have an effective settie coruption deck.I got around that problem by > teaming them up with the Giovanni (lots of setties know nec) using Carlotta > and Whispers to recycle the corruption cards by doing this I free up all > that space (20 cards whew) and add stealth bleed.. and once I get one > corruption card off that same card is gonna be played every turn right > before I bleed for 5.thus making a very effective deck.so effective my > group asked me to stop playing it. they thought it was abusive. Eric

> > Anybody else come up with Jyhad, the drinking game? We decided to > > implement it a couple of times...whoever gets the edge takes a shot, oust > > gets double... > > > > I love this! It's too damn bad that almost everyone I play with is pretty > much a tea-totaller, or a one beer only for me thanks sort. And I have to > side with LSJ - when we want to drink and play, Settlers of Catan or even > Taboo comes out instead of the green and brown cardboard. > 'Round here, whoever wins has to refill the bong. A long session of Jyhad can really hurt in the morning... (or at least make it difficult to wake up) 8) -Chris -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

> > teaming them up with the Giovanni (lots of setties know nec) oops ok only one I'm just so used to playing nec cards with setties

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > Anybody else come up with Jyhad, the drinking game? We decided to > > > implement it a couple of times...whoever gets the edge takes a shot, oust > > > gets double... > > > > > > > I love this! It's too damn bad that almost everyone I play with is pretty > > much a tea-totaller, or a one beer only for me thanks sort. And I have to > > side with LSJ - when we want to drink and play, Settlers of Catan or even > > Taboo comes out instead of the green and brown cardboard. > > > 'Round here, whoever wins has to refill the bong. > A long session of Jyhad can really hurt in the morning... > (or at least make it difficult to wake up) 8) right on dude we always seem to play at or around 4:20 as well [ quoted text not captured ]

lk...@uswest.net wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] oops only one settie knows nec

In article <354B8800...@uswest.net>, lk...@uswest.net writes >> I have an effective settie coruption deck.I got around that problem by >> teaming them up with the Giovanni (lots of setties know nec) using Carlotta >> and Whispers to recycle the corruption cards by doing this I free up all >> that space (20 cards whew) and add stealth bleed.. and once I get one >> corruption card off that same card is gonna be played every turn right >> before I bleed for 5.thus making a very effective deck.so effective my >> group asked me to stop playing it. they thought it was abusive. Well, that's not really an argument. What happens if I want to play a deck and don't want to waste card slots on Carlotta giovanni or Whispers from the Dead. Carlotta is 7 pool which is a lot. Whispers from the Dead - well, I can only have four of it in the deck so is the effort with those Necromancy Masters worth it at all? If I was playing a deck where I could cross-over the disciplines then maybe, yes, I would want to put Carlotta in it - say, I was playing a heavy Potence deck or maybe Potence Obfuscate or something like that. But 7 pool just for the privilege of slowly recycling cards? I'd rather not. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] but thats not the point my point was that the "unbuildable" deck could be built under a CL you just have to be creative about it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > > Another reason a lot of people play > > > NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than > > > thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards > > > while a 4CL game focues on the players. > > > > > > > > > > I like to compare 4CL to poker. 4CL, like poker, depends in large part on > > the luck of the draw. NCL, on the other hand allows the player to > > significantly reduce if not eliminate the luck factor from the draw > > Eliminate luck of the draw?????? why not just allow pre game deck > stacking?half the fun is making the cards you have get the job done. and in > my group thats the mark of a good player. > But the game should be based mostly on your deck construction and playing skill and less on your deck. Knowing when to play 3 Traps because you've got 10 more in the deck, or else save the Traps and play one each combat this turn. Or when to keep the balance of Carrion Crows/DotB constant, or to play one without the other. Stuff like that rarely happens to me in 4CL, because I simply cycle everything to get at the crap shoot in the rest of the deck. Further, I find that the "luck" in a 4CL deck *isn't* whether or not you get bleed cards when you need them, but it's whether you get the GtU or Scouting Mission when you really need 3 blood on your vampire. In a good NL deck, you'll *know* whether GtU or Scouting Mission is better to use more of. > > (although there are other > > luck factors, such as what decks your predator and prey are playing, etc). > > I can't think of a non-collectible card game that is similar, but it does > > remind me alot of the Games Workshop games, particularly Warhammer and 40K > > - you spend > > a lot of time getting your army ready in advance, and then it turns out > > that your opponent is playing the exact army that is the foil to yours. > > My NCL group has fizzled out, while a 4CL group is now playing. My > > mindset is now totally against 4CL, but I may have to breakdown, just to > > keep playing. We'll see I guess. > > I don't know if you've tried 4CL but after playing for an extended time > you'll find yourself using cards that you never used before in ways you > never thought of. My recomendation try the 4CL group It'll breath new unlife > into your Jyhad experiance > .:-) > The point is, most of us *have* tried 4CL before learning the errors of our ways. When my friend first put 11 Taste of Vitae in a deck, we howled "4 of a kind." But then we realized... "Hey! Now you can actually build an effective Tremere deck. And without huge multiples of the rares." When the Nos player first used 6 Faceless Night, we screamed, "use Elder Impersonation." But we soon realized the joys of subtle variations. Now there is more strategy to deck-building than simple choosing a clan and piling on 4 of the useful cards in each discipline. And when I used 6 Ascendance in lieu of Short Terms and Protracted Investment, I was laughed at. But we realized the tradeoff of cards for speed. More cards can give you a quicker combo sometimes, but the number of cards itself is the cost. Soon we realized that there was more to the game than bleed, block, stealth, intercept, fight. A vote deck popped up that was actually usable. It was never viable before because of a lack of protection in combat. The Giovanni made an appearance. And the Nos became a real annoyance, rather than a speed bump. If I could better express the degree to which my playgroup was improved by NL, I would, but I suspect I am talking to a small cadre of zealots out there. I've said myself that if you're in the majority, there's a good chance you're wrong, but in this case I stand by my convictions. House rules aside, the game was designed for NL, and that's how it should be played. In your own group, however, feel free to place whatever limits you want. I suggest a 0 card limit myself. Or maybe a 4 card minimum (at least 4 copies of each card). Or how about requiring a deck to be constructed of 80 copies of a single card. If you don't own enough of any card, you can't play. I'll play a Restoration deck, myself. 8) [ quoted text not captured ]

Although only one Setite knows Nec, the mummies Akhenaten and Kherebutu are also versed in the Black Arts. Anyway, this has certainly got me thinking about Giovanni/Setite decks. I meant to make one a while back but never did. While I'm burbling aloud about this, has anyone got any experience of a burn-the-Princes deck? It has a 20-odd crypt full of BIG princes capacity 8-10 - lots of Anson, Queen Anne and Francois Villon. Key disciplines are nec, obf and pre. You bring Anson out, clan impersonate him to Ravnos, and then you burn your own crypt using "Goodnight, Sweet Prince" followed by Redeem the Lost Soul. Gains you 4-5 pool per turn. One version of this deck burns your hand using Deal with the Devil - necessary because the high number of master cards can lead to hand-jam. You give everyone NEC and then you recover cards from your asheaps using Possession and Whispers. Seems to me it's a killer, but I've never actually used it seriously. Tips/comments, anyone?

Yeah, I used to play chess in the official, unlimited-look-ahead style. That got pretty boring - each player always making his best move every time. Who can play the four-knights opening more than a few times before it gets boring? I think that's why chess is losing popularity. Now we play with a 4-move-look-ahead-limit. It's much more fun. We find ourselves making moves we never would have made before. It's fun to try to win making only a few great moves in the game, and using those few great moves to recover from the fair (or worse) moves you made earlier due to 4MLAL. Plus, it's less intimidating to newbies, who can't look that far ahead anyhow. ========== Anarch (I'd use my initials, but that's pretty boring, too :-)

In article <354B8800...@uswest.net>, lk...@uswest.net wrote: > I have an effective settie coruption deck.I got around that problem by > teaming them up with the Giovanni (lots of setties know nec) using Carlotta Only one Follower of Set knows nec. But you already know that - you built the deck ;-) > and Whispers to recycle the corruption cards by doing this I free up all > that space (20 cards whew) and add stealth bleed.. and once I get one > corruption card off that same card is gonna be played every turn right > before I bleed for 5.thus making a very effective deck.so effective my > group asked me to stop playing it. they thought it was abusive. Great - 1 Corruption every turn for two actions and one blood. And then it only begins once you draw your first Corruption, which can be quite a number of turns since you only have four. And how many Carlottas do you use? Less than three and she doesn't come out reliably, three or more and she'll tend to clog your uncontrolled region. Corruption is a barely viable strategy when done properly, I can't see how this crippled version can be "very effective". -- Aside: our group would never even consider asking a player to stop playing a certain type of deck. The "please don't hurt me" meta-game isn't required in NL. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | And to think I didn't believe http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | THEM when THEY told me you Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | were paranoid. [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman schrieb: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at writes: > > > I find it cool that you play by the 4CL. I'm from Vienna > > and we all play under 4CL. I think most Europeans do. > > I think all you said was right. > > Actually, everyone I know here in Finland plays no limits. We haven't > run into any problems, either in casual play or tournaments. 4CL (or > something similar) would make many fun deck types impossible (how on > earth do you build a working rush deck under 4CL?). > > //Petri I got the impression that there are many groups in Europe that do play under CL. Am I totally mistaken? Do only the Viennese players have a CL? Odd. But, as we are running our regular league (this year is the fourth season), we decided to see, what happens if we run a separate 6CL-league. So far we don't have any tangible results, but I will keep all of you who are interested informed.

lk...@pop.mpls.uswest.net schrieb: > I've been playing Jyhad since about an hour after it hit the shelves. > I've been on the Web for less than 6 months. I was kinda pleased to > stumble on to this group, and commented on a couple decks. happened to > > mention a 4 card limit. Apparently you guys have been hashing this out > > for some time. Well while you guys were arguing I was playing cards. > > (snip the rest of the message) IMHO it seems that supporters of CL and NL have dug themselves in. Almost no arguments will convince the other side (almost! There are some good ones on both side). I think that nobody disagrees that official tournaments are being run with NL. That's O.K. In private games, however, everyone should play the way the group likes (what everyone does anyway, he he). Wouldn't it be interesting to see how the players can cope with the other environment? Why not making a tournament format, where you have to play NL and CL (and perhaps sealed as well (great fun, and fun's all that V:TES is about!!!)) to tell who is the *best* player? At the moment we players should worry a lot more about the unsafe future of our most beloved game! Let's focus on bringing new players into V:TES rather than having endless, and in the end useless, heated discussions about a topic that's making no difference. Newbies could easily be scared away by such discussions. Thanks, just my, hm, was that 6 or 7.4 cent? worth of it :-)

Please excuse my diversion into the subtleties of chess, but I might actually have a V:TES point to make as well. (I'm not sure yet.) > > Yeah, I used to play chess in the official, unlimited-look-ahead style. That got pretty > boring - each player always making his best move every time. Who can play the four-knights > opening more than a few times before it gets boring? I think that's why chess is losing > popularity. > 4-knights opening? You think that's your best move? Ever try a King's Knight's Pawn opening? Surprises the hell out of your opponent and actually puts you in a good tactical position. The Danish Gambit puts you behind two pawns, but while your opponent spends all of his first few moves with a single pawn, you have developed half of your pieces. And the English Opening, while I have never mastered it, is loved by many, and countered by few. I suppose if you're playing against Grand Masters, you may want to stick to the tried-and-true methods, but the fact is, chess evolves. New strategies have been coming around since the game was conceived. And your best bet depends as much on your opponent's mindset as on the actual pieces and moves. If your opponents are all set on using the 4 Knights Opening, you should exploit that. Do something that will prevent them from moving their Knights. Cut off from what they want to do will leave them frustrated and open for the easy kill. > Now we play with a 4-move-look-ahead-limit. It's much more fun. We find ourselves making > moves we never would have made before. It's fun to try to win making only a few great > moves in the game, and using those few great moves to recover from the fair (or worse) > moves you made earlier due to 4MLAL. > > Plus, it's less intimidating to newbies, who can't look that far ahead anyhow. > Yes, but if you only look 4 moves ahead, you miss out on a lot of interesting strategies. The English Opening and Danish Gambit seem stupid. Castling will always occur. You will almost never pull off a Knight fork. Once you get down to a King and a Queen vs. a King, whether or not you win will be based entirely on luck, since it usually takes more than 4 moves to finish them off, and stalemate is still possible. You will never know the sheer joy of having 2 fianchetto'ed Bishops. In NL, you can do all these things. Sure, maybe 4MLAL will be good for the beginners, but once you've advanced beyond that stage, why pollute the game? If you cannot see my references to Jyhad above, look closer. I think I've finished making my point. Also... how the hell do you limit look-ahead in chess?!? I could see limiting it on a computer, but at certain times you just *know* that a Knight in a certain position is good because it can do something in 5 more moves. And stuff like that. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > > > > Another reason a lot of people play > > > > NCL is because it is easier to play. They rely on thier cards more than > > > > thier skill in playing them.in short a NCL game focuses on the cards > > > > while a 4CL game focues on the players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like to compare 4CL to poker. 4CL, like poker, depends in large part on > > > the luck of the draw. NCL, on the other hand allows the player to > > > significantly reduce if not eliminate the luck factor from the draw > > > > Eliminate luck of the draw?????? why not just allow pre game deck > > stacking?half the fun is making the cards you have get the job done. and in > > my group thats the mark of a good player. > > > But the game should be based mostly on your deck construction and playing > skill and less on your deck. Knowing when to play 3 Traps because you've got > 10 more in the deck, or else save the Traps and play one each combat this > turn. Or when to keep the balance of Carrion Crows/DotB constant, or to play > one without the other. Stuff like that rarely happens to me in 4CL, because I > simply cycle everything to get at the crap shoot in the rest of the deck. > Further, I find that the "luck" in a 4CL deck *isn't* whether or not you get > bleed cards when you need them, but it's whether you get the GtU or Scouting > Mission when you really need 3 blood on your vampire. In a good NL deck, > you'll *know* whether GtU or Scouting Mission is better to use more of how??? do you already know what your opponents decks are, and thus not have the need to be versatile use both GtU and SM sometimes you have the blood sometimes you don't. certian situations call for different cards just using scouting mission because "my vamps are small" is not much consolation whan you come up one pool short on the bleed that could have killed your prey. Then getting ousted before you get another chance. > . > > > > > I don't know if you've tried 4CL but after playing for an extended time > > you'll find yourself using cards that you never used before in ways you > > never thought of. My recomendation try the 4CL group It'll breath new unlife > > into your Jyhad experiance > > .:-) > > > The point is, most of us *have* tried 4CL before learning the errors of our > ways. When my friend first put 11 Taste of Vitae in a deck, we howled "4 of a > kind." But then we realized... "Hey! Now you can actually build an effective > Tremere deck. And without huge multiples of the rares." When the Nos player > first used 6 Faceless Night, we screamed, "use Elder Impersonation." But we > soon realized the joys of subtle variations. Now there is more strategy to > deck-building than simple choosing a clan and piling on 4 of the useful cards > in each discipline. And when I used 6 Ascendance in lieu of Short Terms and > Protracted Investment, I was laughed at. well I see why one short term is worth 2 ascendance protracted is worth 3 freeing up card slots for other things the 1 pool cost of the short term makes up for the card slots in my opinion anyway > But we realized the tradeoff of > cards for speed. More cards can give you a quicker combo sometimes, but the > number of cards itself is the cost. Soon we realized that there was more to > the game than bleed, block, stealth, intercept, fight. A vote deck popped up > that was actually usable. It was never viable before because of a lack of > protection in combat. mines quite viable with 44's and zip guns as well as majesty and dodge when your gaining large amounts of pool with Cboons ect. you can let some bleeds go. bum rush can be an anoyance but with only having to face 4 or less in a game you can usualy survive it > The Giovanni made an appearance. the Giovanni rule around my house my giovanni decks are always ganged up on because the other players know how deadly they are > And the Nos became a > real annoyance, rather than a speed bump. > > If I could better express the degree to which my playgroup was improved by NL, > I would, but I suspect I am talking to a small cadre of zealots out there. > I've said myself that if you're in the majority, there's a good chance you're > wrong, but in this case I stand by my convictions. House rules aside, the > game was designed for NL, and that's how it should be played. In your own > group, however, feel free to place whatever limits you want. I suggest a 0 > card limit myself. Or maybe a 4 card minimum (at least 4 copies of each > card). Or how about requiring a deck to be constructed of 80 copies of a > single card. If you don't own enough of any card, you can't play. I'll play > a Restoration deck, myself. 8) if you don't own enough of one card you cant play competatively in NCL at all. how can you make a lopsided rush deck if you only have 2 rushes 4cl is much more fair to new players > > > Eric

> well I see why one short term is worth 2 ascendance protracted is worth 3 > freeing up card slots for other things the 1 pool cost of the short term > makes up for the card slots in my opinion anyway > Well, also Ascendance costs 1 master phase per pool gained, whereas Short Term costs 2 masters per pool gained. That's a big difference if you want to play with a reasonable number of masters. Protracted Investment(and Secret Horde which actually obsoletes Protracted) also costs 2 masters per pool gained, but the fact that you need to risk more than with Short Term makes it a little worse IMO. > if you don't own enough of one card you cant play competatively in NCL at > all. how can you make a lopsided rush deck if you only have 2 rushes 4cl is > much more fair to new players > Come now, let's not be naive. Is it more likely that you will own 12 Torn Signposts, or that you will own 4 each of Increased Strength, Fists of Death, and Fire in the Blood? The fact is, in 4CL, multiples of rares are needed to make up for the fact that you are limited to 4 of each common. Give arguments of increased variability if you will, but don't try to tell me that 4CL is more fair to those with limited cards. It is much easier to buy (or get someone to give you) 12 of any commons you need than it is to get 4 of each of the broken rares you need in a 4CL deck. Many good NL decks can be made with only commons and a few uncommons. The same cannot be said for 4CL. And with Immortal Grapple now uncommon in Sabbat, this is even more so. Sure, there were a few mistakes with rares being too powerful, but this is only augmented by placing an artificial limit on the number of each common you can use. I hold still that the only really competitive deck in 4CL is the Malk S&B. And it is also the only one that can be made with mostly commons. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6in1qf$td$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > well I see why one short term is worth 2 ascendance protracted is worth 3 > > freeing up card slots for other things the 1 pool cost of the short term > > makes up for the card slots in my opinion anyway > > > Well, also Ascendance costs 1 master phase per pool gained, whereas Short Term > costs 2 masters per pool gained. That's a big difference if you want to play > with a reasonable number of masters. Protracted Investment(and Secret Horde > which actually obsoletes Protracted) also costs 2 masters per pool gained, but 2-per-pool, plus one (since you have to play the card in the first place). Ascendance: 1cardslot, 1MPA, 1pool STI: 1cardslot, 4MPA, 2pool PI: 1cardslot, 7MPA, 3pool SecretHorde: 1cardslot, 1+(2*X)MPA, Xpool -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > well I see why one short term is worth 2 ascendance protracted is worth 3 > > > freeing up card slots for other things the 1 pool cost of the short term > > > makes up for the card slots in my opinion anyway > > > > > Well, also Ascendance costs 1 master phase per pool gained, whereas Short > Term > > costs 2 masters per pool gained. That's a big difference if you want to > play > > with a reasonable number of masters. Protracted Investment(and Secret Horde > > which actually obsoletes Protracted) also costs 2 masters per pool gained, > but > > 2-per-pool, plus one (since you have to play the card in the first place). > > Ascendance: 1cardslot, 1MPA, 1pool > STI: 1cardslot, 4MPA, 2pool > PI: 1cardslot, 7MPA, 3pool > SecretHorde: 1cardslot, 1+(2*X)MPA, Xpool > Yes, yes... I realized that just after I posted it. I should have known you'd correct me immediately... 8) So PI and Secret Horde are even worse investments than I had imagined. Although Secret Horde has the variability factor which is always good. In my new playgroup (I just recently found a playgroup in Pasadena. Other stories about my playgroup are about the one back home in Chicago), we've got some sealed deck league games going. For some reason, it's common for people to spend 5 pool on a Secret Horde. After 5 turns, they've broken even. Even in league, the winner is usually mostly decided by that time. And that's only if they don't play any other masters. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > But the game should be based mostly on your deck construction and playing > skill and less on your deck. Knowing when to play 3 Traps because you've got > 10 more in the deck, or else save the Traps and play one each combat this > turn. Or when to keep the balance of Carrion Crows/DotB constant, or to play > one without the other. Stuff like that rarely happens to me in 4CL, because I > simply cycle everything to get at the crap shoot in the rest of the deck. I do not believe that NCL demands higher deck construction or playing skill. The examples you give are perfectly reasonable, but in a 4CL group you see many unusual situations, and I think this gives you a better understanding of game possibilities. I'm trying very hard to be reasonable about this, so I'll add that NCL gives better insight into the building of "competitive" decks. These are just different aspects of game skill, which are not incompatible. > > Further, I find that the "luck" in a 4CL deck *isn't* whether or not you get > bleed cards when you need them, but it's whether you get the GtU or Scouting > Mission when you really need 3 blood on your vampire. In a good NL deck, > you'll *know* whether GtU or Scouting Mission is better to use more of. > IMHO predictability is not the only goal in jyhad. Besides, deciding wether to keep a card in hand or not (like a disguised weapon, when you hope an useful weapon will come soon) is an interesting tactical problem, and it makes Elder Library, Cassandra & such fairly rewarding. > > The point is, most of us *have* tried 4CL before learning the errors of our > ways. This is true. Most NCL players have tried 4CL. And most 4CL players have tried 4CL. So what? I've read in several posts that European players _tend_ to play 4CL, unlike their lucky American buddies. (lucky, because of card prices & availability!) What does that mean? I don't know. > When my friend first put 11 Taste of Vitae in a deck, we howled "4 of a > kind." But then we realized... "Hey! Now you can actually build an effective > Tremere deck. And without huge multiples of the rares." When the Nos player > first used 6 Faceless Night, we screamed, "use Elder Impersonation." But we > soon realized the joys of subtle variations. Now there is more strategy to > deck-building than simple choosing a clan and piling on 4 of the useful cards > in each discipline. And when I used 6 Ascendance in lieu of Short Terms and > Protracted Investment, I was laughed at. But we realized the tradeoff of > cards for speed. More cards can give you a quicker combo sometimes, but the > number of cards itself is the cost. Soon we realized that there was more to > the game than bleed, block, stealth, intercept, fight. A vote deck popped up > that was actually usable. It was never viable before because of a lack of > protection in combat. The Giovanni made an appearance. And the Nos became a > real annoyance, rather than a speed bump. The only things I can say are: - I've seen and played many, many effective 4CL Tremere decks, (what rares are that important to this deck, please?) - Choosing a clan and piling on 4 of the useful cards in each discipline is a very bad way to design a 4CL deck. It won't get you anywhere. That's why I said that deck building skills are important to 4CL players (as to NCL). A deck you design like that is very likely to get toasted easily at any average 4CL game. > > If I could better express the degree to which my playgroup was improved by NL, > I would, but I suspect I am talking to a small cadre of zealots out there. > I've said myself that if you're in the majority, there's a good chance you're > wrong, but in this case I stand by my convictions. I'm sure this is true. Your playgroup was such that NCL was a better thing. You all feel it was a good decision. My group feels exactly the same about 4CL. I never tried to convert anybody. I just think it strange how some people feel it's important that I see how NCL is so much better. > House rules aside, the > game was designed for NL, and that's how it should be played. This argument sounds lame to me. If I feel 4CL is better, and the creator of the game tells me NCL is the way it should be, how should this convince me? It could incite me to try NCL and find out by myself. Sure, I've done that. But, please, Mr WotC and WW and LBJ, don't feel upset if I do it my way. I still love you all :) > In your own > group, however, feel free to place whatever limits you want. I suggest a 0 > card limit myself. Or maybe a 4 card minimum (at least 4 copies of each > card). Or how about requiring a deck to be constructed of 80 copies of a > single card. If you don't own enough of any card, you can't play. I'll play > a Restoration deck, myself. 8) I'll play a Renagade Deck myself. Have a nice day! L~R

> Aside: our group would never even consider asking a player to stop > playing a certain type of deck. The "please don't hurt me" meta-game > isn't required in NL. There is variant of this plea: "Please, let's have fun all of us". It's meta-game, and it's a good thing nevertheless. L~R

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Come now, let's not be naive. Is it more likely that you will own 12 Torn > Signposts, or that you will own 4 each of Increased Strength, Fists of Death, > and Fire in the Blood? The fact is, in 4CL, multiples of rares are needed to > make up for the fact that you are limited to 4 of each common. Give arguments > of increased variability if you will, but don't try to tell me that 4CL is > more fair to those with limited cards. It is much easier to buy (or get > someone to give you) 12 of any commons you need than it is to get 4 of each of > the broken rares you need in a 4CL deck. Many good NL decks can be made with > only commons and a few uncommons. The same cannot be said for 4CL. And with > Immortal Grapple now uncommon in Sabbat, this is even more so. Sure, there > were a few mistakes with rares being too powerful, but this is only augmented > by placing an artificial limit on the number of each common you can use. I disagree completely. One of the reasons Jyhad (4CL or NCL) is great is that you can build massively successful decks with only 10 or 12 uncommons or rares. But, as I've said over and over again (with NO answer from anybody, sadly), being successful isn't all there is in a game of Jyhad. I play to win (partly), but also tohave fun. So putting 4 of each broken card is definitely bad IMHO. > > I hold still that the only really competitive deck in 4CL is the Malk S&B. > And it is also the only one that can be made with mostly commons. Yes, in 4CL S&B is the champ. So what? It only matters if everybody keeps on playing them, which is unlikely since after a while you'd get bored. And (see above), I believe it is absolutely false that S&B is the only competitive 4CL deck made up of commons. L~R

One of the reasons Jyhad (4CL or NCL) is great > is that you can build massively successful decks with only 10 or 12 > uncommons or rares. But, as I've said over and over again (with NO > answer from anybody, sadly), being successful isn't all there is in a > game of Jyhad. I play to win (partly), but also tohave fun. So putting 4 > of each broken card is definitely bad IMHO. WHOA!!!! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! SO MUCH THAT MY NECK IS BURSTING WITH AGREEMENT!!! I SEE JYHAD AS THE ULTIMATE ROLE-PLAYING GAME FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LIFE!!!!!! We actually had a big dish-down a coupla months back on the Newsgroup about "broken" cards, that was really about a lot of other issues as well, including the right balance between competitive and fun play. At one point I made the universally-ignored but I think valid point that tournaments are like one-night stands and normal Jyhad is more like a long-term relationship. One night stands are exciting, intense but not really deep in the sense that a long-term relationship can be. And if you try to run your marriage/long term partnership like a series of one-night stands you will come unstuck, brothers and sisters ..... hey, I've just had an interesting thought ..... how many of the "uncompetitive" players [like me] actually usually play Jyhad games that include their, um, Significant Other[s]? Perhaps this is the key to the disagreement? I mention this because we DID for a while go over to really competitive decks, and then went back to the fun/role-playing decks, largely because my wife insisted on it. >

In article <35582E6C...@opium.fr>, Lambach <rut...@opium.fr> wrote: > Yes, in 4CL S&B is the champ. So what? It only matters if everybody > keeps on playing them, which is unlikely since after a while you'd get > bored. And (see above), I believe it is absolutely false that S&B is the > only competitive 4CL deck made up of commons. Whereas in article <3557297F...@opium.fr>, Lambach <rut...@opium.fr> wrote: > A pleasant consequence of our 4CL conversion was that, yes, indeed, >StealthBleed decks were ultra powerful in comparison to others. So, >after a few games of 2 S&B decks vs 4 "weak" decks, and after the >resulting "all S&B decks" period that followed, [...] Without addressing the truth value of any of the following quotes, I would like to point out that "S&B decks in 4CL are ultra-powerful in comparison to others" and "S&B is the champ in 4CL" both mean "It is true that S&B is the only competitive 4CL deck." -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Three can keep a secret... http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | if two are dead. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Legbiter wrote: > One of the reasons Jyhad (4CL or NCL) is great > > is that you can build massively successful decks with only 10 or 12 > > uncommons or rares. But, as I've said over and over again (with NO > > answer from anybody, sadly), being successful isn't all there is in > a > > game of Jyhad. I play to win (partly), but also tohave fun. So > putting 4 > > of each broken card is definitely bad IMHO. > > WHOA!!!! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! SO MUCH THAT MY NECK IS BURSTING WITH > AGREEMENT!!! I SEE JYHAD AS THE ULTIMATE ROLE-PLAYING GAME FOR PEOPLE > WHO > HAVE A LIFE!!!!!! > Jyhad is a game. There are only two reasons why I play a game: because it is fun and because I can learn perhaps playing. (And I learned a lot about the human psyche playing Jyhad, I can tell. Especially how people can be intimidated, convinced, bribed, corrupted to support my point of view ;) > At one point I made the universally-ignored but I think valid point > that > tournaments are like one-night stands and normal Jyhad is more like a > long-term relationship. One night stands are exciting, intense but not > > really deep in the sense that a long-term relationship can be. Good point. And a fitting metapher. > And if you try to run your marriage/long term partnership like a > series of one-night > stands you will come unstuck, brothers and sisters ..... hey, I've > just > had an interesting thought ..... how many of the "uncompetitive" > players > [like me] actually usually play Jyhad games that include their, um, > Significant Other[s]? Perhaps this is the key to the disagreement? I > mention this because we DID for a while go over to really competitive > decks, and then went back to the fun/role-playing decks, largely > because > my wife insisted on it. > > We found it boring playing extremely fast killer decks, because we want to play cat and mouse with our preys, not just ripping his or her head off and continue to the next victim. It is just more fun. (And: the players represent incredibly BORED Methusalahs, trying to give their eternal existance a meaning, or at least an interesting touch) Michael Beer

4CL rule. Right here. I agree absolutely.

> "S&B decks in 4CL are ultra-powerful in comparison to others" > and "S&B is the champ in 4CL" both mean > "It is true that S&B is the only competitive 4CL deck." Agreed, but it might not be very significant: when you want to play competitive, you go NCL. So it would be true to say: "S&B is the MOST competitive 4CL deck"; "4CL is not competition-oriented." Thus "S&B is quite irrelevant to 4CL." And, if I may ask AGAIN: Has anybody heard of a 4CL group constistently playing S&B? (This is a real question, not just rethorics!) L~R PS: If what I wrote doesn't make any sense, that's because I'm drunk. Sorryj!

6in1qf$td$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35582E6C...@opium.fr> <6j9vv3$dqr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <355CF3DD...@polytechnique.fr> Distribution: Lambach (rut...@polytechnique.fr) wrote: : And, if I may ask AGAIN: Has anybody heard of a 4CL group constistently : playing S&B? (This is a real question, not just rethorics!) Well, in the Ithaca group, during the 4CL era, we had a nasty S&B deck which was very successful. Incidentally, in NCL the deck has not changed very much and is still fairly successful. This person had only the one deck, so every time he played, he played this deck. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu Department of Mathematics University of Wisconsin -- Madison

> > > "S&B decks in 4CL are ultra-powerful in comparison to others" > > and "S&B is the champ in 4CL" both mean > > "It is true that S&B is the only competitive 4CL deck." > > Agreed, but it might not be very significant: when you want to play > competitive, you go NCL. So it would be true to say: "S&B is the MOST > competitive 4CL deck"; "4CL is not competition-oriented." Thus "S&B is > quite irrelevant to 4CL." > And, if I may ask AGAIN: Has anybody heard of a 4CL group constistently > playing S&B? (This is a real question, not just rethorics!) > Actually yes. Someone always plays S&B until shamed out of it. Since this shame out of "cheesy decks" is subjective, you may be able to have a Lasombra S&B or a Malkavian Disguised Weapon deck, but not a Malkavian S&B. But it only takes a small bit of deviation before someone decides that the Malk DW deck is really an S&B. So, I always, always, always hear people on the newsgroup talking about how they need to shame people out of playing S&B. This resort to metagaming (a dirty word in Live Action Role-Playing, but not quite so bad in Jyhad) to even things out. Also, in my playgroup back home, we had an S&B deck that was consistently played and was consistently ganged-up on. This was before we switched to NL. He whined about being ganged up on, but he still always won. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]