Voting dead?

Daniel Hoffman (dhof...@cris.com) wrote: : I saw some messages in which people said that voting decks were defacto dead? : What led them to that conclusion? Tournament rules restrict several of the powerful voting cards [such as Kine Resources Contested, Sabbat Threat, etc.] to only two per deck instead of the regular 4-Card limit that other cards have. The people who feel that these decks are dead probably relied on those "power vote" cards to win [personally, I never used KRC at all... Maybe I should give it a look...] -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicole Janine Purvis <npu...@tiger.lsu.edu> wrote: >Daniel Hoffman (dhof...@cris.com) wrote: >: I saw some messages in which people said that voting decks were defacto dead? >: What led them to that conclusion? > > Tournament rules restrict several of the powerful voting cards [such as >Kine Resources Contested, Sabbat Threat, etc.] to only two per deck >instead of the regular 4-Card limit that other cards have. Note that there is no such thing as a "regular 4-Card limit". You can put as many of a certain card as you want in your deck, unless it's on the "restricted" list, in which case you can have only two. >The people who feel that these decks are dead probably relied on those "power >vote" cards to win [personally, I never used KRC at all... Maybe I should give >it a look...] These cards were put on the restricted list because the "weenie vote pushing deck" strategy scared people. That's the one where a deck full of nothing but KRC's always passes the vote, as the player plays his KRC and dumps 6 more >from his hands for 7 total votes. A better fix would be to restrict the dumping of vote cards for extra votes. Without these cards, voting decks in tourny's are effectively crippled. Why? Because the tourny rules also specify that the only way to advance is to oust people, and you gotta do it in a ridiculously short time. Voting decks have problems ousting people quick if they can't vote to directly damage people. Of course, I think that most people get around these silly restrictions by simply not even bothering with DC sanctioning, and setting up their own tourny rules. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

In article <dhoffman.7...@cris.com>, dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: > I saw some messages in which people said that voting decks were defacto dead? > What led them to that conclusion? No, it was "de facto banned." In tournament rules, you can only have 2 of any one vote card that causes players to lose pool. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

In article <s291.121...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) spammed: #In article <4ags53$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) #writes: #>With the restricted list, there's no way to oust your prey with votes. #>Hence the de facto ban. The only way left is Anarch Revolt/gain blood #>techniques. # #I disagree. Usually when I play a vote deck, I wait until my prey has #invested blood in bringing out vamps or whatever, using that time for putting #Obfuscate cards on my vamps (so the vote won't get blocked) and calling Praxis #Seizures. When my prey has invested a little and gets down to around 12 #blood, then I make my move. At this point, you can take someone out with 2 #KRC's and an Ancilla Empowerment, and maybe a quick bleed. # #I'm not defending the tourny rules -- they need a LOT of changing. I am just #saying you don't need 25 KRC's to win with votes. I agree with Dave on both counts. The tourney rules need to be tweaked and you don't need a ton of KRC to win with a vote deck... but then I play with the 4 card limit. Which I might add gives no deck or combo, or any one player an advantage, since you are all playing under the same limitation, nor does it cripple any deck design since once again, everyone has the same restriction or rule to play by. -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com

In article <4ags53$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >With the restricted list, there's no way to oust your prey with votes. >Hence the de facto ban. The only way left is Anarch Revolt/gain blood >techniques. I disagree. Usually when I play a vote deck, I wait until my prey has invested blood in bringing out vamps or whatever, using that time for putting Obfuscate cards on my vamps (so the vote won't get blocked) and calling Praxis Seizures. When my prey has invested a little and gets down to around 12 blood, then I make my move. At this point, you can take someone out with 2 KRC's and an Ancilla Empowerment, and maybe a quick bleed. I'm not defending the tourny rules -- they need a LOT of changing. I am just saying you don't need 25 KRC's to win with votes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

Hi Greg, On 13 Dec 1995, Greg Zuvich wrote: > #I'm not defending the tourny rules -- they need a LOT of changing. I am just > #saying you don't need 25 KRC's to win with votes. > > I agree with Dave on both counts. The tourney rules need to be tweaked and you > don't need a ton of KRC to win with a vote deck... but then I play with the 4 > card limit. Which I might add gives no deck or combo, or any one player an > advantage, since you are all playing under the same limitation, nor does it > cripple any deck design since once again, everyone has the same restriction or > rule to play by. > > -- > Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com Actually, your 4 CL decks were extremely limited. We have tremendous variety in our games, no one ever knows what kind of deck they will be facing. I've had awesome vote decks stoped by Intercept/Combat decks, Malkavian decks run out of vampires (controlled ones), none of this would have been possible with 4CL.... Algustas *****That's the way it is in war. You win or lose, live or die - and the difference is just an eyelash.***** Douglas MacArthur

In article <4amsc0$1...@symiserver2.symantec.com> gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: > >... but then I play with the 4 >card limit. Which I might add gives no deck or combo, or any one player an >advantage, since you are all playing under the same limitation, nor does it >cripple any deck design since once again, everyone has the same restriction or >rule to play by. Well, nor does playing with no card limits give any deck, combo, or player any advantage, since everyone has the same restriction or rule to play by. Nor does just rolling dice to see who wins. Fair game for everybody. If you think that putting in 4 card limits `improves the game', stop mentioning the `fair game' argument, because it is completely irrelevent to whether 4 card limit would improve the game. Just saying "I think it improves the game" is fine, or give a substantial reason. Anyone with half a brain won't be impressed by a `reason' that is totally irrelevent. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951213222931.20881A-100000@gladstone>, Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> spammed: #> I agree with Dave on both counts. The tourney rules need to be tweaked and #you #> don't need a ton of KRC to win with a vote deck... but then I play with the 4 #> card limit. Which I might add gives no deck or combo, or any one player an #> advantage, since you are all playing under the same limitation, nor does it #> cripple any deck design since once again, everyone has the same restriction #> or rule to play by. #> #> -- #> Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com # # Actually, your 4 CL decks were extremely limited. We have #tremendous variety in our games, no one ever knows what kind of deck they #will be facing. I've had awesome vote decks stoped by Intercept/Combat #decks, Malkavian decks run out of vampires (controlled ones), none of #this would have been possible with 4CL.... I couldn't disagree with you more. All the things you just stated happen on a regular basis with a 4CL. I hate to say this once again but, *NO ONE DECK IS CRIPPLED, NOR IS ANY ONE DECK GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE WITH A 4CL, NOR DOES IT PROHIBIT CREATIVE DESIGN* This is all based on my personal experience. Also, from what I can see as long as the group in question is playing by the same rules, ie- no card limit, or the 4CL, then everything is fair. Each way of playing balances itself. It all comes down to preferences. I happen to think the 4CL is better and more fun to play with, this does not mean you don't get the same balance with no card limit or anything as such, it is just my preference. There are two ways to play it; 4CL or not. They are both equally as good. What I won't agree to is that the 4CL is bad or unbalanced or even limiting, because that is simply not true. I know this puts me in the *extreme* minority in this newsgroup, but hey, that's my preference and it's the way I like to play the game. -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com

Hi Greg, On 14 Dec 1995, Greg Zuvich wrote: > In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951213222931.20881A-100000@gladstone>, Algustas > <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> spammed: > # > # Actually, your 4 CL decks were extremely limited. We have > #tremendous variety in our games, no one ever knows what kind of deck they > #will be facing. I've had awesome vote decks stoped by Intercept/Combat > #decks, Malkavian decks run out of vampires (controlled ones), none of > #this would have been possible with 4CL.... > > I couldn't disagree with you more. All the things you just stated happen on a > regular basis with a 4CL. I hate to say this once again but, *NO ONE DECK IS > CRIPPLED, NOR IS ANY ONE DECK GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE WITH A 4CL, NOR DOES IT PROHIBIT > CREATIVE DESIGN* This is all based on my personal experience. Also, from what I > can see as long as the group in question is playing by the same rules, ie- no > card limit, or the 4CL, then everything is fair. Each way of playing balances > itself. It all comes down to preferences. I happen to think the 4CL is better > and more fun to play with, this does not mean you don't get the same balance with > no card limit or anything as such, it is just my preference. There are two ways > to play it; 4CL or not. They are both equally as good. What I won't agree to is > that the 4CL is bad or unbalanced or even limiting, because that is simply not > true. I know this puts me in the *extreme* minority in this newsgroup, but hey, > that's my preference and it's the way I like to play the game. > > -- > Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com > > Hmm, sorry if the previous post sounded like an attack. That being said, I still can't keep my mouth shut. My personal experience is that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying some Dark Soverigns.... Algustas *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto

In article <s291.121...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) writes: >In article <4ags53$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) >writes: >>With the restricted list, there's no way to oust your prey with votes. >>Hence the de facto ban. The only way left is Anarch Revolt/gain blood >>techniques. > >I disagree. Usually when I play a vote deck, I wait until my prey has >invested blood in bringing out vamps or whatever, using that time for putting > >Obfuscate cards on my vamps (so the vote won't get blocked) and calling >Praxis >Seizures. When my prey has invested a little and gets down to around 12 >blood, then I make my move. At this point, you can take someone out with 2 >KRC's and an Ancilla Empowerment, and maybe a quick bleed. > >I'm not defending the tourny rules -- they need a LOT of changing. I am just > >saying you don't need 25 KRC's to win with votes. a) you have a hybrid vote/bleed deck, not a vote deck b) How do you handle the next player?

In article <4apj1s$j...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: > *NO ONE DECK IS CRIPPLED, NOR IS ANY ONE DECK GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE >WITH A 4CL, NOR DOES IT PROHIBIT CREATIVE DESIGN* Build two 4CL decks, one with 4 of every intecept card, and some combat. Make the other deck with 4 of every stealth card. Even with 4 bum's rushes and 4 Haven uncovereds the first deck will have a hell of a time catching the second? Why? Because there are more action modifiers which allow stealth, and there is even Cloak the Gathering which is an action modifier that allows other minions to help out the action minoin. The only chance the first deck has is to get greater auspex an greater animalism, equip with a sport bike and get as many raven spies as possible (no more than 4 of course!) but even then you have only one minion to do all the blocking. Of course you could always make the first deck a straight bleed deck and bleed the second deck faster thus winning the game, now that's creative and fun for the whole world of darkness.

In article <4as9v7$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) spammed: #In article <4apj1s$j...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com #(Greg Zuvich) writes: # #> *NO ONE DECK IS CRIPPLED, NOR IS ANY ONE DECK GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE >WITH A #4CL, NOR DOES IT PROHIBIT CREATIVE DESIGN* # Of course you could always make the first deck a #straight bleed deck and bleed the second deck faster thus winning the #game, now that's creative and fun for the whole world of darkness. Of course you forget that everyone has the same restrictions. You are also continuing the one dimensional thought process that erroroneously assumes a deck must have only one purpose and can only do one thing. This kind of one dimensional deck is what you get when there are no CL. You get more fun, flavor and intrigue with a 4CL since you have to actually think about your deck design and build in surprises to it; not focusing on just one thing, but how to beat your opponents with strategy, tactics, cunning, and guile. I hate to say this, but most of the people I have personally seen not like the 4CL for Jyhad are the very ones who made "power decks" or "sooner than instant death" decks for Magic. They are used to this type of "quick kill, no strategy game" and carry that attitude over to Jyhad. This is what turned me off Magic; no strategy, no tactics, no cunning, and an attitude that winning at all costs is more important than the fun... which leads to power decks.... This is not to say that the people here who play Jyhad are less intelligent or any such muck, nor do I wish to insult Magic players. I happen to personally believe that not having the 4CL in place takes away from the game and lends itself to one dimensional decks and no forethought to strategy. I could make a total bonzo "kill deck" with no CL and send everybody and their dog into torpor and win the game, but afterwards I would be yawning from boredom. If winning at all costs is what is important to you, then by all means continue to play without a CL. This may be what you seek, and if that amuses you, then you should play that way. I never will, since I prefer a game that is more of a challenge. We have all stated our opinions to the farthest end and stated our preferences as well. Now it is time to lay the issue to rest. In the end none of us will convince the other, so we should resolve to play as we desire and be happy with that. cheers all! -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com

In the days of yore <4au4j2$3m...@tiger4.ocs.lsu.edu>, npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) articulated: #Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: #: that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who #: uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly #: biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the #: reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. #: Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in #: the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with #: him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying #: some Dark Soverigns.... #: Algustas #: *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class #: struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto # # Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because #I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given #card]... Halleluah!!!! Finally another person agrees with me on this newsgroup!!! Dogs and cats, living together!! Total mass destruction!! Real Biblical chaos!... Well, congrats Nicole and welcome to the vocal minority. -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com "Put your soul in the water and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry

Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: : that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who : uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly : biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the : reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. : Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in : the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with : him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying : some Dark Soverigns.... : Algustas : *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class : struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given card]... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4at2c9$m...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] 4CL does nothing of the sort. Jyhad tremendously rewards decks that have minimalist goals; not necessarily one thing, but as few as possible. The reason is the immediate redraw. If you're trying to do 2 things, then as you do one, you draw cards for the other as well, and they get in the way. So any deck will do one thing much more than twice as well as 2 things. 4CL don't bar focused decks; it just makes only a few possible. Decks that have a lot of close substitutes can still function; boring Malk S&B decks are almost unnaffected by 4cl; Tremere intercept/2nd round nuke, and Ventrue Fortitude bleed are also still pretty functional. A few decks that run on permanents, such as weenie gun and Gangrel intercept, function too. As it works out, since the Malks are the best and will run over anybody without carded intercept (with rush and bounce restricted), only the Malks and Tremere are playable. But most decks - Ventrue aggressive vote, Brujah vote and bleed, Seductive bleed, Brujah/Toreador tap and bleed, Auspex vote, Tremere 1st round combat, ally decks not using Garou, Toreador vote, Toreador gun, Brujah rush, Gangrel rush, Ventrue aggravated damage, Nosferatu assasination, Gangrel gain blood, Brujah pitch decks, Brujah bruise and bleed, Nosferatu ranged damage, Animalism ranged damage, weenie Potence rush, etc. - just bite the dust. So you don't do squat about the advantages focused decks have, you just greatly limit the selection of effective decks to choose from. >I hate to say this, but most of the people I have personally seen not like the >4CL for Jyhad are the very ones who made "power decks" or "sooner than >instant death" decks for Magic . The only player in our group who made those kinds of decks has always been a strong proponent of card limits in Jyhad. >They are used to this type of "quick kill, no >strategy game" and carry that attitude over to Jyhad. There's much more strategy w/o limits. Strategy with card limits is basically just card counting. . >I could make a total bonzo "kill deck" with no CL and send everybody >and their dog into torpor and win the game, but afterwards I would be yawning >from boredom. Really? What would the deck be? Offensive untaps can create problem decks; weenie vote can (but only under the WotC vote-push rule), and I believe that Taste of Vitae, Dragonsbreath Rounds, and Pulled Fangs can be abused (but not many agree with me on that). What else is there?

>In article <4as9v7$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) >spammed: ------------------------------I do not spam... sam I am------------------------------------ >#Of course you could always make the first deck a >#straight bleed deck and bleed the second deck faster thus winning the >#game, now that's creative and fun for the whole world of darkness. >Of course you forget that everyone has the same restrictions. You are also >continuing the one dimensional thought process that erroroneously assumes a >deck must have only one purpose and can only do one thing. This kind of one >dimensional deck is what you get when there are no CL. -----------------I play 4CL or 10% limit, and I prefer the latter. I think there are some aspects of the game which are unbalanced without restrictions or house rules------------- >You get more fun, flavor and intrigue with a 4CL since you have to actually think >about your deck design and build in surprises to it; not focusing on just one thing, >but how to beat your opponents with strategy, tactics, cunning, and guile. ------------------I don't see 4CL as involving more thought processes than no limits, example: 4 of these, 4 of those, oh just 2 of that one, 4 of this one... as apposed to do I want between one and sixty of this card? obviously it's much easier to screw up on the second way, too many of one card is never a concern with 4CL (giant's blood?)

Hi Nicole, I guess you'll have to kill me.... On 16 Dec 1995, Nicole Janine Purvis wrote: > Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: > : that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who > : uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly > : biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the > : reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. > : Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in > : the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with > : him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying > : some Dark Soverigns.... > : Algustas > : *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class > : struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto > > Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because > I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given > card]... > Well, you would just be a victim in our games then, just as Greg was when he played with 4CL and the rest of us didn't. I understand what Greg is saying, he likes to play with rules that minimize the effectiveness of decks to add a more diverse feel to the game. Your statement, however, is confusing, as you will not need more than 4 of a given card ONLY if A) Everyone else is playing that way. B) You are playing Malk. sneak and bleed C) You like losing. Perhaps I missed something in your statement? Did you mean to imply one of these conditions? Algustas *****Don't let me catch you in Arcadia. ANY of you!***** X, X #20

Greg Zuvich (gzu...@symantec.com) wrote: : In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951213222931.20881A-100000@gladstone>, Algustas : <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> spammed: : #> I agree with Dave on both counts. The tourney rules need to be tweaked and : #you : #> don't need a ton of KRC to win with a vote deck... but then I play with the 4 : #> card limit. Which I might add gives no deck or combo, or any one player an : #> advantage, since you are all playing under the same limitation, nor does it : #> cripple any deck design since once again, everyone has the same restriction : #> or rule to play by. : # : # Actually, your 4 CL decks were extremely limited. We have : #tremendous variety in our games, no one ever knows what kind of deck they : #will be facing. I've had awesome vote decks stoped by Intercept/Combat : #decks, Malkavian decks run out of vampires (controlled ones), none of : #this would have been possible with 4CL.... : I couldn't disagree with you more. All the things you just stated happen on a : regular basis with a 4CL. I hate to say this once again but, *NO ONE DECK IS : CRIPPLED, NOR IS ANY ONE DECK GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE WITH A 4CL, NOR DOES IT PROHIBIT : CREATIVE DESIGN* This is all based on my personal experience. Also, from what I : can see as long as the group in question is playing by the same rules, ie- no : card limit, or the 4CL, then everything is fair. Each way of playing balances : itself. It all comes down to preferences. I happen to think the 4CL is better : and more fun to play with, this does not mean you don't get the same balance with : no card limit or anything as such, it is just my preference. There are two ways : to play it; 4CL or not. They are both equally as good. What I won't agree to is : that the 4CL is bad or unbalanced or even limiting, because that is simply not : true. I know this puts me in the *extreme* minority in this newsgroup, but hey, : that's my preference and it's the way I like to play the game. Yeesh, trim your line length, please! 4CL *DOES* cripple some otherwise workable deck designs, period. Rush Combat and Bleed Bounce are the two most obvious. Rush Combat has to add in a lot of votes to make its best fighting vamp an Archon, and is still too weak to work properly, while without limits, it can have enough Bum's Rushes and Haven Uncovereds to work on pure combat. Bleed Bounce has only two cards to help it in the first place, Telepathic Misdirection and Deflection, and bouncing 8 bleeds probably won't even oust your prey, let alone your grand prey. There are many different cards that are part of some strategies, like stealth and intercept decks, so they work fine. Intercept combat, in particular, works well with 4CL (in my experience), but many of the decks that showed up in unlimited games in our play group vanished during the 2 months we tried the card limits. They were replaced, mostly, by stealth bleeders. We didn't like the change, so we unlimited ourselves, and, hey presto, we had all our favorites back again. Until WotC prints enough different cards that do the same thing so that all strategies work under four card limits, card limits break, rather than fix, the game. Intercept and stealth play under card limits imposed by the structure of the game (same action modifier or reaction only once per action), but rush and bleed bounce (among others) didn't have such limits imposed by the rules, so the card set wasn't set up to let them work under card limits. Most of this is paraphrased from a much better written essay on why card limits don't work for Jyhad/VtES, but I lost the essay long ago, and don't remember who wrote it, so this is the best credit I can give to him/her. Just me. -- Richard Kenan Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu

In the days of yore <Pine.SOL.3.91.951216123539.27652A-100000@gladstone>, Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> articulated: #Hi Nicole, # I guess you'll have to kill me.... # #On 16 Dec 1995, Nicole Janine Purvis wrote: # #> Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: #> : that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who #> : uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly #> : biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the #> : reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. #> : Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in #> : the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with #> : him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying #> : some Dark Soverigns.... #> : Algustas #> : *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class #> : struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto #> #> Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because #> I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given #> card]... #> # Well, you would just be a victim in our games then, just as Greg #was when he played with 4CL and the rest of us didn't. Uhmmm... whoa there sparky! As I remember it, I did oust somebody from the game (only 4 people) and I was far from tragically over-matched. I will concede that no limit power decks will beat a 4CL deck most of the time, however I still feel that no limit decks take away from the flavor of the game. So NYAH!!!... -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com "Put your soul in the water and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry "Beauty of Gray"

Distribution: Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: : Hi Nicole, : I guess you'll have to kill me.... Bang. You dead. : On 16 Dec 1995, Nicole Janine Purvis wrote: : > Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: : > : that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who : > : uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly : > : biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the : > : reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. : > : Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in : > : the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with : > : him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying : > : some Dark Soverigns.... : > : Algustas : > : *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class : > : struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto : > : > Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because : > I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given : > card]... : > : Well, you would just be a victim in our games then, just as Greg : was when he played with 4CL and the rest of us didn't. I understand what : Greg is saying, he likes to play with rules that minimize the : effectiveness of decks to add a more diverse feel to the game. Your : statement, however, is confusing, as you will not need more than 4 of a : given card ONLY if A) Everyone else is playing that way. This would have to be the case; rarely does anyone in our circle use true degenerate decks; and when I said I rarely needed 4 of anything, that didn't mean I won everything with less than 4, it simply meant I won every once in a while... The deck I usually play is tripartite; one part intercept [3 Enhanced Senses, 2 2nd Tradition, 3 Sport Bike, occasionally Mr. Winthrops], one part actions [about half political and half otherwise], and one part combat, with the rest being equipment and retainers--the deck isn't a focused deck on a single area, but instead tries to "cover everything." As said, it doesn't always work. : B) You are playing Malk. sneak and bleed I've tried that too... : C) You like losing. See response #1; and SOMEONE has to lose, right? I'm happy if, in 4-player circles I win anywhere over 25% of the time, which would mean my deck is a little better on average than the others... : Perhaps I missed something in your statement? Did you mean to : imply one of these conditions? : Algustas : *****Don't let me catch you in Arcadia. ANY of you!***** X, X #20 -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4auf7g$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: [Lots and lots of 4CL debate snipped] >the Malks and Tremere are playable. But most decks - Ventrue aggressive >vote, Brujah vote and bleed, Seductive bleed, Brujah/Toreador tap and >bleed, Auspex vote, Tremere 1st round combat, ally decks not using Garou, >Toreador vote, Toreador gun, Brujah rush, Gangrel rush, Ventrue aggravated >damage, Nosferatu assasination, Gangrel gain blood, Brujah pitch decks, >Brujah bruise and bleed, Nosferatu ranged damage, Animalism ranged damage, >weenie Potence rush, etc. - just bite the dust. Due to my limited exposure to many Jyhad players (I play a lot but w/ the same 5-6 people all the time,) I have no clue what some of these deck concepts are. Specifically, what is a Nosferatu assaination deck, and what is a Brujah pitch deck? Most of the others seem fairly obvious. And another thing--what will the new "standard" decks be for Giovanni and Ravnos? And another random thought, I am staring at my "Tradition Upheld" DS card right now and I notice that even though it burns a vampire, it does not contain the "this is not considered diablerie" note on many Jyhad cards. Was this "helpfull reminder" removed from VtES/DS? <time passes> I just checked Sacrificial Lamb, and it doesn't say it either, so I would guess it is implied, though I don't know. How does VtES Amaranth read? (I say that because it _should_ be considered diablerie) Blah blah blah. I be quiet now. gnfnrf

The Giovanni standard deck IMO is a dominate/potence Combat/Bleed deck. Danny The oppinions above are not mine, they are forced upon me by my employer.

In article <4b28fo$7...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: >What is a Nosferatu assaination deck, and what >is a Brujah pitch deck? Sorry about my abbreviation habits. A Nosferatu assassination deck is one that uses Bum's Rush and stealth to enter combat with the minion of their choice. They then knock them out with Potence or disguised weapons, possible with some Animalism retainers for salt. (Disguised Weapon + Stake + Undead Strength/Lucky Blow is a cute combo) A Brujah pitch deck uses Celerity to control range and combat duration, and then Blurs Thrown Gates, Sewer Lids and Well-Aimed Cars.

In article <4aob1n$6...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > Anyone with half a brain won't be impressed by a `reason' that > is totally irrelevent. Just for fun, I think I'll criticize the use of Ad Hominem attacks. No offense intended :)

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b2n1f$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #In article <4b28fo$7...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, #eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: # #>What is a Nosferatu assaination deck, and what #>is a Brujah pitch deck? #A Brujah pitch deck uses Celerity to control range and combat duration, #and then Blurs Thrown Gates, Sewer Lids and Well-Aimed Cars. these decks are fun to play every now and then are they not? I love the sound of a nice sewer lid upside the head... <SPANG!!> d'oh!!! hee, hee... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b3r9e$j...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >Alan Eisinger (eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu) wrote: [Discussion of "not diablerie" reminder snipped]> >: <time passes> I just checked >: Sacrificial Lamb, and it doesn't say it either, > >Hmmm... mine did, which is why I typed it that way in the spoiler list. >I would guess that you hastily looked only at the superior version. AAAACK!!! It does, that was silly of me. > gnfnrf

Alan Eisinger (eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu) wrote: : And another random thought, I am staring at my "Tradition Upheld" DS card : right now and I notice that even though it burns a vampire, it does not contain : the "this is not considered diablerie" note on many Jyhad cards. Was this : "helpfull reminder" removed from VtES/DS? Since it is a political action burning this vampire, and since there is no chance to gain blood/age/equipment, I doubt that it is considered diablerie. Good point though, and it should be cleared up. : <time passes> I just checked : Sacrificial Lamb, and it doesn't say it either, Hmmm... mine did, which is why I typed it that way in the spoiler list. Sacrificial Lamb Action Obfuscate 3 blood Normal: Burn a vampire in torpor that you control. The acting vampire gains blood equal to the burned vampire's capacity. (Ignore excess blood.) You may also transfer equipment from the burned vampire to this one. This action is not considered diablerie. Superior: (D) As above, but you may choose a vampire in another Methuselah's torpor region. I would guess that you hastily looked only at the superior version. Good question about Tradidion Upheld, however; Tom? Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Burning a Caitiff via Tradition Upheld successfully is not considered diablerie. The vampire is not taking a burn-a-vampire action per se; she's just throwing a vote up for consideration, which will happen to burn a Caitiff if successful. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >In the days of yore <4au4j2$3m...@tiger4.ocs.lsu.edu>, npu...@tiger.lsu.edu >(Nicole Janine Purvis) articulated: >#Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: >#: that I don't know anyone except you that I have played Jyhad with who >#: uses 4CL and still plays in a regular group. I have my own admitedly >#: biased opinion as to why that is, but since we will not agree on the >#: reasoning, it is pointless to argue about it. >#: Hey, I do know one other person who is a 4CL guy that works in >#: the same building as you, let me know if you want to get in touch with >#: him, I don't think he plays Jyhad much anymore, but I did see him buying >#: some Dark Soverigns.... >#: Algustas >#: *****The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class >#: struggles.***** Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto ># ># Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because >#I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given >#card]... > >Halleluah!!!! Finally another person agrees with me on this newsgroup!!! Dogs >and cats, living together!! Total mass destruction!! Real Biblical chaos!... >Well, congrats Nicole and welcome to the vocal minority. > >-- >Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com > "Put your soul in the water > and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry hey I like the 4cl for the same reasons... deal with it... you have a few supporters... ~mage bob

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >Uhmmm... whoa there sparky! As I remember it, I did oust somebody from the game >(only 4 people) and I was far from tragically over-matched. I will concede that >no limit power decks will beat a 4CL deck most of the time, however I still feel >that no limit decks take away from the flavor of the game. So NYAH!!!... tis my oppinion that unlimited decks rely on a single tactic of only a few cards over and over... this makes them one sided and if you hit em anywhere elce they will fall... It's been my experiance that non limited decks fall easy prey to mine and other 4cl persons that I play with...

In article <4b980q$j...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Mage Bob <Denni...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us> blathered on: > tis my oppinion that unlimited decks rely on a single tactic of only a > few cards over and over... this makes them one sided and if you hit em > anywhere elce they will fall... It's been my experiance that non limited > decks fall easy prey to mine and other 4cl persons that I play with... Unlimited decks that have only one strategy get completely hosed by a counter-strategy. Example: Brujah guns gets hosed by light intercept, damage prevention, combat avoidance, and tremere anti-weapon among others. Malk S&B gets hosed by bleed bounce/reduction, rush, haven uncovered, Malk hosers, tremere intercept, and ravnos stealth denial among others. An unlimited deck needs to be robust to win in unlimited environments. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

Mage Bob <Denni...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us> writes: >gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >>Uhmmm... whoa there sparky! As I remember it, I did oust somebody from the game >>(only 4 people) and I was far from tragically over-matched. I will concede that >>no limit power decks will beat a 4CL deck most of the time, however I still feel >>that no limit decks take away from the flavor of the game. So NYAH!!!... >tis my oppinion that unlimited decks rely on a single tactic of only a >few cards over and over... this makes them one sided and if you hit em >anywhere elce they will fall... It's been my experiance that non limited >decks fall easy prey to mine and other 4cl persons that I play with... Thank you. That's is a perfect argument for no limits. The game is so well designed that a poorly designed deck will fall to a good deck, even a deck made under artificial constraints (such as one card limit, or four card limit, or 10% card limit, or 50% card limit, or 100% card limit). No one said you /have/ to rely on a single card to build a no-limit deck. That ever-so-popular, non-sanctioned-tho-it-claimed-otherwise, four-card-limit-imposed-at-the-last-minute tournament (at GenCON) eliminated a friend of mine because the deck he brought (with a respectable, non-munchkinized makeup) happened to contain six majesties. Six. (And six of a few other cards). With only his deck in hand, (not bringing all of his cards across the country), his reasonable, robust deck was eliminated in favor of a no-brainer 4cl Malk S&B deck that any pre-schooler can build and play effectively. If your 4cl deck can beat no-limit, then why would anyone bother playing a single-trick no-limit deck when they could fare much better with a robust, even-mix no-limit deck? The deck is the key. Removing limits does not decrease the need to build a robust, balanced deck. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

My group (6 people) has been playing for just over a year and although I've missed the posts for the this last month (since befor the release of DS) we would never think of playing without a 4CL. However, we do choose which rulings and which interpretation of certain rulings to use as everyone should. The Game is for fun.