Hello! I've just realised the problem with Jyhad. I had been
playing no card limit for 2 years and bought loads of cards. I
had made two decks which were alright but there was always
some guy who would use a really boring deck and win. Then we
found this news group and started playing with the 'sensible'
rules given here. They were so confusing that we gave up
playing for a while as we were thoughrally dis illusioned.
Then my now good friend Mike came up and asked me if I wanted
a game under 4 card limit, naturally I thought he was joking
as Jyhad is meant to be played no limit. Still he persuaded me
to play and I found it incredible fun as there was no
confusing rules to think about and no degenerate decks I have
come across. I would just like to say that there would be less
need for this newsgroup if more people played a card limit. If
there is some degenerate decks under a card limit (and no
doubt there is) then perhaps it would be easier to ban those
deck concepts from tournements and not come up with a thousand
and one rule modifications. Just a thought....
PJ
In article <53ddu2$f14...@leeds.ac.uk>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Interesting point Pete. I to have changed to 4cl due to the
same sort of rules tampering. Its by no means perfect but the
games tend to be more fun!
Johan
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oooohhh, I wouldn't like to be you when the flames poor in!
People on this newsgroup don't like it when people comment on
how 4cl is better! I myself have always been an advocate of
4cl and I am glad that other people agree that is a simpler
way to play. Try playing it with a restriction on unique cards
its a good way to play too.
LOS
Thibaut Roulon.
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Pete Johns wrote:
> Hello! I've just realised the problem with Jyhad. I had been
> playing no card limit for 2 years and bought loads of cards. I
> had made two decks which were alright but there was always
> some guy who would use a really boring deck and win. Then we
> found this news group and started playing with the 'sensible'
> rules given here. They were so confusing that we gave up
> playing for a while as we were thoughrally dis illusioned.
> Then my now good friend Mike came up and asked me if I wanted
> a game under 4 card limit, naturally I thought he was joking
> as Jyhad is meant to be played no limit. Still he persuaded me
> to play and I found it incredible fun as there was no
> confusing rules to think about and no degenerate decks I have
> come across. I would just like to say that there would be less
> need for this newsgroup if more people played a card limit. If
> there is some degenerate decks under a card limit (and no
> doubt there is) then perhaps it would be easier to ban those
> deck concepts from tournements and not come up with a thousand
> and one rule modifications. Just a thought....
> PJ
>
>
Other card limit rules we play in my group :
4 for common cards
2 for uncommon cards
1 for rare cards
This makes rare cards less powerful in a deck ...
Thibaut.
Min4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of shadows) writes:
>In article <53ddu2$f14...@leeds.ac.uk>,[ quoted text not captured ]>Oooohhh, I wouldn't like to be you when the flames poor in!
>People on this newsgroup don't like it when people comment on
>how 4cl is better! I myself have always been an advocate of
>4cl and I am glad that other people agree that is a simpler
>way to play. Try playing it with a restriction on unique cards
>its a good way to play too.
Of course it's simpler. It also benefits the Malk S&B deck to
such an extreme that the game becomes unbalanced after you
settle down into the full-tilt S&B deck building.
Flames? Nah. We've all tried 4cl (and 10%, etc.) - it works
for a while until you start getting routinely thrashed by
Malk S&B - without much chance for defense.
If your group is nice enough not to play the penultimate MS&B
deck, then have fun. Otherwise you may eventually want other
options. Try hosting 4CL at a tournament and see what deck
wins.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Virtue is the failure to
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | achieve vice.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Well, my group used to play with no limits. The same 3 people seemed to
win almost every game.
Then we agreed to a 5 card limit.
Guess what...the same 3 people seem to win most of the games.
I don't see any need for limits!
4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
to just 4 in a deck?
Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
in a no-limit environment.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thibaut Roulon (roul...@cti.ecp.fr) wrote:
>
> > I would just like to say that there would be less
> > need for this newsgroup if more people played a card limit. If
> > there is some degenerate decks under a card limit (and no
> > doubt there is) then perhaps it would be easier to ban those
> > deck concepts from tournements and not come up with a thousand
> > and one rule modifications. Just a thought....
> > PJ
> >
> >
>> Other card limit rules we play in my group :
> 4 for common cards
> 2 for uncommon cards
> 1 for rare cards
> This makes rare cards less powerful in a deck ...
>
Please look at the old articles thoughtfully archived at
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangdso/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
They will explain what problems most people have with the 4 card
limit, and why "just bannning certain deck types" (Malkavian or Settite
sneak and bleed, as categories, banned? Whatever) won't work. After
you've digested those articles, if you have something new to say in
response, please post it and we'll be happy to discuss it with you (and
archive your words of wisdom. An intelligent defense of the 4 card limit
would be wonderful).
-Mark Langsdorf
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/
>: Min4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of shadows) writes:> >In article <53ddu2$f14...@leeds.ac.uk>,
> > Cla...@leeds.ac.uk (Pete Johns) wrote:
Uh oh. It's holiday in England. Use with caution...
Inappropriate distribution of sunblock may cause skin rash. :)
I find it odd that two Leeds people and one Queens
posted on the same 4cl thread within 30 minutes of each other.
Is play style and limits, then, connected to both
location and playgroup feeling? How many people in a group
have to change their minds about NL or CL to have the entire
group switch? Folger's Insta-Blood Pellets...I really can't
taste the difference.
The newsgroup is like a giant group of Jyhad players.
Being so large, no consensus can ever be reached. There's
also one hell of a long game if we ever attempt to play all at
once. :0
Agree to disagree on limits, folks. You can play
anything you want wherever you are. There are other threads
and other ideas which can be argued with a lot more fun, style,
and originality. (Where's Shawn? What's Broken? Winning with
X clan...) Please...just don't start on the Sasha Miklos one
again.
We won't all agree on those questions, but the most
basic, immutable, and unresolvable question on this newsgroup
is limits. We can't agree-ever, and limits are more of a
matter of where you play and who you play with than a meta-
question on the net.
In article <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
>
>How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
>to just 4 in a deck?
>
>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>in a no-limit environment.
>
Really?
[ quoted text not captured ]> I AGREE with the person who said "Really?" For the original text, What
bases are you exacting your biased opinion on?
In the Vampire:Masquerade or Dark Ages, it is impossible to corrupt an elder or lower generation
(for those who don't play Vampire:Masq... Lower generation is how far
you are removed from Caine, and Caine being the first generation, while,
we are methuselahs, being four or five generations (4th or 5th gen) removed
from Caine, it is impossible to corrupt us. Inner circle are
approximatly 6th and 7th generations, right under par with
Methuselahs. Most vampires with the capacity 3 or lower are of 13th
generation or higher. The higher your generation the weaker you are.
Generation is vice-versa with blood capacity.) So are you saying
that if you had enough counters you could corrupt a methuselah, if we
get the Tremere to conjure a spell to change the text from vampire
(Technically in Vampire:masq... Methuselahs ARE vampires) to "any target"???
People who don't know how to play use unlimited card limits. You have
no creativity or affliction to make good with what you have. Just the
fact that you can keep doing the same thing over and over.
The reason is this. "you could win with a deck that only has telepathic
counters." All you have to do is prevent any bleed against you. And
then withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out. You get an oust point
for successfully withdrawing from the game. Unless some with an
unlimited amount of bums rushes sends your vampires straight to hell
without passing go. Otherwise technically you win with one oust point in
a two player game.
Or I tap all of you vampires via:Superior Earthmeld or
Majesties. and bleed you to death.
I am the Toreador Elder of Hilo, Hawaii, currently visiting
Corvallis for a limited time. Which if there is a prince here let me
know so I'll pay homage (via e-mail). In my city we have decreed our card
limit to be at 4. If anything I strongly urge the current limit to be of
4 or 5.
I am dissappointed in hearing that players make their decks
around card values and abilities. Like tomb of ramses the third, well
how the hell did raven (an american indian) get all the way the hell to
egypt when she is less than 150 years old? and all of a sudden acquire
the home of some ancient? I could understand if an older vampire, or
followers of Set acquired it (which by the way there should be a text
saying it should be a unique locatione/equipment instead of it being a
master.) Or "my decks purpose is to send your vampire to torpor and diablorize".
That is why cards are unique!!! Camille Devereax is a vampire, in her singularity. In other words, if they
existed with a personality, she'd be real. Not some 5 blood vampire with
superior fortitude, Protean, and minor Animalism. These cards games
where based on the purpose of storytelling, not to get into combat or
unblockable bleeds.
I speak for the for the players of both Vampire:tes and Vampire:Masque of
my city.
I have spoken my mind.
Reply if you wish.
Hi Matthieu,
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Matthieu Miyamoto wrote:
[4CL & Role playing stuff deleted]
> The reason is this. "you could win with a deck that only has telepathic
> counters." All you have to do is prevent any bleed against you. And
> then withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out. You get an oust point
> for successfully withdrawing from the game. Unless some with an
> unlimited amount of bums rushes sends your vampires straight to hell
> without passing go. Otherwise technically you win with one oust point in
> a two player game.
This is ridiculous. Try it and see what happens :)
> Or I tap all of you vampires via:Superior Earthmeld or
> Majesties. and bleed you to death.
Wake and deflection, also in the new tournament rules repeat
actions (taking the same type of action, ie bleeding) with the same
vampire are prohibited.
> I am the Toreador Elder of Hilo, Hawaii, currently visiting
> Corvallis for a limited time. Which if there is a prince here let me
> know so I'll pay homage (via e-mail). In my city we have decreed our card
> limit to be at 4. If anything I strongly urge the current limit to be of
> 4 or 5.
Hmm, well, Corvalis isn't that far away. Let me know when you are
playing, and maybe I can drop by and show you what is wrong with 4CL...
> I am dissappointed in hearing that players make their decks
> around card values and abilities. Like tomb of ramses the third, well
> how the hell did raven (an american indian) get all the way the hell to
> egypt when she is less than 150 years old? and all of a sudden acquire
> the home of some ancient? I could understand if an older vampire, or
> followers of Set acquired it (which by the way there should be a text
> saying it should be a unique locatione/equipment instead of it being a
> master.) Or "my decks purpose is to send your vampire to torpor and diablorize".
> That is why cards are unique!!! Camille Devereax is a vampire, in her singularity. In other words, if they
> existed with a personality, she'd be real. Not some 5 blood vampire with
> superior fortitude, Protean, and minor Animalism. These cards games
> where based on the purpose of storytelling, not to get into combat or
> unblockable bleeds.
>
Actually, these card games are strategy games. They have more in
common with Avalon Hill wargames than roleplaying games.
> I speak for the for the players of both Vampire:tes and Vampire:Masque of
> my city.
>
Actually, I game regularly with some people in Corvallis, and I'm
pretty sure your not speaking for them...
> I have spoken my mind.
>
> Reply if you wish.
>
OK
Algustas
*****Images came, flashing much too quick to comprehend. And
then...something. A fleeting picture that left a longing stirring inside
my soul.***** Gul'dan, Warcraft II
I haven't been on here long, so please excuse me if I make a fool of
myself, but I felt the urge to respond to this post...
[previous arguments clipped]
Gabriel Williams wrote:
[I took the liberty of clipping the first page or so as well, as they
argued primarily] [that VtES is not VtM and shouldn't be made as if it
were, with which I agree] [wholeheartedly, and that the players as a
whole need to come to a consensus in the]
[CL/NL debate, which I feel would be wonderful but will never happen.
This led into the] [folowwing arguments...]
> Anyone with a braincell can create a one
> trick pony but not everyone can create a challenging deck
> using limited resources. This is the essence of Jyhad, the
> ability to create the good deck.
Now hold on, you're saying two slightly different things here, and I
feel the distinction should be made. "Not everyone can create a
challenging deck using limited resources." I'm fine with that. I'd have
to agree that it's somewhat difficult to make a good deck under CL.
(I've played both CL and NL, so please don't tell me I don't know what
I'm talking about.) Your second comment, "This is the essence of Jyhad,
the ability to create a good deck," is equally harmless taken on its
own. I feel, however, that the two together make a faulty argument. I
agree that the essence of Jyhad is to make a good deck, but I do not see
why you think that the essence of the game is to make a good deck /under
CL/, which you seem to have implied. Please explain this.
> Card limit cuts out all but
> one degenerate deck (Malkavian S&B)
I played under 6CL for a time, and found that most of our table's combat
decks were surprisingly unaffected (The most notable were a Tremere
bleed+burn and a Gangrel aggro rush/diablerize/vote), so I have to
disagree with that comment, though I do agree that CL leaves a few decks
easily superior to most other "fun" or "theme" decks.
> but even that is stoppable
> in cases. By a minor modification such as you may only use a
> makimum of 4 malkavians in your deck would probably kill this
> tactic off all together
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! It seems to me you're saying, "Jyhad's only a little
broken under CL: to fix it all you have to do is all-but-eliminate one
of the BASIC CLANS of the game?!?!" This, honestly, seems somewhat
ridiculous to me, especially if you take into account the large number
of pure-Malk decks that /aren't/ S&B. I've seen Malk vote, Malk combat,
and other weirder all-Malk decks that actually fared rather well, and
limiting the clan to 4 in the crypt, besides being against the nature of
the game, would destroy all of these alternate possibilities.
> plus in a competion where we are all
> trying to win, why not gang up on he who dares get out such a
> boring deck?
This "fix", on the other hand, contradicts the basic predator-prey
relationship that makes VtES different from a large MtG free-for-all. I
don't think it's fair to destroy the game in order to justify making
Jyhad more Magic-like!
> Just how popular is NL anyway? It seems to have
> a reasonable following in the States but I should add that I
> have played with many groups around Britain and have found
> that no player I have played with has played no limits, only a
> card limit of 4-6.
Not much to say about this, but I wanted to separate it from the next 2
comments for clarity's sake...
> This indicates to me that people prefere
> card limits in general as a better way to play.
Whoa, whoa, whoa (again)!!! It implies no such thing. When my group
played CL, we did so not because we thought it better, but because we
were used to playing Magic and saw no reason to do otherwise! Maybe try
asking some of your groups to play NL for a bit and see if they can
defeat Malk S&L /without/ destroying the basic elements of the game
(specifically, the predator-prey relationship and the near-banning of a
clan). If they like it, fine, if they still prefer CL, fine too, but
don't go /assuming/ that they prefer CL when they may not have even
considered the alternative.
> Perhaps we
> have more imagination here.....> Gabriel
I'm just going to assume you were being sarcastic here, because
otherwise this comment could start an ungodly flame war that I don't
feel like dragging this newsgroup into.
-321(aka ben ranker)
B.D. Redmond wrote:
>
> In article <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> >4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
> >
> >How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
> >to just 4 in a deck?
> >
> >Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
> >in a no-limit environment.
> >
>> Really?Can you think of any way to use it effectively enough to use it in
a setite deck under 4-cl without being contrived and using Giovanni?
(specifically, Carlotta.) It blows chunks; you'll never get enough of
them to steal anything more than a Caitiff, and if you don't get enough
of them to steal anything, all the actions you've spent on corrupting
people have been wasted.
Under NL, it becomes a good card; not great, but good.
And don't tell me that it was meant to be used with Giovanni/Setite decks.
I have one, but it's _not_ based around corruption. From a purely
game balance point of view, where one is not attempting to make useless
cards, the idea of making a strategy viable _only_ by using other
cards which don't fit with the primary attack on that strategy is,
to be blunt, ludicrous and stupid. WotC may make mistakes now and then,
but they've never been outright _DUMB_ to my knowledge.
Alec Chang
> I AGREE with the person who said "Really?" For the original text, What
>bases are you exacting your biased opinion on?
His basis may be as follows:
to corrupt a four capacity vampire, under a four card limit,
you would have to burn through a large percentage of your
deck (say about 90%).
So, if you assume best case senario, none of the corruption
actions are blocked, and no skill cards are placed on the
targeted vampire.
The net result of the best case senario is that you steal a
minion too late in the game for him to be of significant use
to you, and the target metheuseluh had plenty of time to use
the minion's resources up before he got stolen.
This being the case, corruption can only realistically be used
to steal one or two capacity vampires, under 4CL.
This makes it a very weak and ineffetual card.
Under no card limits, the card seems well balanced against
other cards.
Also, since WotC does not support card limits for V:tES (at
least not according to their tournament rules) it seems
unlikely that they would design one of their cards for card
limit play:)
> In the Vampire:Masquerade or Dark Ages, it is impossible to corrupt an
elder or lower generation
>(for those who don't play Vampire:Masq... Lower generation is how far
>you are removed from Caine, and Caine being the first generation, while,
>we are methuselahs, being four or five generations (4th or 5th gen)
removed
>from Caine, it is impossible to corrupt us. Inner circle are
>approximatly 6th and 7th generations, right under par with
>Methuselahs. Most vampires with the capacity 3 or lower are of 13th
>generation or higher. The higher your generation the weaker you are.
>Generation is vice-versa with blood capacity.) So are you saying
>that if you had enough counters you could corrupt a methuselah, if we
>get the Tremere to conjure a spell to change the text from vampire
>(Technically in Vampire:masq... Methuselahs ARE vampires) to "any
target"???
You can not dominate a vampire of lower generation in V:tM either,
but we see very little reference to that in the cards. V:tES does
it's best to capture the feel of the role-playing came, but it's a card
game first.
> People who don't know how to play use unlimited card limits. You have
>no creativity or affliction to make good with what you have. Just the
>fact that you can keep doing the same thing over and over.
I have played in a card limit environment, and in a no card limit
environment, and it is my opinion that deck construction is more
chalangeing without card limits. I believe your view of no limit
decks is tainted by the fact that only the problem decks are talked
about on the net.
> The reason is this. "you could win with a deck that only has telepathic>counters." All you have to do is prevent any bleed against you. And
>then withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out.
You can't attempt to withdraw untill you have less than a full hand as
a result of your library running out.
> You get an oust point
>for successfully withdrawing from the game. Unless some with an
>unlimited amount of bums rushes sends your vampires straight to hell
>without passing go. Otherwise technically you win with one oust point in>a two player game.
The one victory point you recieve from withdrawing would result
in a tie in a two player game. Your opponent recieves a victory
point for being the last remaining player.
I wouldn't point out the obvious flaws in this one trick deck
if I didn't think it shows how much harder it is to build, and
win with, a one trick deck than most people seem to think.
> Or I tap all of you vampires via:Superior Earthmeld or
>Majesties. and bleed you to death.
Gangrel can do that trick with earthmeld, form of mist, freak
drive, force of will, movement of the slow body, and probably
more with the release of Sabbat. How do card limits solve
this problem? Why does your solution to this problem also
involve limiting flash to four per deck?
> I am the Toreador Elder of Hilo, Hawaii, currently visiting
>Corvallis for a limited time. Which if there is a prince here let me
>know so I'll pay homage (via e-mail). In my city we have decreed our card>limit to be at 4. If anything I strongly urge the current limit to be of>4 or 5.> I am dissappointed in hearing that players make their decks
>around card values and abilities. Like tomb of ramses the third, well
>how the hell did raven (an american indian) get all the way the hell to
>egypt when she is less than 150 years old? and all of a sudden acquire
>the home of some ancient? I could understand if an older vampire, or
>followers of Set acquired it (which by the way there should be a text
>saying it should be a unique locatione/equipment instead of it being a
>master.) Or "my decks purpose is to send your vampire to torpor and
diablorize".
>That is why cards are unique!!! Camille Devereax is a vampire, in her
singularity. In other words, if they
>existed with a personality, she'd be real. Not some 5 blood vampire with>superior fortitude, Protean, and minor Animalism. These cards games
>where based on the purpose of storytelling, not to get into combat or
>unblockable bleeds.>I speak for the for the players of both Vampire:tes and Vampire:Masque of>my city.>I have spoken my mind.>Reply if you wish.
Larrx...
Matthieu Miyamoto <miya...@ucs.orst.edu> writes:
>> In article <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
>> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>> >4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
>> >
>> >How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
>> >to just 4 in a deck?
>> >
>> >Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>> >in a no-limit environment.
>> >
>>
>> Really?
>>>> I AGREE with the person who said "Really?" For the original text, What>bases are you exacting your biased opinion on?> In the Vampire:Masquerade or Dark Ages, it is impossible to corrupt an elder or lower generation
>(for those who don't play Vampire:Masq... Lower generation is how far
>you are removed from Caine, and Caine being the first generation, while,
With 4CL, it becomes neraly impossible to corrupt anyone other than
Caitiff.
> People who don't know how to play use unlimited card limits. You have
>no creativity or affliction to make good with what you have. Just the
>fact that you can keep doing the same thing over and over.
Even with 4CL, I could (in an extreme case) corrupt an Inner Circle member,
provided I had Carlotta in my crypt.
Carlotta and Corruption are, individually, solid cases against card limits
of any sort.
> The reason is this. "you could win with a deck that only has telepathic
>counters." All you have to do is prevent any bleed against you. And
You "could" win with a deck of nothing but Sudden Reversals. But it won't
likely happen. an All-TC deck would be easy pickings for a vote or combat
deck (that's 66% of the "main" deck archetypes).
>then withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out. You get an oust point
You can't withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out. You have to
exhaust your (40-card minumum) library. People who don't know how to
play ... (you were saying?)
>for successfully withdrawing from the game. Unless some with an
>unlimited amount of bums rushes sends your vampires straight to hell
>without passing go. Otherwise technically you win with one oust point in
>a two player game.
One VP in a two player games makes a tie, not a win. "People who don't
know how to play..."?
> Or I tap all of you vampires via:Superior Earthmeld or
>Majesties. and bleed you to death.
Earth Meld and Majesty require you to perform the same action several
times. This is illegal under the new DCI rules. ("people who don't
know...")
And see Corrupter's fine dissertation on why this won't work (even before
the new DCI rules explicitly prohibiting repeat actions), available at
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html>superior fortitude, Protean, and minor Animalism. These cards games
>where based on the purpose of storytelling, not to get into combat or
>unblockable bleeds.
No. VtM was based on storytelling. VtES is based on card playing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961010...@ucs.orst.edu>,
Matthieu Miyamoto <miya...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
<<<<Pro 4CL argument snipped>>>>
Hello Matthieu. I thank you tremendously for this message as I thought that
I was the only one of us 4CL people who dares argue with the might of the
corrupter and L. Scott et al. There are so many people out there who play
with 4CL who are frightened off this news group (thats posting to it, not
reading it) because they will get flamed; unreasonably I might add.
I personally prefer a game with 4CL and will post my arguments in a logical,
friendly manner, and then some inconciderate moron will come up and say
something like "Sneak and bleed!!! you are so stupid!!!" (perhaps not in so
many words, but you get the point) with out actually reading the arguments
posted against it properly. After what must be up shot of 50 such posts and
replies my patience has run out and I can no longer hold myself back.
These people simply do not understand the ethos of playing with Card limits.
Like I said in a message I sent to L. Scott Johnson yesterday, 4CL makes the
PLAYING of the game more tactical - and hence more nail bitingly exciting -
having to guess and counter guess what your opponents are going to do. Mr
Johnson missunderstood my argument and thought that I was talking about it
as if it was a game of chance. This is NOT the case! L. Scott compared NL to
the strategy of Chess, whilst CL being like the gambling thrill of
betting on the horses. However, in counter to this, I'd like to you to
consider this from another angle:
CL is the game of chess where all the pieces are placed in the predetermined
positions dictated by the game and the NL game allows you to decide where
you want to place all the pieces before hand - anywhere on the board. surely
the CL version of this corrupted chess game would have the most tactics IN
the game, where as the NL version would leave the vast majority of the
tactics to the choice of where to place the pieces. I know which I would
find most fun.
Anyone who would disagree with me has every right to, but just don't try and
tell me what the CL game is about when you obviously don't understand
>Camille Devereax is a vampire, in her singularity. In other words, if they
>existed with a personality, she'd be real. Not some 5 blood vampire with>superior fortitude, Protean, and minor Animalism. These cards games
>where based on the purpose of storytelling, not to get into combat or
>unblockable bleeds.
I'm not sure how accurate you are here. I think a lot of these moro - sorry
NL players - are also players of V:tM (& DA). There have been postings of
narrative Jyhad games (I think from NL players, as I don't think there are
any CL players left who have the courage to post on to this group)
>I speak for the for the players of both Vampire:tes and Vampire:Masque of
>my city.
And I for mine
cheerio,
Mr Ben (or Mr "Really?" if you like)
In article <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
>
>How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
>to just 4 in a deck?
>
>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>in a no-limit environment.
>
That is true which is fare enough, but to discount one card as
oppose to having many degenerate decks is much better in my
view.
Gabriel
In article
<Pine.OSF.3.91.961010...@ucs.orst.edu>,
Matthieu Miyamoto <miya...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote:
>>> In article <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
>> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>> >4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
>> >
>> >How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're
limited
>> >to just 4 in a deck?
>> >
>> >Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be
used
>> >in a no-limit environment.
>> >
>>>> Really?
>>
>> I AGREE with the person who said "Really?" For the
original text, What
>bases are you exacting your biased opinion on?
> In the Vampire:Masquerade or Dark Ages, it is impossible
to corrupt an elder or lower generation
>(for those who don't play Vampire:Masq... Lower generation
is how far
>you are removed from Caine, and Caine being the first
generation, while,
>we are methuselahs, being four or five generations (4th or
5th gen) removed
>from Caine, it is impossible to corrupt us. Inner circle are
>approximatly 6th and 7th generations, right under par with
>Methuselahs. Most vampires with the capacity 3 or lower are
of 13th
>generation or higher. The higher your generation the weaker
you are.
>Generation is vice-versa with blood capacity.) So are you
saying
>that if you had enough counters you could corrupt a
methuselah, if we
>get the Tremere to conjure a spell to change the text from
vampire
>(Technically in Vampire:masq... Methuselahs ARE vampires) to
"any target"???
> People who don't know how to play use unlimited card
limits. You have
>no creativity or affliction to make good with what you have.
Just the
>fact that you can keep doing the same thing over and over.> The reason is this. "you could win with a deck that
only has telepathic
>counters." All you have to do is prevent any bleed against
you. And
>then withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out. You get an
oust point
>for successfully withdrawing from the game. Unless some with
an
>unlimited amount of bums rushes sends your vampires straight
to hell
>without passing go. Otherwise technically you win with one
oust point in
>a two player game.> Or I tap all of you vampires via:Superior Earthmeld or
>Majesties. and bleed you to death.
>> I am the Toreador Elder of Hilo, Hawaii, currently
visiting
>Corvallis for a limited time. Which if there is a prince
here let me
>know so I'll pay homage (via e-mail). In my city we have
decreed our card
>limit to be at 4. If anything I strongly urge the current
limit to be of
>4 or 5.
> I am dissappointed in hearing that players make their
decks
Thanks very much for this E-mail. It's good not to lose sight
of our roots in such matters. I agree wholeheartedly with
what you have said and I believe a game with the story in mind
is a better thing but Jyhad is still a card game and many
people who don't play vampire play it. To these people it will
be about having fun and winning not about their favourate
clans and personalities. Being fond of cards I tend to
seperate myself from vampire the masquerade when playing jyhad
although I still pick my favourate clans and just have fun.
The constant arguing that goes on between the NL camp and card
limit camp is bad for Jyhad as in competition play, if the
card limit is enforced NL players will stay away and if NL is
used CL players will stay away. We as players need to decide
which is best and all convert to that state of play. If this
is not done then the game will suffer due to visiting players
not being able to play one another. It is very frustrating to
have to change your deck everytime you join a new group of
players. I know as I have to travel around alot. I beleive
that card limit should be the standard for the reasons
Matthieu gave above. Anyone with a braincell can create a one
trick pony but not everyone can create a challenging deck
using limited resources. This is the essence of Jyhad, the
ability to create the good deck. Card limit cuts out all but
one degenerate deck (Malkavian S&B) but even that is stoppable
in cases. By a minor modification such as you may only use a
makimum of 4 malkavians in your deck would probably kill this
tactic off all together plus in a competion where we are all
trying to win, why not gang up on he who dares get out such a
boring deck? Just how popular is NL anyway? It seems to have
a reasonable following in the States but I should add that I
have played with many groups around Britain and have found
that no player I have played with has played no limits, only a
card limit of 4-6. This indicates to me that people prefere
card limits in general as a better way to play. Perhaps we
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <325B6C...@anon.penet.fi>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
But it does make a differance who plays what style as at the
moment due to this sad state of affairs I cannot enter an
official competition because they are no-limit affairs! At
least WOC could bring out a 'type 2' official tournement rules
that were made with card limits in mind! It seems unfair (even
more so then the tomb of Rameses 111) to not allow for the
masses of card limit players out there in official
tournements! Surely everyone must agree on that.
LOS
ep42...@wcl.ac.uk (Gabriel Williams) writes:
>In article <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:>>4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
>>
>>How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
>>to just 4 in a deck?
>>
>>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>>in a no-limit environment.
>>>That is true which is fare enough, but to discount one card as
>oppose to having many degenerate decks is much better in my
>view.
With the new DCI rules, this is dicounting one card in the face of
only one (Etrius-Day Op-RTI-Soul Gem-Deflection-Magic Smith)
degenerate deck.
I prefer to have my 1-card option, even in the face of this
40-rares-combo threat.
Discounting my one card (Corruption) *and* boosting S&B to the
status of degeneracy in the face of only one pathological case
deck is not so good, in my opinion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes:
><<<<Pro 4CL argument snipped>>>>>Hello Matthieu. I thank you tremendously for this message as I thought that
>I was the only one of us 4CL people who dares argue with the might of the
>corrupter and L. Scott et al. There are so many people out there who play
>with 4CL who are frightened off this news group (thats posting to it, not
>reading it) because they will get flamed; unreasonably I might add.
Really? :-)
The core NL people (Me, Corrupter, etc.) haven't flamed CL. I don't
know of anyone else whose flamed CL, either, but I may have missed or
disregarded some posts. We do realize that we have a differing opinion
from the CL group, and you realize likewise.
I ask you to support you claim-to-flames.
>Like I said in a message I sent to L. Scott Johnson yesterday, 4CL makes the
>PLAYING of the game more tactical - and hence more nail bitingly exciting -
>having to guess and counter guess what your opponents are going to do. Mr
>Johnson missunderstood my argument and thought that I was talking about it
>as if it was a game of chance. This is NOT the case! L. Scott compared NL to
>the strategy of Chess, whilst CL being like the gambling thrill of
>betting on the horses. However, in counter to this, I'd like to you to
You actually said it makes the game more tense by way of adding more luck
to the equation (i.e., you never know if the card you need is going to
come up soon). I took this to mean you thought that CL added luck to
the mix. Silly me.
NL depends on stocking the cards you need in the right proportions -
reducing the luck factor so that you can concentrate on strategy rather
than hoping to draw the card you need before your opponent does.
>consider this from another angle:
>CL is the game of chess where all the pieces are placed in the predetermined
>positions dictated by the game and the NL game allows you to decide where
>you want to place all the pieces before hand - anywhere on the board. surely
>the CL version of this corrupted chess game would have the most tactics IN
>the game, where as the NL version would leave the vast majority of the
>tactics to the choice of where to place the pieces. I know which I would
>find most fun.
This "angle" stretches the similarity of card games to chess beyond
reasonable limits. I only used Chess because it has no "luck" involved.
Still, working with this admittedly over-stepped analogy,
4CL effectively predetermines the mix of peices (excluding some interesting
peices) and randomizes the starting position.
NL allows you to change the ratio of peices so that (if you can build it
right) you "random" starting position will usually be a strong one. This
is what I find the most fun - tuning a deck so that is is strong even
when luck doesn't smile on you. Being forced to use KRCG, Wakey, Blood
Dolls, Short Terms, Sport Bikes, and Tombs in all of my decks isn't very
appealing to me.
>Anyone who would disagree with me has every right to, but just don't try and
>tell me what the CL game is about when you obviously don't understand
Who doesn't understand? I understand greatly.
You say you can build any style deck under 4CL, but when I ask you to
build a Corruption deck, you back-peddle to a general "steal vampire"
archetype. That you have to change the theme of the deck is the entire
point.
[ quoted text not captured ]
min4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of Shadows) writes:
>But it does make a differance who plays what style as at the
>moment due to this sad state of affairs I cannot enter an
>official competition because they are no-limit affairs! At
>least WOC could bring out a 'type 2' official tournement rules
>that were made with card limits in mind! It seems unfair (even
>more so then the tomb of Rameses 111) to not allow for the
>masses of card limit players out there in official
>tournements! Surely everyone must agree on that.
Yes. It is unfair to not support house rules in official
tournament forums. But it is logistically prohibitive to
support house rules, as well.
In addition to type II (4CL), we'd need types II and IV (3CL
and 10%CL).
Also, we'd need type V for the Non-(D)-omni-directability
crowd. (And types VI, VII, and VIII for the various card-limit
flavors of (D)-only-as-rulebook-allows)
And then we'd need IX-XVI for all of the above combinations
when used with the "no vote push" house rule, and XVII-XXIV
for the "one-vote-push (JOL)" house rule.
With the possible exception of 3CL (which hasn't been discussed
around here in quite a while), the above are all pretty common
house rules.
There are plenty more (No-Zip-DBR, Chainsaw-as-melee, combat-taps,
WwEF-costs-blood, WwEF-is-MOoT, etc)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Oct 11, 1996 15:11:15 in article <Re: 4 card limit>,
'ep42...@wcl.ac.uk (Gabriel Williams)' wrote:
>Thanks very much for this E-mail. It's good not to lose sight
>of our roots in such matters. I agree wholeheartedly with
>what you have said and I believe a game with the story in mind
>is a better thing but Jyhad is still a card game and many
>people who don't play vampire play it. To these people it will
>be about having fun and winning not about their favourate
>clans and personalities. Being fond of cards I tend to
>seperate myself from vampire the masquerade when playing jyhad
>although I still pick my favourate clans and just have fun.
>The constant arguing that goes on between the NL camp and card
>limit camp is bad for Jyhad as in competition play, if the
>card limit is enforced NL players will stay away and if NL is
>used CL players will stay away. We as players need to decide
>which is best and all convert to that state of play. If this
>is not done then the game will suffer due to visiting players
>not being able to play one another. It is very frustrating to
>have to change your deck everytime you join a new group of
>players. I know as I have to travel around alot.
I agree
> I beleive
>that card limit should be the standard for the reasons
>Matthieu gave above. Anyone with a braincell can create a one
>trick pony but not everyone can create a challenging deck
>using limited resources.
One trick decks are no fun for anyone (including the
person playing them. The reason so many people support
NL play, is that it is very difficult to make a one trick
Jyhad deck that wins every time. People discuss the few degenerate decks
in an attempt to fix those few problems.
Most NL decks that I've encountered have not been "one
trick ponies".
Matthieu's reasons are flimsy at best. B.D. Redmonds
have a lot more substance to them and show more
understanding of the game. I suggest you take a look
at those.
> This is the essence of Jyhad, the
>ability to create the good deck. Card limit cuts out all but
>one degenerate deck (Malkavian S&B) but even that is stoppable
>in cases. By a minor modification such as you may only use a
>makimum of 4 malkavians in your deck would probably kill this
>tactic off all together plus in a competion where we are all
>trying to win, why not gang up on he who dares get out such a
>boring deck? Just how popular is NL anyway? It seems to have
>a reasonable following in the States but I should add that I
>have played with many groups around Britain and have found
>that no player I have played with has played no limits, only a
>card limit of 4-6. This indicates to me that people prefere
>card limits in general as a better way to play. Perhaps we
>have more imagination here.....
>Gabriel
It takes more intelligence, and knowledge of the
game, to decide how many of a certain card your
deck needs, than it does to just put in 4.
Larrx...
Lord of Shadows wrote:
>
> But it does make a differance who plays what style as at the
> moment due to this sad state of affairs I cannot enter an
> official competition because they are no-limit affairs! At
> least WOC could bring out a 'type 2' official tournement rules
> that were made with card limits in mind! It seems unfair (even
> more so then the tomb of Rameses 111) to not allow for the
> masses of card limit players out there in official
> tournements! Surely everyone must agree on that.> LOS
I disagree. This is like saying "a lot of people play with a 6 CL in
Magic. Why don't they make a tournament type for us?". Because the
game was designed with NL in mind. Just because some people started
playing 4CL because they played Magic first is no reason for the design
issues of the game to be compromised. Besides, would you want to go to
a 4CL tournament? Everyone would have a Malk S&B deck. Gosh. That
would be lots of fun.
James
--
+-------------------+ PC: "I check for traps, then open the chest."
| James Hamblin | DM: "You find a Ring of Polynomials."
| je...@cornell.edu | PC: "Um, cool. I put it on."
+-------------------+ DM: "You can't. It's infinite!"
> The constant arguing that goes on between the NL camp and card
> limit camp is bad for Jyhad as in competition play, if the
> card limit is enforced NL players will stay away and if NL is
> used CL players will stay away. We as players need to decide
> which is best and all convert to that state of play.
Well, I doesn't seem like you are ever going to be convinced that NL is
the way to go, and I for one am never going back to CL, so there you go.
NL is what the official rules are. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say
"you can only have 4 of each card". So the whole idea of CL is a
fabrication of people who play Magic (or whatever) carrying over the
(necessary) CL in that game to (unnecessary) CL in Jyhad.
> If this
> is not done then the game will suffer due to visiting players
> not being able to play one another. It is very frustrating to
> have to change your deck everytime you join a new group of
> players.
Well, the standard of the people who make this game is NL. But you
disagree with that, so the fact that wherever you go, they might be
playing NL there, is, frankly, your problem, not theirs.
> I know as I have to travel around alot. I beleive> that card limit should be the standard for the reasons
> Matthieu gave above. Anyone with a braincell can create a one
> trick pony but not everyone can create a challenging deck
> using limited resources.
So, to use analogy, anyone with a braincell can use a calculator, but it
takes a "real man" to do 5-digit multiplication in his head?
Anyone with a braincell can walk with two legs, but "not everyone" can
hop around on one leg all the time?
Anyone with a braincell can build a stealth and bleed deck under 4-CL,
but not everyone seems to see that it's impossible to combat it
successfully under the same 4CL.
> This is the essence of Jyhad, the
> ability to create the good deck. Card limit cuts out all but
> one degenerate deck (Malkavian S&B) but even that is stoppable
> in cases.
OK. Here's the point that really, really needs to be addressed here.
There is one (count them) deck that's reasonably degenerate under
NL/SPTR. [Note: not NL by itself. NL/SPTR (NL/GT; same thing, pretty
much.)] That deck is the Etrius-Soul Gem-RTI-Day
Op.-Fame-Obedience-ToRIII deck by Gomi no Sensei.
Malk S&B is _not_ degenerate under NL. By virtue of NL, successful rush
combat decks can be made. You can have more than 4 deflections. Bottom
line: you can _deal_ with it, where you cannot under 4CL.
The Corrupter asked people for a year to come up with one (!) degenerate
deck under his SPTR, and people tried. Not one could not be dealt
with. Even the Etrius/RTI deck can be fended off with Deflection. It's
still degenerate, since it can bleed for 17 or so without any real loss
of resources.
But other than that extreme example, CL is _far_ more broken than NL,
since it took somebody a year to come up with _one_ degenerate deck,
whereas under CL, S&B is broken, and there are many good, interesting,
clever strategies that just don't work.
> By a minor modification such as you may only use a
> makimum of 4 malkavians in your deck would probably kill this
> tactic off all together plus in a competion where we are all
> trying to win, why not gang up on he who dares get out such a
> boring deck?
Your two "solutions" to the Malk S&B problem under 4CL leave much to be
desired. First off, you want to (essentially) _ban_ Malkavians!?
That's just plain wrong.
Secondly, "get him"? That's your plan? Seriously, if a certain deck
type requires all other players to gang up on that player for anyone
else to survive, that's not a "tactic". That's a reason to go to NL.
> This indicates to me that people prefere
> card limits in general as a better way to play. Perhaps we
> have more imagination here.....
That's a big leap you're making there. Everyone I have talked to who
has switched from CL to NL prefered NL as being more flexible, and
conducive to better deck design.
I earnestly hope your comment about imagination was a joke. If
anything, it's closed-mindedness that keeps people from trying NL.
Trust me. We played 4CL from the outset, and were stalwart opponents to
NL, until we tried it. 4CL is _not_ the better way to play.
Do us all a favor, and at least take a look at the card limits articles
on Judith and Mark's Jyhad page:
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Matthieu Miyamoto wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote:
[Re: Contention that Corruption is obviously a card designed for No Limit]
> > Really?
[...Agreement from Mathieu]
[argument that corruption doesn't work on older vampires in V: Masquerade]
Neither does Dominate. Not _all_ the issues of the RPG can be brought to
the CCG. This is a card game first.
> People who don't know how to play use unlimited card limits. You have
> no creativity or affliction to make good with what you have. Just the
> fact that you can keep doing the same thing over and over.
This point has no support. Creativity or its lack is not a result of CL
or NL. As for "people who don't know how to play..." Richard Garfield
plays NL (check out the first Jyhad Player's Guide).
> The reason is this. "you could win with a deck that only has
> telepathic counters."
How?
> All you have to do is prevent any bleed against you.
Well, let's see...
What if they don't bleed you until all of your vampires are dogmeat
(combat deck, 1/3 of all decks)?
What if they don't bleed you because they vote you to death? (1/3)
What if they don't bleed you because they are an intercept deck protecting
Anarch Revolts, Smiling Jack, Army of Rats, and Powerbase/Blood Puppy?
What if they bleed you for more than you can prevent each turn?
> And
> then withdraw as soon as you get a vampire out.
You can't withdraw if they cause you to fight or lose pool. You can't
withdraw until you exhaust your library.
> You get an oust point
> for successfully withdrawing from the game. Unless some with an
> unlimited amount of bums rushes sends your vampires straight to hell
> without passing go. Otherwise technically you win with one oust point in
> a two player game.
Tie, you mean.
> Or I tap all of you vampires via:Superior Earthmeld or
> Majesties. and bleed you to death.
Someone already gave the URL but :
<http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/20Maj.html>
provides plenty of dispute to that.
In a nutshell, you can't repeat actions now, officially (making all the
arguments in that paper apply to official play). You need to rely on more
than just S:CE, or you will lose, either to someone playing a deck faster
than you, someone having a counter to the common anti-combat (S:CE)
strategy, or falling to a more robust deck.
> I am the Toreador Elder of Hilo, Hawaii, currently visiting
> Corvallis for a limited time. Which if there is a prince here let me
> know so I'll pay homage (via e-mail). In my city we have decreed our card
> limit to be at 4. If anything I strongly urge the current limit to be of
> 4 or 5.
From where does this Magic number arrive?
> I am dissappointed in hearing that players make their decks> around card values and abilities.
So you'd prefer they make their decks around...?
[game world realism and narrative storytelling snippets]
> These cards games where based on the purpose of storytelling, not to
> get into combat or unblockable bleeds.
This game is based on a storytelling game (Vampire: the Masquerade and the
other World of Darkness Storyteller materials), but _this_ game is not a
storytelling game. It is Jyhad (aka Vampire: the Eternal Struggle) a
Collectible Trading Card Game of Gothic Horror by Richard Garfield. :)
> I speak for the for the players of both Vampire:tes and Vampire:Masque of
> my city.
I don't claim to speak for my city, only my playgroup, and most of those I
have met. Before you make such claims, realize that other groups are out
there. In Madison, there is another organized playgroup that _does_ play
4CL (of which, I found out, just less than 1/2 prefer NL, but that the
"bigwigs" heavily prefer 4CL. They defer to these bigwigs because of
social reasons, and they can always play NL with us.). While I may feel
that I represent my city well, I won't ever claim to.
[Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu]
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)>
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?
In note <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott
Johnson) writes:
>4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.
Severly limits, not kill, you just have to use a few additional strategies.
I know this is obvious, but that is the way of 4CL. You must use multiple
ideas except for he S&B.
>
>How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
>to just 4 in a deck?
Allies and Caitiff fall before even four of these cards, and with the
obfuscate potential of the Settites...
>>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>in a no-limit environment.
Here i must agree, this card obviously requres more than four to steal larger
vampires to make it effective in a single idea deck. But, that is what i think
is the beauty of a 4cl, you cannot rely on just one card, you have to explore
the clans strengths and weaknesses.
>--
>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Virtue is the failure to
>http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | achieve vice.
>Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
---
d out
Dagmar Fraser <dfr...@envirolink.org> writes:
>In note <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott
>Johnson) writes:>>4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.>Severly limits, not kill, you just have to use a few additional strategies.
>I know this is obvious, but that is the way of 4CL. You must use multiple
>ideas except for he S&B.>>
>>How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're limited
>>to just 4 in a deck?>Allies and Caitiff fall before even four of these cards, and with the
>obfuscate potential of the Settites...
Allies require Corruption counter equal to the *cost* of the Ally, not
the lives of the Ally - and most allies cost more than 1.
>>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>>in a no-limit environment.>Here i must agree, this card obviously requres more than four to steal larger
>vampires to make it effective in a single idea deck. But, that is what i think
>is the beauty of a 4cl, you cannot rely on just one card, you have to explore
>the clans strengths and weaknesses.
With 4CL, IMHO, you get only a taste of the clan's strengths and
weaknesses (with the exception of Malkavians). To really explore
the strengths and weaknesses, you have to show a little more
focus.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Cats teach us that not
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | everything in nature has
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | a function.
In article <54ifdj$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>Dagmar Fraser <dfr...@envirolink.org> writes:>>In note <53dsfj$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott
>>Johnson) writes:>>>4CL kills a basic Follower of Set strategy: Corruption.>>Severly limits, not kill, you just have to use a few
additional strategies.
>>I know this is obvious, but that is the way of 4CL. You must
use multiple
>>ideas except for he S&B.>>>
>>>How much use will you get out of Corruption if you're
limited
>>>to just 4 in a deck?>>Allies and Caitiff fall before even four of these cards, and
with the
>>obfuscate potential of the Settites...>
>Allies require Corruption counter equal to the *cost* of the
Ally, not
>the lives of the Ally - and most allies cost more than 1.
But less then 4 in most cases.....
>>>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
>>>in a no-limit environment.>>>Here i must agree, this card obviously requres more than four
to steal larger
>>vampires to make it effective in a single idea deck. But,
that is what i think
>>is the beauty of a 4cl, you cannot rely on just one card, you
have to explore
>>the clans strengths and weaknesses.>
>With 4CL, IMHO, you get only a taste of the clan's strengths
and
>weaknesses (with the exception of Malkavians). To really
explore
>the strengths and weaknesses, you have to show a little more
>focus.
Not really, I think the strengths and weaknesses of most clans
are apparent at any card limit. In 4 card limit if one
discipline has a good card you cannot just rely on this to get
the job done. It therefore allows more of the cards available
to be used. The downside to this however is if Wizards of the
coast (in there infinate wisdom...?) bring out many cards which
are the same under different names then it effectively gives
some disciplines the advantage of having an equivelent of 8
cards of the same. In no limit if one disipline has a good card
you could just use that repeatedly (such as traps instead of
conquer the beast) and not have to look for alternatives. This
may not necessarily be a bad thing as the variety of decks you
can create EASILY will be increased but the challenge of deck
creation is lessened. Thats the main reason I play card limits
and beleive it is this extra challenge that has created the
breakaway group of card limiters. Still, each to there own as
there are many merits to both sides of the game....
LOS
I'm sure you have dealt with this before, but don't the Tournament rules have a 6 card limit?
When we play wiht limits, we use the 6 card limit.
Where did the 4 card limit come from. It sounds like a holdobver from Magic Tounament rules.
Tony
Tony Van (Ton...@concentric.net) wrote:
: I'm sure you have dealt with this before, but don't the Tournament: rules have a 6 card limit?
As I understand it, the tournament rules NEVER had an across the board
6 card limit. One of the recent sets of tournament rules had a no limit
except for a 6 card limit on certain restricted cards, and then some cards
were absolutely banned.
The _current_ DCI tournament rules are NO limits with a couple of banned
cards and a variant of the SPTR.
: When we play wiht limits, we use the 6 card limit. Where did the 4: card limit come from. It sounds like a holdobver from Magic
: Tounament rules.
Yeah, the number "4" is definitely pulled from the Magic side of the world.
-spongy
MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of Shadows) writes:
>In article <54ifdj$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:>>Dagmar Fraser <dfr...@envirolink.org> writes:>>>Allies and Caitiff fall before even four of these cards, and>with the>>>obfuscate potential of the Settites...>>
>>Allies require Corruption counter equal to the *cost* of the>Ally, not>>the lives of the Ally - and most allies cost more than 1.>But less then 4 in most cases.....
Yes, but note that you won't get even four in a game with a
four card limit - the odds are too high against you. Dagmar
realized that only Caitiff are suitable targets for Corruption
under 4CL because you can only depend on getting one through.
The others will be blocked, will remain in your library, or
won't come out until the Ally is burned ("oh, Muddles has
a corruption counter? Time to rush Quinton")
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Lord of Shadows wrote:
> (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
[Re: Near uselessness of cards (example: corruption) in a 4CL environment]
[Example, only 4 Corruptions means that Corrupting anything is a miracle]
> >Allies require Corruption counter equal to the *cost* of the Ally, not
> >the lives of the Ally - and most allies cost more than 1.> But less then 4 in most cases.....
Assuming an _extremely_ small deck (60 cards), getting 2 Corruption cards
requires, on average, movement through just less than half the deck. This
reduces the use of Corruption to only reasonably useful on stealing 0-cost
allies, or 1 cost/capacity allies/vampires. Anything else is playing the
game _purely_ on luck.
> >>>Surely anyone can see that this card was designed to be used
> >>>in a no-limit environment.
[someone wrote:]
> >>[...] this card obviously requres more than four to steal larger> >>vampires to make it effective in a single idea deck. But, that is what
> >>i think is the beauty of a 4cl, you cannot rely on just one card, you
> >> have to explore the clans strengths and weaknesses.
As you do with NL. A good-NL deck likely wouldn't make a "I'll corrupt
you" deck. It would probably lose. However, under CL, Corruption isn't
remotely useful, akin to using Illegal Search and Seizure, _hoping_ that
your opponents play expensive weapons, or when you know specifically that
you will be playing against weenies.
NL decks that rely on only 1 card have a name: One-Trick-Ponies (OTP).
They are often remarkably effective at their one-trick, but a OTP is at a
distint disadvantage in a general-NL environment because you need to be
prepared for _so_ much, and since most other decks build a broad based
defense (against 3 majors: bleed/vote/combat), their reliance on one card
makes them extremely succeptible to common defensive measures.
In describing the efficacy of the OTP in NL, I often use the following
analogy...
Decks in NL fall between two extremes, a long, wide board,
covering everything under neath it with minimal pressure when pressed
down, and a sharp pin, piercing deeply at times, but easily knocked over.
OTPs are notoriously erratic at winning. Decks constructed with even
standard defenses to the Big 3 strategies tend to have contingencies for
most things. When surprises do hit a deck, or when it becomes obvious a
deck has a weakness (as I found with one of my Fortitude based decks vs.
Tremere Combat, esp. Intercept Combat), they alter their deck to cover up
their holes. OTPs, by their very nature, either give up on covering up
their holes in favor of their tight, piercing nature, or they cover up the
holes and become more like that long, wide board.
> >With 4CL, IMHO, you get only a taste of the clan's strengths and
> >weaknesses (with the exception of Malkavians). To really explore
> >the strengths and weaknesses, you have to show a little more
> >focus.> Not really, I think the strengths and weaknesses of most clans
> are apparent at any card limit. In 4 card limit if one
> discipline has a good card you cannot just rely on this to get
> the job done. It therefore allows more of the cards available
> to be used.
Not especially. Name a singular card you would rely on to "get the job
done". Majesty as combat defense? Weak against standard combat
anti-combat. Only Intercept against bleed? Weak against Seduction, Elder
Intervention. Misdirection to remove blockers? Wake and animalism become
defensive nightmares (so much lost pool, so little use). A broad defense
must be used, with focuses of more cards (perhaps 4, but perhaps 8 or 10)
where they are useful for your deck, but alternatives with fewer cards in
case someone is prepared for your aproach. Most good decks have to spread
out their card usage, allowing more of the cards avaiable to be used.
> The downside to this however is if Wizards of the
> coast (in there infinate wisdom...?) bring out many cards which
> are the same under different names then it effectively gives
> some disciplines the advantage of having an equivelent of 8
> cards of the same.
But they have already done this. Note Stealth and Intercept and their
amount of repetition in the card set. Then note, most animalism cards are
not repeated. Most Serpentis/Necro/Vote/Protean are not.
> In no limit if one disipline has a good card
> you could just use that repeatedly (such as traps instead of
> conquer the beast) and not have to look for alternatives. This
> may not necessarily be a bad thing as the variety of decks you
> can create EASILY will be increased but the challenge of deck
> creation is lessened. Thats the main reason I play card limits
> and beleive it is this extra challenge that has created the
> breakaway group of card limiters. Still, each to there own as
> there are many merits to both sides of the game....
I agree that there does exist a challenge in making viable decks in
4CL, but the problem I find is with the total 4CL environment. This
challenge is not equal accrossed the board. There is no hinderence at all
for a Sneak and Bleed deck in 4CL. However, making a decent vote deck or
rush deck takes a lot more work to even be passably viable. The
environment itself is unbalanced towards one strategy, and _that_ is what
I don't like.
Comparing challenge of deck creation is relatively useless, as they are
different styles of deck creation. With 4CL, the challenge basicly comes
in finding how to overcome the CL itself, but deck design is made somewhat
easier. In NL, making a similar deck as designed in CL requires much more
thought. In a rush deck that needs, say 10 to 15 get into combat cards,
for example, you can't just thow in 4 Bum's Rush, 4 Haven Uncovered, 2-3
Sports Bikes, and 4 Contracts (for Assamites). Maybe the deck would be
better of with 8 Contracts and 6 Bum's Rushes. Maybe the deck would be
best with 6 Haven Uncovered, 4 Sport Bike and 2 Contracts. Maybe the deck
is best with 4 of each. But you have to understand the differences of
each to put them in.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Gue...@msn.com (Anthony McBride) wrote:
>nothing wrong with card limits! (esp to prevent sick cards such as
>'thoughts betrayed' being used to excess)
Neither the rule book, nor the official tournament rules mention
anything about card limits. Therefore, it is not good enough for
there to be "nothing wrong with card limits" ( which is debatable ).
There must be something _good_ about card limits. There must
be an observed problem in the game, which card limits fix. Card
limits must somehow make the game more enjoyable. It is not
good enough for it to simply _not_ make the game _less_
enjoyable.
As for it supposedly fixing spoiler cards (such as thoughts
betrayed):
1) It does not fix "sick cards such as thoughts betrayed".
The cards still do the same thing they did before,
you just draw them less often. Thoughts betrayed
is still "sick". Since these cards are still more useful
and powerful then other cards, it becomes important
to have the maximum allowed in every deck. Many
of us saw this happen in M:tG. I've never seen a
tournament level M____ deck without all five moxen,
and a lotus ( and usually the time cards ). That's why
I don't play M:t$ any more, and I don't want to see
it happen to V:tES.
2) Let's forget about thoughts betrayed for a minute (it's special
in various ways, and isn't a very good example). Before
SPTR/GT, freak drive was often thought of as a spoiler
card. It allowed one minion take large numbers of bleed
actions in one turn, and this was unbalanced. Some
players thought that a four card limit would fix this
problem. If you can only have four freak drives in your
deck, you can still bleed multiple times in one turn, with
one minion, which is still unbalanced, but you can't do it
very often. And then they printed force of will, and rutor's
hand, and card limits don't work so well any more. There
will likely be more similar cards in Sabbat, and future
expansions, and card limits will work less, and less well.
3) WotC does not support card limits, and the cards sets they
design will not be designed to function correctly in a
card limit environment.
4) Why are flash, and undead strenght limited to four each?
because thoughts betrayed is unabalanced? That's
very unfair to any players that can't afford to get the
expensive rares to replace the useful ( and balanced )
commons that you wont let them play with.
Larrx...
Just to add another 2 pence (uk)...
i've played Jyhad since day one, the people i played with were all war weary
magic veterans and we were playing another Garfield game. The four card limit
was a natural extension to a game Magic that had no 4Cl, my friends naturally
assumed that given time Jyhad would be the same.....
We traded with 4 of each desirable card in mind and the initial group and most
of those who joined later benefitted from the fact that the richer players had
'spare' copies of useful cards like blood dolls and wakes. All could field
after a little trading effective decks...
The pluses and minuses of each of the card limit styles is on this newsgroup
for public record....but for the NLists how do they propose that established
groups like mine change to NL?
---
d out
Dagmar Fraser writes:
>We traded with 4 of each desirable card in mind and the initial group and
most
>of those who joined later benefitted from the fact that the richer
players had
>'spare' copies of useful cards like blood dolls and wakes. All could
field
>after a little trading effective decks...>The pluses and minuses of each of the card limit styles is on this
newsgroup
>for public record....but for the NLists how do they propose that
established
>groups like mine change to NL?
Really, it's no problem. Just start playing no limits (with the DCI or GT
additional rules, of course). Everything happens quickly and naturally.
My only suggestion is to build a few rush combat decks to speed the
process along.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In note <19961112014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com
writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Maybe i should state the problem again....How do people with four of nearly
every card switch to a higher card limit without spending essentially their
initial investment again?
---
d out
Dagmar Fraser wrote:
>
> Maybe i should state the problem again....How do people with four of nearly
> every card switch to a higher card limit without spending essentially their
> initial investment again?
Do what my group did... a bunch of us got together and bought a bunch of
boxes of the original set. Each of us got half a box (I don't remember
how many boosters that was, but it was a lot of cards), and it cost $12
each. We found a mail-order guy selling boxes for $20 each, and the
prices are still pretty much the same.
In half a box, and more trading, you'll get what you need. Although, I
traded away most of my celerity cards, and I need Flashes, Acrobatics,
and Sideslips really badly now... anyone want to trade...?
James
--
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| James E. Hamblin | Cornell University | "Purple is a fruit." |
| je...@cornell.edu | Senior Math/CS Major | -- Homer Simpson |
+-------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
Dagmar Fraser <dfr...@envirolink.org> writes:
>Maybe i should state the problem again....How do people with four of nearly
>every card switch to a higher card limit without spending essentially their
>initial investment again?
Under NL, most of the reares become merely interesting "salt" cards.
The commons are the meat. So, buy a box of assorted commons (typically
100 for five or ten dollars, American) and go get 'em.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Experience is something you
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | get just after you need it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dagmar Fraser <dfr...@envirolink.org>
>Maybe i should state the problem again....
>How do people with four of nearly
>every card switch to a higher card limit
>without spending essentially their
>initial investment again?
You wouldn't normally have 4 of every card. If you have 4 of every
uncommon, you'll have about 14 of every common. If you only have 4 of
every common, you'll only have 1 of every uncommon.
Generally, if you allow trading, somebody will trade his 4 Bum's Rush for
somebody else's 4 Deflection and everything is fine. Whatevery deck
you're playing, there will be somecards you want more of; they will
generally overlap with unused extras in somebody else's collection.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <84780846...@manatee.envirolink.org>
dfr...@envirolink.org writes:
[discussion of moving from 4CL to NL snipped]
>Maybe i should state the problem again....How do people with four of nearly>every card switch to a higher card limit without spending essentially their
>initial investment again?
Most of the cards you need to play effective NL decks are common. If you
have four of nearly every card, you probably have lots of extra commons.
If you don't, trade away some of those less useful rare Master cards.
There are a few exceptions, cards you may want more than four of:
Immortal Grapple
Freak Drive
Flesh of Marble
and maybe Fists of Death (the only R1).
Generally, the rares are permanents or transients, so you won't
want to put more than four in your deck very often.
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
Hi Dagmar,
On 12 Nov 1996, Dagmar Fraser wrote:
> Maybe i should state the problem again....How do people with four of nearly
> every card switch to a higher card limit without spending essentially their
> initial investment again?> ---
> d out
>
Well, Ed Bayne used to sell commons for 3 dollars per thousand.
You can probably find him on rec.games.trading-cards.marketplace if you
want to wade through all the crap, or email me and I'll send you his address.
Algustas
*****Money is power, and you ought to be reasonably ambitious to have
it.***** Russell H Conwell, first president of Temple University
In note <56ag0u$4...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas
Doehne) writes:
>In article <84780846...@manatee.envirolink.org>
>dfr...@envirolink.org writes:
>[discussion of moving from 4CL to NL snipped]
>>>Maybe i should state the problem again....How do people with four of nearly
>>every card switch to a higher card limit without spending essentially their
>>initial investment again?>>Most of the cards you need to play effective NL decks are common. If you
>have four of nearly every card, you probably have lots of extra commons.
>If you don't, trade away some of those less useful rare Master cards.
>
>There are a few exceptions, cards you may want more than four of:
>Immortal Grapple
>Freak Drive
>Flesh of Marble
>and maybe Fists of Death (the only R1).
>
>Generally, the rares are permanents or transients, so you won't
>want to put more than four in your deck very often.
>
>
>--
>Tom Doehne
>doe...@cse.ogi.edu
The buying options seem to be the only viable way to go from 4 to no limit.
Trading 4 deflections for 4 bum's rushes (as stated in another post in this
thred) is unlikely and limiting considering my play group regularly changes
which clan they plan with, normally cycling through nearly all the clans.
As for trading rare but transient master cards, my trading companions already
have them. So if we want to change it seems hands in pockets....
Maybe we should just play no limit from Sabbat onwards, card replication and a
different trading objective.....
thanks
---
d out
I'm playing with a group that has a 4CL this Sunday. It'll be the
first time I've played under a CL, and have to admit the concept doesn't
excite me. Having to remove six of my 'Wakes' really hurt. <g>
Now I'll find out first hand how CL effect play..
-j
In article <56j75p$b...@blackice.winternet.com>, Faethor
<fae...@winternet.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Awwww J! I'm crushed! (teasing you). We'll treat you nicely and give you
lots of beer or apple cider to ease the trauma :) (exchange the wakes for
forced awakenning) Who knows you might convince us to switch to 6cl or NL!
PjV