Watford tourney/Temptation of Greater Sleaze/Ultimate refutation of CL

It was great to finally meet Sorrow this weekend. He arrived early Saturday afternoon and after a quick pizza he, Michael and i beetled off to Southampton to play in the Final Nights sealed-deck tourney. We were a bit late but 6 of us played 2 3-player tables. i had the Giovanni at our table, preying on Chris's Setites and being preyed upon by an Assamite deck whose owner's name i didn't catch. No drafting was allowed but nobody said you couldn't take cards out, so i trimmed the Spaghetti-sucking Corpse-fucking crimbos of all their crap cards and swept our table quite comfortably. Sorrow reckons i cheated by taking cards out, which is true but i cheated legally in being quicker on abusing the literal text of the rules than anybody else. So there. Michael had a slightly harder time at his table cos he had the Ravnos, but eventually he swept, too. So we rolled a dice to see who won, and it was Michael [aka Anklebiter aged 12]. This cheered him up quite a bit after his recent poor run of form and not being able to go to the Watford tourneys because they are in a pub. It also makes him the youngest AND the second-youngest person ever to have won a competitive VTES event. Then we had a barbie [mmmm .... dioxins ....] and afterwards i taught Sorrow how to play New Rage. It was a terrific game, and when the fur and squidgy bits had ceased to fly Sorrow's Get of Fenris were the victors over Michael's Bone Gnawers and my Silent Striders. Good fun! Next day Sorrow, John Eagles and i made the trek up to Watford for a nice big tourney, 22 or so people IIRC. Rob was there briefly but did not play, Barney and Will being other notable absentees. It was good to see james Coupe back in the competitive frame and playing what Matt and i think is his best deck ever. Sorrow played a storming weenie obfuscate-embrace deck for 9 VPs and i played a totally new deck which i threw together that morning, for 10VPs in the heats and 1 in the final. i call this deck Temptation of Greater Sleaze; the design principle being quite simply to include as many as possible of the cards that make your heart sink when they hit the table. Here's the deck, with notes to indicate where i think it could be modified for the better: DECK NAME: TEMPTATION OF GREATER SLEAZE CRYPT [12 vampires] Zebulon [replace with Mariel] Leandro x 2 Lucian x 4 Greger Anderssen x 2 Gilbert Duane x 2 LIBRARY MASTERS [21] Direct Intervention Dreams of the Sphinx Giant's blood Golconda - Inner Peace Information Highway Legendary Vampire Minion Tap x 4 The Parthenon Pentex Subversion Temptation of Greater Power x 4 Tomb of Rameses III x 3 Secure Haven Sudden Reversal ACTIONS [9] The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality x 3 Govern the Unaligned x 2 Kine Dominance x 2 Pulse of the Canaille Revelations [remove] VOTES [18] Anarchist Uprising x 2 Ancient Influence Banishment x 2 Dramatic Upheaval KRC x 5 Parity Shift x 4 Political flux [maybe remove] Political Stranglehold Rabble Razing [remove] REACTIONS [20] Deflection x 4 Forced Awakening Obedience x 4 The Second Tradition: Domain x 2 Telepathic Counter x 3 [not sure. Maybe remove]. WWEF x 6 ACTION MODIFIERS [22] Cloak the Gathering x 4 Conditioning x 3 Elder impersonation Faceless Night x 4 Forgotten Labyrinth Lost in Crowds x 4 Spying Mission Swallowed by the Night x 4 [Yep, not a Happy Families deck and NO combat cards. What, i can't break my own rules from time to time? You wait till you see the NEXT emanation of the Legbitery grey matter!!!!] Odd tournament this one. i got 4VP in the first 5-player game, getting early vote-lock and pulling off Parity Shift, Deflection and Anarchist Uprising plus some biggish bleeds. LOTS of weenies on the table. Second game [4-player] i swept thanks to Dramatic Upheaval, KRC, Banishment, big bleeds, wake/Obedience, ToGP [14-point master-phase bleed], and mariel's special. Third game [4-player] i tied, despite having TWO fears of Mekhet played on me by my second prey [i suddened one of them]; i did another 14-point master-phase bleed with ToGP on Daniel Vandenberg in this one. In the final i chose to bleed Sorrow and to be bled by Matt. i was doing OK until martin Cubberley did a totally-ridiculous cross-table rush against Mariel. Yes, yes, i KNOW i said that combat decks should do cross-table rushes against their grand-prey in order to bring the table down to three and try to win from there. Own, petard, hoist sorta thing. i still got Sorrow's scalp but that was a self-oust; he was in a losing position and chose the manner of his going [if not self-ousted he was going to die to Matthew who had a Dramatic Upheaval in his hand which had been Delaying Tactic'd the previous round]. i had Niki Sehmi down to 5 pool with a Kine Dominance, Conditioning and LOADS of stealth in hand, but i tried to be too clever and called a Parity Shift against my grand-prey first. To my astonishment Matthew did me in with an Elder Kindred Network! FANTASTIC tactical play. i hope it worked out for him strategically, too, but i have my doubts - when i left he was alone on the table with two combat decks. i was doing OK against the combat decks even with Mariel in the bin - cos nothing about her card-text says you can't use her special while she's in torpor, so i did. So, once again i score top VPs for a tourney but don't win. Bah. John reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do all this ridiculous cross-table shit. Scaredy, scaredy, scaredy cats and ya-boo stinky-poohs to those of you upon whom this cap fits. In between the first and second heats Daniel Vandenberg and i played a FN duel, his tweaked Giovanni vs my tweaked Assamites. Assamites won, but it was tight - i was down to 1 pool. In between the third heat and the final we played Fluxx and i won, apparently. And i traded for TWO Your Sugarys, an Ex Nihilo and something else juicy, possibly a Sargon fragment. So i had a good time overall and thanks, Dave, for another dam' fine event. Sorrow didn't come back with us because his work was taking him to Derby next day, but we look forward to entertaining him again real soon! Finally i note with some surprise that the deck i built is legal under 6-cl, and could easily be made so for 4CL [replace a KRC with conservative agitation, and 2 wakes with Forced Awakening]. i repeat that it won the most VPs in this tourney, and my experience of playing it convinces me that in addition to being deadly it is flexible, fun to play, tactically and strategically-challenging, and robust. i emphasise that this was an official NCL tourney, sporting some absolutely classical focussed-degenerate decks [including the rush-deck type that rattles Andrew's cage so much - no problem with that one thanks to Mariel and wake/obedience. It might be nice if Sorrow could post his deck which most likely got the second-higgest VPs so that people can see what i'm talking about when i mention degeneracy. Chris, you up for that?]. Is it, i wonder, too much to hope that the CL people will shut their traps now? If not, might they at least have the humility to consider the possibility that their deck-constructing and playing skills, rather than the game itself, leave something to be desired?

> Then we had a barbie [mmmm .... dioxins ....] and afterwards i taught > Sorrow how to play New Rage. If you come to Gencon this year, you'll have to teach me how to play - I've still got a box of Rage that I bought at last years' Gencon, and I haven't even opened it! > Next day Sorrow, John Eagles and i made the trek up to Watford for a > nice big tourney, 22 or so people IIRC. Correct (I didn't play either, so 24 people showed if you count Rob "Splitter" Treasure ;) ) Rob was there briefly but did > not play, Barney (wearing a suit oop naarth somewhere) >and Will No idea. not even a phone call! > being other notable absentees. It was good > to see james Coupe back in the competitive frame and playing what Matt > and i think is his best deck ever. And looking chipper generally shout up to the UK Rulemonger <snip deck and other musings> >So, > once again i score top VPs for a tourney but don't win. Bah. John > reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do > all this ridiculous cross-table shit. Scaredy, scaredy, scaredy cats > and ya-boo stinky-poohs to those of you upon whom this cap fits. Oh be fair, many players on the day hadn't ever SEEN a ToGP, let alone knew what it did. When they found out... well, word gets around! >And i traded for TWO > Your Sugarys, an Ex Nihilo and something else juicy, possibly a Sargon > fragment. So you've also spotted the best Necromancy card, eh! <another snip> Thanks for coming, leggy. You know it wouldn't be the same without you! DH

"hamdamcwa" <dave...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9e10847c.01062...@posting.google.com... > > Next day Sorrow, John Eagles and i made the trek up to Watford for a > > nice big tourney, 22 or so people IIRC. > > Correct (I didn't play either, so 24 people showed if you count Rob > "Splitter" Treasure ;) ) That's rich coming from Mr. Not at the London tourney and neither are any of my buddies. > Rob was there briefly but did > > not play, Barney > > (wearing a suit oop naarth somewhere) > > >and Will > > No idea. not even a phone call! No transport or cash I believe, wanted to play though. > >So, > > once again i score top VPs for a tourney but don't win. Bah. John > > reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do > > all this ridiculous cross-table shit. Scaredy, scaredy, scaredy cats > > and ya-boo stinky-poohs to those of you upon whom this cap fits. > > Oh be fair, many players on the day hadn't ever SEEN a ToGP, let alone > knew what it did. When they found out... well, word gets around! John is scared of you was that ? did'nt quite get it :o) > >And i traded for TWO > > Your Sugarys, an Ex Nihilo and something else juicy, possibly a Sargon > > fragment. A veritable trade fest. Loads of great fair trading going on. > Thanks for coming, leggy. You know it wouldn't be the same without > you! Seconded. Part of the VTES furniture if you will. Rob.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:57:15 +0100, "Rob Treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Thanks for coming, leggy. You know it wouldn't be the same without >> you! > >Seconded. Part of the VTES furniture if you will. Does this mean we can use him as a foot rest? -- Derek

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:27:35 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I would like to see you try :)

On 25 Jun 2001 04:24:36 -0700, legbiter wrote: >i was doing OK until martin Cubberley did a >totally-ridiculous cross-table rush against Mariel. ... John >reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do >all this ridiculous cross-table shit. Martin won the final, right? It sounds like he made a smart move not a ridiculous one. I'm still not clear what sort of deck he had though, apart from it being rush combat. >emphasise that this was an official NCL tourney, sporting some >absolutely classical focussed-degenerate decks [including the >rush-deck type that rattles Andrew's cage so much - no problem with >that one thanks to Mariel and wake/obedience. ... Is it, i wonder, >too much to hope that the CL people will shut their traps now? Sorry to snipe at your entertaining report but you've rattled my cage now <grin>. You played a 4CL deck and both you and Mariel were put to bed by one of these degenerate rush combat decks, right? That's one for the CL camp, I think. What time did the final finish, btw? I'm assuming that these things go on till ~9 pm, right? Doesn't the pub get loud and busy in the evening? Must be tricky concentrating on a tense final ... Andrew

In message <68f2e9f8.01062...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> writes >It was good >to see james Coupe back in the competitive frame and playing what Matt >and i think is his best deck ever. Yikes, it was just a Lasombra toolbox I threw together. It had about 12 "offensive" potence cards and 5 defensive obtenebration cards. I'll probably reverse the proportions - a few more Oubliette, possibly even dropping the Shadow Bodies completely, and convert the potence cards to a couple of Death of My Conscience (for hand cycling and a hidden punch), possibly one Burning Wrath. Given the propensity of people to not block my hunting actions, I had some pool gain going with 4 Blood Dolls, but I'd like something a bit more solid. I was quite happy with the crypt, which worked out well enough. I'll probably post the deck later this evening, but I'm pressed for time now. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

In message <3A54499D61A4B617.342BB3C0...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On 25 Jun 2001 04:24:36 -0700, legbiter wrote: > >>i was doing OK until martin Cubberley did a >>totally-ridiculous cross-table rush against Mariel. ... John >>reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do >>all this ridiculous cross-table shit. > >Martin won the final, right? It sounds like he made a smart move not >a ridiculous one. Someone can make a ridiculous move and still win, dear. *explains real life to the troll* [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<3A54499D61A4B617.342BB3C0...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 25 Jun 2001 04:24:36 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >i was doing OK until martin Cubberley did a > >totally-ridiculous cross-table rush against Mariel. ... John > >reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do > >all this ridiculous cross-table shit. > > Martin won the final, right? It sounds like he made a smart move not > a ridiculous one. In handing his prey TWO VPs? i don't see how that qualifies as smart. And in fact it would have lost him the final completely had Sorrow not self-ousted in my favour [otherwise an easy 3 to Matt, maximum two to Martin]. However, as i've said elsewhere i think there IS a strategic argument for rush-combat decks spending the first part of the game trimming the table down to three players and trying to win from there. In Martin's situation the smart cross-table play would have been to have helped me to do in Sorrow [thus stonewalling Matthew] which would have put me up against Miki's combat monsters. Then while Niki and i beat each other to death he would have been able completely to concentrate on Matthew, and then waltz through the two of us. That would have given him 3-4VP and me 1-2. I'm still not clear what sort of deck he had > though, apart from it being rush combat. Hopefully he will post it. Pro, cel, aus deck making good use of the Art of Pain. > > >emphasise that this was an official NCL tourney, sporting some > >absolutely classical focussed-degenerate decks [including the > >rush-deck type that rattles Andrew's cage so much - no problem with > >that one thanks to Mariel and wake/obedience. ... Is it, i wonder, > >too much to hope that the CL people will shut their traps now? > > Sorry to snipe at your entertaining report but you've rattled my cage > now <grin>. You played a 4CL deck Unintentional 6CL. and both you and Mariel were put to > bed by one of these degenerate rush combat decks, right? No, Matthew ousted me with an Elder Kindred Network. That's one > for the CL camp, I think. i don't see how on Caine's earth you come to this conclusion. i was playing a deck which was legal under CL. i got the most VPs in the tourney with 11. Sorrow playing a degenerate Obf deck got the second most with 9. Martin who actually won and Matthew got 7 each [neither of their decks was particularly degenerate]. Then Niki [reasonably degenerate pot/cel combat] and somebody else with 5, followed by everyone else. All of which shows that a CL deck is competitive in a NCL environment. This means that the central argument of the CL people, that NCL makes it impossible for people with few copies of cards to compete, isn't true. i repeat. It ISN'T TRUE. If a CL deck is already competitive in a NCL environment then it follows that IMPOSING CL on EVERYONE can only have the effect of reducing deck diversity [a bad thing]. So bringing in CL could have no good effects and only bad effects. > > What time did the final finish, btw? I'm assuming that these things > go on till ~9 pm, right? It must have been about that. i was ousted at 815. Doesn't the pub get loud It's ALWAYS loud. and busy in the > evening? It did get quite busy, which isn't a completely bad thing. i accidentally scored with an agreeable person of the opposite gender just before the final, but obviously was quite unable to DO anything about it. Must be tricky concentrating on a tense final ... No complaints there. i didn't, for a change, make any big mistakes in play in this final, except for failing to realise that Elder Kindred Network was a possibility. > > Andrew

> Martin won the final, right? It sounds like he made a smart move not > a ridiculous one. I'm still not clear what sort of deck he had > though, apart from it being rush combat. Auspex intercept, celerity, Protean. Intercepts and bounces bleeds, rushes in a nasty way, and deals out copious amounts of agg damage via Art of Pained !Toreadors and Depraved others. A very slick deck (an I believe it backs Rotscheck). Deck listing coming soon. <snip tedious 4CL shite> > What time did the final finish, btw? I'm assuming that these things > go on till ~9 pm, right? Doesn't the pub get loud and busy in the > evening? Must be tricky concentrating on a tense final ... The whole event finished well before 9pm (about 8.30). It wasn't noisy for the players (other than the juke box) because it is such a large pub. There was live music all the way around the other end of the bar and that seemed to attract the 1 man and dog who goes to the pub on a Sunday. So no issues as far as I could tell. DH

"Rob Treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9h81v7$n9$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>... > "hamdamcwa" <dave...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:9e10847c.01062...@posting.google.com... > > > Next day Sorrow, John Eagles and i made the trek up to Watford for a > > > nice big tourney, 22 or so people IIRC. > > > > Correct (I didn't play either, so 24 people showed if you count Rob > > "Splitter" Treasure ;) ) > > That's rich coming from Mr. Not at the London tourney and neither are any of > my buddies. Well, I tried, but they couldn't reorganise the flight for my first holiday proper in 5 years in the Canary Islands. ;) As for my buddies... Rick is getting married and building a house (no spare time). Rob is too busy getting his oats and looking after his daughter on weekends Del has gone off cards and has taken up motorcycling Dan is getting married and his missus is doing final exams for her degree, leaving him to look after their 3 kids. So, Arse. The feife of Watford has 1 active tourney player :( . Cubbers still showed up to London though, and since I'm technically his nearest prince, that makes him one of mine... eh... eh!!! I will make it on the 7th to this place in Essex. I think. DH

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > > Martin won the final, right? It sounds like he made a smart move not > a ridiculous one. I'm still not clear what sort of deck he had > though, apart from it being rush combat. > It was a Cel/pro/aus deck that did lots of agg damage and psyched to get round prevention and S:CE It relied on Flesh of marble for damage prevention. If Niki's deck had had Fortitude or a Dramtic upheaval in it he would have stood a chance. any good S/B deck would have owned Martin as well. Rushing Mariel did nothing to help him win, it just helped me oust James quicker as he had to commit more pool to an uncontrolled vampire which he would not otherwise have done. It also took the pressure off Niki (although this is irrelevant as Niki was doing nothing to him anyway). Mariel still used her ability from torpor so he gained no direct benefit from it other than cycling a few cards. He could have done that by rushing one of my vampires which would have got him closer to a victory point. Martin wasn't playing to win at that point he was playing to ensure James didn't- he helped his enemies by rushing cross-table. If he had had any pressure from his predator at all it also would have been a different story. As for it being a smart move- if I had had more vps than him in the tournament overall he would have come second. > > >emphasise that this was an official NCL tourney, sporting some > >absolutely classical focussed-degenerate decks [including the > >rush-deck type that rattles Andrew's cage so much - no problem with > >that one thanks to Mariel and wake/obedience. ... Is it, i wonder, > >too much to hope that the CL people will shut their traps now? > > Sorry to snipe at your entertaining report but you've rattled my cage > now <grin>. You played a 4CL deck and both you and Mariel were put to > bed by one of these degenerate rush combat decks, right? That's one > for the CL camp, I think. > Nope, i beat him with Elder kindred network. had it not been for that James would probably have won the final as all he had to do after chris conceded to him was to beat Niki and transfer out to win. To be fair though Martin and I wouldn't have had a rats chance of beating James once he had 6 pool from Niki (who was on 4 when James was ousted). ToGP on Miller would have given him the game. Despite good play overall, Martin got lucky in that: a) Niki had no physical way of beating his deck b) Rob and/or barny were not playing c) I didn't have more total vps or tps than him d) He saw his KRCG News Radio late in the game to block my actions. e) I ousted James when i did. f) Chris chose the seating position that he did. > > What time did the final finish, btw? I'm assuming that these things > go on till ~9 pm, right? Doesn't the pub get loud and busy in the > evening? Must be tricky concentrating on a tense final ... > Finished just before 7pm, and the music blarring out from the speaker was distraction enough. :) > > Andrew > matt.

On 26 Jun 2001 01:49:12 -0700, legbiter wrote: >In handing his prey TWO VPs? i don't see how that qualifies as smart. It depends what would have happened otherwise. He clearly took the view that you were a menace and had to be taken down. The bottom line is that he won and you lost. You are therefore not in a strong position to make exaggerated claims for your deck, good as it may be. >i don't see how on Caine's earth you come to this conclusion. i was >playing a deck which was legal under CL. i got the most VPs in the >tourney with 11. This goes back to the issue of whether the object of the game is to win or to maximise your VPs. Tom has seemed to go into these things with a general plan of being the last man standing and scoring 2 VPs to win the game. >This means that the central argument of the CL >people, that NCL makes it impossible for people with few copies of >cards to compete, isn't true. i repeat. It ISN'T TRUE. A straw man. I think the general complaint of the CL folk is that the NCL metagame is dominated by boring, degenerate decks. If some decks which don't fit that description are viable, this doesn't really solve the problem. It's not that it's "impossible" to play a more moderate deck, it's that it's difficult and hence most players don't do it. I note btw that I couldn't build your deck as I don't have 4 copies of ToGP. That makes it a power deck in my book - comparable with strong decks in other CCG which use 4 copies of a power rare. Folk on the shadowfist list are currently arguing about whether having 5 copies of certain cards in a deck makes it cheesy and a bad thing. VTES is off the scale from this point of view. I'm fairly agnostic about this issue but am suspicious of the aggressive arguments coming from folk who are so clearly "haves" rather than "have-nots". I've decided not to be a "have" as it would soon get out of hand. I'm really not interested in buying a case of Final Nights as it would be a major PITA opening, sorting and organising that many cards. I've bought one starter, a few boosters and will probably stop there. If I thought that buying a box of boosters would give me enough cards then I might go further but it wouldn't be anything like enough, would it? >It did get quite busy, which isn't a completely bad thing. i >accidentally scored with an agreeable person of the opposite gender >just before the final, but obviously was quite unable to DO anything >about it. What, you mean she didn't want to play VTES <grin>? Andrew

dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.01062...@posting.google.com>... > > Then we had a barbie [mmmm .... dioxins ....] and afterwards i taught > > Sorrow how to play New Rage. > > If you come to Gencon this year, you'll have to teach me how to play - > I've still got a box of Rage that I bought at last years' Gencon, and > I haven't even opened it! Sure. Which Rage did you get? It doesn't matter IMO - both are good though they are VERY different games. > > > Next day Sorrow, John Eagles and i made the trek up to Watford for a > > nice big tourney, 22 or so people IIRC. > > Correct (I didn't play either, so 24 people showed if you count Rob > "Splitter" Treasure ;) ) > > Rob was there briefly but did > > not play, Barney > > (wearing a suit oop naarth somewhere) > > >and Will > > No idea. not even a phone call! i WAS going to give him a lift but time and space got in the way. i cannae break the laws o' physics, cap'n. > > > being other notable absentees. It was good > > to see james Coupe back in the competitive frame and playing what Matt > > and i think is his best deck ever. > > And looking chipper generally shout up to the UK Rulemonger Yeah, he looked HOT. That probably had something to do with the fact that it was BAKING on Sunday. > > <snip deck and other musings> > > >So, > > once again i score top VPs for a tourney but don't win. Bah. John > > reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do > > all this ridiculous cross-table shit. Scaredy, scaredy, scaredy cats > > and ya-boo stinky-poohs to those of you upon whom this cap fits. > > Oh be fair, many players on the day hadn't ever SEEN a ToGP, let alone > knew what it did. When they found out... well, word gets around! Well, maybe the word should go around that you never, NEVER play ToGP cross-table if you run that kind of deck. i can see why people fear the card. That fear shouldn't lead them to commit strategic errors. > > >And i traded for TWO > > Your Sugarys, an Ex Nihilo and something else juicy, possibly a Sargon > > fragment. > > So you've also spotted the best Necromancy card, eh! Yeah, Call of the Hungry Dead. Daemonic possession is pretty good, too. The rares i reckon you have to build rather specialist decks around and that's what i intend to do. > > <another snip> > > Thanks for coming, leggy. You know it wouldn't be the same without > you! Well, erm, thank-you for having me. > > DH

<snip> > > > >So, > > > once again i score top VPs for a tourney but don't win. Bah. John > > > reckons it is because the UK players are all scared of me that they do > > > all this ridiculous cross-table shit. Scaredy, scaredy, scaredy cats > > > and ya-boo stinky-poohs to those of you upon whom this cap fits. > > > > Oh be fair, many players on the day hadn't ever SEEN a ToGP, let alone > > knew what it did. When they found out... well, word gets around! > > John is scared of you was that ? did'nt quite get it :o) Well he actually said: "Take it as a compliment. It shows they're scared of you." i repeat: "Scaredy, scaredy, scaredy cats > > > and ya-boo stinky-poohs to those of you upon whom this cap fits." Which obviously doesn't include the Southampton posse or my own play-groups, who know that i am the big cuddly care-bear of UK Jyhad. > > > >And i traded for TWO > > > Your Sugarys, an Ex Nihilo and something else juicy, possibly a Sargon > > > fragment. > > A veritable trade fest. Loads of great fair trading going on. > > > Thanks for coming, leggy. You know it wouldn't be the same without > > you! > > Seconded. Part of the VTES furniture if you will. Now THAT could explain a lot. The en-suite Toilet of jyhad. That's why people piss on me so much. > > Rob.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<397669CDF4ECE2A1.E7A6AF62...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 26 Jun 2001 01:49:12 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >In handing his prey TWO VPs? i don't see how that qualifies as smart. > > It depends what would have happened otherwise. He clearly took the > view that you were a menace and had to be taken down. The bottom line > is that he won and you lost. You are therefore not in a strong > position to make exaggerated claims for your deck, good as it may be. Sorry, which claim have i made that is exaggerated? i don't think i have said anything which isn't baldly factually true. > > >i don't see how on Caine's earth you come to this conclusion. i was > >playing a deck which was legal under CL. i got the most VPs in the > >tourney with 11. > > This goes back to the issue of whether the object of the game is to > win or to maximise your VPs. Tom has seemed to go into these things > with a general plan of being the last man standing and scoring 2 VPs > to win the game. Well OBVIOUSLY and ADMITTEDLY the aim of the game is to win the tourney, and that means winning the final, which i didn't do. i am not claiming i did. i am claiming that i played a CL-legal deck in an NCL environment and that it was competitive. The evidence for this is that i got the most VPs in the tourney and that i was one play away from actually winning it, despite some strategically-questionable cross-table play against me. > > >This means that the central argument of the CL > >people, that NCL makes it impossible for people with few copies of > >cards to compete, isn't true. i repeat. It ISN'T TRUE. > > A straw man. i disagree. It is the only argument i have ever seen advanced in favour of CL which made me think a bit. I think the general complaint of the CL folk is that the > NCL metagame is dominated by boring, degenerate decks. Well there's guilt by association, another pathetic rhetorical trick, followed by factual error. Degenerate decks are NOT boring. And the NCL metagame is not dominated by them. If some decks > which don't fit that description are viable, this doesn't really solve > the problem. It's not that it's "impossible" to play a more moderate > deck, it's that it's difficult and hence most players don't do it. So, what, we all have to go CL because the no-brainer CL-whiners are too STUPID to construct decent decks otherwise? > > I note btw that I couldn't build your deck as I don't have 4 copies of > ToGP. That makes it a power deck in my book - comparable with strong > decks in other CCG which use 4 copies of a power rare. i sense a disturbance in the goalposts. Folk on the > shadowfist list are currently arguing about whether having 5 copies of > certain cards in a deck makes it cheesy and a bad thing. VTES is off > the scale from this point of view. I'm fairly agnostic about this > issue but am suspicious of the aggressive arguments coming from folk > who are so clearly "haves" rather than "have-nots". I've decided not > to be a "have" as it would soon get out of hand. I'm really not > interested in buying a case of Final Nights as it would be a major > PITA opening, sorting and organising that many cards. I've bought one > starter, a few boosters and will probably stop there. If I thought > that buying a box of boosters would give me enough cards then I might > go further but it wouldn't be anything like enough, would it? i think one of the great things about the Final Nights precons is that you can make them absolutely FEROCIOUS just by trimming out the Prayer cards, paring the crypt of some of the really big uns [in some cases] and slipping in a few commons and uncommons, the odd power rare if you have it but not IMO anything LIKE necessary. As folk keep saying, there's really no such animal as a power rare in jyhad, not in the Magic sense anyway. > > >It did get quite busy, which isn't a completely bad thing. i > >accidentally scored with an agreeable person of the opposite gender > >just before the final, but obviously was quite unable to DO anything > >about it. > > What, you mean she didn't want to play VTES <grin>? Yeah, but i could tell by the way she talked and held her cigarette that she was a no-good low-life CL-sympathiser and that i would have to murder her if i, erm, got to know her better. > > Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<397669CDF4ECE2A1.E7A6AF62...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 26 Jun 2001 01:49:12 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >In handing his prey TWO VPs? i don't see how that qualifies as smart. > > It depends what would have happened otherwise. He clearly took the > view that you were a menace and had to be taken down. The bottom line > is that he won and you lost. You are therefore not in a strong > position to make exaggerated claims for your deck, good as it may be. > By extension of this arguement Martin then played faultlessly for the entire final and acting in the best way at every given opportunity. He must have- he won right? I'll make claims on James' behalf. I was there. You were not. You should look at little further than the results on paper- they don't tell you if all the moves made by the winner are those that would be made by better players, or indeed moves that the winner would make again with hindsight. You sir, are also in no position to shout the odds on tactical play in the tournament game given your simplistic understanding of it. > >i don't see how on Caine's earth you come to this conclusion. i was > >playing a deck which was legal under CL. i got the most VPs in the > >tourney with 11. > > This goes back to the issue of whether the object of the game is to > win or to maximise your VPs. Tom has seemed to go into these things > with a general plan of being the last man standing and scoring 2 VPs > to win the game. > The object is to maximise your vps in the prelimenary rounds and win the final. Playing to win games will not get you qualified in a 40 man field. Rolling a table or two will. Take notes those playing at Watford next month. > >This means that the central argument of the CL > >people, that NCL makes it impossible for people with few copies of > >cards to compete, isn't true. i repeat. It ISN'T TRUE. > > A straw man. I think the general complaint of the CL folk is that the > NCL metagame is dominated by boring, degenerate decks. If some decks > which don't fit that description are viable, this doesn't really solve > the problem. It's not that it's "impossible" to play a more moderate > deck, it's that it's difficult and hence most players don't do it. > Arguement: CL is better for idiots as idiots can not see the inherrant weakness in some (obvious) NCL strategies. We are not idiots. We play NCL. > I note btw that I couldn't build your deck as I don't have 4 copies of > ToGP. That makes it a power deck in my book... /me shakes head in disbelief. We should obviously all start playing ACL where we are constrained to using exactly the same card pool as Andrew. matt.

mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk (mgreen02) wrote in message news:<a346f9cb.01062...@posting.google.com>... > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > > > Martin won the final, right? It sounds like he made a smart move not > > a ridiculous one. I'm still not clear what sort of deck he had > > though, apart from it being rush combat. > > > > It was a Cel/pro/aus deck that did lots of agg damage and psyched to > get round prevention and S:CE It relied on Flesh of marble for damage > prevention. If Niki's deck had had Fortitude or a Dramtic upheaval in > it he would have stood a chance. any good S/B deck would have owned > Martin as well. > > Rushing Mariel did nothing to help him win, it just helped me oust > James quicker as he had to commit more pool to an uncontrolled vampire > which he would not otherwise have done. It also took the pressure off > Niki (although this is irrelevant as Niki was doing nothing to him > anyway). Mariel still used her ability from torpor so he gained no > direct benefit from it other than cycling a few cards. He could have > done that by rushing one of my vampires which would have got him > closer to a victory point. > > Martin wasn't playing to win at that point he was playing to ensure > James didn't- he helped his enemies by rushing cross-table. If he had > had any pressure from his predator at all it also would have been a > different story. As for it being a smart move- if I had had more vps > than him in the tournament overall he would have come second. > Matt, I think thats a bit unfair, I know the way martin plays and there is no way he would purposely have forgone the chance of winning in order to fuck up Legbiters chances. He rushed Mariel to balance the table, he was not aware that her ability could be used while she was in torpor. > > > > > >emphasise that this was an official NCL tourney, sporting some > > >absolutely classical focussed-degenerate decks [including the > > >rush-deck type that rattles Andrew's cage so much - no problem with > > >that one thanks to Mariel and wake/obedience. ... Is it, i wonder, > > >too much to hope that the CL people will shut their traps now? > > > > Sorry to snipe at your entertaining report but you've rattled my cage > > now <grin>. You played a 4CL deck and both you and Mariel were put to > > bed by one of these degenerate rush combat decks, right? That's one > > for the CL camp, I think. > > > > Nope, i beat him with Elder kindred network. had it not been for that > James would probably have won the final as all he had to do after > chris conceded to him was to beat Niki and transfer out to win. To be > fair though Martin and I wouldn't have had a rats chance of beating > James once he had 6 pool from Niki (who was on 4 when James was > ousted). ToGP on Miller would have given him the game. > > Despite good play overall, Martin got lucky in that: > a) Niki had no physical way of beating his deck > b) Rob and/or barny were not playing > c) I didn't have more total vps or tps than him > d) He saw his KRCG News Radio late in the game to block my actions. > e) I ousted James when i did. > f) Chris chose the seating position that he did. Half of everything is luck. If you had had some prevents cards in your hand when I rushed you with Wynn at the last Watford tourney, I wouldn't have burned stanislava and Darius. Luck plays a massive part. Relying on luck is a shitty strategy but if it happens... fantastic, some one up there likes you, or not as the case may be. Tony Anarch of Luton > > > > > >

Now come on... CL people aren't idiots. NCL people aren't idiots. Just different styles of play. The New Tolerant Matt (The American one...)

On 26 Jun 2001 05:37:12 -0700, legbiter wrote: >i think one of the great things about the Final Nights precons is that >you can make them absolutely FEROCIOUS just by trimming out the Prayer >cards, paring the crypt of some of the really big uns [in some cases] >and slipping in a few commons and uncommons, the odd power rare if you >have it but not IMO anything LIKE necessary. As folk keep saying, >there's really no such animal as a power rare in jyhad, not in the >Magic sense anyway. My take on FN is that I'm not very interested in the Independent clans - they just lack sex appeal or something. There are a few cards that I am interested in though - Jake Washington, for example. He's a card that you can use several copies of but he's a rare. In other CCG, you'd have some number of copies to shoot for. In Doomtown, I'm not bothered if I only have one of a card - the decks are so tight and the uniqueness rules are so tough. In Shadowfist, I like to have 5 of a card - more can be nice to have but you know that you won't be using them all in one deck. In VTES there is no such comfort factor. There are several cards that I've come across that I know I'd want lots of copies of if I played the game seriously (where lots means double-figures). Some of these cards are rare or uncommon and that's when I get cold feet. If the game had been done differently, e.g. CL 6, no deck limit, and special cards like Contract unlimited, then I'd be a lot more ready to embrace it. I'm not convinced that the game would be all that different in practise, much as you're saying about your deck. This holy-war, don't-give-an-inch stuff does nothing to persuade me - the arguments aren't as cut and dried as the NCL advocates make out. Andrew

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01062...@posting.google.com>... > dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.01062...@posting.google.com>... > > > Then we had a barbie [mmmm .... dioxins ....] and afterwards i taught > > > Sorrow how to play New Rage. > > > > If you come to Gencon this year, you'll have to teach me how to play - > > I've still got a box of Rage that I bought at last years' Gencon, and > > I haven't even opened it! > > Sure. Which Rage did you get? It doesn't matter IMO - both are good > though they are VERY different games. I think it's Rage Accross Las Vegas (?). On the Saturday at last years Gencon, I picked up a box of boosters, a box of precons, and some more boosters for it for about £20. Since myself, Rob and Rick (lads from Watford tm) all got different boxes, we traded around so we've got precon one of each... I think. It looks real purdy, but I just haven't had the time to even open the precons! The boosters all got devoured in a booster opening frenzy about the time SW came out - I was getting withdrawals with the shakes after about 2 hours of solid booster glutting, and so had to open more...(Am I alone in getting like this?). DH

On 26 Jun 2001 06:09:42 -0700, Tony wrote: >He rushed Mariel to balance the table, he was not aware that her >ability could be used while she was in torpor. The rules say "A vampire in torpor can take no action except "leave torpor" and cannot block or play reaction cards.". For vampires like Mariel to be able to do their thing while in torpor looks like a bug rather than a feature. There are several of these including the well-named Dr Jest. Andrew

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:20:00 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 26 Jun 2001 01:49:12 -0700, legbiter wrote: > >>In handing his prey TWO VPs? i don't see how that qualifies as smart. > >It depends what would have happened otherwise. He clearly took the >view that you were a menace and had to be taken down. The bottom line >is that he won and you lost. You are therefore not in a strong >position to make exaggerated claims for your deck, good as it may be. This entire paragraph is nonsense, Andrew. If I go to Vegas and put $10,000 on the number "23", because I am under the belief that number 23 is holy for me, and I win, am I smart? Remember, the bottom line is that I won, right? Does this prove that the best course of action for everyone is to pick their own holy number and go to Vegas? Of course not. Especially when you can point to a probable misplay by Leggy as the reason he didn't go anywhere; he mentions that he could've ousted his prey immediately with a Kine Dominance/Conditioning, but attempted to get greedy with the Parity Shift first, setting up a 2-for-1 and ousting BOTH combat decks in two turns. >>i don't see how on Caine's earth you come to this conclusion. i was >>playing a deck which was legal under CL. i got the most VPs in the >>tourney with 11. > >This goes back to the issue of whether the object of the game is to >win or to maximise your VPs. Tom has seemed to go into these things >with a general plan of being the last man standing and scoring 2 VPs >to win the game. The object of the game is to win. With 11 VPs, he won at LEAST two, possibly three tables (a 5-5-1 or 5-4-2 split is a possibility). I would say his deck was an excellent example of both winning AND gaining the most VPs - generally an indicator of a very good deck. >>This means that the central argument of the CL >>people, that NCL makes it impossible for people with few copies of >>cards to compete, isn't true. i repeat. It ISN'T TRUE. > >A straw man. I think the general complaint of the CL folk is that the Actually, it's not a straw man, it's been backed up by hard facts. And it HAS been the central argument of MANY CL advocates,... and in fact, you use it yourself down at the bottom. So much for straw -- next time, better use sticks or bricks. >NCL metagame is dominated by boring, degenerate decks. If some decks >which don't fit that description are viable, this doesn't really solve >the problem. It's not that it's "impossible" to play a more moderate >deck, it's that it's difficult and hence most players don't do it. The game should not be changed because players find it difficult to play at a high level. On the contrary, any game where such a level is difficult to attain is extremely desirable, as it provides much greater longevity for the game itself. Witness snooker, which has been around for how many years now? The game itself is ENORMOUSLY difficult to play at a high level, but you don't see people clamouring to make the pockets wider because it's unfair, do you? In fact, snooker is degenerate in its own way; a 147 break consists of one person shooting and NEVER letting the other person shoot! But it doesn't take a genius to look at the purses offered in the UK for snooker players to see that it's clearly well-liked in this form. >I note btw that I couldn't build your deck as I don't have 4 copies of >ToGP. That makes it a power deck in my book - comparable with strong Unfortunately for you, your book is not relevant here. YOU not having 4 copies doesn't matter from the point of view of what's best for the game. If you're curious, I only have 1 copy myself and couldn't build the deck either. >decks in other CCG which use 4 copies of a power rare. Folk on the >shadowfist list are currently arguing about whether having 5 copies of >certain cards in a deck makes it cheesy and a bad thing. VTES is off >the scale from this point of view. I'm fairly agnostic about this >issue but am suspicious of the aggressive arguments coming from folk >who are so clearly "haves" rather than "have-nots". I've decided not Guess what. I'm more of a "have-not" than a "have". I only possess one Disarm, which many people consider to be a "power rare". I only have one ToGP, only two Awes, let's see... only 7 Freak Drives (all Jyhad), only 1 Dreams of the Sphinx, ... hm. I don't know what other possible "power rares" you could be thinking of, myself. I've found that the rare cards are not much more than that: rare. However, I have absolutely no difficulty making a Potence Rush deck. I can make a deck with Bewitching Oration/Charming Lobby that works just as well as a deck packed full of Awe. Only 7 Freak Drives mean I can't make "one vampire takes five actions per turn" decks, but that's a pretty rare deck type itself. One Dreams is sufficient in a deck. I don't see what the problem is. Examining my latest deck, I find that only 5 cards are rare. These are: The Spawning Pool 2 Owl Companion 2 Patagia: Flaps allowing Limited Flight The Patagia could be replaced by IR Goggles, a ridiculous common. The Owl Companions can't be changed, but shouldn't be difficult to find if you wanted to make the deck. The Spawning Pool is unique and extremely corner-case, and odds of needing more than 1-2 per deck are minimal. I have three. Now, let's look at the degenerate parts of the deck: 10 Carrion Crows 8 Cat's Guidance 8 Forced Awakening 8 Thrown Gate Hmm. All of these cards are common. It's not difficult at all to get any of these, so that's one argument gone to shit already. Is the deck cheesy and a bad thing? I don't know... is making the Nosferatu (best stealth clan, bar none) into an intercept deck considered cheesy and a bad thing? It's certainly creative and "off the beaten path". (hint: 6 Nosferatu have Auspex, and I'm using NO 2nd traditions) >to be a "have" as it would soon get out of hand. I'm really not >interested in buying a case of Final Nights as it would be a major Buying a case is ridiculous. I figure I'll probably buy two boxes and one each of the starters, and from there conduct elaborate trades (I should have MORE than enough commons and vampires to deal well with others). >PITA opening, sorting and organising that many cards. I've bought one >starter, a few boosters and will probably stop there. If I thought >that buying a box of boosters would give me enough cards then I might >go further but it wouldn't be anything like enough, would it? Actually, one box would do you well. You'd be short rares, but from what I can tell from the frantic trading, EVERYONE is short rares. >What, you mean she didn't want to play VTES <grin>? *chuckle* That or he's all married and stuff. ;) Ah, the single life... -- Derek

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:25:44 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Witness snooker, which has been around for how many years now? The >game itself is ENORMOUSLY difficult to play at a high level, but you >don't see people clamouring to make the pockets wider because it's >unfair, do you? I tried the game, found it too difficult and slow and never played it again. Presumably that's why the US game, pool, has bigger pockets right? Americans like things to be easy - when soccer became a pro sport there, there was serious talk of making the goals bigger. >In fact, snooker is degenerate in its own way; a 147 >break consists of one person shooting and NEVER letting the other >person shoot! But it doesn't take a genius to look at the purses >offered in the UK for snooker players to see that it's clearly >well-liked in this form. The success of snooker in the UK was associated with the introduction of colour TV. It made a tense, colourful spectacle and hooked millions who have never touched a cue and never will. >Guess what. I'm more of a "have-not" than a "have". And, guess what, you're not much of a winner either. Current ratings for the folk in question: 64 3125 Martin Cubberly 83 3094 James McLellan 121 3046 Derek Ray 224 2906 Matt Green Looks like Martin knows what he's doing. Andrew

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:05:13 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:25:44 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Witness snooker, which has been around for how many years now? The >>game itself is ENORMOUSLY difficult to play at a high level, but you >>don't see people clamouring to make the pockets wider because it's >>unfair, do you? > >I tried the game, found it too difficult and slow and never played it >again. Presumably that's why the US game, pool, has bigger pockets >right? Americans like things to be easy - when soccer became a pro >sport there, there was serious talk of making the goals bigger. This seems to be your style; if you can't hack it, you start calling "sour grapes" and wanting it to be changed. Couldn't tell you WHY the US game has bigger pockets, but "Americans like things easy" seems likely. I know that I personally prefer to play on the tightest pockets I possibly can; it increases the playability and enjoyability of the game, by making the game more difficult for EVERYONE concerned. The US pocket size can vary from table to table, sometimes almost a full inch and a half in opening-size. >>In fact, snooker is degenerate in its own way; a 147 >>break consists of one person shooting and NEVER letting the other >>person shoot! But it doesn't take a genius to look at the purses >>offered in the UK for snooker players to see that it's clearly >>well-liked in this form. > >The success of snooker in the UK was associated with the introduction >of colour TV. It made a tense, colourful spectacle and hooked >millions who have never touched a cue and never will. This doesn't alter its degeneracy. >>Guess what. I'm more of a "have-not" than a "have". > >And, guess what, you're not much of a winner either. Current ratings >for the folk in question: *snort* Whatever. Andrew, I recognize this as a very obvious "windup" attempt, and I notice that you didn't have the balls to attempt to answer ANY of the arguments I made. I accept your concession of the accuracy of my statements. >64 3125 Martin Cubberly >83 3094 James McLellan >121 3046 Derek Ray >224 2906 Matt Green > >Looks like Martin knows what he's doing. Ratings are, of course, a polite fiction designed to boost the egos of those who want boosting. If I wanted to improve my rating, I would play the decks that have the best chance of winning, as opposed to screwing around with the non-standard ones that I have for the past two years -- as a post of mine on another thread stated. I will note that despite screwing around a great deal, I appear to be above the initial "3000" starting-point, and that's while playing admittedly second-tier constructions. Numbers never tell the whole story, and you know it perfectly well... so let's not waste our time with verbal sleight-of-hand, shall we? -- Derek

In message <894DD1A0D0239AAC.56FE81BC...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >The rules say "A vampire in torpor can take no action except "leave >torpor" and cannot block or play reaction cards.". For vampires like >Mariel to be able to do their thing while in torpor looks like a bug >rather than a feature. Initially unexpected, perhaps, but not unbalancing, not worthy of errata and has been around for long enough that I feel sure the Rules Team would have addressed it had it been an issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9ha1sm$ved$1...@nntp2-cm.news.eni.net>, Matt Latham <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> writes >Now come on... CL people aren't idiots. NCL people aren't idiots. Just >different styles of play. It's just one of the standard arguments: "Look at this NCL deck I've just built. It's so whack. If we were playing CL it'd be so much better....." That's half the point. Just because you *can* do something under NCL doesn't mean that you should, or that it will benefit you. There are lots and lots and lots of potential decks you can build under NL, all of which are utterly rubbish and which a sensible deck builder can cope with with ease, no matter how many copies of a given card there are in a deck. The game is inherently self-limiting in many arenas - restrictions on action modifiers, master cards, reactions, strikes, additional strikes, maneuvers, presses, restrictions on playing stealth and intercept, limitations on actions via NRA (part of the de facto rules set in most environments) and such like. Dealing with that requires a hugely intelligent and delicate understanding of the state of play. The standard reactions of players who have played CL and then get told that NL is the way to play doesn't take into account all of this - precisely because playing CL doesn't have all of these issues, due to the fact that these issues are an inherent design decision (with the exception of NRA, which has been intelligently, sensitively and carefully balanced over time) in the construction of the game. It's exactly what Richard Garfield intended, having seen what happened with Magic. He assumed that most people would never have a full set, and that 400 cards would be a *lot*. So V:TES works exactly the other way. You can have *huge* numbers of cards, but it's in your interests to balance it yourself. Too few, you can't do anything. Too many, you hang yourself. And the little bear said, "This deck is just right....." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <47C2CC6403AD55A8.89EDCB3E...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >And, guess what, you're not much of a winner either. Current ratings >for the folk in question: > >64 3125 Martin Cubberly >83 3094 James McLellan >121 3046 Derek Ray >224 2906 Matt Green You once again fail to take into account how and why the ratings work as they do. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > I don't see what the problem is. Examining my latest deck, I find > that only 5 cards are rare. These are: > > The Spawning Pool > 2 Owl Companion > 2 Patagia: Flaps allowing Limited Flight Slight picking of nits: Owl Companion is uncommon, not rare. I think this actually punctuates the point you were trying to make, so I don't think you'll mind me correcting you. > The Patagia could be replaced by IR Goggles, a ridiculous common. I didn't think anyone played with this. Do you see a lot of stolen equipment or something? > 10 Carrion Crows > 8 Cat's Guidance > 8 Forced Awakening > 8 Thrown Gate Why Thrown Gate instead of Aid from Bats? With AFB, you have a press, which complements the Carrion Crows nicely. I often find that my rares don't show up in decks as often as their power would suggest. Commons are so much more... utilitarian. V:tES is quite well-balanced that way, most of the time. Cheers, WES

In message <9hagl...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >> The Patagia could be replaced by IR Goggles, a ridiculous common. > >I didn't think anyone played with this. Do you see a lot of stolen equipment >or something? I occasionally put it in just for "cool" value. I'd also recommend people put it in over the next few months, as people experiment hard with the Ravnos. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:27:55 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >Owl Companion is uncommon, not rare. > >I think this actually punctuates the point you were trying to make, so I >don't think you'll mind me correcting you. Heh. No, not at all. How remarkable. No wonder I have so stupid many of them. Rare to be seen, just not rare to get. >> The Patagia could be replaced by IR Goggles, a ridiculous common. > >I didn't think anyone played with this. Do you see a lot of stolen equipment >or something? Canine Hordes and Anarch Troublemakers are a real pisser. Drawing out the Beast/Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats is also a nuisance; Patagia is a maneuver that's still usable in that instance, so you can move back to close and mug someone with your extra hand damage. The one blood cost is a little bit of a nuisance, but worth it. >> 10 Carrion Crows >> 8 Cat's Guidance >> 8 Forced Awakening >> 8 Thrown Gate > >Why Thrown Gate instead of Aid from Bats? With AFB, you have a press, which >complements the Carrion Crows nicely. The only reason I want to press is to go for the Spawning Pool, and I can only use THAT once per turn anyway. Most of the time I'll be content with combat being one round, and since a number of the Nossies I'm using have big Potence, Thrown Gate provides an extra first-round point of damage. Occasionally handy. If I could've figured out how to stick enough maneuvers in, I'd have gone for Sewer Lids (which are 3 and the press), but I'm wanting to keep the deck below 80 cards. (Not to mention that using Thrown Gate makes both pot/ANI and POT/ani reasonably similar in their damage... letting me shrink down my crypt size a bit and wait longer for Animalism skill cards.) If I press, then I have to find ANOTHER maneuver from someplace, which leads to me building a deck with 16 Aid from Bats instead of 8 Thrown Gate and 8 (other card). 2 Patagia isn't anything to rely on for a spare maneuver, and I'm using Rat's Warning and not Guard Dogs. >I often find that my rares don't show up in decks as often as their power >would suggest. Commons are so much more... utilitarian. V:tES is quite >well-balanced that way, most of the time. Quite. The idea of "power rare" in V:TES is somewhat ridiculous; even Majesty, the currently lamented-about card, is a mere common. -- Derek

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<ngS5VPcR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message > <894DD1A0D0239AAC.56FE81BC...@lp.airnews.net>, > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes > >The rules say "A vampire in torpor can take no action except "leave > >torpor" and cannot block or play reaction cards.". For vampires like > >Mariel to be able to do their thing while in torpor looks like a bug > >rather than a feature. > > Initially unexpected, perhaps, but not unbalancing, not worthy of errata > and has been around for long enough that I feel sure the Rules Team > would have addressed it had it been an issue. Has it ever been done before, i wonder? i was VERY proud of this trick which suddenly came to me when i thought i was Brown Bread. i've been thinking about it since and i think there could be abusive potential here. But it would be complex to pull off and *ahem* kudos to whomsoever manages to do it ..... ;)

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> The Patagia could be replaced by IR Goggles, a ridiculous common. > > > >I didn't think anyone played with this. Do you see a lot of stolen equipment > >or something? > > Canine Hordes and Anarch Troublemakers are a real pisser. Drawing out > the Beast/Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats is also a nuisance; Patagia is a > maneuver that's still usable in that instance, so you can move back to > close and mug someone with your extra hand damage. Huh? Someone would actually use Anarch Troublemaker to burn an IR Goggles??? Man... I wouldn't waste that on anything less than 3 pool. Actually, I always use it to tap minions and oust. I don't recall ever using it to burn equipment. > (Not to mention that using Thrown Gate makes both pot/ANI and POT/ani > reasonably similar in their damage... letting me shrink down my crypt > size a bit and wait longer for Animalism skill cards.) But with the AFB press, ANI does even *more* damage because of the second round of combat. Depends on your crypt I guess... > If I press, then I have to find ANOTHER maneuver from someplace, which > leads to me building a deck with 16 Aid from Bats instead of 8 Thrown > Gate and 8 (other card). 2 Patagia isn't anything to rely on for a > spare maneuver, and I'm using Rat's Warning and not Guard Dogs. I'm starting to like the Ruins of Villars Abbey, Belgium now that it doesn't cost a stupid amount of blood to bring out. > Quite. The idea of "power rare" in V:TES is somewhat ridiculous; even > Majesty, the currently lamented-about card, is a mere common. Maybe we should make Majesty *rare* when the basic set comes out again :) Cheers, WES

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:25:05 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >This doesn't alter its degeneracy. Snooker, like most sports, was designed by English aristocrats who had lots of time to kill. You've heard of cricket, perhaps - a sport in which it can take days to play a single game. I played it at school and never thought much of it. I discovered softball later and thought it was much better - much the same bat-and-ball mechanics but fast and exciting. I was out in the garden this evening taking some practise swings with a friend. There's an old stump I use to pound on. It was someone else that we imagined it to be though... >Ratings are, of course, a polite fiction designed to boost the egos of >those who want boosting. If I wanted to improve my rating, I would >play the decks that have the best chance of winning, as opposed to >screwing around with the non-standard ones that I have for the past >two years -- as a post of mine on another thread stated. You're entitled to please yourself but there's an odd contrast between your constant didacticism here and your failure to take your own good advice when it matters. And I don't understand why you don't buy more cards for a game that you like so much. Apart from the use you could make of them, you'd be supporting the game financially. Andrew

<snip own stuff> <relevant quote of own stuff> It might be nice if > Sorrow could post his deck which most likely got the second-higgest > VPs so that people can see what i'm talking about when i mention > degeneracy. Chris, you up for that?]. <quote personal email from Sorrow> James, I only have read access to the newsgroup; I cannot post any messages. I saw your request that I post the deck that I used. Here is the link to it and you are free to post is as you will. http://www.melancholy.org/vtes/regions/united_states/louisiana/domain-no/decks/l istings/deck_list.php3?archive=christoph&deck=night+breeders+2.0 The only thing I did to the deck was remove 1 copy of Basil from the crypt. Also, please qualify that the only reason I transferred out (thus giving you the VP) was because Matt was being an arse and decided to take advantage of the deal I made with my prey not to bleed him for 2 turns (thus giving me the breathing space I needed to recover my pool a bit) and call a Dramatic Upheaval. Had I not had the Delaying Tactics when I did, the game might have gone alot differently. In any case, in hindsight, I believe I should have preyed on Matt that game. I'm not sure if you would have preyed on me since that would put you as Martin's (I believe that is his name) prey, but you still might have. Had I been preying on Matt, I think I'd have been able to do him in as I wouldn't have really had to deal with Beast rushing. Alas, you live and learn. [Legbitery note; i agree with you, Chris. had you chosen to bleed Matt i would have had a MUCH harder time choosing where to sit. No, actually i wouldn't. i'd have gone as Martin's prey and trusted in him to go suicidally cross-table when he should have been doing me in] As an aside, I had an *excellent* time this weekend; best time I've had in a while. Thank you very much for that and thank Sarah for me as well! :) I hope to see everyone if/when I'm back on this side of the pond! Christoph [another Legbitery note: Cheers, matey! It was GREAT to have you and we all look forward to seeing you again soon!]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:59:52 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> Canine Hordes and Anarch Troublemakers are a real pisser. Drawing out >> the Beast/Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats is also a nuisance; Patagia is a >> maneuver that's still usable in that instance, so you can move back to >> close and mug someone with your extra hand damage. > >Huh? Someone would actually use Anarch Troublemaker to burn an IR Goggles??? Well, AT is usually on the table somewhere... and if the IR Goggles are what's keeping you from killing the vamp, then I could easily see it being a target. Just because you pass on the AT doesn't mean it'll get used against YOU anytime soon. Intercept decks generally walk a thin thread; if you can kill their 'designated interceptor', you put a huge wrench in their defense for a turn. Knocking out the IR Goggles might be the balance. >Man... I wouldn't waste that on anything less than 3 pool. Actually, I >always use it to tap minions and oust. I don't recall ever using it to burn >equipment. Mostly it gets used to tap-and-oust. But against an Animalism deck with hordes of untap, how clever is it to tap minions? =) Sure, you MIGHT catch me with no untap. Or I might have been leaving minions untapped on purpose to get you to give me the AT (which I will do and have done before). >> (Not to mention that using Thrown Gate makes both pot/ANI and POT/ani >> reasonably similar in their damage... letting me shrink down my crypt >> size a bit and wait longer for Animalism skill cards.) > >But with the AFB press, ANI does even *more* damage because of the second >round of combat. And requires that you have a second maneuver, lest your guys get their faces eaten off by a Horrible Monster(tm). The idea is that anytime I wander to a second round, it's because the Spawning Pool damage is about to be handed out and a second round won't actually HAPPEN. The whole-bunch-of-Crows means that people on 3 or less blood need to worry about taking actions near me, lest they end up in the Bargain Diablerie Bin. >Depends on your crypt I guess... finding superior ANI among the Nossies isn't the easiest thing in the world. You have to go up fairly high. Having POT/ani as an option lets me stick Judah, Beast, and Nikolaus in... and Beast (in addition to his Rush) can always play a Wakey or Ratty and use the News-intercept if necessary. I doubt I'd ever get Beast out FIRST, but he sure makes a good third vamp. >> If I press, then I have to find ANOTHER maneuver from someplace, which >> leads to me building a deck with 16 Aid from Bats instead of 8 Thrown >> Gate and 8 (other card). 2 Patagia isn't anything to rely on for a >> spare maneuver, and I'm using Rat's Warning and not Guard Dogs. > >I'm starting to like the Ruins of Villars Abbey, Belgium now that it doesn't >cost a stupid amount of blood to bring out. Nice for emergencies, yes. -- Derek

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<47C2CC6403AD55A8.89EDCB3E...@lp.airnews.net>... > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:25:44 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Witness snooker, which has been around for how many years now? The > >game itself is ENORMOUSLY difficult to play at a high level, but you > >don't see people clamouring to make the pockets wider because it's > >unfair, do you? > > I tried the game, found it too difficult and slow and never played it > again. Presumably that's why the US game, pool, has bigger pockets > right? Americans like things to be easy - when soccer became a pro > sport there, there was serious talk of making the goals bigger. > > >In fact, snooker is degenerate in its own way; a 147 > >break consists of one person shooting and NEVER letting the other > >person shoot! But it doesn't take a genius to look at the purses > >offered in the UK for snooker players to see that it's clearly > >well-liked in this form. i found this exchange absolutely hilarious. For those who don't know, Derek makes MONEY out of playing snooker. > > The success of snooker in the UK was associated with the introduction > of colour TV. It made a tense, colourful spectacle and hooked > millions who have never touched a cue and never will. > > >Guess what. I'm more of a "have-not" than a "have". > > And, guess what, you're not much of a winner either. Current ratings > for the folk in question: > > 64 3125 Martin Cubberly > 83 3094 James McLellan > 121 3046 Derek Ray > 224 2906 Matt Green > > Looks like Martin knows what he's doing. Does it really. If you seriously expect people to believe that MAtthew Green is a worse player than Martin Cubberly then you will be disappointed, i venture to suggest. > > Andrew i'm thinking about using this as my signature from now on. What do people think? "Is it, i wonder, too much to hope that the CL people will shut their traps now? If not, might they at least have the humility to consider the possibility that their deck-constructing and playing skills, rather than the game itself, leave something to be desired?"

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<D98329BF5ADCC57C.698B2B08...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 26 Jun 2001 05:37:12 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >i think one of the great things about the Final Nights precons is that > >you can make them absolutely FEROCIOUS just by trimming out the Prayer > >cards, paring the crypt of some of the really big uns [in some cases] > >and slipping in a few commons and uncommons, the odd power rare if you > >have it but not IMO anything LIKE necessary. As folk keep saying, > >there's really no such animal as a power rare in jyhad, not in the > >Magic sense anyway. > > My take on FN is that I'm not very interested in the Independent clans > - they just lack sex appeal or something. There are a few cards that > I am interested in though - Jake Washington, for example. He's a card > that you can use several copies of but he's a rare. In other CCG, > you'd have some number of copies to shoot for. In Doomtown, I'm not > bothered if I only have one of a card - the decks are so tight and the > uniqueness rules are so tough. In Shadowfist, I like to have 5 of a > card - more can be nice to have but you know that you won't be using > them all in one deck. In VTES there is no such comfort factor. There > are several cards that I've come across that I know I'd want lots of > copies of if I played the game seriously (where lots means > double-figures). Some of these cards are rare or uncommon and that's > when I get cold feet. Which sounds like a load of excuses to me. Look, i've spent a lot of my NG life trying to help people to see that there's lots of ways to have fun with Jyhad and that you don't have to spend a fortune or years on the Net to win competitive games. Whatever my gripes about individual games i have MUCH more respect for guys like Tom and martin who just come along and play and win [or lose] than i do for virtual-space theoretical whining. > > If the game had been done differently, e.g. CL 6, no deck limit, and > special cards like Contract unlimited, then I'd be a lot more ready to > embrace it. How nice. I'm not convinced that the game would be all that > different in practise, much as you're saying about your deck. This > holy-war, don't-give-an-inch stuff does nothing to persuade me - the > arguments aren't as cut and dried as the NCL advocates make out. This reminds me of the Creationists. WE aren't the ones on the bible-bashing rampage. YOU with your unique insight into the game designer's mind and the Great Principles of Game Design Generally are the religious nutcase. This game was explicitly designed NOT to have card limits. People have suggested this was a mistake. We have adduced reams and reams of evidence that shows it was not. You have produced not one iota of evidence to indicate that we are wrong [but if any new evidence or new argument comes up we'll consider it]. Yet, still, your Pure faith persists. i hope it's worth all the self-deception in the end for you, is all i can say. > > Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:00:14 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:25:05 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>This doesn't alter its degeneracy. > >Snooker, like most sports, was designed by English aristocrats who had >lots of time to kill. You've heard of cricket, perhaps - a sport in >which it can take days to play a single game. I played it at school >and never thought much of it. I discovered softball later and thought Well, now this I can sympathise with. I prefer individual games to at least conclude on the same day. >>Ratings are, of course, a polite fiction designed to boost the egos of >>those who want boosting. If I wanted to improve my rating, I would >>play the decks that have the best chance of winning, as opposed to >>screwing around with the non-standard ones that I have for the past >>two years -- as a post of mine on another thread stated. > >You're entitled to please yourself but there's an odd contrast between >your constant didacticism here and your failure to take your own good >advice when it matters. And I don't understand why you don't buy more You are correct,... there IS a startling contrast, isn't there? However, you should reread your own sentence for the answer to your implied question. (You might also consider that many golfers practice swinging with a weight on the end of their club, but I haven't played golf in fifteen years, so that's probably irrelevant.) Should it ever matter to me, I have full confidence in my ability to assemble 80 cards' worth of the highest-quality Brie and make use of them appropriately. But while Brie has a good chance of winning, it isn't anywhere near as much fun, and most importantly, I don't discover anything new in the game. About the only thing I discover is that big Malkavians with Minion Tap/5th/Forgotten Labyrinth are hard to intercept, and if they wander around with Governs and Conditionings too, they do lots of pool damage. Oh, and if you put enough 2nd Tradition/Obedience in a deck, most decks can't beat you up, and all those Princes and Justicars on the table mean that people have to keep asking you about which way votes should go. Of course, people have known THAT for four years or so. That's no fun to 'learn'. But learning that putting a bunch of Potence combat in a !Brujah PRE vote deck actually works a lot better than putting a lot of Majesty in... THAT's fun. =) >cards for a game that you like so much. Apart from the use you could >make of them, you'd be supporting the game financially. I believe I ended up with three boxes of Sabbat War, when all was said and done. I haven't bought any Final Nights yet, but I intend to. Anything more of Sabbat War would have been pointless rare-chasing and would have ended me up with FAR more commons than I actually needed/wanted. It rather IS a pain to sort through and/or deal with your twentieth copy of any given card, so I try to avoid hitting that point. As far as the use I could make of them... -shrug- V:TES is not my primary recreational activity, odd as that may seem by my loquaciousness here. (Taking into account that 100+ WPM makes it a whole lot easier to be prolific in posting.) Supporting the game financially, ...well, considering Sabbat War sold out and I only bought three boxes, I believe that the game does not currently require my support in the sense of buying more than I need or want. -- Derek

On 26 Jun 2001 15:21:14 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:25:44 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >> >> >In fact, snooker is degenerate in its own way; a 147 >> >break consists of one person shooting and NEVER letting the other >> >person shoot! But it doesn't take a genius to look at the purses >> >offered in the UK for snooker players to see that it's clearly >> >well-liked in this form. > >i found this exchange absolutely hilarious. For those who don't know, >(nameless) makes (absolutely nothing dammit!) out of playing snooker. PLEASE DON'T "OUT" ME TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, JAMES! =) and i'm afraid i'm merely an american pool player, although i'm not entirely incompetent on those football fields you call snooker tables. =) -- Derek

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01062...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Me mentioning the Mariel torporing thing was more of an explanation of why Martin rushed her than a spur for you to make a really horrid deck around it:-) I have to say that, if the trick hadn't come to you, the rush would have put down your combat defense and weakened you considerably thereby balancing the table; which was the reason he rushed her in the first place. Oh and incidentally, he would be on here to defend himself but he doesn't have web access. The guy's a fucking good player and I think a lot of people have been a tad unfair to him. A lot of said people (Yourself and Matt aside) probably don't even know the guy.

On 26 Jun 2001 15:35:33 -0700, legbiter wrote: >We have adduced reams and reams of evidence that shows it was not. >You have produced not one iota of evidence to indicate that we are >wrong [but if any new evidence or new argument comes up we'll consider it]. The starting point for this exchange was your claim that your also-ran ToGS deck proved something. This didn't convince me of much for the reasons I've given. I go on to explain how the game's lack of an official CL format discourages me from buying it and we read that FN has poor sales. You're trying to sell me something and I'm not buying it. That's the situation here. Andrew

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kvpijt4m7grgjjc6f...@4ax.com>... > On 26 Jun 2001 15:21:14 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: > > >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:25:44 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >> > >> >In fact, snooker is degenerate in its own way; a 147 > >> >break consists of one person shooting and NEVER letting the other > >> >person shoot! But it doesn't take a genius to look at the purses > >> >offered in the UK for snooker players to see that it's clearly > >> >well-liked in this form. > > > >i found this exchange absolutely hilarious. For those who don't know, > >(nameless) makes (absolutely nothing dammit!) out of playing snooker. > > PLEASE DON'T "OUT" ME TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, JAMES! =) Hehehe .... my representatives await your proposals in this regard. You'll not need reminding that i am a poor fiend with Many Expensive Tastes to Satisfy. O, wait, you know what some of those are. Ok. i'll keep Stumm about this and the, erm, other matters. > > and i'm afraid i'm merely an american pool player, although i'm not > entirely incompetent on those football fields you call snooker tables. > =) > > -- Derek Hey, all this reminds me that you kinda promised to come over here and visit us, possibly paying for your trip in part by, erm, exploiting certain of your talents. i hope you will! LOTS of people here want to shake you warmly by the throat .... if they can reach that high ..... ;) Remember kids, dressing up as Derek Ray in school isn't cool.

<big snip> Martin sent me and Matt an email which i'm taking the liberty of posting cos it's relevant to this thread, along with my response to him which, obviously, is also an email. > > Next day Sorrow, John Eagles and i made the trek up to Watford for a > nice big tourney, 22 or so people IIRC. Rob was there briefly but did > not play, Barney and Will being other notable absentees. It was good > to see james Coupe back in the competitive frame and playing what Matt > and i think is his best deck ever. Sorrow played a storming weenie > obfuscate-embrace deck for 9 VPs and i played a totally new deck which > i threw together that morning, for 10VPs in the heats and 1 in the > final. i call this deck Temptation of Greater Sleaze; the design > principle being quite simply to include as many as possible of the > cards that make your heart sink when they hit the table. Here's the > deck, with notes to indicate where i think it could be modified for > the better: > > DECK NAME: TEMPTATION OF GREATER SLEAZE > > CRYPT [12 vampires] > Zebulon [replace with Mariel] > Leandro x 2 > Lucian x 4 > Greger Anderssen x 2 > Gilbert Duane x 2 Mariel, Lady Thunder > > LIBRARY > MASTERS [21] > Direct Intervention > Dreams of the Sphinx > Giant's blood > Golconda - Inner Peace > Information Highway > Legendary Vampire > Minion Tap x 4 > The Parthenon > Pentex Subversion > Temptation of Greater Power x 4 > Tomb of Rameses III x 3 > Secure Haven > Sudden Reversal > ACTIONS [9] > The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality x 3 > Govern the Unaligned x 2 > Kine Dominance x 2 > Pulse of the Canaille > Revelations [remove] > VOTES [18] > Anarchist Uprising x 2 > Ancient Influence > Banishment x 2 > Dramatic Upheaval > KRC x 5 > Parity Shift x 4 > Political flux [maybe remove] > Political Stranglehold > Rabble Razing [remove] > REACTIONS [20] > Deflection x 4 > Forced Awakening > Obedience x 4 > The Second Tradition: Domain x 2 > Telepathic Counter x 3 [not sure. Maybe remove]. > WWEF x 6 > ACTION MODIFIERS [22] > Cloak the Gathering x 4 > Conditioning x 3 > Elder impersonation > Faceless Night x 4 > Forgotten Labyrinth > Lost in Crowds x 4 > Spying Mission > Swallowed by the Night x 4 > > [Yep, not a Happy Families deck and NO combat cards. What, i can't > break my own rules from time to time? You wait till you see the NEXT > emanation of the Legbitery grey matter!!!!] > > Odd tournament this one. i got 4VP in the first 5-player game, getting > early vote-lock and pulling off Parity Shift, Deflection and Anarchist > Uprising plus some biggish bleeds. LOTS of weenies on the table. > Second game [4-player] i swept thanks to Dramatic Upheaval, KRC, > Banishment, big bleeds, wake/Obedience, ToGP [14-point master-phase > bleed], and mariel's special. Third game [4-player] i tied, despite > having TWO fears of Mekhet played on me by my second prey [i suddened > one of them]; i did another 14-point master-phase bleed with ToGP on > Daniel Vandenberg in this one. In the final i chose to bleed Sorrow > and to be bled by Matt. i was doing OK until martin Cubberley did a > totally-ridiculous cross-table rush against Mariel. Yes, yes, i KNOW i > said that combat decks should do cross-table rushes against their > grand-prey in order to bring the table down to three and try to win > from there. Own, petard, hoist sorta thing. > Martin Cubberley <Martin.C...@southbeds.gov.uk> matthe...@bcuc.ac.uk, legb...@my-deja.com Powerbase: Watford tournament finalDate: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:45:31 +0100 > >Hello there guys, >It has come to my attention that, via the newsgroup, my playing on Sunday >has been put under the microscope. Unfortunately, I don't have access to >the newsgroup and so can't post a reply/defend myself there, so I have >decided to mail you both. >First off, can I say I'm sorry, and disappointed, that my actions have >caused such a stir. I would like to point out, that, at the time, I >believed my cross table rush at James to be a good play to make - the best >at the time. James was on around 15 pool, had a Justicar on the table, >Mariel the Elysium and everybody knew he had Temptations in his deck. As >I'm sure you will both agree, playing a combat deck is about balancing the >table, and in my opinion, James was BY FAR the most powerful sat at that >table at that time. Therefore I did what I had to do. Obviously this was >not considered to be the greatest move ever... I would also like to add >that I always play to win - or at least do as well as I can - but above all >that, I play to have fun. And I had fun on Sunday - it's a shame that you >feel differently (correct me if I'm wrong). >I appreciate that the both of you are better players than myself, and my win >seems to be somewhat controversial, but I do hope there will be no bad >feelings the next time we meet up at a tournament. As I'm sure you are >aware, I have not been to many tourneys, and consider each one to be a >learning experience. Last Sundays was indeed a learning experience. >Feel free to respond to these comments and/or put this up on the newsgroup >if you so wish. > >Take care, >Martin Cubberley i'll post this, along with my response. First let me congratulate you on a fine win. i do think you were a BIT lucky and that you made a strategic mistake in the final, but [as i said at the time] i greatly admired your deck and the way you played it in all other respects. Good job! i wouldn't dissent for a moment from the proposition that combat decks have to take cross-table actions; it's just i think that the particular cross-table action you took against me in the final was strategically unwise. i guess where we differ [and LOTS of people would agree with you, and not with me] is over the idea that combat decks are all about balancing the table, which IMO is only a tactic. i believe that strategically combat decks are just tlike any other deck in being about gaining the most VPs possible, though obviously by different means than is true for bleed, vote etc. Never mind! It turned out alright for you in the end, and you learned something along the way [as did i. As did we all. Mariel the drop-dead gorgeous, eh? ;-)]. And i had fun too! Actually, can we ask you a favour? Could you post us your deck so's we can put it on the newsgroup? Thanks, and i look forward to enacting my Hideous Revenge upon you next time it is in my in-game interests to do so. Again, congratulations on a fine win!

<snip> > > I'm still not clear what sort of deck he [Martin] had > > though, apart from it being rush combat. > > Hopefully he will post it. Pro, cel, aus deck making good use of the > Art of Pain. > > Here is martin's deck, which he has asked me to post. Once again congratulations to mark! We have a new enemy ... he could destroy us all .... Deck Name: The pretentious art fags tear you a new one! Created by: Martin Cubberley Description: Toreadors with Protean. Show the world that the Toreadors can fight after all. Use bleed redirection and intercept with the small vamps to keep you healthy, while you send your big vampires off to do the killing - tool Miller up with Art of Pain for one scary mutha. Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 19, Max: 34, Avg: 6.92] 2 Andreas(AUS CEL dom PRE pro, Toreador, 9, Primogen) 1 Dorian Strack (AUS cel, Toreador, 4) 1 Ellen Fence (aus CEL OBF PRO, Gangrel Antitribu, 8, Bishop) 1 Felicia Mostrom (AUS CEL pre, Toreador, 5) 2 Kallista (AUS CEL pre pro, Toreador, 6) 1 Marcellus (AUS CEL pro, Toreador, 8, Prince) 3 Miller Delmardigan (aus CEL PRE pro, Toreador Antitribu, 8, Bishop) 1 Remilliard (AUS pre, Toreador Antitribu, 4) Library: (90 cards) Master (18 cards) 2 Art of Pain, The 3 Blood Doll 1 Depravity 1 Direct Intervention 1 Fame 1 Fetish Club Hunting Ground 1 Giant's Blood 1 Haven Uncovered 1 KRCG News Radio 2 Minion Tap 3 Protean 1 Society Hunting Ground Minion (72 cards) 2 Acrobatics 2 Adaptability 1 Art Scam 6 Blur 3 Bone Spur 5 Bum's Rush 3 Claws of the Dead 2 Enhanced Senses 5 Fast Reaction 2 Flash 6 Flesh of Marble 3 Leather Jacket 2 My Enemy's Enemy 2 Precognizant Mobility 4 Psyche! 2 Pursuit 1 Shadow of the Beast 3 Sideslip 2 Spirit's Touch 2 Taste of Vitae 3 Telepathic Misdirection 2 Telepathic Tracking 6 Wake with Evening's Freshness [maybe should be forced awakening?] 3 Wolf Claws i note that this deck is also legal for 6CL. That's game, set and match as far as refuting Cl is concerned, i'd have thought.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<47C2CC6403AD55A8.89EDCB3E...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] This doesn´t say nothing , Suppose Derek win ONE tournament round with one of his intercept decks with distributions of VP 2/1/1/1/0 according to rating calculator he gains around 64 points if people at the table have more or less same ranking as he has. After that round ratings would be something like 3125 for Martin 3110 for Derek 3094 for Legbiter 2906 for Matt See ? Ratings difference of about 60 points means nothing since it takes just one win in a tournament rounds to annulate them. Do you want to be BEST player in the world according to ratings ? My method doesn´t require to win tournaments. It even doesn´t require to go to the final. All you need is to take a deck capable of doing 2/1/1/1 victory points splits consistently. After three rounds you will have 6 VP which in most tournaments I played recently 6 points was NOT sufficient to guarantee you a place in the final. Yet you will gain around 180 points each tournaments. Repeat it in three tournaments and you will have around 540 points gain. Assuming you started at 3000 you will end with 3540 points which is about 200 points more than current top player have. And you didn´t even went into the final in any single tournament ! Let´s say that you actually play to win a tournament.Your deck is little bit different - your approach is to sweep two games out of three in the preliminary rounds and then since you will probably have most vp you will chose best position in the finals thus you will probably win finals too. Sounds like a good plan , no ? You think that you will have better ranking at the end than an 2/1/1/1 deck ? No ! You will only have gain of something like 120 points after each tournament and around 360 after three tournament and this approach require you to win three tournaments in the row which is way more difficult than 2 vp per a game approach. See what I mean ? High rating doesn´t necessary mean that player is better than a player who has lower rating. Heck the one with lower rating could be making finals regurarly and the one with bigger not.I hope you will agree with me that total number of finals / total numbers of tournaments is quite a good indicator if player is good or bad. As it is now there are two possibilities 1) ratings are broken since they do not reflect tournament structure , you may be in the finals regularily but still has a lower ratings that someone who never ever go into the finals. 2) Way how tournament scoring is made is broken since it doesn´t reward consistency - you can win three games and yet never go into the finals but you will rightly be best player in the world after three tournaments. Conclusion : If we want to keep current tournament system we need to change ratings. If we want to keep ratings system we need to change tournament system. Kajik

On 27 Jun 2001 05:56:27 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >Here is martin's deck, which he has asked me to post. Once again >congratulations to mark! We have a new enemy ... he could destroy us >all .... > >Deck Name: >The pretentious art fags tear you a new one! >Created by: Martin Cubberley >Description: >Toreadors with Protean. Show the world that the Toreadors can fight >after all. Use bleed redirection and intercept with the small vamps to >keep you healthy, while you send your big vampires off to do the >killing - >tool Miller up with Art of Pain for one scary mutha. > >Minion (72 cards) >6 Blur >5 Bum's Rush >5 Fast Reaction >6 Flesh of Marble >6 Wake with Evening's Freshness [maybe should be forced awakening?] > >i note that this deck is also legal for 6CL. That's game, set and >match as far as refuting Cl is concerned, i'd have thought. To make it legal for 4CL, merely replace as follows: 2 Blur -> 2 Pursuit 1 Bum's Rush -> 1 Ambush 1 Fast Reaction -> 1 Forced Awakening 2 Flesh of Marble -> 2 Side Strike 3 Wake -> 3 Forced Awakening The most painful substitution will be the Flesh of Marbles, as there really isn't a directly comparable card. Best you can do is another dodge/additional strike card, which are never bad to have. Kind of interesting what the "degenerate combat deck" really looked like, eh? =) -- Derek

On 27 Jun 2001 01:53:26 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kvpijt4m7grgjjc6f...@4ax.com>... >> >> PLEASE DON'T "OUT" ME TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, JAMES! =) > >Hehehe .... my representatives await your proposals in this regard. Actually, TWO entire countries. =P >You'll not need reminding that i am a poor fiend with Many Expensive >Tastes to Satisfy. O, wait, you know what some of those are. Ok. i'll >keep Stumm about this and the, erm, other matters. Especially the matters concerning the goat. =P What sort of proposals were you curious about, though? =) >Hey, all this reminds me that you kinda promised to come over here and >visit us, possibly paying for your trip in part by, erm, exploiting >certain of your talents. i hope you will! LOTS of people here want to >shake you warmly by the throat .... if they can reach that high ..... hahahaha. Aw... they miss me and I haven't even met them yet! =) Isn't that sweet. As far as the visit, though, I'm seriously attempting to figure out just how to manage that in the near future. Whether I can pay for my trip in part with extracurricular activity would be curious, although I expect rather risky... the most-popular variation you guys play over there is QUITE different. =) Hopefully I'll be able to make it over there after y'all wind up the regular monthlies again (and of course, schedule my time directly across one of them =). All depends on how stuff-in-progress goes. -- Derek

On 27 Jun 2001 05:56:27 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Deck Name: >The pretentious art fags tear you a new one! >Created by: Martin Cubberley >Description: >Toreadors with Protean. Show the world that the Toreadors can fight >after all. Use bleed redirection and intercept with the small vamps to >keep you healthy, while you send your big vampires off to do the >killing - tool Miller up with Art of Pain for one scary mutha. This looks like a fine deck, though, FWIW, I can't make this one either as I don't think I have any Miller/Art of Pain. Anyway, that's another tick for the Toreadors which should keep them near the top of the table. >i note that this deck is also legal for 6CL. That's game, set and >match as far as refuting Cl is concerned, i'd have thought. Quite the reverse IMO. Both you and Martin can function quite well within a 6CL. And I've seen many other decks which fit within this constraint too. Some players even use this as a conscious parameter when designing decks - stops them being too vulnerable to a nemesis. So what's the big deal about having a 6CL? This looks increasingly to me like an accident of history. Magic went first with an arbitrary CL of 4 which worked out ok with the equally arbitrary deck size of 60. VTES inherited the same CL in many groups but this wasn't suitable for its larger decks. If a 6CL had been the first choice for VTES, maybe that's what everyone would be playing now, just as everyone now takes the 4CL limit for granted in Magic even though it was grafted on to the original design too. Of course you'd lose the amusing/degenerate decks which have 10+ copies of the same card but all other CCG suffer this lack and seem to manage. Andrew

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:53:23 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 27 Jun 2001 05:56:27 -0700, legbiter wrote: > >>Deck Name: >>The pretentious art fags tear you a new one! >>Created by: Martin Cubberley >>Description: >>Toreadors with Protean. Show the world that the Toreadors can fight >>after all. Use bleed redirection and intercept with the small vamps to >>keep you healthy, while you send your big vampires off to do the >>killing - tool Miller up with Art of Pain for one scary mutha. > >This looks like a fine deck, though, FWIW, I can't make this one >either as I don't think I have any Miller/Art of Pain. Anyway, that's >another tick for the Toreadors which should keep them near the top of >the table. > >>i note that this deck is also legal for 6CL. That's game, set and >>match as far as refuting Cl is concerned, i'd have thought. > >Quite the reverse IMO. Both you and Martin can function quite well >within a 6CL. And I've seen many other decks which fit within this >constraint too. Some players even use this as a conscious parameter >when designing decks - stops them being too vulnerable to a nemesis. >So what's the big deal about having a 6CL? Since 6CL decks are capable of beating an entire tourney-ful of NCL decks, why limit the variety in the game by having an un-necessary card limit? Many, many decks are simply not viable under 6CL and never will be -- Corruption decks, Cryptic Mission decks, the list has been restated endlessly. Imposing an arbitrary card limit on the game for some nebulous concept of "balance", especially when the game wasn't designed to be played with a CL, is simply foolish on the face of it. Even more so when it turns out that the "balance" isn't necessary - decks with 10+ of the same card in them lose valuable flexibility that, at the highest levels, is turning out to be necessary. >This looks increasingly to me like an accident of history. Magic went >first with an arbitrary CL of 4 which worked out ok with the equally >arbitrary deck size of 60. VTES inherited the same CL in many groups >but this wasn't suitable for its larger decks. If a 6CL had been the V:TES inherited the same CL because it was another Garfield game, and everyone just assumed that any Garfield game would have a CL. It is interesting to note that 4CL in a 90-card deck does fall into that particular trap as well. Unless I'm mistaken, Magic didn't ORIGINALLY have a card limit - WotC simply assumed that nobody would ever have that many of any given card. Oops on their part, but it was a totally new field they were entering, too. They had to bolt on patch after patch to the rules and design afterwards to try to fix the problem. >first choice for VTES, maybe that's what everyone would be playing >now, just as everyone now takes the 4CL limit for granted in Magic >even though it was grafted on to the original design too. Of course >you'd lose the amusing/degenerate decks which have 10+ copies of the >same card but all other CCG suffer this lack and seem to manage. But the other CCGs were designed to have the card limits from the ground up, which this wasn't. Magic's design has largely imploded on itself over the years, and the 4CL has been a feature for so long that it now truly IS being designed for 4CL. -- Derek

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:06:52 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Unless I'm mistaken, Magic didn't ORIGINALLY have a card limit - WotC >simply assumed that nobody would ever have that many of any given >card. Oops on their part, but it was a totally new field they were >entering, too. They had to bolt on patch after patch to the rules and >design afterwards to try to fix the problem. What gets forgotten in this debate is that VTES went through a similar patching process. The game, as designed, could be broken and so different groups adopted different house rules to fix it. Some went with a CL like Magic while others went with Adrian Sullivan's Golden Tenets - no repeat actions (NRA) and no vote pushing. The latter is now regarded as orthodoxy but note that NRA still isn't in the rulebook. I regard it with the same suspicion and distaste as you regard a CL and for the same reason - that it wasn't in the original design and isn't even a proper rule. The Golden Tenet camp, personified by LSJ, have seized the levers of power but it might not have gone that way. One year the big annual tournament at Gencon was run by WotC with a 4CL, right? Supposing that faction had taken the game forward. They might have fixed the game to work well with a CL and folk who wanted to play without one would now be the mavericks, raging against the system. What might have been ... Andrew

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:51:23 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:06:52 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Unless I'm mistaken, Magic didn't ORIGINALLY have a card limit - WotC >>simply assumed that nobody would ever have that many of any given >>card. Oops on their part, but it was a totally new field they were >>entering, too. They had to bolt on patch after patch to the rules and >>design afterwards to try to fix the problem. > >What gets forgotten in this debate is that VTES went through a similar >patching process. The game, as designed, could be broken and so (head shake) I'm well aware that it went through a patching process. I just think that the patch that was adopted was the better one. =) >different groups adopted different house rules to fix it. Some went >with a CL like Magic while others went with Adrian Sullivan's Golden >Tenets - no repeat actions (NRA) and no vote pushing. The latter is note that a CL wouldn't fix vote-pushing; you simply include as many different vote cards in your deck as you need. Those 4 copies of Screw the Masquerade! finally see some use... =) >now regarded as orthodoxy but note that NRA still isn't in the >rulebook. I regard it with the same suspicion and distaste as you >regard a CL and for the same reason - that it wasn't in the original >design and isn't even a proper rule. It puzzles me that NRA has not made it to the rulebook yet. With the current design of the game and the way it's going, it seems a much simpler course of action. Although I could suppose that things are being left that way so as to not legislate older playgroups out of existence. >that faction had taken the game forward. They might have fixed the >game to work well with a CL and folk who wanted to play without one >would now be the mavericks, raging against the system. What might >have been ... ... is merely idle speculation. =) I will note that the CL house rules adopted by many groups were "glued-on" without thinking, in some cases without even realizing that the game was NCL by design. OTOH, The Golden Tenets were crafted with a significant amount of thought and time spent. In general, I'm going to learn towards something that's had EFFORT put into it as more likely to be "right" as opposed to a snap judgement. -- Derek

In message <DE0BA4B8A94133C8.CE034DDD...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >The Golden Tenet camp, personified by LSJ, have seized the levers of >power "seized"? Unsubstantiated, emotive guff. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<5B81CF3F3D887D4B.3D0138D2...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 26 Jun 2001 15:35:33 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >We have adduced reams and reams of evidence that shows it was not. > >You have produced not one iota of evidence to indicate that we are > >wrong [but if any new evidence or new argument comes up we'll consider it]. > > The starting point for this exchange was your claim that your also-ran > ToGS deck proved something. This didn't convince me of much for the > reasons I've given. i've combed your responses for reasons, and i find none. Opinions and feelings, lots of those. Facts and reasoned arguments, not a single one. Since you don't seem to like my deck you might like to look at Martin's deck which he's kindly allowed me to post in this thread. To save you looking, i'll remind you that he came first [good effort, Martin, and sorry for calling you Mark in the other post], and i'll point out that it's a 6-cl legal deck. Finally, from Rob's Ventrue NL here is Matt's deck. i'll remind you that he came second. Deck name: 'The Sandy Pole' Created by: Matt Green Crypt: (12 cards) 1 Courtland Leighton (Ventrue, 4, do fo pr) 1 Dominique (Ventrue Antitribu, 7, an AU do FO vi) 1 Ingrid Russo (Ventrue Antitribu, 4, DO fo) 3 Quentin (Ventrue Antitribu, 9, AU ce DO FO ot, Bis) 1 Ranjan Rishi (Ventrue, 5, DO fo PR) 1 Roland Louissarian (Ventrue, 3, fo pr) 1 Rufina Soledad (Ventrue, 2, fo) 2 Sir Walter Nash (Ventrue, 7, DO FO PR, Prince) 1 Timothy Crowley (Ventrue, 7, an do FO PR, Prince) Library: (65 cards) Masters 12 1 Demonstration 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Elysium: The Arboretum 1 Giant's Blood 1 KRCG News Radio 3 Minion Tap 1 Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper, The 1 Ventrue Headquarters 1 Powerbase : Madrid Minion 53 2 Ancilla Empowerment 2 Cardinal Benediction 1 Cryptic Rider 4 Day Operation 6 Deflection 2 Disputed Territory 2 Dramatic Upheaval 1 Elder Kindred Network 1 Elder Library 2 Fifth Tradition: Hospitality, The 5 Kine Resources Contested 2 Kindred Manipulation 2 Kiss of Ra, The 5 Obedience 2 Parity Shift 1 Praxis Seizure: Miami 3 Resilience 3 Second Tradition: Domain 3 Skin of Steel 2 Ventrue Justicar 2 Wake with Evening's Freshness Wow, look! 6cl legal, and this from Matthew Green who hates, hates HATES cl with every fibre of his delicate but passionate being. So that's first, second and third places in the large and competitive Watford NCL tourney to 6cl-legal decks. So the bottom line is that you CAN compete in NCL with Cl legal decks. > > I go on to explain how the game's lack of an official CL format > discourages me from buying it And my point is that it doesn't need one, because CL decks compete just fine in an NCL environment. So the only reason to bring in CL would be to stop you personally from going all wiggy and weepy when someone whipped out their tenth Lost in Crowds. Your feelings matter to me, but not that much. Actually while we're on the subject i'll point out that sealed-deck IS an official format and it is, effectively, cl. IIRC you DID attend the Watford FN sealed deck and left after the first game, no? Maybe you just don't like or understand this game at all, could THAT be the Secret Demon with which you are wrestling? and we read that FN has poor sales. Not my fault if so. i've spent upwards of 300GBP on it so far. > You're trying to sell me something and I'm not buying it. That's the > situation here. Well you've also said that you're not buying FN because the independents lack the it-factor. It seems to me there would ALWAYS be a reason why you wouldn't buy it. As for me trying to sell something to you, you remind me a bit of the brash American in the anecdote who goes into a Scots bar and orders a glass of their finest malt. It having been reverently poured, he asks for a dash of soda in that. And the barman takes the glass back in disgust, and substitutes a slug of Bell's. In the same, erm, spirit i advise you to stick to Shadowfist, an excellent game to which the odd dash of soda may, with perfect propriety, be added. > > Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:06:52 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Unless I'm mistaken, Magic didn't ORIGINALLY have a card limit - WotC >>simply assumed that nobody would ever have that many of any given >>card. Oops on their part, but it was a totally new field they were >>entering, too. They had to bolt on patch after patch to the rules and >>design afterwards to try to fix the problem. > >What gets forgotten in this debate is that VTES went through a similar >patching process. The game, as designed, could be broken and so >different groups adopted different house rules to fix it. Some went We're not talking about house rules - we're talking about the *official* patching process. Magic went from NCL to 4CL becuase the designers had assumed that rarity would be a card limiter and it turned out not to be. The designers of V:TES assumed that players could/would have access to unlimited copies of each card and designed the game accordingly. They still missed the mark, but only slightly. >with a CL like Magic while others went with Adrian Sullivan's Golden >Tenets - no repeat actions (NRA) and no vote pushing. The latter is >now regarded as orthodoxy but note that NRA still isn't in the >rulebook. I regard it with the same suspicion and distaste as you >regard a CL and for the same reason - that it wasn't in the original >design and isn't even a proper rule. So don't use it. It's only required in V:EKN-sanctioned constructed deck tournaments. >The Golden Tenet camp, personified by LSJ, have seized the levers of >power but it might not have gone that way. One year the big annual .. have been given the levers of power since no one else was available to do the job properly. >tournament at Gencon was run by WotC with a 4CL, right? Supposing Speaking of not doing the job properly... Actually I believe that that was done at an Origins tournament, not a Gen*Con one, but I could be mistaken (and it's not really important to your point anyhow). It would've been back in '96 or so, I believe. That happened because, given the resources being given to supporting V:TES from WotC at the time, the judges at the event were not familiar with the game and mistakenly did not follow the then-current DCI rules for V:TES. >that faction had taken the game forward. They might have fixed the >game to work well with a CL and folk who wanted to play without one A faction that doesn't even know the rules of the game (so that they would know when they were changing them)? I don't think following them could be considered "forward". >would now be the mavericks, raging against the system. What might >have been ... -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 27 Jun 2001 09:59:44 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Well you've also said that you're not buying FN because the >independents lack the it-factor. It seems to me there would ALWAYS be >a reason why you wouldn't buy it. I've addressed your CL stuff in another post but I feel there's some value in explaining myself on this point as WW may be listening. I didn't buy much FN and don't plan to because: 1. I already have a fair bit of DS and AH 2. I don't much care for the Independent clans and the art for FN vampires does little to help them. 3. The cards that I might find useful and interesting like Jake Washington and Sniper Rifle are, I believe, sufficiently few and far between that they are best bought as singles or maybe trades. Now I'm not quite sure exactly what we're going to get in Bloodlines but, if it's at last something interesting for the Camarilla clans then I will be buying a good chunk of it. They still need to do something about the art though - I am not interested in cards that look like dog poo. So, even if FN isn't selling well, that doesn't mean the same would be true of Bloodlines. Because it's something really new, I'd expect it to leap off the shelves. Andrew

LSJ wrote: >>Actually I believe that that was done at an Origins tournament, not a Gen*Con one, but I could be mistaken (and it's not really important to your point anyhow). It would've been back in '96 or so, I believe.>> Nah. The tournaments at Origins have been NCL for as long as they have existed (at least the big official ones--there might have been smaller fringe tournies run by non offical folk that were CL, but I didn't see any). The Origins '95 tournament was run without CL, much to many people's confusion (as we didn't know any better...), and was won by a 60 KRC WVP deck, which may or may not have led directly to the thankfully short lived "restricted" list. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

It was Origins, and it was 96, and they changed the deck contruction rules 15 minutes before the tourney. I remember having to ransack my deck to fit their deck construction definitions. Still, I had an amazing amount of fun at that tourney. Matt

>I go on to explain how the game's lack of an official CL format >discourages me from buying it and we read that FN has poor sales. >You're trying to sell me something and I'm not buying it. That's the >situation here. I don't think NCL is bad for the play of the game as the game has been designed to have no limits. However, this (separate) point about owning cards being less desirable because of NCL, IMO, has some validity. Some CCGers, such as myself, have the mentality of having enough cards to build any deck that they might want to build. That's not possible with NCL. (I find that I have a very hard time trading because there's really almost nothing I'd want to give up as I might find a use for it some day.) While the game had done a good job of making commons among the best cards, I believe that potential players are often daunted by how many cards they wouldn't have that they could use (if only for greater variety). If I were to put a new CCG on the market, I'd definitely feature CL. I bring this up because what I don't like hearing is how a CCG is inherently inferior because it has CL, which I hear occasionally from some of the locals. Still, I'm not seeing the point in arguing CL for V:TES. It should have already settled into "we agree to disagree, let's move on" years ago.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:27:09 GMT, LSJ wrote: >Actually I believe that that was done at an Origins tournament, not a >Gen*Con one, but I could be mistaken (and it's not really important to >your point anyhow). It would've been back in '96 or so, I believe. Thanks to the ever-wonderful Google, I found it almost immediately. I'm not sure if there were more cases of this kind but it's great to have a window into the good old days, when LSJ was roasting the powers that were ... Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) Subject: Re: Deck limitations at GenCon (sanctioned VTES tournament) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad View complete thread (36 articles) Date: 1995/08/15 In article <40q095$d...@pentagon.io.com>, J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@io.com> wrote: >I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned >Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). > >At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it >was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- >no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were >given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. Everybody get this? WotC takes great pains to make a no-restriction-needed card game, blows it with mis-rulings on some basic levels, and tries to cover their collectives by slapping a no-thought card limit on a game, when it has already been clearly shown that such a card limit (esp. one with no consideration to the size of the deck) breaks the game. Fix the rules, WotC, and the decks will follow. ------- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger

>Actually I believe that that was done at an Origins tournament, not a >Gen*Con one, but I could be mistaken (and it's not really important to >your point anyhow). It would've been back in '96 or so, I believe. > I've been going to Gen Con (US) for about 5 years. The only V:TES tournament I played in there was 6 card limits with some cards banned or something (was, I think, the first GC I went to).

Matt wrote: >>It was Origins, and it was 96, and they changed the deck contruction rules 15 minutes before the tourney. I remember having to ransack my deck to fit their deck construction definitions.>> Are you sure about that? As far as I recall, the (big) '96 Origins tournament was the one that was Friday night at, like, 9:00pm (and ended at, like, 3:00) or something and was run by Shawn F Carnes. I was playing one of my Marty Lechtansi Rush/bruise/bleed decks (that certainly wasn't a CL deck at the time) that I was so fond of back then, and that was the tournament that I got killed out of 'cause I told my opponent exactly how to kill me. So she did. There might have been another one that year at some point, but the Friday night tourney had, like, 50 people at it or so, and wasn't using a CL of any sort. Right after that tournament was when I nailed my thesis to the door, entitled something like "Why 20 Majesties Aren't Broken (or: how I learned to stop worrying and love Immortal Grapple)". Hmm. Where is that deja search when you need it... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <DE0BA4B8A94133C8.CE034DDD...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >One year the big annual tournament at Gencon was run by WotC with a >4CL, right? Hell, I remember the set of tournament rules WotC released where you could have 4 of any card in your deck, except for the restricted list, where you could have 6. (Yes, I typed those numbers correctly.) Apparently something went wrong while cutting-and-pasting over at the DCI. They replaced them within days with NCL in general and 6CL on the restricted list (which included some really unusual cards). Thank god those days are over... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- A recent study shows that research causes cancer in lab rats.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010627154106...@ng-cq1.aol.com... > Matt wrote: > >>It was Origins, and it was 96, and they changed the deck contruction rules > 15 minutes before the tourney. I remember having to ransack my deck to fit > their deck construction definitions.>> > > Are you sure about that? On the year? No. That it happened to me at Origins, yes. It may have been 1997 I suppose. The tourney was an afternoon one (like at noon or so). First the 60 or so of us got moved because the Overpower tourney was supposed to use our tables. Then they changed the deck construction rules on us. Finally it got going but our Judge was also running some other event so a nice player with a black beret and a good grasp of the rules ended up adjudicating the few disputes we had. Getting old.. memory for dates fading fast... Matt

Santiago <sant...@nastyPinkCannedMeat.umug.org> wrote: >In article ><DE0BA4B8A94133C8.CE034DDD...@lp.airnews.net>, >Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > >>One year the big annual tournament at Gencon was run by WotC with a >>4CL, right? > > Hell, I remember the set of tournament rules WotC released where >you could have 4 of any card in your deck, except for the restricted >list, where you could have 6. (Yes, I typed those numbers correctly.) >Apparently something went wrong while cutting-and-pasting over at the >DCI. They replaced them within days with NCL in general and 6CL on the >restricted list (which included some really unusual cards). Thank god >those days are over... WotC DCI V:TES Tournament rules have never included a blanket CL, to the best of my knowledge. If anyone has a copy of a DCI doucument (print-out from a web page or whatever) with a CL, let me know: vte...@white-wolf.com Thanks, Scott [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<283B596F923B2170.569969A2...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 27 Jun 2001 05:56:27 -0700, legbiter wrote: > >i note that this deck is also legal for 6CL. That's game, set and > >match as far as refuting Cl is concerned, i'd have thought. > > Quite the reverse IMO. Both you and Martin can function quite well > within a 6CL. And I've seen many other decks which fit within this > constraint too. Some players even use this as a conscious parameter > when designing decks - stops them being too vulnerable to a nemesis. > So what's the big deal about having a 6CL? The big deal is that it prohibits a nigh-infinite number of possible decks. > This looks increasingly to me like an accident of history. Magic went > first with an arbitrary CL of 4 which worked out ok with the equally > arbitrary deck size of 60. VTES inherited the same CL in many groups > but this wasn't suitable for its larger decks. If a 6CL had been the > first choice for VTES, maybe that's what everyone would be playing > now, just as everyone now takes the 4CL limit for granted in Magic > even though it was grafted on to the original design too. Of course > you'd lose the amusing/degenerate decks which have 10+ copies of the > same card but all other CCG suffer this lack and seem to manage. But why would you *want* to force everyone to play VTES with a CL, 6 or 4 or whatever? Because some people are supposedly scared off of playing the game by the belief that they need billions of copies of particular cards in order to play competitively? In general, card limits in CCGs are an attempt to limit the effect of broken cards. Games that don't have broken cards don't need a CL. Shadowfist has been played - in fact I think you've even done it, if I remember right - without using its official 5CL and found to be fairly balanced even without limits. Likewise, VTES doesn't need a limit to be balanced. So why impose one on it? Josh it's too much man, let it all hang out

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:DE0BA4B8A94133C8.CE034DDD...@lp.airnews.net... > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:06:52 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > The Golden Tenet camp, personified by LSJ, have seized the levers of > power but it might not have gone that way. Don't shit in your own garden man, VTES administration is approximatly 1000 times better with WW at the helm rather than WOTC. Rob.

Matt wrote: >>On the year? No. That it happened to me at Origins, yes. It may have been 1997 I suppose. The tourney was an afternoon one (like at noon or so). First the 60 or so of us got moved because the Overpower tourney was supposed to use our tables. Then they changed the deck construction rules on us. Finally it got going but our Judge was also running some other event so a nice player with a black beret and a good grasp of the rules ended up adjudicating the few disputes we had.>> Yeah, I think they had some sort of restricted list in '97--I was back looking at deja archives, and saw that in some old post of mine. I think it was one of those "No more than 6 (or 2 maybe) of the following X cards..." imposed on the '97 tourney. I think '97 was the year that I missed the first round of the saturday afternoon tournament and they wouldn't let me in after that. Bastards. (Man. Looking over those deja archives? It is amazing how much effort I put into defending a 4CL back in the day. What a psycho I was...) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Jun 2001 13:23:58 -0700, Joshua Duffin wrote: >In general, card limits in CCGs are an attempt to limit the effect of >broken cards. Games that don't have broken cards don't need a CL. >Shadowfist has been played - in fact I think you've even done it, if >I remember right - without using its official 5CL and found to be >fairly balanced even without limits. Likewise, VTES doesn't need a >limit to be balanced. So why impose one on it? Apart from setting a ceiling for a play set and eliminating monotonous decks, I'd say because the lack of a CL forces you to errata cards more frequently. A good example is Wake with Evening's Freshness which got an ugly errata. The reason for this was some concern about being able to pack large numbers of them which you could freely cycle out of your hand. If the game had had a CL then this wouldn't have been necessary. The thing about CCGs is that tournament players are often totally ruthless about breaking the game. If there's even the slightest weakness in the game system they will push on it until it breaks. I know this because I do it myself. A CL provides a safety net for stuff that isn't caught in playtest and that's why every single CCG apart from VTES has one. That's certainly why Shadowfist has one - the designer said so himself. He thought that the game might work without one but played it safe. Having thought about it, I'm fairly sure that he's wrong and I backed away from running a NCL event. The game would work fine for the most part with NCL but that's not good enough - players would instantly seize on the parts that weren't fine and destroy the game with them. Oh, and another thing. If there were a CL then you'd be able to ditch the other CL which VTES does have - the limit on deck size. It really is a joke this, you know. You guys bang on and on about not having a CL when there is, in fact, a very rigid limit on the number of cards that you may put in your deck, i.e. 90 in tournament play. That's a CL that Shadowfist doesn't have and it's great. My last tournament-winning deck had 196 cards in it and is lots of fun to play in consequence. This lack of a deck limit means that, unlike VTES, there is a genuinely infinite number of decks that you can construct. VTES supposed variety seems like a straight-jacket by comparison. Doomtown takes yet another approach. There is a tight CL of 4 and a fixed deck size of 52. But you can recycle your discards and so you may draw and play a given card a potentially infinite number of times. This is a whole new ball game and has the great merit that you are mostly unlikely to run dry as can happen in the other two games. Still, there's a lot to be said for VTES taking a different approach too - it'd be dull if these CCG had identical mechanics. Just be aware that there is a rich universe of possibilities out there and there's something to be said for them all. Andrew

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 23:13:41 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >Oh, and another thing. If there were a CL then you'd be able to ditch >the other CL which VTES does have - the limit on deck size. It really (shrug) I don't see a reason to keep the limit on deck size, other than "original design". A large deck works against itself after a certain point, due to the very mechanics of the game and the fact that hand size does not increase accordingly. Someone could work around this to a degree, ie. influencing out Cassandra and putting the Elder Library in play, but those are additional, fragile moving parts. IS there a good reason to keep maximum deck size below 90? Most cards that immediately pop to mind (Drawing out the Beast, etc.) are restricted now by text to "one per combat", and putting 60+ in a deck is inherently hazardous to one's own health anyway. Of course, I'm from that wacky bunch of Atlantans who believe in 70-80 card decks so that you consistently get what you want. -- Derek

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:21:49 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >(shrug) I don't see a reason to keep the limit on deck size, other >than "original design". And that isn't much of a reason as the tournament rules don't use the original design. The ceiling doesn't vary with the number of players and the floor is different. The original design and the current rulebook both specify a minimum of 40 cards but the tournament rules specify 60. Why is that? It looks like a straight borrowing from the DCi rules for Magic which had exactly the same 40/60 variation. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] The fixed ceiling is due to the recognition that forcing players to alter their decks in the middle of a tournament to accomoate moving between five and four player tables is a Bad Idea(tm). By a happy coincidence, the ceiling is equal to the rulebook rules if one assumes a five-player table (and five-player tables are to be maximized in tournaments). You've got a point on the higher floor for constructed deck tournaments (note that limited format tournaments allow 40 card decks). We'll probably revisit that as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7kmkjtkfcu095gqe6...@4ax.com... > IS there a good reason to keep maximum deck size below 90? Most cards > that immediately pop to mind (Drawing out the Beast, etc.) are Well, aside from deck-clumping-badness...IG rush (most any rush) would benefit immensely by not having an upper deck limit. Think of it, you could include enough cards for combats with all 4 opposing players! Yum. Let's see here...I'd probably just double the deck size. 24 Bum's Rush, 8 Haven Uncovered, 24 IG, etc. I'm not certain I have 24 IG, but you get the picture. I definitely don't have enough Torn Sigpnost to support it, but it's all good. That should do it. > Of course, I'm from that wacky bunch of Atlantans who believe in 70-80 > card decks so that you consistently get what you want. Freaks. I've gotta get down there one of these days and visit all of ya. Xian

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<283B596F923B2170.569969A2...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 27 Jun 2001 05:56:27 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >Deck Name: > >The pretentious art fags tear you a new one! > >Created by: Martin Cubberley > >Description: > >Toreadors with Protean. Show the world that the Toreadors can fight > >after all. Use bleed redirection and intercept with the small vamps to > >keep you healthy, while you send your big vampires off to do the > >killing - tool Miller up with Art of Pain for one scary mutha. > > This looks like a fine deck, though, FWIW, I can't make this one > either as I don't think I have any Miller/Art of Pain. Anyway, that's > another tick for the Toreadors which should keep them near the top of > the table. > > >i note that this deck is also legal for 6CL. That's game, set and > >match as far as refuting Cl is concerned, i'd have thought. > > Quite the reverse IMO. Both you and Martin can function quite well > within a 6CL. And Matthew. And I've seen many other decks which fit within this > constraint too. Some players even use this as a conscious parameter > when designing decks - stops them being too vulnerable to a nemesis. > So what's the big deal about having a 6CL? You're really not seeing this, are you? What all this stuff shows is that there is no NEED for a cl, not under any bizarre stretch of the imagination is there any such need. In the current environment i can play a degenerate deck one week and a cl-legal deck the next. And i'll often win, and because my creativity is not constrained by silly arbitrary card-limits brought in by false analogy with other games, i have +3 fun. And so will everyone else. Card limits = fewer deck possibilities = -3 fun > > This looks increasingly to me like an accident of history. Magic went > first with an arbitrary CL of 4 which worked out ok with the equally > arbitrary deck size of 60. VTES inherited the same CL in many groups > but this wasn't suitable for its larger decks. If a 6CL had been the > first choice for VTES, maybe that's what everyone would be playing > now, just as everyone now takes the 4CL limit for granted in Magic > even though it was grafted on to the original design too. Of course > you'd lose the amusing/degenerate decks which have 10+ copies of the > same card but all other CCG suffer this lack and seem to manage. Er, right, so now we have to have cls because everyone else has them. By the same logic i assume you think that all spirits should be blended because most commercial Scotch is, so it's clearly an accident of history that some silly old fuddy-duddies in Scotland persist with the outdated and inefficient pot-still. But at least you now accept that cls are not necessary to build a winning deck. And you accept that cls penalise amusing/degenerate decks. And that cls were not a Grand Plan in the Mind of the Great designer. Maybe we're making progress, after all. > > Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Oh, and another thing. If there were a CL then you'd be able to ditch > the other CL which VTES does have - the limit on deck size. It really > is a joke this, you know. You guys bang on and on about not having a > CL when there is, in fact, a very rigid limit on the number of cards > that you may put in your deck, i.e. 90 in tournament play. That's a You've got a second-person pronoun there. I think you meant a first-person pronoun. But yes, you're right. We've got a 90CL at tournaments. So now perhaps certain groups will stop bemoaning the lack of a CL in V:TES? :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>Apart from setting a ceiling for a play set and eliminating monotonous decks, I'd say because the lack of a CL forces you to errata cards more frequently.>> This of course assumes that errata is a bad thing--I am from a world where I would *much* rather have errata than a bad card, CL or no. The only way a CL prevents errata is by making sure that cards that need a fixing don't come up as often. >>A good example is Wake with Evening's Freshness which got an ugly errata. The reason for this was some concern about being able to pack large numbers of them which you could freely cycle out of your hand.>> Wake was fixed because it had an effect that far outweighed its cost. VTES is a game that is all about cost and effect. If you have a card that does has no cost for its effect, it needs a fixing. >>If the game had had a CL then this wouldn't have been necessary.>> I fail to see how you come to this conclusion. Even if you have only 4 of them, they still have an effect that vastly outweighs its cost. Thus they need fixing. Just like when it was determined that Lightning Bolt had an effect that vastly outweighed its cost in Magic. They had a 4CL, and *still* had to turn Lightning Bolt into Incinerate. >>A CL provides a safety net for stuff that isn't caught in playtest and that's why every single CCG apart from VTES has one.>> No, it is 'cause they are designed to have a CL. VTES was specifically designed to not have a CL. >>That's certainly why Shadowfist has one -the designer said so himself.>> Yup, and as a result, the cards are made assuming a card limit. In VTES, the cards are designed assuming no card limit. If you suddenly impose one, you are forcing cards that are designed to work without a CL into a CL framework. If they were designed to work under a CL from day one, that would be fine. As it is, however, the very basis of the game is that it is designed for no card limit. >>Oh, and another thing. If there were a CL then you'd be able to ditch the other CL which VTES does have - the limit on deck size.>> This strikes me as rather a non issue. The game was desgined with no individual card limit and a maximum deck size. Many other games are designed with a card limit and a minimum deck size. It goes with the mechanics. With a NCL, if there were no deck size maximum, you would never have to worry about running out of cards, and this is something that the designers apparently wanted us to worry about. With no maximum deck size, I'd, in a second (well, in theory--I find decks that size very unweildy), take my 90 card Rush deck, build an identical second one, and shuffle them together--that way I would never have to worry about running out of cards, and the built in disadvantage of using a high cycle, card intensive deck goes away. >>It really is a joke this, you know.>> I fail to see how it is any more of a joke that Magic's 60 card minimum, Xena's 40 card maximum, or Pok-e-man's 60 card total deck limit. It is part of the built in mechanics of the game. >>You guys bang on and on about not having a CL when there is, in fact, a very rigid limit on the number of cards that you may put in your deck, i.e. 90 in tournament play.>> Yup. >>That's a CL that Shadowfist doesn't have and it's great. My last tournament-winning deck had 196 cards in it and is lots of fun to play in consequence.>> And I am always rather annoyed by people who play any game with decks that are that big. It is a pain in the ass sitting around waiting for them to shuffle, it never gets shuffled adaquately, and the decks are always falling over. Everyone likes different stuff. >>This lack of a deck limit means that, unlike VTES, there is a genuinely infinite number of decks that you can construct. VTES supposed variety seems like a straight-jacket by comparison.>> Yeah, I suppose if you want to look at it like that. Yet CL VTES's supposed variety seems like a straight-jacket by comparison to decks made under the regular rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <7kmkjtkfcu095gqe6...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >(shrug) I don't see a reason to keep the limit on deck size, other >than "original design". It's the flip-side of doing CL. Instead of stopping people buying lots of cards, you let people buy lots of cards but prevent them from playing them all in a deck. Friendly games of Magic have, in the past, often seen 180 card decks, with 4CL. When you play with NL + no deck limit, that gets messy.... It can get especially messy in highly card intensive decks. The old 40+10/player thing is a bit more messy, which is why the whole 5 player 90 card thing works so well. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:32:42 -0500, "Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:7kmkjtkfcu095gqe6...@4ax.com... >> IS there a good reason to keep maximum deck size below 90? Most >> that immediately pop to mind (Drawing out the Beast, etc.) are > >Well, aside from deck-clumping-badness...IG rush (most any rush) would >benefit immensely by not having an upper deck limit. Think of it, you >could include enough cards for combats with all 4 opposing players! IG Rush and most combat would benefit somewhat, yes. I'm sure a number of other decks would also benefit, but I can't think of too many offhand. >Yum. Let's see here...I'd probably just double the deck size. 24 >Bum's Rush, 8 Haven Uncovered, 24 IG, etc. I'm not certain I have 24 >IG, but you get the picture. I definitely don't have enough Torn >Sigpnost to support it, but it's all good. That should do it. Immediate problem: getting a Rush and IG in hand at the same time. I think you'd get a ridiculous amount of clumping by attempting to play a 180-card deck, not to mention you'd sprain your wrist shuffling the damn thing. And we all know what clumping does to a Rush deck. =) Seriously, if you can make a 180-card Rush deck work consistently, go for it. But I'm thinking that it'll be hurting somewhat in comparison. >> Of course, I'm from that wacky bunch of Atlantans who believe in >70-80 >> card decks so that you consistently get what you want. > >Freaks. I've gotta get down there one of these days and visit all of >ya. Fifth-and-a-Half Tradition Cost: 1 brewski Requires: Prince of Atlanta, or appointed representative Fill any Methuselah visiting Atlanta to capacity with wings and beer from Taco Mac. =) (And tasty q00bans.) -- Derek

On 27 Jun 2001 16:39:36 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >Er, right, so now we have to have cls because everyone else has them. >By the same logic i assume you think that all spirits should be >blended because most commercial Scotch is, so it's clearly an accident >of history that some silly old fuddy-duddies in Scotland persist with >the outdated and inefficient pot-still. OK, this is worse blasphemy than the whole CL argument. Let's just stop it right now and go back to bashing each other over cross-table nastiness, shall we? =) -- Derek

In message <g45ljtg3mlbbsj2bf...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Let's just >stop it right now and go back to bashing each other Hmm.... bagsy I get the two-by-four. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:46:11 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> is a joke this, you know. You guys bang on and on about not having a >> CL when there is, in fact, a very rigid limit on the number of cards >> that you may put in your deck, i.e. 90 in tournament play. That's a > >You've got a second-person pronoun there. I think you meant a first-person >pronoun. The main culprit in this case was legbiter. He used his tournament report as the launch pad for some ridiculous triumphalism about NCL. This was preaching to the choir but he explicitly "rattled my cage" and so can't complain if I rise to put the opposing view. I am not actually a fervent believer in CL for VTES but I just can't let you guys get away with spouting nonsense. It seems that there are still people out there who regularly play VTES with a CL. This is not such a bad thing and you are wrong to stigmatize them as idiots. Andrew

kma...@my-deja.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message news:<c0c36ed1.01062...@posting.google.com>... > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<47C2CC6403AD55A8.89EDCB3E...@lp.airnews.net>... > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:25:44 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > > > And, guess what, you're not much of a winner either. Current ratings > > for the folk in question: > > > > 64 3125 Martin Cubberly > > 83 3094 James McLellan > > 121 3046 Derek Ray > > 224 2906 Matt Green > > > > Looks like Martin knows what he's doing. > > This doesn´t say nothing , Suppose Derek win ONE tournament round with > one of his intercept decks with distributions of VP 2/1/1/1/0 > according to rating calculator he gains around 64 points if people at > the table have more or less same ranking as he has. After that round > ratings would be something like > > 3125 for Martin > 3110 for Derek > 3094 for Legbiter > 2906 for Matt > > See ? Ratings difference of about 60 points means nothing since it > takes just one win in a tournament rounds to annulate them. > > Do you want to be BEST player in the world according to ratings ? > > My method doesn´t require to win tournaments. > It even doesn´t require to go to the final. > > All you need is to take a deck capable of doing 2/1/1/1 victory points > splits consistently. After three rounds you will have 6 VP which in > most tournaments I played recently 6 points was NOT sufficient to > guarantee you a place in the final. Yet you will gain around 180 > points each tournaments. Repeat it in three tournaments and you will > have around 540 points gain. Assuming you started at 3000 you will end > with 3540 points which is about 200 points more than current top > player have. And you didn´t even went into the final in any single > tournament ! > > Let´s say that you actually play to win a tournament.Your deck is > little bit different - your approach is to sweep two games out of > three in the preliminary rounds and then since you will probably have > most vp you will chose best position in the finals thus you will > probably win finals too. Sounds like a good plan , no ? You think that > you will have better ranking at the end than an 2/1/1/1 deck ? No ! > You will only have gain of something like 120 points after each > tournament and around 360 after three tournament and this approach > require you to win three tournaments in the row which is way more > difficult than 2 vp per a game approach. > > See what I mean ? High rating doesn´t necessary mean that player is > better than a player who has lower rating. Heck the one with lower > rating could be making finals regurarly and the one with bigger not.I > hope you will agree with me that total number of finals / total > numbers of tournaments is quite a good indicator if player is good or > bad. > > As it is now there are two possibilities > > 1) ratings are broken since they do not reflect tournament structure , > you may be in the finals regularily but still has a lower ratings that > someone who never ever go into the finals. > > 2) Way how tournament scoring is made is broken since it doesn´t > reward consistency - you can win three games and yet never go into the > finals but you will rightly be best player in the world after three > tournaments. > > Conclusion : If we want to keep current tournament system we need to > change ratings. > > If we want to keep ratings system we need to change tournament system. > > Kajik Very astute. i used to do the ratings manually for Portsmouth VTES tourneys so i'm pretty familiar with the equations and how they work. As you will all see when Todd plugs in the numbers from Watford, i actually won that tournament according to the ratings. Of course i didn't and, in fact, have only ever won ONE constructed deck tournament - but that's the way the equations work. The bottom line is that the ratings mean next to NOTHING about player quality, as anybody who knows anything about the game and its personnel can tell just by looking at the lists. Where i differ from you, kajik, is over your suggestion that we should tinker with the system either of tournaments or ratings. i think we should just ignore the whole thing and carry on playing for fun, though we might spare the occasional pitying glance for anybody who thinks they matter, or, worse, plays as if they do.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:19:25 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:46:11 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>> is a joke this, you know. You guys bang on and on about not having a >>> CL when there is, in fact, a very rigid limit on the number of cards >>> that you may put in your deck, i.e. 90 in tournament play. That's a >> >>You've got a second-person pronoun there. I think you meant a first-person >>pronoun. > >The main culprit in this case was legbiter. He used his tournament >report as the launch pad for some ridiculous triumphalism about NCL. >This was preaching to the choir but he explicitly "rattled my cage" God forbid someone should rattle YOUR cage, Andrew. ;) >and so can't complain if I rise to put the opposing view. I am not >actually a fervent believer in CL for VTES but I just can't let you >guys get away with spouting nonsense. It seems that there are still >people out there who regularly play VTES with a CL. This is not such >a bad thing and you are wrong to stigmatize them as idiots. Those who've been playing CL because they don't know any better are not idiots, merely uninformed. Those who faithfully maintain that CL is better, even in the face of the accumulated evidence, well... if it's a 3-cap with pot/obf... -- Derek

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:26:13 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Those who faithfully maintain that CL is better, even in the face of >the accumulated evidence, well... if it's a 3-cap with pot/obf... This is a matter of taste not proof. My father's favourite whiskey is a 2 cap with obf. It's a blend not a single malt but he's a Scot and perfectly entitled to his preference. Me, I prefer aquavit, ice-cold from the freezer. A taste of vitae, you might say ... Andrew

> Yeah, I think they had some sort of restricted list in '97--I was back looking > at deja archives, and saw that in some old post of mine. I think it was one of > those "No more than 6 (or 2 maybe) of the following X cards..." imposed on the > '97 tourney. Yup. Freak Drive was one of those cards, which my wife's Ravnos deck and my Fame deck were both using. > I think '97 was the year that I missed the first round of the saturday > afternoon tournament and they wouldn't let me in after that. Bastards. Clearly that's why I did so well :) Matt

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<1F186CE489BFFCDA.F70CCE67...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 27 Jun 2001 13:23:58 -0700, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >In general, card limits in CCGs are an attempt to limit the effect of > >broken cards. Games that don't have broken cards don't need a CL. > >Shadowfist has been played - in fact I think you've even done it, if > >I remember right - without using its official 5CL and found to be > >fairly balanced even without limits. Likewise, VTES doesn't need a > >limit to be balanced. So why impose one on it? > > Apart from setting a ceiling for a play set and eliminating monotonous > decks, I'd say because the lack of a CL forces you to errata cards > more frequently. A good example is Wake with Evening's Freshness > which got an ugly errata. The reason for this was some concern about > being able to pack large numbers of them which you could freely cycle > out of your hand. If the game had had a CL then this wouldn't have > been necessary. The use of a CL allows you to ignore broken cards, if you so desire, and just force them to come up less often. But they are every bit as broken when they show up. Most VTES cards that have had errata would have been just as bad under 4CL: Return to Innocence, Tomb of Rameses III, Thoughts Betrayed. It's true that Wake would probably not be a problem freely cyclable under a 4CL (or even a 6CL). It's not even much of a problem under a 90CL. But its cost is insufficient for its effect (under original Jyhad cardtext) so it got errataed (and reprinted with corrected wording). I've seen plenty of monotonous Magic decks, and they've had a 4CL for years and years. I don't think a CL is any true remedy for monotony. > The thing about CCGs is that tournament players are often totally > ruthless about breaking the game. If there's even the slightest > weakness in the game system they will push on it until it breaks. I > know this because I do it myself. A CL provides a safety net for > stuff that isn't caught in playtest and that's why every single CCG > apart from VTES has one. That's certainly why Shadowfist has one - > the designer said so himself. He thought that the game might work > without one but played it safe. Having thought about it, I'm fairly > sure that he's wrong and I backed away from running a NCL event. The > game would work fine for the most part with NCL but that's not good > enough - players would instantly seize on the parts that weren't fine > and destroy the game with them. A CL does sort of provide a safety net, but only if you don't mind hitting the ground anyway, just not quite as hard. In Shadowfist, Dangerous Experiment got errataed despite the 5CL, as did Wind on the Mountain, Vivisector, etc... in Magic, they ended up banning (!) quite a number of cards after instituting the 4CL, and restricting others to 1CL... > Oh, and another thing. If there were a CL then you'd be able to ditch > the other CL which VTES does have - the limit on deck size. It really > is a joke this, you know. You guys bang on and on about not having a > CL when there is, in fact, a very rigid limit on the number of cards > that you may put in your deck, i.e. 90 in tournament play. That's a > CL that Shadowfist doesn't have and it's great. My last > tournament-winning deck had 196 cards in it and is lots of fun to play > in consequence. This lack of a deck limit means that, unlike VTES, > there is a genuinely infinite number of decks that you can construct. > VTES supposed variety seems like a straight-jacket by comparison. You're right, VTES does have a 90CL for tournaments. I don't see mega-huge decks as something that would be better than being able to choose the number of each card I want to play with, though. > Doomtown takes yet another approach. There is a tight CL of 4 and a > fixed deck size of 52. But you can recycle your discards and so you > may draw and play a given card a potentially infinite number of times. > This is a whole new ball game and has the great merit that you are > mostly unlikely to run dry as can happen in the other two games. That's an interesting one. > Still, there's a lot to be said for VTES taking a different approach > too - it'd be dull if these CCG had identical mechanics. Just be > aware that there is a rich universe of possibilities out there and > there's something to be said for them all. I'm certainly aware that there are other possibilities, I just don't think that the low-CL one would be good for VTES. Josh should be working right now

>> On 27 Jun 2001 13:23:58 -0700, Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> The thing about CCGs is that tournament players are often totally >> ruthless about breaking the game. If there's even the slightest >> weakness in the game system they will push on it until it breaks. I >> know this because I do it myself. A CL provides a safety net for >> stuff that isn't caught in playtest and that's why every single CCG >> apart from VTES has one. Point of order, Mr. Chairman... On The Edge has no card limits. Only 2 cards were ever considered "broken" and banned for tournament play. About the only rule for On The Edge is minimum 40 cards. Beautifully playable out of a starter, easily expandable to any size card set without going "Type II", and very colorful and story oriented... The most solid CCG ever made. :) Eric

In article <3b3b8656$0$14441$272e...@news.execpc.com>, Eric Jome <ej...@earth.execpc.com> wrote: >Point of order, Mr. Chairman... On The Edge has no card limits. Yep. >Only 2 cards were ever considered "broken" and banned for >tournament play. Plus the goal-changing environmentals. >Beautifully playable out of a starter, easily expandable to any >size card set without going "Type II", and very colorful and >story oriented... The most solid CCG ever made. :) At least, if you've got it in a big box. :) Seriously, while I love OnTE, it's definately got a -huge- amount of chaff, and some rather broken decks (think "Funkasite" :) based around the lack of card limits. More fun than a bowl full of walruses, though, and it's the best sealed deck game ever invented. -- Joshua Kronengold (mn...@io.com) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) ---^---- /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\ "What part of "Prhrhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ -/-\\\-- didn't you understand?" '---''(_/--' (_/-'

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<B3A4581D8A4581AC.B0204BFF...@lp.airnews.net>... > ... The original design and the current > rulebook both specify a minimum of 40 cards but the tournament rules > specify 60. Why is that? Is there any good reason not to open tourneys to decks with 40-card libraries? I'm experimenting with Necromancy toolbox decks that operate with an empty library and plenty of ashheap raiding, and I think smaller libraries would help these decks.

In article <3SM_6.107652$Uo3.2...@news6.giganews.com>, Joshua Kronengold <mn...@bermuda.io.com> wrote: >Plus the goal-changing environmentals. Well, these arent so much "banned". Someone made the call early on that these cards would make a timed event run too long, so they get left out. They arent a problem really... they just dont fit in a tournament environment really. Personally, I feel it would be fine to use them, especially if people used Newtonian Slam more. >Seriously, while I love OnTE, it's definately got a -huge- amount of chaff, Hmm... there are definitely some cards that are not power cards. But completely worthless? No more than any other card game... it only has 1 card with really no good use at all. >and some rather broken decks (think "Funkasite" :) based around the lack of >card limits. Not true, Josh. The person who brought the deck to the World Champs last year didnt realized that traits dont "stick"... all effects are until the end of the turn only unless they tell you to mark it with a token. And one Dead, Dead, Dead and the entire scheme is gone... talk about all your eggs in one basket. Eric

> Point of order, Mr. Chairman... On The Edge has no card limits. > > Only 2 cards were ever considered "broken" and banned for > tournament play. > Not quite true: Two cards were considered "broken" (ISTR Tulpas Secret and Deadly Inspiration - the latter was clearly broken, I think the former took more work to be really cheesy with), but several more were banned from tournaments because of broken tournament rules. These are the cards that altered the victory conditions ... and thus would not fit with the tournament scoring rules. Which is a pity because they added interest to the game. Andy

In article <3b3be408$0$42880$272e...@news.execpc.com>, Eric Jome <ej...@earth.execpc.com> wrote: >In article <3SM_6.107652$Uo3.2...@news6.giganews.com>, >Joshua Kronengold <mn...@bermuda.io.com> wrote: >>Plus the goal-changing environmentals. >Well, these arent so much "banned". Someone made the call >early on that these cards would make a timed event run too >long, so they get left out. They arent a problem really... >they just dont fit in a tournament environment really. This is true, which is why I made a separate category for them; basically, we don't know what they would do to the play environment if they were allowed (aside from making the environmental removing cards superior, of course). >Personally, I feel it would be fine to use them, especially >if people used Newtonian Slam more. Case in point. :) >>Seriously, while I love OnTE, it's definately got a -huge- amount of chaff, >Hmm... there are definitely some cards that are not power cards. >But completely worthless? No more than any other card game... it >only has 1 card with really no good use at all. Which? The thing you turn for 2 pull to call Equipment? There are a lot of cards that will simply hurt the chances of a deck that wants to win, and there is a class by itself of "power cards" that largely tends to fit into a few, small sets (pharos, d'aubaines, fringe, astral, chaos, frex). >>and some rather broken decks (think "Funkasite" :) based around the lack of >>card limits. >Not true, Josh. The person who brought the deck to the World Champs >last year didnt realized that traits dont "stick"... I'm not referencing the World Champs last year, really (I never played against that deck); this is a degenerate concept I thought of the moment I -saw- Funkasite (and, in fact, the only way Funkasite is actually playable). In any case, "Dead, Dead, Dead" (and stickyness) shouldn't be an issue -- a Funkasite deck should never play anything aside from environmentals and resources until it's about to win. Neutonian Slam will kill it dead if it doesn't play with it's own slams (and the main weakness of the Deck is that it needs to rely on two zero-cost cards to win, requiring that it telegraph), but properly played, it's incredibly hard to stop without denial on the key cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3B3B9779...@city.ac.uk>, Andy Holt <an...@city.ac.uk> wrote: >Two cards were considered "broken" (ISTR Tulpas Secret and Deadly >Inspiration - the latter was clearly broken, I think the former took >more work to be really cheesy with), but several more were banned from >tournaments because of broken tournament rules. As someone who has run the Worlds 2 years running and probably one of the last living people close to the core of the game, you will have to take my word for it when I say that isnt true. Victory changing cards are not allowed in tournaments because they make the events run too long. This is very like "ante" cards not being used in early Magic tournaments... it just doesnt fit the setting. >These are the cards that altered the victory conditions ... and thus >would not fit with the tournament scoring rules. Which is a pity because >they added interest to the game. Wouldnt fit with tournament scoring? Of course they fit. All the matters in OnTE scoring is win/second/loss and who played who. It doesnt matter how you win and its easy enough to call a game when it finishes; thats what a tournament judge is for. Eric

In article <3b3c8a34$0$42873$272e...@news.execpc.com>, Eric Jome <ej...@earth.execpc.com> wrote: >Victory changing cards are not allowed in tournaments because >they make the events run too long. I'll certainly take your word that this is why it's done -now-. >This is very like "ante" >cards not being used in early Magic tournaments... it just >doesnt fit the setting. I ran a Magic tournament with Ante (it was a sealed with-trading tournament, of course; no card limits, either, which made it interesting; the player who collected all the plague rats did not, in fact, win, though) once. >Wouldnt fit with tournament scoring? Of course they fit. All >the matters in OnTE scoring is win/second/loss and who played >who. This wasn't true in the original OnTE tournament rules -- the originals, IIRC, had cumulative score as a tie-breaker. [ quoted text not captured ]

> In general, card limits in CCGs are an attempt to limit the effect of > broken cards. That's like saying there's a limit on the number of rooks you can have in chess because they're broken. No; there a limit because it would be a different game if there weren't. Games with limits are designed with those limits in mind. Games without limits are designed to work with no limits. Changing one aspect changes the entire game. -------- - sam When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do.

In message <3B3CC641...@pixar.com>, Sam Black <pen...@pixar.com> writes >> In general, card limits in CCGs are an attempt to limit the effect of >> broken cards. > >That's like saying there's a limit on the number of rooks you can have in >chess because they're broken. No; there a limit because it would be a >different game if there weren't. Games with limits are designed with those >limits in mind. Games without limits are designed to work with no limits. A number of games, early on, put an arbitrary card limit on to try and fix broken-ness, Magic being the obvious one. Others have been designed with or without limits, for the reasons you state. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

[ quoted text not captured ] Empty library? Tricky, but... 7 Cards in hand, 33 cards in your ash heap. If you play Whispers from the Dead to go get a Summon Soul, say, you cannot draw up a card (having no cards left in your library. So, you get the Summon Soul in your hand, but do not have to discard (since you've got 7, not 8 cards as you usually would after playing Whispers.) If you Summon Soul (Superior), you can go put the Whispers and whatever card it is you want back into your library. Because of: "If you hold fewer cards in hand than your hand size because your library is empty and then one or more cards are returned to your library, immediately draw the cards into your hand (stopping if your reach your hand size). [LSJ 20001127]" you draw up one of the two cards (either, "the card you want," or the Whispers.) Either way, the Summon Soul is removed from the game. If you just Whispers "the card you want" out of your ash heap, you've got it now, but you've got one less Whispers in your hand of 7 cards. You can follow this iteratively, you can do this no more than 7 times before your recycling is over. Whispers is clearly not the way to go for "infinite" cycling. If you play purely Summon Soul, each time you do it, you'll remove a Summon Soul from the game. This certainly seems to be the best way, and while it requires NEC, it's free. Obviously, to keep doing this Ad Infinitum, you get a Summon Soul for every Summon Soul you play (on average; you can go get 2 cards "you want" in one Summon, but you need to Summon up 2 more Summon Souls to keep from running out of Summon Souls later on). Basic trick being: Summon Soul to go get a bleed card and a stealth card. You draw up either one, but assume (worst case) it's the stealth card. Summon again to get 2 more Summon Souls, and you draw into the bleed card, and have 2 Summon Souls in your ash heap. Then bleed, with your prey knowing full well you've got stealth (if he had intercept left, he'd be stopping this silly "go get bleed and stealth" shit =). If he tries to block, you stealth it through. Lather, rinse, repeat. If not, you've got stealth left; go get 2 bleed cards instead, so he sees he'll need to block. You can do this until your deck runs out of Summon Souls, but you only need like, 2 bleed cards, and 2 stealth cards; nobody can remove them from the game. The other 36 Cards can be 28 Summon Souls, 5 Deal with the Devil, and threes card of your choice (maybe Leonardo, Morgue HG, Tower of London). You can do the recycling trick, if you have 3 vamps with NEC (crypt of Isabel, Rudolpho, Andrea, and Carlotta, 3 copies of each) you can Govern+stealth 14 times for 3 actions a turn, once you're out of library. (Unless you stop to go get your 3 cards of choice, which you maybe should. Hm. Maybe 2 Minion Taps in there, so you can get Carlotta or Andrea down to one blood, and Summon Soul (at inferior, keeping the card in the game) 3 times either/each while you're Dealing with the Devil? Cute. Certianly MUCH more viable (and easier to get the Summon Souls!) in a 40 card version, I think. Looks like fun! -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:<B762482A.515B%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... > Empty library? Tricky, but...Cute. Certianly MUCH more viable ... > in a 40 card version, I think. Looks like fun! Thanks. The version I'm working on hinges on Pochtli's special (no card needed!) and uses Dreams of the Sphinx and Visit from the Capuchin to burn through the library. I'm hoping to make into the ultimate toolbox deck. Need to rush? Fetch Immortal Grapple and Pushing the Limit. Need to bounce? Fetch Wake and Deflection. Need to bleed? Fetch Govern and Call the Hungry Dead. Empty vamps? Grab Acquired Ventrue Assets and Summon Soul. Combat predator? Grab Obedience and Spiritual Intervention. Best of all, you really only need one copy of everything, so you can include cards like Far Mastery, Possession, Demonic Possession, even Grasp the Ghostly, and only fetch them when you need them. The major problem is that you can really only fetch 2 cards a round (3 if you pack the Sargon Fragment and use it intelligently) so you can't supply a large number of minions with cards. I'm experimenting with permanents to ease this problem. Maybe I'll put in a POT !Brujah so I can toss in the Waste Management Operation too. When it's working a little better, I'll write it up for your newsletter.

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote: >Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message > news:<B762482A.515B%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... >> Empty library? Tricky, but...Cute. Certianly MUCH more viable ... >> in a 40 card version, I think. Looks like fun! > > Thanks. The version I'm working on hinges on Pochtli's special >(no card needed!) and uses Dreams of the Sphinx and Visit from the >Capuchin to burn through the library. I'm hoping to make into the Visit from the Capuchin doesn't help burn through your library. It just allows you to treat the top X of your deck as part of your hand. Try Deal with the Devil, The Barrens, or Fragment of the Book of Nod instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message > news:<B762482A.515B%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... >> Empty library? Tricky, but...Cute. Certianly MUCH more viable ... >> in a 40 card version, I think. Looks like fun! > > Thanks. The version I'm working on hinges on Pochtli's special > (no card needed!) and uses Dreams of the Sphinx and Visit from the > Capuchin to burn through the library. I'm hoping to make into the > ultimate toolbox deck. > > The major problem is that you can really only fetch 2 cards a > round (3 if you pack the Sargon Fragment and use it intelligently) so > you can't supply a large number of minions with cards. I'm > experimenting with permanents to ease this problem. I think that's definitely the way to go. Inbase and Feeding Razor might keep a guy or two busy gaining you 3 or 4 pool a turn, which is worth a couple of cardless actions. (Which actually fits, since you'll have so many Summon Souls that lots of Blood Dolls to be able suck off 2 blood a turn while playing them at inferior, especially in the early game when you're just running out your library. > Maybe I'll put in > a POT !Brujah so I can toss in the Waste Management Operation too. Well, you wouldn't be the first to fail to resist the WMO. =) While it might make sense for the Giovanni to have such a location, I'm more glad we got the Tower of London. > When it's working a little better, I'll write it up for your > newsletter. I urge you to go for the "Ultimate Toolbox" angle, which should make it easy to make a "workable" 60 card version of the deck. Also, I just like the idea of the Ultimate Toolbox deck. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote: >> Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message >> news:<B762482A.515B%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... >>> Empty library? Tricky, but...Cute. Certianly MUCH more viable ... >>> in a 40 card version, I think. Looks like fun! >> >> Thanks. The version I'm working on hinges on Pochtli's special >> (no card needed!) and uses Dreams of the Sphinx and Visit from the >> Capuchin to burn through the library. I'm hoping to make into the > > Visit from the Capuchin doesn't help burn through your library. > It just allows you to treat the top X of your deck as part of > your hand. Try Deal with the Devil, The Barrens, or Fragment of the > Book of Nod instead. What about Visit from the Capuchin and then Deal with the Devil? For arguments sake, let's assume one played right after the other. When you discard your whole hand, do all the counters on the Visit burn right away? That is, as you discard your first 4 cards in the Deal, do the counters drop off one by one? (even though one usually just dumps your whole hand in the ash heap, I assume the game only sees the cards discarded one at a time.) And for the record, I don't have my copy of Visit ftC in front of me. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > What about Visit from the Capuchin and then Deal with the Devil? For >arguments sake, let's assume one played right after the other. When you >discard your whole hand, do all the counters on the Visit burn right away? Yes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Very similar to a deck I'm trying to put together at the moment, except that I don't focus quite as heavily on Necromancy, instead on combos. General cards; - Recruitments to get me the vamps I need straight away - Deal with the Devils to get me through my library - Minion Taps to keep me alive while I'm still getting through my library - Waste Management Op, Sargon Fragment, Pochtli, Carlotta Blood gen. - I've got 5 clans in the crypt, along with 5 hunting grounds and 5 blood dolls. So Pochtli can grab me a hunting ground and a blood doll 5 times. 2 Nos princes means I can 5th Trad / Minion Tap as often as I want Combat; Drawing out the Beast, Immortal Grapple, Pushing the Limit, Disarm, Decap, Ritual of the Bitter Rose! Takes two turns of getting cards to do it, but sure is fun! - Also have in a blood fury and the equip. card that gives you superior thau in order to get around fortitude decks. Still vulnerable to potence and celerity decks, so I'm considering adding in fortitude masters and a skin of steel, but every new card weakens the deck to some degree ... Defence; - 1 each of DI, AI, and SR out of turn masters - 2 Deflections Stealth; - 1 forgotten labyrinth, 1 lost in crowds, 1 creepshow casino Bleed; - 1 Govern the Unaligned, 1 Foreshadowing Destruction, 1 Spying Mission and a number of the interesing cards you mentioned added in for spice. This is far too complicated to work often, but when it does it should be very funny :-) I will be testing it this weekend. Andrew. emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.01070...@posting.google.com>... > Thanks. The version I'm working on hinges on Pochtli's special > (no card needed!) and uses Dreams of the Sphinx and Visit from the > Capuchin to burn through the library. I'm hoping to make into the > ultimate toolbox deck. Need to rush? Fetch Immortal Grapple and > Pushing the Limit. Need to bounce? Fetch Wake and Deflection. Need to > bleed? Fetch Govern and Call the Hungry Dead. Empty vamps? Grab > Acquired Ventrue Assets and Summon Soul. Combat predator? Grab > Obedience and Spiritual Intervention. Best of all, you really only > need one copy of everything, so you can include cards like Far > Mastery, Possession, Demonic Possession, even Grasp the Ghostly, and > only fetch them when you need them. > > The major problem is that you can really only fetch 2 cards a > round (3 if you pack the Sargon Fragment and use it intelligently) so > you can't supply a large number of minions with cards. I'm > experimenting with permanents to ease this problem. Maybe I'll put in > a POT !Brujah so I can toss in the Waste Management Operation too. > > When it's working a little better, I'll write it up for your > newsletter.

Magic's brokenness was a result of limits and cards too powerful no matter how many you had. I used to believe Jyhad needed limits, but now I don't think so. I know I've only been back a short while, but in what I've seen, especially of emergent decks. Limits are a waste of time as many decks now contain several variations of cards (example Forced Awakening and WwEF are often mixed in one deck for their abilities). Limits kill the fun in theme decks which are in turn dealt with in often simple ways. Also, no card in Jyhad is really too powerful. But what is awkward is that it was mostly in the Ancient Hearts set where most of the "powerful" cards existed, the set seen very little in player hands. Now these cards are reprinted in some cases and in others obsolete. Jyhad is a fun game. It has complexity in it's simplicity, story in it's gameplay, a theme many people are interested, and has been around longer than most card games in existence without the flood of excess cards (see the looming demise of Pokemon and Magic) Vince "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:WWAV4Dde...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3B3CC641...@pixar.com>, Sam Black <pen...@pixar.com> > writes > >> In general, card limits in CCGs are an attempt to limit the effect of > >> broken cards. > > > >That's like saying there's a limit on the number of rooks you can have in > >chess because they're broken. No; there a limit because it would be a > >different game if there weren't. Games with limits are designed with those > >limits in mind. Games without limits are designed to work with no limits. > > A number of games, early on, put an arbitrary card limit on to try and > fix broken-ness, Magic being the obvious one. > > Others have been designed with or without limits, for the reasons you > state. > > -- > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > EBD690ECD7A1F > "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 > slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

Where I play, we regulary use 4CL. and no limit to the deck. It makes the game longer. and more variations. It is normal to reley on 4 to 7 different diciplines in a deck. and the normal deck is around 200 cards. I do beleave that no CL makes V:TEs more like magic, making a deck that's only able to do one thing. If there is a 4CL, you can not make a deck relying on S:CE because there isen't that many S:CE cards. you have to come up with some other way to help your vanpiers to get beaten up. We also get to use the more opscure cards, that people don't use in no CL.. I played the other day against a Tremere Assimite deck, it was around 300 cards, using Auspex, Celerety, Dominate, fortitude, Obfuscate, Quietus, Thaumaturgy. And it was very effective, It could do everything. If there should be a vote for no CL or 4CL I would vote for 4CL. Makes the game better. The only thing I can come up why there shoud be no CL is the games with we play with 4CL takes about 4-6 hours 4 players. But then again I like that. Jacob

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<9hqhgg$d4d$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>... > Visit from the Capuchin doesn't help burn through your library. > It just allows you to treat the top X of your deck as part of > your hand. Try Deal with the Devil, The Barrens, or Fragment of the > Book of Nod instead. Sorry, I should have clarified. Typical turn with this deck once the 40-card library is exhausted (2 copies of VftC are needed.): Untap. Play Visit from the Capuchin. Use Potchli/Sargon Fragment to recycle a 3-card combo. (Govern/Seduction/Call Hungry, for example) Play the combo. (With your laptop/Tasha/Simmons bleeder, perhaps.) Use Waste Management to recycle Visit from the Capuchin. This allows you to hold 6 appropriate defense cards (Wakes, Deflections, Spiritual Interventions, Obediences, Pulling Strings, etc., depending on your predator) between turns. When you run low on defensive cards, replace them from the ash heap instead of Visit from the Capuchin. You're right: Deal with the Devil, Fragment and Barrens are better for exhausting the library in the first place. But Dreams of the Sphinx is a must!

Jacob wrote: > > Where I play, we regulary use 4CL. and no limit to the deck. It makes the game > longer. Yup..we used to play 4CL and we never got a game in in under 3 hours. and more variations. It is normal to reley on 4 to 7 different > diciplines in a deck. and the normal deck is around 200 cards. Uh... why? In card limit play its vital to keep your deck down in cards... 60-70 max. > I do beleave that no CL makes V:TEs more like magic, making a deck that's only > able to do one thing. If there is a 4CL, you can not make a deck relying on > S:CE because there isen't that many S:CE cards.. With 4 majesties, 4 catatonic fears, and 4 dodges in a 60 card deck, you won't notice the difference of not having 12 majesties. I resisted going to NCL really, but when I looked at the effective CL decks we had in our group I realized they really weren't any different than effective NCL decks you could find on the internet. For the same reason as S:CE above, you can have 20 stealth cards and 20 bleed modifiers in a deck without going over 4 of each. In fact, with as many expansions out as there are now, for the basic strategies of Jyhad (Vote, Combat, Bleed, Intercept, etc) there are enough cards to build a dedicated deck as long as you keep your deck size down. I do notice that there are less bleed bounce cards for a deck in CL, which does strongly benefit stealth bleed... which was the main reason I was convinced to go to NCL. I don't like stealth bleed. you have to come up with some > other way to help your vanpiers to get beaten up. We also get to use the more > opscure cards, that people don't use in no CL.. Ironically, I find i use a lot more different cards now as I can build a combo around a certain card and expect to get the cards for that combo. For example, I might actually play with cryptic mission, corruption, or Tremere in general since I know I will be able to get cards that support these cards use. (Tremere suck in CL:( 4 Theft of Vitae's is just terrible). > I played the other day against a Tremere Assimite deck, it was around 300 > cards, using Auspex, Celerety, Dominate, fortitude, Obfuscate, Quietus, > Thaumaturgy. And it was very effective, It could do everything. I think the fact you are playing with 200-300 card decks using more than 2-3 disciplines is a lot more likely the culprit for your very long games and your use of lots and lots of different cards than what you see in NCL play. Most NCL players conform to tournament rules and thus a 90 card deck cap. I could fit a lot more different cards if we were playing 200 card decks in our play group. (Though I don't think I'd ever play with that many...) Tig

in general, i agree with everything Tig threw out in his post - I have to tack onto this one bit, though. On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:18:28 -0700, TigToad <tig...@qwest.net> wrote: >> I played the other day against a Tremere Assimite deck, it was around 300 >> cards, using Auspex, Celerety, Dominate, fortitude, Obfuscate, Quietus, >> Thaumaturgy. And it was very effective, It could do everything. ...But I'll bet it took 3 turns to actually make anything happen, explaining the 6-hour game problem. I do not consider decks that take 3 turns to complete one tactic "effective". >I think the fact you are playing with 200-300 card decks using more than >2-3 disciplines is a lot more likely the culprit for your very long >games and your use of lots and lots of different cards than what you see When your only available actions are either "bleed for 1", or actions that do nothing to help you oust your prey, then your games will tend to take longer. I sat cross-table from an intercept deck last night, and we spent a great number of actions and blocks trading his Rack back and forth between us. Both of us could really have used it, but when you get right down to it, those were completely wasted actions and combats on both our parts, and did nothing but set up our respective preys and prolong the game. Card limit play taken to the above extreme simply reinforces that problem by encouraging non-useful actions (as they're the only ones in your hand). >in NCL play. Most NCL players conform to tournament rules and thus a 90 >card deck cap. I could fit a lot more different cards if we were >playing 200 card decks in our play group. (Though I don't think I'd >ever play with that many...) I cannot imagine a 300 card deck, played under 4CL, that could actually accomplish anything with any degree of consistency, or that could even conduct simple actions with any hope of having them happen. Assuming the above Tremere/Assamite deck, there are (more or less) six different disciplines to draw from: DOM/THA/AUS and QUI/CEL/OBF. A quickly filtered search reveals that there are approximately 22 distinct cards for each discipline -- meaning that under a 4CL, a six-discipline deck could conceivably have 528 cards. Insane. A further run-by notes that with a 7-card hand and a 300-card deck, your "window" onto your strategy is approximately one-fifth of one percent; specifically, 0.23%. Draw your own conclusions. -- Derek Maintenance: Keep the balls dry and clean and prevent them from violent collisions. Disclaimer: We make no claim that use of these balls will improve health.

In article <9hsg9e$eqs$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Jacob <jje...@ifa.au.dk> wrote: > Where I play, we regulary use 4CL. and no limit to the deck. It makes the > game longer. and more variations. > It is normal to reley on 4 to 7 different > diciplines in a deck. and the normal deck is around 200 cards. Idiotic. Play Malkavian stealth-bleed. It's essentially unhampered by 4CL, and as well as allowing you to win it will demonstrate to your play group wby 4CL Does Not Work For V:TES. > I do beleave that no CL makes V:TEs more like magic, making a deck that's > only able to do one thing. If there is a 4CL, you can not make a deck relying > on S:CE because there isen't that many S:CE cards. you have to come up with > some other way to help your vanpiers to get beaten up. Which takes a whole lot of thinking, right? One-trick ponies are still perfectly possible under 4CL. All 4CL does is make it impossible to build a one-trick pony that relies on a single card rather than a slew of redundant cards. Free Clue: V:TES was not designed to make the only viable strategies those for which there existed multiple redundant cards. > We also get to use the more > opscure cards, that people don't use in no CL.. But at the same time, cards that are useable in no-L become coasters in 4CL because you can't rely on them showing up. > I played the other day against a Tremere Assimite deck, it was around 300 > cards, using Auspex, Celerety, Dominate, fortitude, Obfuscate, Quietus, > Thaumaturgy. And it was very effective, It could do everything. Very, very slowly. It's /not/ very effective. Malk stealth/bleed in a nice tight deck would beat that deck like it stole something. Ventrue vote in a nice tight deck would beat that deck like it stole something. Even the poor crippled 4CL Brujah should be able to get enough attack actions, damage boosters and extra strikes together to smash their vampires straight back into Torpor where they belong while the charlie with the 300 card deck cries into his hand full of Auspex and Dominate. > If there should be a vote for no CL or 4CL I would vote for 4CL. Makes > the game better. It might well enhance the social experience of playing V:TES. It makes games go on a long time, you get to see lots of different cards played, it's very hard to oust someone quickly (and so spoil their fun) and usually any given card you get into play will stick around for a few turns so you get to "play" with it a bit more. But it's no longer a competitive game of skill. You aren't playing V:TES. You're /playing/ at playing V:TES, like kids playing at being policemen. > The only thing I can come up why there shoud be no CL is the > games with we play with 4CL takes about 4-6 hours 4 players. But then again I like > that. Whatever makes you happy. They're your cards, you can play snap with them if you like. Kevin Lowe, Brisbane, Australia. -- www.sixofthebest.net

In article <serpentriver-FDEA...@news.dingoblue.net.au>, Kevin Lowe <serpen...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Play Malkavian stealth-bleed. It's essentially unhampered by >4CL, and as well as allowing you to win it will demonstrate to your play >group wby 4CL Does Not Work For V:TES. Of course, Malkavian stealth-bleed is helped by no card limits as much as any other deck. At least you make a token effort at limiting which +stealth and +bleed cards they have at their disposal with a card limit. The problem with this deck isnt the card limit or deck size limit... its the fact that it is the optimal method of winning the game. It goes directly to the most fundamental aspect of the game requiring almost no special cards or combos... it is, in all card games, one of the defining examples of the term "broken". Which is not to say it is unbeatable with enough players at the table all working against it or that the game in a general sense is not worth playing. It just needs to be reigned in a bit... >It might well enhance the social experience of playing V:TES. It makes >games go on a long time, you get to see lots of different cards played, >it's very hard to oust someone quickly (and so spoil their fun) and >usually any given card you get into play will stick around for a few >turns so you get to "play" with it a bit more. These are all things people will probably like. Liking things in a game usually means you want them there. :) >But it's no longer a competitive game of skill. Ah! Well, here you are making a subjective value judgement. Also known as an opinion. Not worth very much in the scheme of things. I personally have no stake in a card limit or not... I do know the game fairly well, however, and a card limit would mean that a player would have to seek out and use a greater variety of cards. This means that deck design is more of a challenge and making the best of what you have means something. You can play the game either way, but it definitely takes more thought to play with limits. Eric

In article <3b42722b$0$12823$272e...@news.execpc.com>, ej...@earth.execpc.com (Eric Jome) wrote: > In article <serpentriver-FDEA...@news.dingoblue.net.au>, > Kevin Lowe <serpen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Play Malkavian stealth-bleed. It's essentially unhampered by > >4CL, and as well as allowing you to win it will demonstrate to your play > >group wby 4CL Does Not Work For V:TES. > > Of course, Malkavian stealth-bleed is helped by no card limits > as much as any other deck. What a daft thing to say! Let us compare (to choose only one of a vast array of possible examples) Malkavian stealth-bleed to Toreador Small Vamp/Intercept/.44Magnum/Concealed Weapon. You simply can't have enough Concealed Weapons and .44 Magnums in a 4CL deck to get them reliably, and the problem is aggravated because in 4CL you can't cycle through your deck fast to get to them, either. Whereas there are so many variations on Stealth and Bleed available to the Malks that the 4CL is nearly meaningless. > At least you make a token effort at > limiting which +stealth and +bleed cards they have at their > disposal with a card limit. While making a more-than-token effort to deny other decks the countermeasures they need to defeat them. > The problem with this deck isnt > the card limit or deck size limit... its the fact that it is > the optimal method of winning the game. It goes directly to > the most fundamental aspect of the game requiring almost no > special cards or combos... it is, in all card games, one of the > defining examples of the term "broken". Bah. Humbug. Rubbish. It's a strong, simple strategy but it's also eminently beatable in no-L. It's "broken" in 4CL because 4CL cripples its competition. > Which is not to say it is unbeatable with enough players at > the table all working against it or that the game in a general > sense is not worth playing. It just needs to be reigned in > a bit... IYHO. MMVs. > >It might well enhance the social experience of playing V:TES. It makes > >games go on a long time, you get to see lots of different cards played, > >it's very hard to oust someone quickly (and so spoil their fun) and > >usually any given card you get into play will stick around for a few > >turns so you get to "play" with it a bit more. > > These are all things people will probably like. Liking things > in a game usually means you want them there. :) Yup. > >But it's no longer a competitive game of skill. > > Ah! Well, here you are making a subjective value judgement. > Also known as an opinion. Not worth very much in the scheme > of things. On the contrary, it's a perfectly supportable empirical claim that chess is more of a game of skill than tic-tac-toe. Similarly, no-L V:TES is more of a game of skill than 4CL V:TES. 4CL V:TES is a broken game, as you've admitted yourself. > I personally have no stake in a card limit or not... I do know the > game fairly well, however, and a card limit would mean that a player > would have to seek out and use a greater variety of cards. True by definition. > This means > that deck design is more of a challenge and making the best of what > you have means something. Another daft thing to say. How is it more challenging to toss in four of every card relevant to your strategy than it is to fine tune the ratio of Bum's Rushes to Blurs to Immortal Grapples? Believe me, it makes a very big difference having 10 Bum's Rushes and 10 Immortal Grapples in a 90 card deck compared to having 8 and 8, or 5 and 10 and 3 Haven Uncovered's. The biggest "challenge" in 4CL deck design is finding enough cards that do the same thing to make a focused deck remotely possible. Then you toss in one of every master that rocks in the 4CL environment (turn for +1 stealth, sustained blood gain, turn to end combat etc). Whoopee. The challenge in no-L is to fine-tune the proportions of every card in the deck, to balance the proportions exactly how you want them and to ensure that your hand will flow smoothly. > You can play the game either way, but > it definitely takes more thought to play with limits. Nope. If you're the kind of person who takes more thought, you don't play 4CL in the first place because you realise that Jyhad was nnot designed to work with a 4CL. The 4CL meme sprang up because Magic players playing Jyhad for the first time were too stupid to understand the differences between M:tG and Jyhad that made 4CL Jyhad a stupid game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3b42a90b$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>, "theventrue" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote: > [snip] > > Malkavian stealth-bleed to Toreador Small > > Vamp/Intercept/.44Magnum/Concealed Weapon. You simply can't have enough > > Concealed Weapons and .44 Magnums in a 4CL deck to get them reliably, > > Note that concealed weapon requires obfuscate. of course you may be > perfectly aware of that and are just playing the popular house rule that > says that it's disciplineless. if so, please ignore. Yup. AFAIK it's a misprint, and it was originally intended to be a disciplineless card. So we played it that way. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok, how about a vote card that reads; If this referendum is successful, for the remainder of the game no methusaleh may use a minion card that they have already played 4 or more times. It would piss people off and leads to all sorts of arguements but gosh damn it, it'd make me laugh. Tony Anarch of Luton

In message <serpentriver-AE32...@news.dingoblue.net.au>, Kevin Lowe <serpen...@yahoo.com> writes >Yup. AFAIK it's a misprint, and it was originally intended to be a >disciplineless card. It was. However, the Rules Team has, in many different incarnations, maintained the current interpretation. (Note just how few weapons were ever excluded by it, frex. There may be a few more under Final Nights, but I haven't gone through a lot of the equipment, yet, as a person who rarely uses that much equipment.) >So we played it that way. A similar argument can be made for Return to Innocence, if the *only* criterion you use is original intent. [ quoted text not captured ]

Many times over the years, I've seen the 4CL and NL camps go at each other with argument and counter-argument, rhetoric and counter-rhetoric. I've read the diatribes, the essays, the maths. Here's my experience. I played the game fairly extensively when it first came out. We had adopted a card limit on Magic *before* the tournament rules, mainly as a way to balance suitcases against people with a couple starters. It seemed natural to do the same for Jyhad. Again, not because of the game design, but because of social pressures brought on by different levels of investment in the group. "Right" or "wrong" it's what we all decided to do. We had a good time. Games usually lasted a long time, we added a lot of role-playing atmosphere. We generally discouraged Malk stealth-bleed because it was seen as "cheap" and "no fun". We stopped playing after awhile because there was always something new to try, and people moved away, and people got tired of CCG money-pits. A couple years later (maybe after Sabbat), a new group started playing again. I had read the arguments, the diatribes. We tried out No Limits. After about a half-dozen boring boring games, we quietly retired Jyhad for good. It wasn't because of Malkavian stealth-bleed. It wasn't because of broken cards from expansions. It wasn't because of poor players. It was deadly boring. As an example, one guy had a Brujah weenie deck with Computer Hacking, Flash, and Thrown Sewer Lid and not much else. Win or lose, he was extremely boring to play against. Most other decks brought to the table were along these lines, so focused as to provoke lethargy. I believe that Card Limits *do* break the game in subtle but limited ways. No Limits breaks the game (for me!) in one unavoidable huge way - it was no longer fun to play. And the holier-than-thou attitude on the No Limits side certainly doesn't help their arguments. No one is convinced when they are insulted. And if you're curious, the only way we play now is with pre-constructed decks - the eight released by White Wolf, plus seven for the original clans I put together out of a large set of original Jyhad. And we're having fun again. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "I've seen the future, and it's much like the present, only longer." -- Dan Quisenberry

Tony wrote: > Ok, how about a vote card that reads; If this referendum is > successful, for the remainder of the game no methusaleh may use a > minion card that they have already played 4 or more times. Or, make it a Master card, one which goes away only after a vampire calls a successful vote to do so. Give the Master card a pool cost equal to the number of other Methuselahs in the game, and let the arguments begin! > > It would piss people off and leads to all sorts of arguements but gosh > damn it, it'd make me laugh. I'm chortling already! Any thoughts on a fun title for the card? "Spice of Unlife"? > > > Tony > > Anarch of Luton

Scott DiBerardino wrote: > A couple years later (maybe after Sabbat), a new group started playing > again. I had read the arguments, the diatribes. We tried out No Limits. > > After about a half-dozen boring boring games, we quietly retired Jyhad for > good. > > It wasn't because of Malkavian stealth-bleed. It wasn't because of broken > cards from expansions. It wasn't because of poor players. > > It was deadly boring. > > As an example, one guy had a Brujah weenie deck with Computer Hacking, > Flash, and Thrown Sewer Lid and not much else. Win or lose, he was extremely > boring to play against. Most other decks brought to the table were along > these lines, so focused as to provoke lethargy. That's interesting. So what was boring about it? Surely, you can't be saying that seeing the same card over and over in one of four or five player's decks over and over caused actual lassitude in other players...as in: Acting player: You have blocked my computer hacking! We go to combat. Anything before range? Blocking player: Nope. Acting player: I maneuver using Flash. Blocking player: Oh, god! Not again! You've maneuvered using Flash in the last five combats! Don't you have any other cards? Acting player: I maneuver using Flash; are you maneuvering back? Blocking player: (long sigh) Nooooo..... Acting player: OK, we strike. I throw a sewer lid. Blocking player: (sarcastically) Gee, THAT'S a surprise! Your eighth Thrown Sewer Lid. Rest of the players: All right. This is too boring. We QUIT!!!!! (Everyone goes home and makes preparations to join monasteries of their choice.) Was that really how it was? That's very strange. I myself don't find a deck to be the least bit boring just because it's focused and does the same thing over and over continually. > I believe that Card Limits *do* break the game in subtle but limited ways. > No Limits breaks the game (for me!) in one unavoidable huge way - it was no > longer fun to play. I guess that's your perception. I find it challenging to understand why it does that for you. But everyone has their tastes, I guess. > And the holier-than-thou attitude on the No Limits side certainly doesn't > help their arguments. No one is convinced when they are insulted. I don't think anyone really means to be arrogant about the superiority of NCL. It's just that when you see the same arguments over and over about NCL that seem to have a limited perspective and not be very well thought out you, eventually start to classify its adherents into the same box whether they belong there or not. The population on this newsgroup has encountered over and over new people coming in who have played something like 4CL in their local playgroups, who damn NCL but have never really tried it, and seem to always do so for the same reasons that most here have found to be invalid when examined. So it's kind of natural to slap your head every time it happens and often let impatience get the better of you as you try to explain to the new person that it's all been said before and they're not telling you anything new however much they think they are and you're pretty sure it's wrong. No doubt that sounds like arrogance. In truth, it's more a form of irritable weariness. > And if you're curious, the only way we play now is with pre-constructed > decks - the eight released by White Wolf, plus seven for the original clans > I put together out of a large set of original Jyhad. > > And we're having fun again. I have to say that if you get bored by the same cards over and over in a single deck, then it's hard to fathom why you would enjoy players playing the same decks over and over even if they're not focused on a relatively small number of cards. But whatever works for you is cool. I am glad you're finding happiness with game, though. In whatever form works for you. Fred

In message <B7688F1B.1F9CC%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >And the holier-than-thou attitude on the No Limits side certainly doesn't >help their arguments. No one is convinced when they are insulted. The problem is this: In general, the xCL factions[0] tend to: 1) Believe that they are right, come what may. No argument can ever be remotely convincing. 2) Have to convince themselves they are right, especially because they are playing with a non-official set of rules. Often loudly. 3) In general, those arguing for xCL have tended to be weaker argumentatively. This is not an indictment of xCL players generally, just a general feeling of those players who have argued for it. If someone coherent were to argue for it, they'd do a lot better. 4) They never/rarely encounter all the inherent limits in the game, repeat-wise, because they are running xCL. Thus they argue how NL would be broken, not understanding its self-righting mechanism. 5) Because they can't ever stack up on a certain form of defence, they don't understand just how easy it is to defend against "boring" decks - all you need is access to *one* source of damage prevention, and you can load up on it to save your ass etc. against that boring Brujah deck, from your example. (Or Combat Ends, or Dodge, or whatever.) 6) Ignore the fact that, from the ground up, Jyhad was designed to have no card limits. Granted, designer intent is not an argument winner, but it is highly persuasive when viewed with all the rules and card texts that actively work to support it. 7) Go on about abusive combos (or some similar facet they dislike), telling us how xCL balances them - when, in fact, it just makes them less likely (since I only have four Killer Bleed Cards in my deck) and harder to defend against (since I can't have that bleed bounce I want) 8) Tell us how it favours the new player when Jyhad, again, doesn't work for the vast majority of cards (with only half a dozen exceptions) having more power when they're less common. Awe is not more powerful than Bewitching Oration. Raven Spy is not more powerful than Cat's Guidance. Were this first edition Magic - where a Black Lotus was more powerful than a comparative common/land card - it'd be a valid comparison. But Jyhad was designed with a very strong cost->effect ethic. Compare, say, Dominate cards such as Govern the Unaligned against Dominate Kine. The latter isn't more powerful than the former just because it is less common. And then you lose the ability to use all the nice common cards you've collected - which are perfectly playable. So the newbie player can play 4 Bewitching Orations and 1 Awe, maybe, whereas the old suitcase guy can play 4 of each. The newbie could benefit from being able to put 7 Bewitching Orations in because the card is good and powerful in itself, and easy to get hold of because it's common. 9) Fail to understand that, as a result of Jyhad's limited card pool (as it has been for a very, very long time) and comparitively huge numbers of clans and disciplines, the amount of redundancy is limited. Again, taking Magic as the counter-example - with five colours and no "clan" concept really[1], it's very easy to load up 40 cards into red, 40 into blue etc. and find that, at the end of the day, red actually has quite a few very similar cards which, whilst not identical, can do good impersonations of one another. Once you leave stealth, bleed and intercept alone, the amount of redundancy in cards in V:TES is very limited - again, an inherent design decision, because they knew people could and would buy lots of cards (Magic had taught them this), so why not do things a bit differently? 10) Which leads us on to the fact that Jyhad has clearly been designed at numerous points to work well with decks focussed around one card strategies/tactics (split the difference between the two as you like, obviously). Corruption, from Ancient Hearts, was one extreme (obviously) example of such a card - with only x (4 or 6) in a deck, it's utterly pointless. But there are many cards which you can focus a deck strategy/tactic around which you can't use properly if there are only one or two of them. Frex, the various Invitation Accepted variants. If you want a Cammy clan so you can do PS etc., you need to be able to "guarantee" the Join-Camarilla vote comes up quickly. This is a facet of 9), given the general lack of redundancy in many areas. And when you sit down and explain all these things - and many more besides - you most often get incoherent abuse back. As has been pointed out, people are quite welcome to play "Snap" with their Jyhad cards, but most would prefer (IMHO etc.) that we didn't get abused because we choose to play the real game with them. [0] Obviously, there are people out there playing xCL who are doing none of these things. The vast majority, however, of those who argue for xCL online tend to end up like this. [1] Creature type, I guess, but they're not quite as intrinsic as the clan nature of Vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote <snip excellent points> Might I also add that NCL includes XCL as a subset? This may sound basic but it's something many don't seem to consider. Many of my decks are able to be played in a 4CL environment. I think most of the pre-constructed in both Sabbat War and Final Nights are 4CL-compliant, and they aren't *that* bad... Players that include multiple copies of one card often pay for their focus when going up against a deck which is its nemesis. Sometimes, diversity will make a deck more robust. Sometimes it won't. This is where your skill in designing decks comes in. It seems to me that there would be very little 'thought' going into a 300-card deck under 4CL. How could there be? My initial playgroup played under 4CL because we incorrectly assumed that there was a limit (not sure why really--none of us played Magic). When we found out there wasn't a card limit, we stopped playing that way. Of course, I have no problem with people playing under their own house-rules, but you *have* to recognize that your house rule is not and *should not* be a rule that is applied to the game in general. When I play Chess, I won't let someone claim that 'En Passant' isn't a valid move, because they have never heard of it. The rules are the rules. Disallowing a rule changes the nature of the game. Either play Chess or don't. Either play Jyhad or don't. But be sure you realize that under 4CL, you are *not* playing Jyhad as it is meant to be. And for god's sake, don't show up at a tournament thinking that 4CL is enforced... I hate that. Cheers, WES

Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9hvds...@enews4.newsguy.com... > I think most of the pre-constructed in both Sabbat War and Final Nights are 4CL-compliant, > and they aren't *that* bad... Five of the pre-cons are 4cl compliant, three are not. Brujah Antitribu - 5 Ambush Tzimisce - 5 Forced Awakening Assamite - 5 Blood Sweat, 5 Flash, 6 Pursuit http://www.thelasombra.com/decks.htm#precon This should not be seen as an endorsement of any card limits on the part of White Wolf. Note page seven of both the Sabbat War and Final Nights rulebooks: "There is no per-card limit to the number of duplicates of a given card that a player can include in either her library or crypt." Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Chris Holm <hchr...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3B432418...@qwest.net>... > Tony wrote: > > > Ok, how about a vote card that reads; If this referendum is > > successful, for the remainder of the game no methusaleh may use a > > minion card that they have already played 4 or more times. > > Or, make it a Master card, one which goes away only after a vampire calls > a successful vote to do so. Give the Master card a pool cost equal to the > number of other Methuselahs in the game, and let the arguments begin! > the point, if indeed I can ever be said to truly have a point, is that if there is so much feelings out of game regarding all this card limit stuff, why not take the next step and make it an in game concern as well. that way, if the card was well designed, it would be a question of playing a game to decide what card limit is played. picture the scene; game starts between 2 NCL bods and 2 CL bods, the game is NCL at the start. after a bit of random table jostling, one of the CL bods plays the aforementioned vote (Which would probably have to be a "once a game" thing like ancient influence and political strangelhold). If the vote passes, then the vote passes. if the NCL decks are good decks with ways of stopping votes then they can continue playing in their prefered state of NCL and the others have no right to complain because they lost out to superior play and in game concerns. If the vote passes, then the same applies in reverse. I know that this slightly favours the NCL people, but that is the way the game is intended to be played and so I think they should have the starting ground advantage. I think we should arrange this game as a final desicive desicion on the matter. I think the NCL players should be Barney and Rob :-) > > > > It would piss people off and leads to all sorts of arguements but gosh > > damn it, it'd make me laugh. > > I'm chortling already! > > Any thoughts on a fun title for the card? "Spice of Unlife"? How about; "Stop bloody well arguing and play the fucking game any way you want, it is a game after all" good title, bit long. > Tony Anarch of Luton

> From: Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > > That's interesting. So what was boring about it? Surely, you can't be saying > that seeing the same card over and over in one of four or five player's decks > over and over caused actual lassitude in other players...as in: > > Acting player: You have blocked my computer hacking! We go to combat. > Anything before range? > Blocking player: Nope. > Acting player: I maneuver using Flash. > Blocking player: Oh, god! Not again! You've maneuvered using Flash in > the last five combats! Don't you have any other cards? > Acting player: I maneuver using Flash; are you maneuvering back? > Blocking player: (long sigh) Nooooo..... > Acting player: OK, we strike. I throw a sewer lid. > Blocking player: (sarcastically) Gee, THAT'S a surprise! Your eighth Thrown > Sewer Lid. > Rest of the players: All right. This is too boring. We QUIT!!!!! Well, uh, yeah, that's pretty much it. It's not that I minded that he played Flash instead of Pursuit. It's that his deck was so single-mindedly uninteresting. He didn't even win much, though he could usually oust someone. About half the available players at the time (four years ago?) were of this caliber. Pretty much ruined the game for the rest of us. > (Everyone goes home and makes preparations to join monasteries of their > choice.) This sort of comment was unnecessary, and typical of the attitude I described previously. > Was that really how it was? That's very strange. I myself don't find a deck > to be the least bit boring just because it's focused and does the same thing > over and over continually. I can't debate you if you don't find mindless repetition boring. <snip> >> And if you're curious, the only way we play now is with pre-constructed >> decks - the eight released by White Wolf, plus seven for the original clans >> I put together out of a large set of original Jyhad. > > I have to say that if you get bored by the same cards over and over in a > single deck, then it's hard to fathom why you would enjoy players playing the > same decks over and over even if they're not focused on a relatively small > number of cards. But whatever works for you is cool. I am glad you're > finding happiness with game, though. In whatever form works for you. Thank you for your understanding. That's what I was looking for. As far as precon decks being more or less boring than OTPs... I find that the precon decks available (and those I've built), while not ruthlessly effective, do more than just the same trick over and over. At any given point in the game, there will be more than one possible (or even likely) outcome, which sustains my interest. They are a bit broader and more flexible than the kind of decks my group used to dread. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "To rejoice over conquest is to rejoice over murder." -- Lao-Tse

I am normally wary when one side describes the standpoint of their opposition. It should be kept in mind that I have agreed to the "mechanical" superiority of NCL versus xCL, but asserted that Vampire was no fun for my group in an NCL environment. > From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > The problem is this: > > In general, the xCL factions[0] tend to: Despite your footnote, you do tend to paint with a rather broad brush throughout this piece. > 1) Believe that they are right, come what may. No argument can ever be > remotely convincing. Irrelevant, and just as easily applicable to the NCL side of the debate. > 2) Have to convince themselves they are right, especially because they > are playing with a non-official set of rules. Often loudly. Except for the non-official part, see 1). > 3) In general, those arguing for xCL have tended to be weaker > argumentatively. This is not an indictment of xCL players generally, > just a general feeling of those players who have argued for it. If > someone coherent were to argue for it, they'd do a lot better. I have seen coherent arguments that have not been accepted. This was a while ago, though. > 4) They never/rarely encounter all the inherent limits in the game, > repeat-wise, because they are running xCL. Thus they argue how NL > would be broken, not understanding its self-righting mechanism. True for the most part, though there are some xCLers that have played NCL. > 5) Because they can't ever stack up on a certain form of defence, they > don't understand just how easy it is to defend against "boring" decks > - all you need is access to *one* source of damage prevention, and > you can load up on it to save your ass etc. against that boring > Brujah deck, from your example. (Or Combat Ends, or Dodge, or > whatever.) This only works in the context of serial games. And, if I were to prepare defenses for every possible OTP, my deck would become ineffective anyway. > 6) Ignore the fact that, from the ground up, Jyhad was designed to have > no card limits. Granted, designer intent is not an argument winner, > but it is highly persuasive when viewed with all the rules and card > texts that actively work to support it. Granted. Of course, ante was part of the original intent as well. > 7) Go on about abusive combos (or some similar facet they dislike), > telling us how xCL balances them - when, in fact, it just makes them > less likely (since I only have four Killer Bleed Cards in my deck) > and harder to defend against (since I can't have that bleed bounce I > want) Granted. > 8) Tell us how it favours the new player when Jyhad, again, doesn't work > for the vast majority of cards (with only half a dozen exceptions) > having more power when they're less common. <snip> This is only true in an xCL environment where rarity is not taken into account. Our (old, old) system provided different limits for cards of different rarities. I actually used a similar system to limit *myself* for many games that came out at the time. I was a store manager and had easy access to cards, and wanted to provide a fairer environment for people I played with. Even now, it is unusual for my to keep duplicate rares, even in games where they are demonstrably more powerful (unlike Vampire). > 9) Fail to understand that, as a result of Jyhad's limited card pool (as > it has been for a very, very long time) and comparitively huge > numbers of clans and disciplines, the amount of redundancy is > limited. <snip> > 10) Which leads us on to the fact that Jyhad has clearly been designed > at numerous points to work well with decks focussed around one card > strategies/tactics <snip> Granted. (sigh) See my prefacing comments. > And when you sit down and explain all these things - and many more > besides - you most often get incoherent abuse back. As has been pointed > out, people are quite welcome to play "Snap" with their Jyhad cards, but > most would prefer (IMHO etc.) that we didn't get abused because we > choose to play the real game with them. Is coherent abuse (along the lines of the "snap" comments) really any better? > [0] Obviously, there are people out there playing xCL who are doing none > of these things. The vast majority, however, of those who argue for xCL > online tend to end up like this. > > [1] Creature type, I guess, but they're not quite as intrinsic as the > clan nature of Vampire. > > -- > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > EBD690ECD7A1F > "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 > slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D I heard an anecdote recently about a player I knew who encountered "the game designers" (presumably post-Garfield WotC types). They were shocked that she was used to 4-hour marathon games with slow development; they had designed and always played the game as a 90-minute brawl. Back in the day, I liked the 4-hour marathon better than the 90-minute brawl. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "Power feeds on its spoils, and dies when its victims refuse to be despoiled. They can't persuade it to death, they can't shoot it to death; but they can always starve it to death." -- Benjamin Tucker

<Split off into a separate sub-thread> In message <B769F5A2.1FAA0%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >Despite your footnote, you do tend to paint with a rather broad brush >throughout this piece. Yes, but it is generally true. Certainly, there are and have been xCL advocates who haven't acted in the manner described, but the vast majority have. I'm not ascribing this as an inherent trait of xCL advocacy, but of, rather, why those who carefully sit down and go through all the arguments surrounding NL will sometimes get a touch, erm, annoyed when they have yet another xCL advocate failing to pay attention to reality. [ quoted text not captured ]

Scott DiBerardino wrote: > > > From: Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > > > > That's interesting. So what was boring about it? Surely, you can't be saying > > that seeing the same card over and over in one of four or five player's decks > > over and over caused actual lassitude in other players...as in: > > > > Acting player: You have blocked my computer hacking! We go to combat. > > Anything before range? > > Blocking player: Nope. > > Acting player: I maneuver using Flash. > > Blocking player: Oh, god! Not again! You've maneuvered using Flash in > > the last five combats! Don't you have any other cards? > > Acting player: I maneuver using Flash; are you maneuvering back? > > Blocking player: (long sigh) Nooooo..... > > Acting player: OK, we strike. I throw a sewer lid. > > Blocking player: (sarcastically) Gee, THAT'S a surprise! Your eighth Thrown > > Sewer Lid. > > Rest of the players: All right. This is too boring. We QUIT!!!!! > > Well, uh, yeah, that's pretty much it. It's not that I minded that he played > Flash instead of Pursuit. It's that his deck was so single-mindedly > uninteresting. He didn't even win much, though he could usually oust > someone. > > About half the available players at the time (four years ago?) were of this > caliber. Pretty much ruined the game for the rest of us. That's an interesting comment. "Caliber" tends to denote ability. I'm not sure if you meant it this way. I think "bent" is more what you're looking for. Otherwise you are bordering on instigating another debate on cheese decks, in which case my opinion runs strongly to the side of cheese-deck-accusations saying a lot more about the ability of the accuser than the accused. If you can't learn to have a good time playing _against_ such decks, you might want to look at your own ability to respond to them. Focused vs. unfocused is just a strategy choice in decks. And personally, I find focused decks tend to be the more effective decks on average - though either type can be very bad or very good depending on the ability of the deckbuilder. > > (Everyone goes home and makes preparations to join monasteries of their > > choice.) > > This sort of comment was unnecessary, and typical of the attitude I > described previously. I'm not sure why you think that. It was a bit of a joke but it wasn't intended to be at your expense. I'm sorry you were offended. > > Was that really how it was? That's very strange. I myself don't find a deck > > to be the least bit boring just because it's focused and does the same thing > > over and over continually. > > I can't debate you if you don't find mindless repetition boring. I guess that's kind of the point. No. It has never struck me that repeated copies of the same card in a single deck might cause boredom. I find that idea rather surprising. It's not for me to judge, of course. I haven't had your experiences. > As far as precon decks being more or less boring than OTPs... I find that > the precon decks available (and those I've built), while not ruthlessly > effective, do more than just the same trick over and over. At any given > point in the game, there will be more than one possible (or even likely) > outcome, which sustains my interest. They are a bit broader and more > flexible than the kind of decks my group used to dread. It always seemed to me you could have four or five focused decks at the table and you shouldn't fall into that the same outcome occurring over and over. The variance in the shuffle, if nothing else, will see to that. There's also player interaction, ganging up, crosstable conflict, and so forth. If worst comes to worst, such games will end quickly - since the oft-repeated interactions will usually be very one-sided - and the players can select new decks and try again. My experience is that few games of Jyhad can be described that way, even when all the decks are one-trick ponies. Fred

On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:44:50 -0400, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote: >I am normally wary when one side describes the standpoint of their >opposition. > >It should be kept in mind that I have agreed to the "mechanical" superiority >of NCL versus xCL, but asserted that Vampire was no fun for my group in an >NCL environment. In your group, I would simply build decks that defeated the one-trick-pony decks without being excessively "boring" or visibly one-tricky. It's often worth noting that a deck that can do nothing but one thing is usually vulnerable to good play even if your deck is NOT designed to beat it -- a Brujah thrown-objects deck, for example, can get into combat lots with Bum's Rush. But it can't bleed for more than 1, and it tends not to win as a result due to its fragility. If one includes Legal Manipulations, one loses the ability to constantly get into combat, and one becomes vulnerable to Deflections. In other words, try not blocking it, even if it DOES bleed for 3. Eventually you'll be able to point out to the guy that he's NOT WINNING. If you are playing with people whose goal is not "to win", then the people you play with are the problem, not the game itself, and there's nothing to be done about it. Most people want to win. >I heard an anecdote recently about a player I knew who encountered "the game >designers" (presumably post-Garfield WotC types). They were shocked that she >was used to 4-hour marathon games with slow development; they had designed >and always played the game as a 90-minute brawl. > >Back in the day, I liked the 4-hour marathon better than the 90-minute >brawl. Unfortunately, you are in the (vast) minority. The general population, which is our ONLY source of new players, likes games to be at least REASONABLY quick. This is one of V:TES's big weaknesses; the sheer length of the game means that a great amount of time needs to be set aside to play, and a quick loss "feels" worse than it would in a 60-minute game. Many/most current V:TES players do like the "marathon" games. But without new blood, the game will die -- which the original designers appear to have known well, from your anecdote above. Very few people want to learn a game that's going to chop out huge amounts of their time; it simply doesn't fit in today's society. NCL decks -do- decrease game length; whether or not they are effective, they do one thing and do it well, and the person playing them generally is completely prepared for anything their own deck will do. Strategic decisions come quicker, combat moves more rapidly, etc. This is NOT a bad thing. xCL decks and toolboxes tend to INCREASE game length; strategic decisions are much more difficult, many different interactions arise, and as a result players take a lot longer to make their turns. This is not, in itself, a bad thing either.... but it is going to turn new players off. Gratuitously banning NL decks is a self-limiting proposition. [ quoted text not captured ]

Scott DiBerardino wrote: > > > From: Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > > > > That's interesting. So what was boring about it? Surely, you can't be saying > > that seeing the same card over and over in one of four or five player's decks > > over and over caused actual lassitude in other players...as in: > > > > Acting player: You have blocked my computer hacking! We go to combat. > > Anything before range? > > Blocking player: Nope. > > Acting player: I maneuver using Flash. > > Blocking player: Oh, god! Not again! You've maneuvered using Flash in > > the last five combats! Don't you have any other cards? > > Acting player: I maneuver using Flash; are you maneuvering back? > > Blocking player: (long sigh) Nooooo..... > > Acting player: OK, we strike. I throw a sewer lid. > > Blocking player: (sarcastically) Gee, THAT'S a surprise! Your eighth Thrown > > Sewer Lid. > > Rest of the players: All right. This is too boring. We QUIT!!!!! > > Well, uh, yeah, that's pretty much it. It's not that I minded that he played > Flash instead of Pursuit. It's that his deck was so single-mindedly > uninteresting. He didn't even win much, though he could usually oust > someone. > > About half the available players at the time (four years ago?) were of this > caliber. Pretty much ruined the game for the rest of us. You have to separate ability from choice of strategy. Just because the guy didn't win with his particular deck, that doesn't imply that repetition equals a bad deck equals a bad player. If you hang around here and learn more about the game, you'll discover that combat decks often have the property of being bad news to their immediate neighbors and huge boons to their crosstable allies. It sounds as if he didn't use Bum's Rush to hold off his predator (and in general there are better ways of making combat decks), choosing instead to use the Computer Hacking bleed card itself to speed up his bleeding somewhat. So I can see why he'd often get that result. But you can't paint focused decks with the character of certain people you've met who happen to use them. There's a lot of effective things you can do to sweep tables using the same cards over and over in a single-minded way. Personally, I find focused decks tend to be the more effective decks on average - though either type can be very bad or very good depending on the ability of the deckbuilder. And you can cope with decks like that and still have fun. Many non-combat decks use S:CE or fortitude soak cards repeatedly, which would stop that stuff right in its tracks while keeping the deck fairly competitive in a general sense. The first thing you have to do is learn how to adjust your decks to the players you play with. If you don't expect to have to do that, then you're kind of outside the spirit of collectible card games, IMHO. Or at least, this one. > > (Everyone goes home and makes preparations to join monasteries of their > > choice.) > > This sort of comment was unnecessary, and typical of the attitude I > described previously. I'm not sure why you think that. It was a bit of a joke but it wasn't intended to be at your expense. I'm sorry you were offended. > > Was that really how it was? That's very strange. I myself don't find a deck > > to be the least bit boring just because it's focused and does the same thing > > over and over continually. > > I can't debate you if you don't find mindless repetition boring. I guess that's kind of the point. No. It has never struck me that repeated copies of the same card in a single deck might cause boredom. I find that idea rather surprising. It's not for me to judge, of course. I haven't had your experiences. > As far as precon decks being more or less boring than OTPs... I find that > the precon decks available (and those I've built), while not ruthlessly > effective, do more than just the same trick over and over. At any given > point in the game, there will be more than one possible (or even likely) > outcome, which sustains my interest. They are a bit broader and more > flexible than the kind of decks my group used to dread. It always seemed to me you could have four or five focused decks at the table and [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B769F5A2.1FAA0%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >> 1) Believe that they are right, come what may. No argument can ever be >> remotely convincing. > >Irrelevant, and just as easily applicable to the NCL side of the debate. Entirely relevant, given the point I was addressing. I was not, solely, addressing why NL is right. I was also addressing why the debates take the turns they do. In general, I would say that perhaps 95% of people taking the xCL side of the debate could be categorised as sitting their with their fingers in their ears. La-la-la-la-la! I'm not listening to you. This *is* relevant to the style and characteristics of the debate, if not to the substance. >> 2) Have to convince themselves they are right, especially because they >> are playing with a non-official set of rules. Often loudly. > >Except for the non-official part, see 1). And my response is pretty much equally appropriate. >> 3) In general, those arguing for xCL have tended to be weaker >> argumentatively. This is not an indictment of xCL players generally, >> just a general feeling of those players who have argued for it. If >> someone coherent were to argue for it, they'd do a lot better. > >I have seen coherent arguments that have not been accepted. This was a while >ago, though. If you can Google up half a dozen IDs for threads, I'll happily re-post a start article and then respond to it. Whilst I will happily demolish an argument I don't agree with, I take some modicum of pride in actually *arguing* rather than just being incoherent. >> 4) They never/rarely encounter all the inherent limits in the game, >> repeat-wise, because they are running xCL. Thus they argue how NL >> would be broken, not understanding its self-righting mechanism. > >True for the most part, though there are some xCLers that have played NCL. Indeed. There are *some*, just not many of those who argue. The problem is, if you go xCL to NL, it takes a while to re-adjust to the entire game. It's almost as big a change as starting the game from scratch. >> 5) Because they can't ever stack up on a certain form of defence, they >> don't understand just how easy it is to defend against "boring" decks >> - all you need is access to *one* source of damage prevention, and >> you can load up on it to save your ass etc. against that boring >> Brujah deck, from your example. (Or Combat Ends, or Dodge, or >> whatever.) > >This only works in the context of serial games. Not necessarily. A toolboxed deck works very efficiently against such. If you have just enough defence to fend them off so that you can get by, you can control the game. If you view Jyhad as a big circle of rock-paper-scissors - which it can be, viewed at an abstract enough level - if you have a small piece of paper, you can stop that rock for five seconds, just enough to allow your scissors to go off. The function of the metagame is also an important one, but it is not the *only* important one. A focussed deck, which needs to change the defence it mounts each time, either requires a skillful player - one with great talent for creative play, lateral thinking and diplomacy - or would benefit from some tool-boxing. For those reading this in .misc, the general definitions of toolbox and metagame so far as .jyhad is concerned might be: Toolbox - to have a deck, still capable of winning, but which does not have complete focus on one strategy. An analogous situation in Magic might be a deck with 10 Mountains, 3 Plains, 3 Islands, 2 Swamps and a Forest - such that it can still have a balance in favour of damage from the mountains etc., but is capable of dealing with other plans as necessary. Metagame - the function by which players adapt to those around them, following other games. >And, if I were to prepare >defenses for every possible OTP, my deck would become ineffective anyway. Not true. The toolbox archetype has been shown to be very effective though not, of course, to everyone's taste. The key is working out how you can defend across a broad range of items without becoming so weak that you can't defend against the important ones properly. http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rob2 is an excellent example of such. It does, however, require a high level of skill to pull off properly. >> 6) Ignore the fact that, from the ground up, Jyhad was designed to have >> no card limits. Granted, designer intent is not an argument winner, >> but it is highly persuasive when viewed with all the rules and card >> texts that actively work to support it. > >Granted. > >Of course, ante was part of the original intent as well. Oh, indeed, but removing ante doesn't, I would argue, affect the game as fundamentally as xCL. >> 8) Tell us how it favours the new player when Jyhad, again, doesn't work >> for the vast majority of cards (with only half a dozen exceptions) >> having more power when they're less common. ><snip> > >This is only true in an xCL environment where rarity is not taken into >account. Our (old, old) system provided different limits for cards of >different rarities. This then generates the problem that a number of corner case cards, or specialised use cards, are only found as rare. Not that they're inherently powerful or anything, just they don't have equivalents found elsewhere - as the redundancy points pointed out. Consider a suggestion like: 8 commons, 3 uncommons, 1 rare. (Picking random numbers from the air.) (I assume that it will be of a form where C > U > R, of course.) The deck wanting lots of Strike: Combat Ends allows itself 8 Majesties (common in Jyhad/V:TES), 8 Staredown (common in Sabbat) and 3 Catatonic Fear (Uncommon in Sabbat). I could get Immortal Grapple as Uncommon (Sabbat), but that still only allows me 3. Jyhad's inherent redundancy "problems" (which are not a problem as a result of it being an NL game) work against what is a great idea for a game with fewer internal options. > >> 9) Fail to understand that, as a result of Jyhad's limited card pool (as >> it has been for a very, very long time) and comparitively huge >> numbers of clans and disciplines, the amount of redundancy is >> limited. ><snip> >> 10) Which leads us on to the fact that Jyhad has clearly been designed >> at numerous points to work well with decks focussed around one card >> strategies/tactics ><snip> > >Granted. (sigh) See my prefacing comments. I wasn't saying *you* didn't understand this. I was pointing out that the vast majority of those arguing for xCL have failed to do so. Anyone wishing to engage in useful, critical debate of the current situation should be aware of what has gone before - and with this being cross-posted out to .misc so far as the .jyhad users are concerned, not everyone will have seen the Heated Debates (tm) that have gone on. I was trying to provide a useful way in for those who have no wish to spend years trawling Google for every thread. >> And when you sit down and explain all these things - and many more >> besides - you most often get incoherent abuse back. As has been pointed >> out, people are quite welcome to play "Snap" with their Jyhad cards, but >> most would prefer (IMHO etc.) that we didn't get abused because we >> choose to play the real game with them. > >Is coherent abuse (along the lines of the "snap" comments) really any >better? It is a reducto ad absurdum (which I always mis-spell) style comment, but not intended as abuse in any way, shape or form. >I heard an anecdote recently about a player I knew who encountered "the game >designers" (presumably post-Garfield WotC types). This is not an anecdote in the Urban Legend style and comes from Garfield himself. The White Wolf guide (my copy of which I have lost, I will see if Amazon have any at some point, or something) that came out a number of years ago had a preface from Garfield which makes for some of the most profound and exciting writing ever found on Jyhad. This was, however, as I recall found during the development cycle - rather than afterwards. Constructs such as the Edge and, I'm not sure on this one, the pool for ousting were counter-acting agents to this. > They were shocked that she >was used to 4-hour marathon games with slow development; they had designed >and always played the game as a 90-minute brawl. > >Back in the day, I liked the 4-hour marathon better than the 90-minute >brawl. Many people prefer the 4 hour marathon. Final rounds of tournaments, for instance, habitually effectively untimed. (Allowable under the V:EKN tournament rules.) Jyhad is supposed to be a game of slow development and intrigue. The difference between 90 minute brawls and 4 hour marathons is not one of xCL vs NL, however. Someone wanting to turn a game into a 90 minute brawl stands a very good chance of doing so (and possibly invoking the wrath of all other players, who may have somewhat slower strategies) whether under xCL or NL. Indeed, the fact that the S&B archetype is increased in relative power under xCL might make it substantially *easier* to turn an xCL game into a brawl. However, that's a different matter. The main defining factor of brawl or marathon is play-style of players, rather than play-style enforced by the rules, so far as I have ever been aware. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote <snip good points> > I heard an anecdote recently about a player I knew who encountered "the game > designers" (presumably post-Garfield WotC types). They were shocked that she > was used to 4-hour marathon games with slow development; they had designed > and always played the game as a 90-minute brawl. > > Back in the day, I liked the 4-hour marathon better than the 90-minute > brawl. I don't mind either really, though the 4-hour ones seem rarer now that our decks are more competitive. Winning generally equates to being the fastest deck at the table. The longest game I remember in recent times is about 2 1/2 hours. Most of ours fall under 1 1/2 or even 1 hour I would guess. I played five different decks last Sunday between 11am and 5pm if that tells you anything... However, I do have fond memories of those marathon games... I wonder if there would be some way to establish the makings of a long game without imposing card limits. Maybe a period of 'ceasefire' for a certain amount of turns or something. Unlimited deck-sizes would help here. Playing with only Jyhad starters and a few boosters might do the job. I recall that the Final Nights pre-release games were a bit longer than usual. I do wonder however how much fun your games can be when there is absolutely no variation. Using only the pre-constructed decks seems to me to be more boring than the Potence-pitch deck you described earlier. Designing decks is the aspect of the game that I enjoy the most. However, even when I have created a successful deck, I usually retire it so I can have fun building another. Surely, your group must be missing out... on this aspect if nothing else. In my experience, the players who give up on Jyhad are not the ones who lose the most, but on those who create the least. Or, possibly moreso, those who play *against* those who create the least, ie. with a very limited number of decks. Several of our players have one deck which they play with (which they *did* construct, granted) and only occasionally do they try to build another. It's boring as hell for everyone involved. This is also probably why Malkavian S&B still have a bad name... nobody wanted to face them because they were so common and lacking in originality. I have to admit that I still groan every time I see one. Unless the deck is a new or interesting spin on Malkavians, I'm just not that intrigued. So when Noal pulled out Gilbert Duane on Sunday, I frowned... when he started calling votes, I became interested. Personally, I'd much rather win a game with something new and interesting than with something old and proven, but that's just me. > -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu > "Power feeds on its spoils, and dies when its victims refuse to be > despoiled. They can't persuade it to death, they can't shoot it to death; > but they can always starve it to death." > -- Benjamin Tucker Now who can argue with someone who quotes Benjamin Tucker in their sig file. You's the man. Cheers, WES

Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote in message news:<B769F5A2.1FAA0%sdib...@student.umass.edu>... > I am normally wary when one side describes the standpoint of their > opposition. > > It should be kept in mind that I have agreed to the "mechanical" superiority > of NCL versus xCL, but asserted that Vampire was no fun for my group in an > NCL environment. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! "F-L-A-M-E" Woosh! ROAR! Hulk SMASH! Gobble, Gobble, Gobble Pull out hair Ascend to Neo-Cubist state by arguing from alternating points of view Physical Form evaporates from intense heat of self-inflicted flames. Disembodied Spirit joins the internet as a NCL-XCL Debate Avatar. There, are you happy? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In article <vdfrKsJd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Awe is not more powerful than Bewitching Oration. Well, a full Anneke can't get 21 votes from Bewitching Oration, then Vote Cap it all back. (Of course, Arika, Kindred Coercion and, Elder Kindred Network add up to 20-some pool worth of hurt...) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."

> From: "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > > "Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote >> Back in the day, I liked the 4-hour marathon better than the 90-minute >> brawl. > > I don't mind either really, though the 4-hour ones seem rarer now that our > decks are more competitive. Winning generally equates to being the fastest > deck at the table. <snip> This is a characteristic of nearly every CCG I know, and I know a lot of them. One thing that attracted me to Jyhad originally is that rather than a blazing shootout like Magic, it was like slowly strangling each other to death. With politics. > However, I do have fond memories of those marathon games... I wonder if > there would be some way to establish the makings of a long game without > imposing card limits. Maybe a period of 'ceasefire' for a certain amount of > turns or something. Unlimited deck-sizes would help here. Playing with only > Jyhad starters and a few boosters might do the job. I recall that the Final > Nights pre-release games were a bit longer than usual. I would chalk that up to unfamiliarity (if boosters were involved, doubly so.) Still, if you come up with some ideas, let me know. Let us all know! > I do wonder however how much fun your games can be when there is absolutely > no variation. <snip> There is more variation in the actual *play* of the decks, and with fifteen to choose from, the combinations possible are satisfyingly numerous. I am more invested with having a good time playing than with expressing myself creatively through deckbuilding. I have plenty of fun doing that for Shadowfist, and look for a different experience from Jyhad now. > In my experience, the players who give up on Jyhad are not the ones who lose > the most, but on those who create the least. Or, possibly moreso, those who > play *against* those who create the least, ie. with a very limited number of > decks. Several of our players have one deck which they play with (which they > *did* construct, granted) and only occasionally do they try to build > another. It's boring as hell for everyone involved. As a matter of fact, I rarely played the same deck twice. Having access to nearly unlimited cards enticed my to try out as many as I could. Back in the day (This would be 1994-5) I must've built decks for most discipline combos several times over. > Personally, I'd much rather win a game with something new and interesting > than with something old and proven, but that's just me. Well, not just you, you seem to reside in the majority, but I see what you're saying. >> "Power feeds on its spoils, and dies when its victims refuse to be >> despoiled. They can't persuade it to death, they can't shoot it to death; >> but they can always starve it to death." >> -- Benjamin Tucker > > Now who can argue with someone who quotes Benjamin Tucker in their sig file. > You's the man. <puffs out chest> Well thank you. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "In battle, unbeatable. In victory, unbearable." -- Churchill, on General Montgomery

In message <santiago-1EF04E...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>, Santiago <sant...@nastyPinkCannedMeat.umug.org> writes >>Awe is not more powerful than Bewitching Oration. > > Well, a full A "cost". > Anneke Large vampire. A cost. > can't get 21 votes from Bewitching Oration, >then Vote Cap it all back. Cost in hand for strategy. Opportunity cost of passing vote. (These costs may be near-negligible but V:TES's constant replace mechanism - such that a card in the hand is denying you other cards rather than a regular replace mechanism - and similar things all play a vitally significant role in the game, at a fundamental level, so fundamental that they can be over-looked if you're not careful.) > (Of course, Arika, Kindred Coercion and, >Elder Kindred Network add up to 20-some pool worth of hurt...) The more common, and simpler, Delaying Tactics leaves you with an empty vampire. (Until Final Nights finally got round to editing Banishment, I'd have also snickered and Banished Anneke with Igo. Or something.) To pull the scenario you detail off, you need a specific, though not impossible or even improbable, set of occurrences. You cannot, for instance, get 4 votes from Awe for free, as you can with . You have to spend at least 2 blood (superior), and the opportunity cost of Voter Cap, whilst potentially small, is not insignificant. If you start becoming abusive with Voter Cap, a lot of people on tables will start turning round and abusing you repeatedly, refusing to aid your votes, blocking them, rushing your vampires cross-table (a worried grand-predator, for instance) in order to bring you back under control - such that loading up on Voter Captivation will have significant downsides; you'll either have to discard them (thus alerting people to "He's got billions!"), play them (such that you start looking very threatening with that extra 6 pool you just got back this turn with three votes), allow them to jam your hand etc. Voter Captivation is a very good card, but is inherently limitable. V:TES, as I hope the above demonstrates, is very, very clearly oriented to cost->effect, where cost can include: - deck slot (90 card maximum, under tournament rules) - hand slot (denying you seeing the card its replacing) - opportunity cost (how often can you play it - Bewitching Oration is fucked if you never get a vote passed that damn !Ventrue deck) - pool/blood cost (depleting your resources) - minion cost (using a minion card i.e. non-master card, requires a minion to do it - unlike, taking Magic again[0], the fact that you can use a Fireball whether you've got a Serrated Dangle out or not) - discipline/clan requirement (possibly onerous, depending on your deck) etc. etc. etc. With very, very few exceptions (mostly found in Ancient Hearts, namely Tomb and Return to Innocence, IMHO), rarity has never been a factor for finding "better" cards. The fundamental, powerful basic cards for any strategy can be found at common usually - even if, for your purposes, a rare card might be "better". (Like if I want to steal a location on a bleed card as another function, I'm screwed if all I have is Govern the Unaligned instead of Dominate Kine - that doesn't make GtA less powerful, just it has a different function, and that three pool gain potentially is powerful enough in itself.) Take bleed: - Govern the Unaligned - Legal Manipulations - Laptop Computer - Conditioning/Bonding/Threats Take combat defence: - Majesty - Skin of Rock - Dodge - Fake Out - Flash Take vote: - Conservative Agitation - Kine Resources Contested - Autarkis Persecution - Bewitching Oration - Bribes - Disputed Territory Stealth: - Lost in Crowds - Faceless Night - Cloak the Gathering Generically Useful Master Cards: - Blood Doll - Minion Tap - The Barrens - Elder Library (not my cup of tea, but some people have a thing for it and in large combo decks, it's useful because of the extra sight) - Ascendance/Short Term Investment/Protracted Investment (we'll have a flame war along in a minute about the relative minutes, trust me) Defence/Reaction: - Enhanced Senses - The Spirit's Touch - Telepathic Counter - Telepathic Misdirection - Wake with Evening's Freshness (with a mild fix, now) - Deflection and so on. A **lot** of key cards can be found at common level. The major flaw here is offensive combat. The designers appear to have been, from Garfield's writings, very combat heavy in their environment - attack, rather than defence. The line was something like: "We often fought over whether the Gangrel or Brujah were the better combat clan. In the end, we decided on the Gangrel - after all, the Brujah do have Presence." (Words to that effect, but I don't have the book anymore) Presence, it turned out, was the exact counter to combat - because no-one ever envisaged quite how powerful Strike: Combat Ends would be in the scheme of things and, try as we might, some things get passed over in play-testing. So, Immortal Grapple was the one flaw - if you wanted to go on the offensive combat wise, IG turned out to be fairly essential. Again, a lot of commons are around - Bum's Rush, Undead Strength, Wolf Claws etc. But IG just turned out be necessary because potential abuses of Presence (well, Strike: Combat Ends really, but it's all you sleazy Presence mongers in reality - we know who you are) were possible. However, for n00bs, there are still dozens of decks that can be constructed from large numbers of commons with half a dozen uncommons or rares tossed in if you have them and think they might be useful. Cost->Power. And common things have a cost and, consequently, power. Those who positively *need* uncommons, vampire commonality library cards or rares to compete are missing something. If I don't have pen and paper, I don't decide to write my life story. If I don't have lots of Betrayers to make the Betrayer deck (well, and a complete set of all vampires, too) I can't build that - just because I don't have the cards and the Betrayer deck isn't inherently unstoppable because it's hard to make, far from it. So commons are good and useful and powerful and everyone agrees and we get perfect umma in the group. Maybe. [0] Sorry to keep doing this, but V:TES was, in fact, based loosely on some bits of Magic terminology etc., taking the game in other, very different directions. It's also the game that most people know a little about whereas my picking, say, Star Trek is likely to miss a larger group of people. <troll> Well, that and the Star Trek card game suckethed mightily when it came out. </troll> -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses B457CA213D7E6 It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses 68C3695D623D5D

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > If you can Google up half a dozen IDs for threads, I'll happily re-post > a start article and then respond to it. Frankly, I don't care that much. I'm not really interested in defending xCL. > A toolboxed deck works very efficiently against such. If you have just > enough defence to fend them off so that you can get by, you can control > the game. If you view Jyhad as a big circle of rock-paper-scissors - > which it can be, viewed at an abstract enough level - if you have a > small piece of paper, you can stop that rock for five seconds, just > enough to allow your scissors to go off. I guess my argument reduces to "I don't like playing rock/paper/scissors". Or rather, it's more fun when everybody has rock and paper and scissors available during the game (and not just between games, like the Jyhad metagame does.) >> And, if I were to prepare >> defenses for every possible OTP, my deck would become ineffective anyway. > > Not true. The toolbox archetype has been shown to be very effective > though not, of course, to everyone's taste. > > The key is working out how you can defend across a broad range of items > without becoming so weak that you can't defend against the important > ones properly. > > http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rob2 is an excellent example of > such. It does, however, require a high level of skill to pull off > properly. Isn't it a problem of the game that a unfocused design with adequate defense is only in the province of "a high level of skill"? >> This is only true in an xCL environment where rarity is not taken into >> account. Our (old, old) system provided different limits for cards of >> different rarities. > > This then generates the problem that a number of corner case cards, or > specialised use cards, are only found as rare. Not that they're > inherently powerful or anything, just they don't have equivalents found > elsewhere - as the redundancy points pointed out. > > Consider a suggestion like: > > 8 commons, 3 uncommons, 1 rare. (Picking random numbers from the air.) > > (I assume that it will be of a form where C > U > R, of course.) > > The deck wanting lots of Strike: Combat Ends allows itself 8 Majesties > (common in Jyhad/V:TES), 8 Staredown (common in Sabbat) and 3 Catatonic > Fear (Uncommon in Sabbat). > > I could get Immortal Grapple as Uncommon (Sabbat), but that still only > allows me 3. I'm not sure what you're point is here. My point was that scaled limits brought a more level playing field to card access for players with different collecting abilities. This is a social gaming issue, and not an argument about Jyhad's design. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." -- Frank Zappa.

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > In message <B769F5A2.1FAA0%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott > DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >> Despite your footnote, you do tend to paint with a rather broad brush >> throughout this piece. > > Yes, but it is generally true. > > Certainly, there are and have been xCL advocates who haven't acted in > the manner described, but the vast majority have. I'm not ascribing > this as an inherent trait of xCL advocacy, but of, rather, why those who > carefully sit down and go through all the arguments surrounding NL will > sometimes get a touch, erm, annoyed when they have yet another xCL > advocate failing to pay attention to reality. It is also generally true that NCL advocates portray their opinions as "reality". I have seen excellent refutations of the mechanical benefits of xCL over NCL. No problem. The NCL advocate's typically righteous attitude, that their version of the game has some kind of inherent value making it better than the way anyone else plays... this I have problems with. For tournament play (which I rarely have fun at anyway), I wholeheartedly agree that the rules are the rules and should be abided by. However, I take offense at the notion that customizing a game to suit one's social tastes is somehow inferior. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks." -- Eugene V. Debs

On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:18:30 -0400, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote: >> http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rob2 is an excellent example of >> such. It does, however, require a high level of skill to pull off >> properly. > >Isn't it a problem of the game that a unfocused design with adequate defense >is only in the province of "a high level of skill"? Isn't it a problem of football that the West Coast offense requires receivers who understand more than "go long"? Isn't it a problem of basketball that an effective man-to-man defense is only in the province of a high level of skill? I don't see the problem, myself. A game, by its nature, has good, average, and poor players. Providing a means to distinguish between them is part of the game. Just because what's "fun" for you happens to be harder to pull off than what's "un-fun" isn't a design flaw in the game itself. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote > > However, I do have fond memories of those marathon games... I wonder if > > there would be some way to establish the makings of a long game without > > imposing card limits. Maybe a period of 'ceasefire' for a certain amount of > > turns or something. Unlimited deck-sizes would help here. Playing with only > > Jyhad starters and a few boosters might do the job. I recall that the Final > > Nights pre-release games were a bit longer than usual. > > I would chalk that up to unfamiliarity (if boosters were involved, doubly > so.) Still, if you come up with some ideas, let me know. Let us all know! It would be partly being unfamiliar with the new cards, agreed... but moreso I think it was because of a lack of control or cohesion in the pre-con decks. The decks were designed well enough, but they were not designed by the player using them, which made it much harder to judge what should be done. Some combos are obvious of course but not always. I experienced hand-jam all day... even after I recognized what the new cards were all about. I played the Giovanni deck and ended up taking out all my Potence cards after the first game because I wanted to have a tighter deck. It worked for me as my deck became a lot faster and a lot more cohesive. (Not sure if 'cohesive' is the right word here, but I think you will know what I mean). For making games longer, I suppose adding more pool to start with would work. 30 pool is just right for something like a tournament, but for a game which everyone agrees should be long and drawn out, maybe 40 would be better. Not so much because it provides more 'stuff' but because you are less vulnerable while you are establishing your controlled region. Of course, this means the game stops being Jyhad and starts being something else, but fuck it... whatever works for you. You might also want to consider building all the decks according to the Happy Families formula. By doing this, you are automatically including four disciplines (well, I use it with three, but apply as desired) and the decks end up slightly less focused but much more robust, in my experience. If everyone agreed to follow the formula exactly as it is, you might find that the games are closer to the ideal we are talking about. If *you* are the one building all the decks, this should be easy enough. > > I do wonder however how much fun your games can be when there is absolutely > > no variation. <snip> > > There is more variation in the actual *play* of the decks, and with fifteen > to choose from, the combinations possible are satisfyingly numerous. I am > more invested with having a good time playing than with expressing myself > creatively through deckbuilding. I have plenty of fun doing that for > Shadowfist, and look for a different experience from Jyhad now. I can't build a Shadowfist deck to save my life, personally... they all crash and burn. The other problem with Jyhad, and in this I am more guilty than most, is that one player comes up with a cool concept but never gets to play it properly because his predator runs over him with a focused competitive deck. I've seen players come up with great ideas but are afraid to play them against the standard decks around here. It's a shame really... though when all is said and done, if my prey is taking his sweet time establishing himself, I'm going to do my best to take advantage of this. The 'slow' game-variant we are referring to would of course be ideal for this kind of deck. Cheers, WES

"Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote > > I have seen excellent refutations of the mechanical benefits of xCL over > NCL. No problem. The NCL advocate's typically righteous attitude, that their > version of the game has some kind of inherent value making it better than > the way anyone else plays... this I have problems with. > > For tournament play (which I rarely have fun at anyway), I wholeheartedly > agree that the rules are the rules and should be abided by. However, I take > offense at the notion that customizing a game to suit one's social tastes is > somehow inferior. Still, it has to be recognized that any kind of xCL is a *game-variant* and not actually the game as it was designed. Of course, this says nothing about that variant's inherent playability... go crazy with it if you enjoy it. Cheers, WES

In message <B76B4233.1FB78%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >It is also generally true that NCL advocates portray their opinions as >"reality". In many, important ways they *are* reality: - It is how the game was designed - It is how the game was released - It is how the Rules Team, for many years, has maintained the game - It is how V:EKN implemented tournament rules - It is even how, with a small splatter of stupidity, the DCI implemented them This is "reality", though not in the manner, I believe, you mean it. >I have seen excellent refutations of the mechanical benefits of xCL over >NCL. If you Google up a few article IDs of a few articles you believe are good, I'll happily re-post them and discuss them. > No problem. The NCL advocate's typically righteous attitude, that their >version of the game has some kind of inherent value making it better than >the way anyone else plays... this I have problems with. Consider a game of Chess: "Hmmm.... all these pawns are just worthless. I'll make them move diagonally as well." A chess "master" is likely to view it as an "interesting" change, but is also likely to view such with a wry smile and confidence in their system. >For tournament play (which I rarely have fun at anyway), I wholeheartedly >agree that the rules are the rules and should be abided by. However, I take >offense at the notion that customizing a game to suit one's social tastes is >somehow inferior. Social tastes are social tastes, they are not regulation constructions. If people want to construct decks you dislike - due to boredom, repetitiveness, etc. - they can and will do it under a change like xCL. You need a far more wide-reaching set of changes than xCL to combat that. The best way to play the game socially and enjoy it is to play with people you enjoy gaming with. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B76B40F6.1FB77%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >> If you can Google up half a dozen IDs for threads, I'll happily re-post >> a start article and then respond to it. > >Frankly, I don't care that much. I'm not really interested in defending xCL. If you're going to tell us that there are coherent defences that have been made and then not spend five minutes digging them up (something I can't do, since I have no idea what you find to be coherent, persuasive and convincing), there's nothing I can do. I find it inherently saddening that you believe there are convincing coherent arguments we have missed but will do nothing to allow us to see them. >> A toolboxed deck works very efficiently against such. If you have just >> enough defence to fend them off so that you can get by, you can control >> the game. If you view Jyhad as a big circle of rock-paper-scissors - >> which it can be, viewed at an abstract enough level - if you have a >> small piece of paper, you can stop that rock for five seconds, just >> enough to allow your scissors to go off. > >I guess my argument reduces to "I don't like playing rock/paper/scissors". >Or rather, it's more fun when everybody has rock and paper and scissors >available during the game (and not just between games, like the Jyhad >metagame does.) Quantifying "fun" is, of course, a killer, and you can turn a deck into rock whether you play with xCL or NL. Whether it is an effective rock - as other arguments detail - is more difficult to decide. However, one of the best ways to have rock, paper and scissors available to you all at once is through the *way* you play, not *what* you play. A Brujah weenie potence combat deck. I rush! I rush again! Kill! Kill! Destroy! That's our archetypal rock, for argument's sake. It's efficient, it's focussed, it can kill a lot of vampires, played effectively. But let's make stealth and bleed our paper, it coming to smother our rock with its large bleeds. The rush deck is rock, not scissors. So it can't ever possibly defend against the paper. Except it can, through intelligent, efficient play, through well-aimed rushes, fending its predator off without demolishing it, through table diplomacy ("Look, you've just Revelationed your predator, he's got Temptation of Greater Power. If you don't bleed me with that Arika you have there, I'll go and torporise that Justicared copy of Tiberius so he can't play it. Deal?"), through intelligent deck construction. An intelligent player can turn any deck into rock, paper or scissors, as and when he needs it. A toolbox player has certain facets at his disposal (that he has certain powerful cards available, which he can't necessarily rely on) whereas the focused player have other facets (the reliability of knowing that she can reliably pull this off, if she can target it properly) at her disposal. A player with less play-skill-intelligence, with mono-maniacal tendencies, can turn any swiss-army knife into a rock. xCL doesn't stop you making a focused combat deck. It doesn't stop you making a focused political deck. It doesn't stop you making a focused bleed deck - the three major deck archetypes from the games inception, with certain other deck types establishing themselves later. It may, however, make them less effective, possibly neutering them relatively speaking. >>> And, if I were to prepare >>> defenses for every possible OTP, my deck would become ineffective anyway. >> >> Not true. The toolbox archetype has been shown to be very effective >> though not, of course, to everyone's taste. >> >> The key is working out how you can defend across a broad range of items >> without becoming so weak that you can't defend against the important >> ones properly. >> >> http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rob2 is an excellent example of >> such. It does, however, require a high level of skill to pull off >> properly. > >Isn't it a problem of the game that a unfocused design with adequate defense >is only in the province of "a high level of skill"? Not from where I stand. "Unfocused" design requires intelligent discarding, table manipulation, diplomacy, skill, time and so on to play well. This can provide an exceptionally powerful deck. "Focused" design requires certain other facets, all equally intelligent. Players lacking skill will fall over, the vast majority of the time, regardless of the deck they play. And the skill needed to play a toolbox efficiently is different to, rather than inherently better than, the skill required to play a focused deck well. It appears to be less common, as many players initially equate NL == focused/repetitive/whatever and then find they like that play style. Focused, one-trick pony decks do not just "win". Intelligent, planned, carefully thought out play is needed to win with them. I prefer play skill to be paramount or, rather, highly important, with luck and randomness adding to the challenge, not distracting from the skill. If I didn't, I wouldn't play strategic games. >> The deck wanting lots of Strike: Combat Ends allows itself 8 Majesties >> (common in Jyhad/V:TES), 8 Staredown (common in Sabbat) and 3 Catatonic >> Fear (Uncommon in Sabbat). >> >> I could get Immortal Grapple as Uncommon (Sabbat), but that still only >> allows me 3. > >I'm not sure what you're point is here. It's an issue of rock vs paper vs scissors. You have said you want rock vs paper vs scissors to be available to all. I want to play a Potence based rush deck - a perfectly sensible idea, one that the game was inherently designed for. (The combat wombat archetype was coded in from the ground up. The Brujah combat wombat deck type similar so.) How do I get through your S:CE with my rush? You have 19 copies of Strike: Combat Ends available. I have 3 copies of Immortal Grapple. Since some cards have no (usable in a given circumstance[0]) alternatives available, and since some of the cards are found at less common levels, you inherently unbalance the system - perhaps not to a degree you find objectionable. Some xCL players have professed, at various points, to prefer slight randomness. Personally, I prefer skill to be substantially more important. Under NL, you can have as many copies of S:CE as you want, I can have as many copies of IG (or Psyche!, Dog Pack, Perfect Clarity, Thoughts Betrayed, Telepathic Tracking etc.) as I want. I can make my scissors as big as your paper, whereas card limits - especially scaled card limits where unusual abilities are found at less common levels[1] - inherently limit my ability to judge my rock:scissors:paper ratio carefully. And where the foils are rare, the disparity is substantially increased. > My point was that scaled limits >brought a more level playing field to card access for players with different >collecting abilities. Certainly it does. However, it's a slightly false argument, in that access to rares is not the be all and end all of Jyhad - though it is critical to certain deck designs. Limiting newbies from being able to utilise their collection effectively is far, far more damaging than finding that they're up against a Mr Suitcase using a deck of 90 rares, IMHO. >This is a social gaming issue, To be honest, I have always found that solving social gaming issues is best handled socially, rather than through rules kludges. If, as we all do, you find someone really, really boring and uninspired in their deck design, telling them "We're changing the rules because of *YOU*" is only likely to rub them up the wrong way. If it *doesn't* rub them up the wrong way then, IME, neither would social interaction - and social interaction doesn't leave you with a kludged set of rules to deal with. [0] Frex: Perfect Clarity will stop you playing any of the Presence S:CE cards named. It's not usable in this instance, however, the Brujah lacking inherently large amounts of Thaumaturgy. [1] This also appears to be an inherent design decision, taking the cards as evidence. Necessary, useful, "powerful" functions are found at common, easy to access levels. Some variations of some the very basic things which *do* have redundancy are found at less common levels. However, most of the "weird", corner case, subtle, unusual cards are *also* found at less common levels - including some useful foils to basic strategies, the obvious one found in Jyhad being Majesty versus Immortal Grapple. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

> From: "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > You might also want to consider building all the decks according to the > Happy Families formula. By doing this, you are automatically including four > disciplines (well, I use it with three, but apply as desired) and the decks > end up slightly less focused but much more robust, in my experience. If > everyone agreed to follow the formula exactly as it is, you might find that > the games are closer to the ideal we are talking about. If *you* are the one > building all the decks, this should be easy enough. What's Happy Families? -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu Early Morning Mantra of Awakening: "The Sun has not yet entered the Red Giant phase."

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > In message <B76B4233.1FB78%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott > DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >> I have seen excellent refutations of the mechanical benefits of xCL over >> NCL. > > If you Google up a few article IDs of a few articles you believe are > good, I'll happily re-post them and discuss them. Read my statement again. It's the opposite of what you thought you read. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "CONSERVATIVE, A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." -- Ambrose Pierce

In message <B76C8EF5.1FC49%sdib...@student.umass.edu>, Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> writes >What's Happy Families? To try out Happy Families with pre-Sabbat War vampires, try http://www.zephyr.org.uk/happy.htm (Disclaimer: my shite web-site that I really will do something with at some point. Maybe.) The basic concept is this: If 10 out of my 12 vampires have Animalism then my deck should include a number of card attuned to that proportion in my deck. Let's see we add up all the vampires in a deck and find that: 10 have Animalism 9 have Fortitude 9 have Protean 4 have Potence As the top four most common disciplines they have. 12 vampire crypt. And a library of 90 cards. The numbers now work like this: Number of master cards in deck = 90 x 20% = 18 master cards Number of minion cards in deck = 72 Number of discipliness cards in deck = 72 x 12 / ( 10 + 9 + 9 + 4 + 12) = 19.64 Number of Animalism cards in deck = 72 x 10 / ( 10 + 9 + 9 + 4 + 12) = 16.64 Number of Fortitude/Protean cards in deck = 72 x 9 / ( 10 + 9 + 9 + 4 + 12) = 14.73 each Number of Potence cards in deck = 72 x 4 / ( 10 + 9 + 9 + 4 + 12) = 6.55 Giving a total deck of roughly 90 cards, because of rounding errors etc. You can fudge this for any number of disciplines, of course, but 4 was considered "best" by Legbiter when he invented it. 3 or 5 are also good. 2 can be a bit too few, though good for a vote heavy deck, due to the increased number of disciplineless cards you'll get in a deck. What this does is gives you ratios of cards *and* forces you to pay attention to what's in your crypt so you don't wave your arms at the deck, thinking there's a lot of Presence in it and only finding that, in fact, only 9 of your vampires have it. It doesn't replace deck-building, by any means, but it throws it under a wonderfully critical light. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

"Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote > > What's Happy Families? It's a method invented by Legbiter for constructing decks. Here's the gist of it, copied from an old post: ==================== Here is a worked example of building a deck using the Happy Families method, in response to requests from a number of people. For those who don't know what i'm talking about, Happy Families is a deck-constructing formula that aims to build a flexible playable deck around a given selection of vampires. Usually these will all be vampires of one clan. Basically you choose the vamps you want to play with, and the library size you want to use, and then you determine the cards in the library as follows: 20% or so should be master cards The remaining 80% or so should be minion cards, divided up with respect to discipline in the following way: Count the number of vampires in your crypt: Call this number p. Count the number of vampires with the most common discipline in your deck: call this number q. Count the number of vampires with the second most common discipline in your deck: call this number r. Count the number of vampires with the third most common discipline in your deck: call this number s. Count the number of vampires with the fourth most common discipline in your deck: call this number t. Now if 80% of your chosen library size is a, then you want [(p/[p+q+r+s+t]) x a] cards that require no discipline to play [(q/[p+q+r+s+t]) x a] cards that require the most common discipline to play [(r/[p+q+r+s+t]) x a] cards that require the second most common discipline to play [(s/[p+q+r+s+t]) x a] cards that require the third most common discipline to play [(t/[p+q+r+s+t]) x a] cards that require the fourth most common discipline to play You can obviously have more or fewer disciplines than 4, in which case you adjust the formula accordingly, and i do so, below. i wanted to build a "kagemusha" Nosferatu bash/vote deck from Jyhad cards only, to "shadow" my favourite tournament deck. This deck therefore was made from the contents of just under two boxes of Jyhad boosters given to me by David tatu [we used the rest to build a Brujah bash/bleed deck for Michael]. CRYPT: 2 Sheldon 9 POT ANI OBF AUS for Justicar 2 Selma 8 POT ani OBF for Prince 2 Chester 7 POT ANI obf for Primogen 2 Sammy 4 pot ani obf Agrippina 4 pot OBF Duck 3 pot obf Koko 2 pot Dimple 2 obf There are 12 vampires in this crypt and all 12 can use disciplineless or Nossie-only cards. 11 can use pot cards, and a different 11 can use obf cards. 8 can use ani cards. 6 can use for cards. 2 can use aus cards. 12+11+11+8+6+2 = 50. Now for the library. 20% or so of your library should be master cards - fewer if you turn over a lot of minion cards in any one turn, more if you have Anson, the Parthenon, Death of my Conscience or some other way of unjamming your hand. For a 90-card library, 20% = 18 masters. That leaves 72 minion cards. Happy families tells us that (12/50) x 72 should be cards that require no discipline to play, ie 18 cards. (11/50) x 72 should be pot cards, and the same number should be obf cards, ie 15 pot cards and 15 obf cards. (8/50) x 72 should be ani cards, ie 12. (6/50) x 72 should be for cards, ie 9. (2/50) x 72 should be aus cards, ie 3. That's how i decided on the proportions, and here is the deck i actually built: 18 Masters: 5 Minion Tap [average blood capacity of this crypt is 5 and 7 twelfths, bit big, and bloat is going to be your best defence against a quick bleed deck] Fame 3 Blood doll KRCG News Radio Giant's Blood Haven Uncovered Slum HG Golconda Temptation of Greater Power [use as a master-phase bleed against your prey, and if you are lucky it will set you up for a Parity shift, too!]. The Rack 2 Spawning Pool [An underrated card, in my view, especially if you have ANI and rat's warning. Actually the surprise value of Temptation/GP and spawning pool is a lot of the reason for their inclusion - tends to put people off their game if a really unusual card turns up]. 18 No Discipline cards: 2 Parity Shift Archon 4 WWEF Kindred Restructure 2 Nosferatu Justicar Fifth Tradition 2 Bum's Rush 2 Taste of Vitae Second Tradition Bloodhunt Saturday Night Special [was Patagia, but the advantage is SOOO marginal. As far as i can see the only good excuse for using Patagia is if you want to use the RPG launcher or Flamethrower, and even then the IR goggles are probably better]. I've now changed this card to another 5th tradition, which became available when michael decided that rake was surplus to requirements in his Brujah deck and purged all his prince cards too. i'm playing fast and loose with the formula here, obviously, because a lot of these cards require that you have a Prince or Justicar. So i'm trusting the deck to deliver that, to some extent. 15 Potence 7 Mighty Grapple 3 Thrown Gate 2 Rampage 3 Undead Strength 15 Obfuscate 5 Cloak the Gathering 2 Mask 1K Faces 3 Faceless Night 2 Spying mission 3 Lost in Crowds 12 Animalism 5 Rat's Warning Army of Rats 2 Raven Spy 4 Cat's Guidance 9 Fortitude 3 Skin of Rock 5 Skin of Steel Freak Drive 3 Auspex 2 Telepathic Misdirection Pulse of the Canaille That's 8 actions, 6 votes, 2 Retainers, 1 Equip [17 card-based reasons to tap a vampire, if you like]: 16 Action modifiers: 16 Reactions: 23 combat cards. Experience shows this is roughly the right proportion of different card types for a nice flowy kind of deck that is always up to stuff. ============================== Cheers, WES P.S. Hmmm.... how long have we all been posting to two newsgroups with this thread?

In message <9i77n...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >"Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote >> >> What's Happy Families? > >It's a method invented by Legbiter for constructing decks. Here's the gist >of it, copied from an old post To rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad only? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >Still, it has to be recognized that any kind of xCL is a *game-variant* and >not actually the game as it was designed. As is playing with the NRA. The game as designed had some serious problems. >Of course, this says nothing about that variant's inherent playability... go >crazy with it if you enjoy it. We should realize that the "standard" game we play today is very far removed from the original game. Just sit down and play with only Jyhad cards, ante, no errata's or changes and no NRA, and you'll see what I mean. How the game was originally designed really isn't an argument. I have never played under a 4CL. I did play under a 6CL for some time, and it wasn't much different from from NCL. A few decks were more or less hosed, of course. Frankly, it wouldn't particularly bother me to go back to 6CL, but it wouldn't add anything significant to the game, either, so why bother? I find the extreme rancour and self-righteousness of many of the NCL apostles a bit surprising. It's not like people playing 4CL are setting fire to kittens in their spare time... ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

>I find the extreme rancour and self-righteousness of many of the NCL >apostles a bit surprising. It's not like people playing 4CL are >setting fire to kittens in their spare time... Bunnies burn better for some reason. Beginners are often put off by their loud screaming doh. Wrong newsgroup.

In message <3b4745da....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes [ quoted text not captured ] Tsh. Any fule kno you boil bunnies. (c) Fatal Attraction -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote > > >Still, it has to be recognized that any kind of xCL is a *game-variant* and > >not actually the game as it was designed. > > As is playing with the NRA. The game as designed had some serious > problems. It's the main, accepted, VEKN-approved variant though... Is it still not actually offical? I thought it was... The NRA (National Rifle Association) rule was added to aleviate some of the problems with the original game as designed. xCL was added by multiple playgroups mostly because people erroneously assumed that it was an actual rule or something. At least that seems to be the reason the majority of groups imposed xCL. > >Of course, this says nothing about that variant's inherent playability... go > >crazy with it if you enjoy it. > > We should realize that the "standard" game we play today is very far > removed from the original game. Just sit down and play with only Jyhad > cards, ante, no errata's or changes and no NRA, and you'll see what I > mean. Agreed. > How the game was originally designed really isn't an argument. Not so much how the game *was* designed, as how the game *is* desgined with all 7/7 and such rulings included. > I have never played under a 4CL. I did play under a 6CL for some time, > and it wasn't much different from from NCL. A few decks were more or > less hosed, of course. Frankly, it wouldn't particularly bother me to > go back to 6CL, but it wouldn't add anything significant to the game, > either, so why bother? Yeah. I didn't enjoy the game any less under 4CL... our group tended not to abuse combos because we all were so hopelessly bad at the game. Imposing card-limits didn't change this fact. > I find the extreme rancour and self-righteousness of many of the NCL > apostles a bit surprising. It's not like people playing 4CL are > setting fire to kittens in their spare time... Well, I hope by replying to my post that you aren't including me in that camp. I don't care that much either way. My only beef with xCL is the people who show up to tournaments and expect that 4CL/vote-pushing etc. are a given. I feel bad when I have to inform them otherwise. Cheers, WES

In message <9i7he...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote >> >> >Still, it has to be recognized that any kind of xCL is a *game-variant* >and >> >not actually the game as it was designed. >> >> As is playing with the NRA. The game as designed had some serious >> problems. > >It's the main, accepted, VEKN-approved variant though... Is it still not >actually offical? I thought it was... No. If you are playing the "official" rules at home, NRA is not part of them - it's only a tournament rule. However, as with S:CE, the power of a number of untap mechanisms was not seen. The Gangrel infinite loop deck was, IMO, the main motivating force for NRA, with S:CE/Majesty being a nice complementary problem at the time. (IG wasn't a major force.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > > >Still, it has to be recognized that any kind of xCL is a *game-variant* and > >not actually the game as it was designed. > > As is playing with the NRA. The game as designed had some serious > problems. The game has had some badly balanced cards. Every CCG I've ever played has that problem. Balanced cards are just difficult to design. Certain balance problems tend not to be obvious to whatever individual (or at best relatively small number of individuals) who is (are) in charge until after a card is printed, in use, and playtested by the thousands who play the game who will test it to destruction by repeatedly trying to use it to find the easiest ways to win. As for NRA, it plugs a hole which exists in the constructed game from decks focused on cards that allow untaps. It probably should be a real game rule but I suspect White Wolf is dragging its feet because it's utterly unnecessary in the limited game. Saying the game "as designed had some serious problems" is disingenuous. All CCGs I've ever known would be caught in *THAT* net! Fred

>The game has had some badly balanced cards. Every CCG I've ever played has that >problem. Balanced cards are just difficult to design. Certain balance problems >tend not to be obvious to whatever individual (or at best relatively small >number of individuals) who is (are) in charge until after a card is printed, in >use, and playtested by the thousands who play the game who will test it to >destruction by repeatedly trying to use it to find the easiest ways to win. > >As for NRA, it plugs a hole which exists in the constructed game from decks focused >on cards that allow untaps. It probably should be a real game rule but I suspect White >Wolf is dragging its feet because it's utterly unnecessary in the limited game. Saying >the game "as designed had some serious problems" is disingenuous. All CCGs I've ever >known would be caught in *THAT* net! > >Fred I'm of the opinion that CL's promote variation in the cards used. I know that Archon Intervention was specifically made to punish the popular stealth/bleed at the time. I was surprised when dark sovereigns came out, how the rav were just plain weak. Yeah, a CL would mean that you could not make a pure corruption deck, but so what? Other CCGs have to deal with not being able to build a deck around a single concept and eveyrone still has fun.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 06:25:37 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >I'm of the opinion that CL's promote variation in the cards used. I That's ONLY mathematically a given, you know. If you can't have more than 4 of any card in a 60-card deck, you MUST use at least 15 different cards. Under NCL, you can use 60 of the same card. What's your point? >know that Archon Intervention was specifically made to punish the >popular stealth/bleed at the time. I was surprised when dark >sovereigns came out, how the rav were just plain weak. Yeah, a CL Actually, the Ravnos were the most solid Independent clan in DS, IMO. They had their limitations, but they were the pick of the litter... the Setites and Assamites would just get bled out at stealth, and the Giovanni had shitty vampires despite being able to Deflect. >would mean that you could not make a pure corruption deck, but so >what? Other CCGs have to deal with not being able to build a deck >around a single concept and eveyrone still has fun. Except for the people who want to build a deck around a single concept. Face it; there's no way to please everyone. Some people get frothy if they get beat by the same trick three times in one game, as opposed to thinking "maybe I didn't prepare for that in my deck?". Some people couldn't care less and want to be able to use any wack-ass combination of cards they want to in their deck, no matter how stupid and/or useless (my 20-computer hack, 20-lucky blow, 10-pulled fangs deck with all the +1 strength vampires, for example. Totally dorky idea, but fun and amusing for one or two runs.) Claiming that CL's idea of fun is "better" than NL's idea of fun is a tragic mistake. (Note that NL arguers tend to point out how the "no-fun" that CL is supposed to stop actually doesn't GET stopped, as opposed to saying "our fun is better than your fun".) The simple solution? Play the game by whatever rules your group wants and have fun, but realize that the official rules are what you'll see in a tournament ... AND DEAL WITH IT. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b47fa21....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >I'm of the opinion that CL's promote variation in the cards used. Why is this good? It will certainly "promote" variation - but only in the same way that banning the wearing of a co-ordinating shirt, trousers and tie will "promote" variation. Varied, sure. Justification? Given that xCL does not detrimentally affect Malk S&B, why should I have to "vary" my bleed defence such that I can't include sufficient? What would you have done, both pre and post Final Nights, with everyone's copies of Corruption? What the fuck's the point of only putting 4 in a deck? Hint: It was designed to be used multiple times. Designed. Designed and balanced. Designed, balanced and intended. Designed, balanced, intended and play-tested. Of course, none of this matters. Other card games (with entirely different rules sets, aims, balancing points, design paradigms, victory conditions, self-righting mechanisms and so forth) can't do this so, OF COURSE, we shouldn't be able to either. How do you suggest I vary my Brujah combat deck to deal with your varied selection of Majesty, Staredown, Catatonic Fear and Dodge? >Other CCGs have to deal with not being able to build a deck >around a single concept and eveyrone still has fun. Magic was built around the idea that no deck could ever become really, really, really focused because no-one would have more than 400 cards 'cos, well, buying that many cards is just plain stupid. The xCL helped combat this, and the game was/has been effectively re-designed around such. This is the attitude taken by a number of games, as you note. Garfield, however, went in a very different direction with Jyhad, allowing you 90 copies of Lost in Crowds in a deck if you wanted - but hamstringing you with repeat action modifiers, unnecessary stealth rules and such like - the self-righting mechanism of a single concept deck, designed to prevent abuse from having billions and billions of cards whilst also giving Mr. Suitcase plenty of options. Magic <-------------------------------------------------------> Jyhad ^ Limit | Encourage The People Intelligent Use Of Buy Lots Use of Cards Of Cards Cards (PROBLEM) Jyhad was designed *entirely* in different directions to Magic. Trying to go in reverse is kind of like saying "Well, I don't like Spanish as a language. It needs to be more Russian." If you want to speak Russian, move to Russia. Is it more interesting to be bled out by an archetypal Malkavian sneak bleed deck which uses Mind Rape, Govern the Unaligned, Spying Mission, Night Moves, Lost in Crowds, Threats, Bonding, Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Foreshadowing Destruction, Faceless Night and Command of the Beast? By sheer, unadulterated coincidence WITH NO DESIGN PLAN BEHIND IT *AT ALL* (OH NO DEFINITELY NOT) this is also more likely to be most effective way of building a deck under NL - and if people are playing for fun, and playing to win, and playing intelligently...... I will, happily, build a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed deck under 4CL or 6CL and sit down and play it every single time, if you want. Would seeing more and different pretty pictures saying "I BLEED YOU AND YOU DIE BECAUSE WE'VE JUST FUCKED OVER YOUR ABILITY TO DEFEND YOURSELF BECAUSE THE BLEED ARCHETYPE IS NOW AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE MORE POWERFUL"[0] make things any better? If you're finding the game boring, NL really isn't the issue - people are. Most specifically, your inability to build and decks that prise people's flaws wide open and exploit them to the hilt, thus shifting the meta-game for the other players to "Wow, this deck doesn't work so good anymore.... I'd best fix it and play it better rather than the same-old same-old they keep letting me do." Jyhad is a game requiring thought, skill, charisma, discipline, intelligence, a little luck and sound strategic brain. Using the ill-thought out, counter-productive xCL crutch cuts away at all of this, all of what was designed, all of what has evolved with new sets, all of what was intended. Why try and make Jyhad into something that it's not? Consider the game of chess versus the game of draughts. In draughts, we only use half the squares, of one colour. In chess, we use all of them. Should we try and turn one into the other to promote "variation", ignoring strategy, design, intent and evolution? Jyhad is Jyhad, as any other card game is any other card game[1]. I accept and explore Jyhad for what it is, as an exciting, dynamic strategic game with more facets to its play than you can shake a small deciduous forest at. I accept Magic for what it is, too - which isn't Jyhad. [0] I paraphrase the reaction of many players regarding "I'm being bled *again*", of course. [1] Except Pokémon, of course, which is just an excuse to make money. Semi-colon dash bracket etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote in message news:<B76B4233.1FB78%sdib...@student.umass.edu>... > > From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > It is also generally true that NCL advocates portray their opinions as > "reality". Please let me point out that NCL is *actually* the reality for VTES. See Final Nights rule-book page 7, [1.2.] paragraph 1.Cards: "There is no per-card limit to the number of duplicates of a given card that a player can include in either her library or crypt." Now, if that *isn't* reality, what is? ;) > > I have seen excellent refutations of the mechanical benefits of xCL over > NCL. No problem. The NCL advocate's typically righteous attitude, that their > version of the game has some kind of inherent value making it better than > the way anyone else plays... this I have problems with. Please note that it's not "their version of the game", it's actually *the game*. VTES using a xCL is *a version of the game*. Reality, see above. :) > > For tournament play (which I rarely have fun at anyway), I wholeheartedly > agree that the rules are the rules and should be abided by. However, I take > offense at the notion that customizing a game to suit one's social tastes is > somehow inferior. Social tastes are important, make no mistake, but they can change over time. Let me tell you about our group here in Vienna. When we started in '94 we played no limit, because we had only a handful cards, no idea what this game was about, and the rulebook said nothing about any form of CL. The decks at that time were "toolboxy" (we used to say all-round decks), and things were *quite* balanced. It all started when I put 12 Earth Meld in my Gangrel deck. The other players were frustrated, they couldn't make much use of their combat cards, IG was still yet to be *really* discovered (remember it was rare back then). Comments were that it didn't seem right to allow so many untap cards in a deck, and after a long debate we decided to *adopt the Magic rule of 4CL*, as that was the only other noteable CCG at that time that all of us knew. We then played for about 4 years that way, our group grew to about 50 players, and *nobody* of the new ones asked why there was a 4CL, most coming from Magic, it seemes natural to them. Of course there were some cards and strategies that bewildered them: Corruption being the most noteable card. :) However, when the VEKN was formed, the NRA emerged, and a lot of problem-cards were errataed (I only mention the 7/7 crisis... :)) we slowly approached NCL very carefully, preparing our players and eventually they have accepted that we only play NCL anymore. You know, when all players in a group start from the same ground, a lot of problems can be avoided. Players have now not 4 Wakes and 4 Forced Awakenings in their decks, but e.g. 7 Wakes and 1 Forced, whichever suits their deck purpose more. IMO, players only play with a CL, when they don't *see* the whole picture. A player who understands that under NCL, he has the same *and more* options in deckbuilding will be more willing to play NCL, and when he realizes that under NCL he can defend himself quite easily against the problem-cards (foremost S:CE, Untap-cards, and massive stealth/bleed combos) he gets to like NCL. In our group NCL had the effect, that players got a lot more creative in deckbuilding, and I've never seen a hardcore stealth/bleed deck win a tournament final (except when it's lucky and the predator of some ill-designed deck that got by pure luck into the final round...). One of the big differences between NCL and CL is that under CL there was almost no choice in deck-building: any deck with Auspex packed exactly 4 Telepathic Counter, 4 Telepathic Misdirection and 4 My Enemy's Enemy along with 4 Wakes and 4 Forced Awakenings. Funny? No. Boring? Yes. Please also note that most decks that pack 30 copies of a single card (e.g. a Brainwash Deck or a Night Moves deck) get *at best* 1 VP or fail outright miserably. As someone else said, the problem is not that some players put dozens of copies of a single card into their deck, it's that the *other* players in that group fail to exploit that weakness and come up with ways to beat him. Of course, it's the most easy way to go to just say "from now on we use xCL, in order to hose that player and we don't have to adapt at all.". But that's a false feeling of security. Even under a 4CL I can pack *a lot* of stealth bleed: 4 Mask of 1K faces, 4 Lost in Crowds, 4 Faceless Night, 4 Cloak the Gathering, 4 Spying Mission. If I'm feeling a little bit funky, I can even add 4 Psychic Veil! Now those are 20 to 24 stealth cards. How is *that* different to say, 16 Cloak the Gathering? It's even *better*, cause I can't play the same action modifier twice in a single action. The same can be said about the bleeding modifiers. 4 Conditioning, 4 Bonding, 4 Threats, spiced up with 4 Govern the unaligned to begin with. Fun? No. Boring? Yes. The defences against such a deck are rather limited under 4CL. Ok, I guess this post is long enough right now. :) Thanks to all those that read till the end. :) Carl

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >As for NRA, it plugs a hole which exists in the constructed game from decks focused >on cards that allow untaps. It probably should be a real game rule but I suspect White >Wolf is dragging its feet because it's utterly unnecessary in the limited game. Saying >the game "as designed had some serious problems" is disingenuous. Since some people has used "the game was originally designed this way" as an argument against CLs, I thought it was worth pointing out that: a) There are lots of areas where we play the game differently than originally designed, and b) The original design had some serious flaws, meaning we shouldn't hold it as sacred. Saying "the game was originally designed not to have CLs" is not in itself an argumnet against them. If CLs really made the game a lot better, then to hell with the original design (the way things were done in Magic)! However, I don't think CL's make the game a lot better. Although a card or mechanism that encouraged more diversity in decks would be nice. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Consider the game of chess versus the game of draughts. In draughts, we >only use half the squares, of one colour. In chess, we use all of them. It could be argued that the existance of pieces with varying abilities improves the game and makes it more interesting. Those "15 queens and a king" games get boring after a while... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3b484ca0...@news.algonet.se>, jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Consider the game of chess versus the game of draughts. In draughts, we >>only use half the squares, of one colour. In chess, we use all of them. > >It could be argued that the existance of pieces with varying abilities >improves the game and makes it more interesting. Those "15 queens and >a king" games get boring after a while... ;-) Actually, 31 Queens and 1 King is a rather interesting variant to try two or three times. I first saw it discussed in a column that considered Chess: the Gathering, and what a Mr. Suitcase could do once he had enough rare pieces. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > > >As for NRA, it plugs a hole which exists in the constructed game from decks focused > >on cards that allow untaps. It probably should be a real game rule but I suspect White > >Wolf is dragging its feet because it's utterly unnecessary in the limited game. Saying > >the game "as designed had some serious problems" is disingenuous. > > Since some people has used "the game was originally designed this way" > as an argument against CLs, I thought it was worth pointing out that: > > a) There are lots of areas where we play the game differently than > originally designed, and > b) The original design had some serious flaws, meaning we shouldn't > hold it as sacred. > > Saying "the game was originally designed not to have CLs" is not in > itself an argumnet against them. Well, yes, actually it is. Though you correctly point out that the original game had flaws and consequently has been changed to ameliorate such flaws, that doesn't show the lack of card limits is a flaw nor demonstrate any compelling need to change it that way. Lots of rules were part of the original flawed game and do not require changing. The importance of the game not being designed to have card limits is intended to point out that all the cards and all the other rules were designed as if the game has no card limits. Adding card limits after the fact is awkward as it requires a careful examination (which really should include a complete retesting) of every single existing card in the game. In short, it's a extreme MAJOR alteration of the game in relation to the environment in which the cards were playtested. NRA, by comparison, is a tweak. I'm not suggesting that this automatically means a change on the order of card limits could never improve a game designed without them. But it sure seems to be a good argument against making changes on that order without being very sure what you're doing and exactly why you're doing it. To me, limiting the influence of a relatively handful of cards can not possibly justify applying blind limitations every single one of them. This is the whole fallacy of the pro-CL argument in a nutshell, IMHO. "What's wrong with the game?", we ask. The pro-CL argument can never possibly account for all the effects that slapping a limit on every card has. For instance, is it good or bad to limit "Blood Puppy" to 4? Haven Uncovered? Temple Hunting Ground? Sport Bike? Nephandus Mage? Gangrel Revel? And so on and so forth. A case-by-case argument can not be made. So pro-CLers wave their hand over the whole process and argue in vague generalities. The only way I can support this is if the result works well, discernibly better than what we already have. All indications is that it doesn't, except insofar as no players are ever required to get more than the CL worth of the most expensive, rare cards to build any particular deck. No (pre-Sabbat-War) Legacy of Pander decks. That sounds sort of egalitarian but others have pointed out the down side for poor players: the same thing that shields them from too many opposing rare cards also prevents them from using repeated, stock common cards that might (probably are, I think) the more important thing in gaining an edge. So it isn't even necessarily egalitarian, either. > However, I don't think CL's make the game a lot better. Although a > card or mechanism that encouraged more diversity in decks would be > nice. It would be. However, this is not a mechanic that has anything directly to do with diversity in deck types if that's what you mean by "diversity". So it seems strange to mention it. Fred

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<7OfeOgBY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <9i77n...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > writes > >"Scott DiBerardino" <sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote > >> > >> What's Happy Families? > > > >It's a method invented by Legbiter for constructing decks. Here's the gist > >of it, copied from an old post > > To rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad only? i'm not a netiquette expert but i think it is actually OK to post the HF formula to rec.games.trading-cards.misc. i actually devised the technique originally for Classic Rage though i did not have to write out the formula at that time because you typically have only 2-8 minions with no more than 3-4 relevant abilities each in Rage [AND card and deck-limits - TWO of them!*] so you can do the whole thing in your head. Just to add to the nice things Wes and James have been saying about HF, we find that the HF decks we use at home stand up quite well to the things our various distinguished visitors throw at us. Recently i have begun to slip in a few degenerate decks just to add to the fun and these also turn out to be fairly balanced in the environment. None of this should surprise anybody - HF is just a way of putting the toolbox deck within the reach of everybody, and toolbox and focus are pretty well balanced vis-a-vis one another under the current card-mix. i guess what i am saying is agreeing with james that if you are finding yourself being swamped by boring decks under NCL you should give HF a spin - if our experience is anything to go by you will soon be swamping the boring decks right back with your toolboxy masterpieces, and simultaneously the focussed/degenerate decks will cease to be boring. *AND the game is still pretty broken, but MASSIVE fun IMO.

(Moving back to r.c.t-c.jyhad, since this thread no longer has anything to offer to the other group) jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >However, I don't think CL's make the game a lot better. Although a >card or mechanism that encouraged more diversity in decks would be >nice. Mechanisms that encourage diversity: Uniqueness [1.5.1] [1.6.1.4] [4.1] Non-repetition [1.6.3.2] [1.6.3.5] [6.3.3.Political Action Cards] Cards that do so: Delaying Tactics [*] that say "one per game" [*] that say "one per combat/round" -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote in message news:<3b47fa21....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>... > I'm of the opinion that CL's promote variation in the cards used. I think its worth pointing out that this is the main motivating factor behind a lot of the groups that implement a CL... Even when it is pointed out that there really isn't that any direct impact on the ability to build "non-varietous" decks, the CL remians as a group's "banner" which tells its members and others "we don't tolerate non-creative decks here". That, IMO is why CLers hang on to thier view so strongly. The truth is, you _do_ still need a banner that encourages creativity among your group. But is shouldn't read "we use a CL because we want to encourage creativity" but rather more simply "we encourage creativity" Ultimately, any encouragement of this source is rooted in a group's social "pressure". NCL or CL, you're going to need that banner if you want to have a creative group... But it (variation) isn't really supported any more or less by either NCL or CL, IMNSHO Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: (in the context of the argument about the true effects of card limits) > The truth is, you _do_ still need a banner that > encourages creativity among your group. But is shouldn't read "we use > a CL because we want to encourage creativity" but rather more simply > "we encourage creativity" And why should you need such a banner? The game system itself should encourage that. I guess I can see why it gets tiring to have some guy play his stock stealth-bleed deck all the time but when push comes to shove, the game system deals with it. You start playing with bleed bounce or Archon Investigation cards or some such if he doesn't cut it out. Since he should be playing to win, he should get tired of losing horribly every game until he learns to vary his deck (and therefore his path to victory) every game. It should not require the group to hoist any "banners". > Ultimately, any encouragement of this source is rooted in a group's > social "pressure". Gosh I sure do vehemently disagree with this. Any encouragement of this source ought to come from the soundness of the game design and the strategy adopted by one's opponents.. Meaning if someone is repetitive and successful over time, either the game is imbalance or you're not responding to the challenge. Fred

> > The truth is, you _do_ still need a banner that > > encourages creativity among your group. But is shouldn't read "we use > > a CL because we want to encourage creativity" but rather more simply > > "we encourage creativity" > > And why should you need such a banner? The game system itself should > encourage that Needing such a banner is a matter of opinion. I LOVE creativity. I love losing to a deck concept I've never heard of, and if I face a creative deck that I just DESTROY I am certain to tell the person that I appreciate their creative efforts, how neat I found their deck idea, and any thoughts I may have to make the deck a smidge more effective. If I walk up to the table with one of my stock decks that I have won a whole passle of tourneys with and I sweep the table I feel good. If I pull out a creative or experimental deck and pull even a single VP I feel fantastic. Its a game and we all have different ways to have fun playing it. Some people have fun by sweeping the table. Some by figuring out how to make Madness Network/Reversal of Fortune work. Some are in the middle. Matt PS: I got a chance to re-new acquaintences with the Prince of Columbus this weekend. His deck would have been one of those I lambasted in my past as degenerate. (it had like 25 copies of the same card). HOWEVER, I saw past that to something truly effective and creative, and appreciated him for constructing such an unusual, yet potent deck. (So Peter, I did manage to learn something. Thats why I don't always assume I'm right :) That, combined with his absolute joy in playing this game made him one of the bright spots of Origins for me. (that and a friend winning both weekend constructed Jyhad tourneys, including the Qualifier).

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> Saying "the game was originally designed not to have CLs" is not in >> itself an argumnet against them. > >Well, yes, actually it is. Though you correctly point out that the original game >had flaws and consequently has been changed to ameliorate such flaws, that doesn't show >the lack of card limits is a flaw nor demonstrate any compelling need to change >it that way. Lots of rules were part of the original flawed game and do not require >changing. Certainly. I just think the original design-intentions are unimportant as compared to improving the game. *Magic* wasn't designed with a card limit, but I think everyone agrees it would be close to unplayable without one. (Insert your own version of "It's unplayable *with* one" here, if you're bent that way.) Note that I doubt card limits *would* improve the game. But if they did, I would have no purist concerns about changing the rules. >The importance of the game not being designed to have card limits is intended to point >out that all the cards and all the other rules were designed as if the game has no card >limits. Sure. This is why NCL works. Magic was not designed that way. >Adding card limits after the fact is awkward as it requires a careful >examination (which really should include a complete retesting) of every single existing >card in the game. In short, it's a extreme MAJOR alteration of the game in relation to >the environment in which the cards were playtested. NRA, by comparison, is a tweak. I understand what you mean, but frankly, IMO, removing the NRA would have a much larger impact on the game than a 6CL would. 30-Freak-Drives-I-sweep-the-table-on-round-three-decks, anyone? >I'm not suggesting that this automatically means a change on the order of card limits >could never improve a game designed without them. But it sure seems to be a good argument >against making changes on that order without being very sure what you're doing and exactly >why you're doing it. To me, limiting the influence of a relatively handful of cards can >not possibly justify applying blind limitations every single one of them. This is the whole >fallacy of the pro-CL argument in a nutshell, IMHO. "What's wrong with the game?", we ask. >The pro-CL argument can never possibly account for all the effects that slapping a limit on >every card has. For instance, I know this was a rethorical question, but I can't refrain from trying anyway... I'm not saying they can't be used in greater amounts, only that, for instance, a 6-Temple-Hounting-Ground deck would be so corner-case that it's exclusion would barely be noticed. >is it good or bad to limit "Blood Puppy" to 4? I've only ever seen one in play. If I had to hazard an answer, it would be "Irrelevant". >Haven Uncovered? Hmm... Haven is probably not the card most people aim at when arguing for a 4CL, but at least some decks include plenty of them. In no way one of the most important effects of 4CL, though. >Temple Hunting Ground? Since I can't possibly think of a deck that would want more, I'd say "irrelevant". >Sport Bike? Not overly important, I'd say. I don't think I've ever seen a deck with more than four. >Nephandus Mage? *No-one* touches Nephandus! When I've managed to scrape together six or so of the little guy, I'll make a deck out of him. >Gangrel Revel? Hugely stacked Gangrel Revels would be +3 fun... >And so on and so forth. >A case-by-case argument can not be made. So pro-CLers wave their hand over the whole process >and argue in vague generalities. The only way I can support this is if the result works >well, discernibly better than what we already have. Agree. Things were different before the 7/7 rulings - we used a 6CL, with a special 2CL for Thoughts Betrayed... >All indications is that it doesn't, >except insofar as no players are ever required to get more than the CL worth of >the most expensive, rare cards to build any particular deck. No (pre-Sabbat-War) Legacy of >Pander decks. That sounds sort of egalitarian but others have pointed out the down side >for poor players: the same thing that shields them from too many opposing rare cards also >prevents them from using repeated, stock common cards that might (probably are, I think) >the more important thing in gaining an edge. So it isn't even necessarily egalitarian, either. Agree. The Rules Team/DesignTeam is doing a great job on the Power Rares, I think, either toning them down or making them readily available. Now, when will this be done to Freak Drive and 5th Trad (which could as well be rare for how easy it is to get hold of)? >> However, I don't think CL's make the game a lot better. Although a >> card or mechanism that encouraged more diversity in decks would be >> nice. > >It would be. However, this is not a mechanic that has anything directly to do with diversity >in deck types if that's what you mean by "diversity". So it seems strange to mention it. Sorry, bad writing on my part. I meant more variation on the cards within a deck. I really think it's more pleasing if a deck has 5 Deflection and 4 Redirection than just 9 Deflections. It adds a little variation and unexpectedness. Something that encouraged this would be [ quoted text not captured ]

Matt wrote: >>(So Peter, I did manage to learn something. Thats why I don't always assume I'm right :)>> Heh heh :-) So I didn't get to play in the Qualifier as I was in the Star Fleet Battles finals, but was hoping to run into you somewhere. I guess I just barely missed you. >>That, combined with his absolute joy in playing this game made him one of the bright spots of Origins for me.>> Well, Jay is pretty much a bright spot, Origins or no. >>(that and a friend winning both weekend constructed Jyhad tourneys, including the Qualifier).>> You play with Bernie? Yeah, his deck that won the Friday tournament? It is almost identical to the deck I play that I was referring to when I made that comment weeks ago about a deck with 22 S:CE cards in it (he has more offense, I have more defense). That cracked me up :-) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B4A0836...@netcom.com>... > atomweaver wrote: > (in the context of the argument about the true effects of card limits) > > The truth is, you _do_ still need a banner that > > encourages creativity among your group. But is shouldn't read "we use > > a CL because we want to encourage creativity" but rather more simply > > "we encourage creativity" > > And why should you need such a banner? The game system itself should > encourage that. I guess I can see why it gets tiring to have some guy > play his stock stealth-bleed deck all the time but when push comes to > shove, the game system deals with it. You start playing with bleed > bounce or Archon Investigation cards or some such if he doesn't cut it > out. So you encourage creativity through selective construction of a deck that discourages a particular player's habitual use of a particular strategy. "the game itself" never stands to encourage variety. As you pointed out, it is up to other players to apply pressure to the offending participant (within the context of the game, of course) and get them to shift their habits. BTW, I put the word banner in quotes to infer that it is an implied condition of participation within the group, _not_ that it is some credo recited before each gaming session... > Since he should be playing to win, he should get tired of losing > horribly every game until he learns to vary his deck (and therefore his > path to victory) every game. It should not require the group to hoist > any "banners". > You mistake my meaning. I get the impression that you think I want players in a group to discourage banality merely by whining about it to the offending player. Nothing could be further from the truth... > > Ultimately, any encouragement of this source is rooted in a group's > > social "pressure". > > Gosh I sure do vehemently disagree with this. Any encouragement of this > source ought to come from the soundness of the game design and the strategy > adopted by one's opponents.. As I point oput above, by selecting a tactic to foil a person's habitual tactics, you are encouraging variety. The fact that it occurs within the game does not preculde it from being a choice on your part, and a social one at that. It is helped by the fact that foil tactics typically help you win games, but to ignore the societal aspect of this choice on your part isn't really helpful. Note that the change in banal player comes out of _your_ choices. The game gives you the context and tools to make such a choice (that's what makes Jyhad such a great game), but it is not in itself somehow directly involved in your decision to stymie that player. By comparison, you could try the equally valid, but less socially pressuring route of a tactic that runs parallel to the offending player's (or possibly outpaces him at what he is doing). You'd likely win your fair share, and take VP's from the offender, but would do so without applying pressure to the banal player to change his tactics. Alternatively, the simple habit of letting players know what caliber of game you wish to play before starting it is another way that social pressure is applied to play groups. Choosing to play a "tournament caliber" game, or an "experimental" game as a group forces players to get in line with their deck construction choices. Getting back to what I was talking about with the CL/NCL debate, neither of these choices directly affect these choices and pressures. they are created within the group, by the group, and stand apart from the rules of the game. that's why I said that CL/NCL and "variety" are two seperate discussions. Hope this clarifies my previous post... DaveZ/Atom Weaver

On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:18:23 +1000, Kevin Lowe wrote: >> >But it's no longer a competitive game of skill. >The biggest "challenge" in 4CL deck design is finding enough cards that >do the same thing to make a focused deck remotely possible. Then you >toss in one of every master that rocks in the 4CL environment (turn for >+1 stealth, sustained blood gain, turn to end combat etc). Whoopee. > >The challenge in no-L is to fine-tune the proportions of every card in >the deck, to balance the proportions exactly how you want them and to >ensure that your hand will flow smoothly. Deck building is a poor test of skill because it's a simple matter to copy a deck off the net. It's even easier than copying a book opening in chess because you don't have to memorise it. What I take most pleasure in is the skill of playing the game. A focussed deck (i.e. many copies of few cards) is less interesting than a more varied deck (toolbox or nCL) because fewer decisions are required - the deck tends to play itself. I hear it said that the most skilful format in Magic is the draft, because it tests both deck-building and deck-play. This is the format I like best for Vampire and I quite enjoyed the Sabbat War one I played at Origins. I hauled back two cases of starters for Shadowfist and Vampire and hope to use these to run more draft events here in the UK. I have a good format for such Shadowfist events already. Here's my idea for a Vampire format using VTES/Jyhad starters. They have a random mix of cards so some kind of draft is needed. The same idea can be used for other games with similar randomized starters. SUCCUBUS SEALED --------------- 1. Each player is given one starter which they may open. 2. The players sit at tables of 4-6. 3. An additional starter is opened on each table and laid out for inspection. 4. Starting with the most charming player (the umpire gets a casting vote), each player may take cards in rotation from the draft pool on the table. Each card that is taken must be replaced by a card from their stock, matching type for type - Vampire for Vampire, Master for Master, Minion for Minion. 5. Draft trading continues until there is a round of passes. Players may now draft from the pool without having to trade cards back. This will exhaust the pool unless there are cards which no-one wants at any price. These go to make a booby prize for the worst player. 6. Players may now tune their decks and commence play. It's probably best if the players are reseated for the first round to discourage counter-drafting and to encourage cooperative draft trading. Andrew

On 5 Jul 2001 02:38:55 -0700, Tony wrote: > Ok, how about a vote card that reads; If this referendum is > successful, for the remainder of the game no methusaleh may use a > minion card that they have already played 4 or more times. That's a good idea. Note that there's a card rather like this in Doomtown. The art shows the sheriff in his white hat, telling folks to: Move Along 7 of clubs Action Reaction: Target another player's Action card that has just resolved. No further copies of that Action card may be played by any player for the rest of the game. Reduce your maximum hand size by 1 permanently. Ace this card. Andrew

Your format is interesting and I let it stand without comment. However, Quoth Andrew: Deck building is a poor test of skill because it's a simple matter to copy a deck off the net. It's even easier than copying a book opening in chess because you don't have to memorise it. End Quote: I disagree strongly. Sure, anyone can copy a deck from the net, but I think a good measure of Jyhad skill is also in designing decks. My play skills are strong, but I got wiped at Origins because I made some deck design errors. For me to consider myself skillful at Jyhad I have to be able to both design a good deck and play it well. Thats why I consider folks from my area like Noal, Aaron, and Bernie (just to name a few) to be skillful Jyhad players because they dont just copy decks from the net. Each had a mostly-original deck concept that was well put together and played well. (two of the three qualified for Gen-Con) Just my opinion of course, Matt

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:18:23 +1000, Kevin Lowe wrote: > >The challenge in no-L is to fine-tune the proportions of every card in > >the deck, to balance the proportions exactly how you want them and to > >ensure that your hand will flow smoothly. > > Deck building is a poor test of skill because it's a simple matter to > copy a deck off the net. It's even easier than copying a book opening > in chess because you don't have to memorise it. I strongly disagree. You can copy a decks from any number of sources but so what? There's very few reliable sources in existence. Just because some schmo declares he's won gads of tournaments with a deck doesn't mean it's a good deck. He may be exaggerating about the wins or about the quality of the competition. Even if he isn't, you don't know what the metagame he in which he was playing looked like nor exactly how he used the cards he used that led him to build in those particular cards. The latter is sometimes obvious but sometimes it isn't. Ultimately, deck lists are just suggestions, just like someone suggesting what a card is good for or when and how to play it. Perhaps the information offered can be a little more specific than a suggestion about when to draft a card or when to play it, but the extremely specific information (exact numbers of various cards in a deck) is precisely stuff that's highly controversial and may to translate well in your environment or to your playing style. > What I take most pleasure in is the skill of playing the game. Not me. CCGs are about deck building. Often the actual play isn't that interesting, particularly when someone's deck produces extremely strange card ordering results (13 Bum's Rushes, 6 Haven Uncovereds, 16 of the 19 rush cards turn up in the second half of the deck) or when the metagame and table order works strong in favor of one or two of the players. Also, though games can easily be won or lost on the choice of when to play cards, the actual wisdom of the choices usually tends to hinge on predicting what you'll draw soon. Since I'm incapable of predicting what I'm about to topdeck, I don't put a lot of stock in calling how individual games play out "skill". (Though I can get cranky about it at times if I feel victimized too many games in a row.) > I hear it said that the most skilful format in Magic is the draft, > because it tests both deck-building and deck-play. I think deckbuilding with an unlimited pool of cards and drafting/deckbuilding from a limited pool are two completely different skills. There are not so many decisions to be made in the latter case; however, you have to make such decisions with no practice whatsoever given the particular pool of cards you're offered and choose to draft, which some of us find more challenging. I can't see any basis for stating that one is a lot more skill than the other. One is a lot more easy to practice at than the other since drafts are hard to arrange whereas regular constructed decks can be built any time you're sitting next to your collection and tested in a wide variety of situations. People who enjoy drafts and have the chance to engage in them a lot will likely be much more practiced at them then others and I suspect that edge will really show in a large tournament. Fred

>From: "Matt Latham" >I disagree strongly. Sure, anyone can copy a deck from the net, but I think >a good measure of Jyhad skill is also in designing decks. My play skills are >strong, Amen brother, I have the highest regard for Matt and was more than a bit wary when he and I were at the same table 1st round of the qualifier. Jyhad decks often are not effective in copying from the Net. I've tried one that was a tourney winner last year, and while it plays well I have a difficult time getting into the deck designers head to see why some cards were included over others. It becomes even more apparent to me when I've attempted to help others design/refine decks and they stare at me blankly not getting what I'm trying to do. Bottom line is that deck building in Jyhad is MUCH more personalized than in any other card game I've had the pleasure of playing, as your deck truely is YOUR deck. Regards, Bernie

[ quoted text not captured ] Amusing tricks to do with the "out-of-towners" visiting: Everyone play someone else's deck, and NOT someone in your playgroup. Let them look at the crypt and library, but don't really brief them on it. Pick randomly. Note how people play the decks incorrectly in many cases. Note that even with a deck that isn't yours, you can recognize a deck from your playgroup being played incorrectly across table. (Resist the urge to say "gimme that!" =) Note with great amusement that "that deck that just never works like it should" gets the perfect draw and sweeps the table when it's not in your hands. Go ahead, play it next game. You'll still get hand-jam and 0 VP, just like all the other times you played it. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

In article <BAEC28653CAF919C.168410D6...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >I have a good format for such Shadowfist events already. Here's my >idea for a Vampire format using VTES/Jyhad starters. What an excellent idea! I wonder if perhaps this would work well for Doomtown as well? The Milwaukee Doomtown League may give this a shot next time. Eric

In article <3B4C8429...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Not me. CCGs are about deck building. You play Magic and have never tried Doomtown or Shadowfist, right? Thats the only way I can see someone coming to this conclusion. Fist and Doomtown are related much more to play than to deck building, especially Doomtown. Game skill matters more than deck construction almost every time and since your easily cycle cards and your deck recycles when you run out, issues of luck are often minimized compared to other card games. Eric

In rec.games.trading-cards.misc Eric Jome <ej...@earth.execpc.com> wrote: : Thats the only way I can see someone coming to this conclusion. : Fist and Doomtown are related much more to play than to deck : building, especially Doomtown. Game skill matters more than Yup. Shadowfist does have some elements of degenerate deck-building-- virtually every new player goes through a love affair with mono-Ascended cheese, but by and large, multiplayer dynamics prevent any one deck archetype from dominating. Doomtown's cheatin' and lowball draw mechanics make it so that you either: (a) can't rely on a card coming out or (b) increase your chances of being caught cheatin by playing too many of the same card. : deck construction almost every time and since your easily cycle : cards and your deck recycles when you run out, issues of luck : are often minimized compared to other card games. However, the original poster does make a point-- those that play a lot of sealed have an advantage in this format. I think this is perfectly okay-- along the lines of "those that play a lot of constructed will have an advantage in that format." Worse yet (or not), those that buy lots of cards have an advantage in that format, too. Speaking for myself, playing sealed draft Shadowfist is the most fun i've had playing 'Fist in the last few months. Using, and even coveting, subpar cards really defines the environment. I'd be curious how Boot Hill starters would play in that format, given the fixed presence of that low-value strike that increases the Fear Level and has 2 CP. I mentioned this briefly to Zev (getting back to Shadowfist for a moment); he sort of shrugged and said Z-Man is going to focus on expansions rather than randomized starters or a new basic set. I think, given the discussion on the Doomtown list about the demise of DT, this may be the wiser move from a financial standpoint. There are still _some_ starters out there. -- Eric

eri...@seemysig.edu wrote: > However, the original poster does make a point-- those that > play a lot of sealed have an advantage in this format. I think this > is perfectly okay-- along the lines of "those that play a lot of > constructed will have an advantage in that format." The latter conclusion is also true but mostly irrelevant. Unlimited constructed play is by far the easiest type of play to arrange and the most common. It's less usual that any two players will have a huge degree of difference in the play experience. > Worse yet (or > not), those that buy lots of cards have an advantage in that format, > too. That's true. No matter how well balanced a game is, number of cards owned will yield a distinct advantage. Fred

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:<9ihut4$3if$1...@nntp2-cm.news.eni.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, to expand on this. As Peter pointed out earlier, one of the new players commented that he had seen a nosferatu rush deck "much like" the one he was playing.(it was Peter who posted the deck) More suprising, was that that new player had actually copied several of those decks from Lasombras Tournament winning archive. He said: "How do those decks win. I make them, and our playgroup just kicks the crap out of me" Wierd, but I have tried those tournament winners as well, and cannot make them work. Creating a deck that you can *play* is just as important as making a deck that can win. Knowing what to discard, and when you have a good hand are hard when playing some elses deck. Sorry Andrew, but deckbuilding is of vast importance. No, its not everything. Hell if I was David Tatu it wouldn't matter what I played, I'd just throw in a succubus club and confuse the other players into losing!(seen it happen) But for those of us who aren't as charasmatic(or as scary as Peter, or James Hamblin with a green puppet) we will just have to rely on solid deck construction, and a complete understanding of how our decks are made. Aaron PS sorry you didn't make it matt, we'll miss you at gencon

> Note how people play the decks incorrectly in many cases. Note that >even with a deck that isn't yours, you can recognize a deck from your >playgroup being played incorrectly across table. (Resist the urge to say >"gimme that!" =) One of our players uses my cards. When he picks one of my new decks to play, he always gets it wrong. It's sort of amusing. Last deck he played was an Assamite combat deck, and he got his ass kicked most of the time. OTOH, if you can learn something from playing a deck wrong, that's useful. I like trying other people's decks, though I do end up whining a lot when playing them. Surprises me the people who refuse to play someone else's deck even when none of their own interest them.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:44:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >I strongly disagree. You can copy a decks from any number of sources but >so what? There's very few reliable sources in existence. Just because some >schmo declares he's won gads of tournaments with a deck doesn't mean it's >a good deck. He may be exaggerating about the wins or about the quality of >the competition. Even if he isn't, you don't know what the metagame he in >which he was playing looked like nor exactly how he used the cards he used >that led him to build in those particular cards. The latter is sometimes >obvious but sometimes it isn't. The decks listed in the winning deck archive and the clan newsletters come with enough of a pedigree to make them a smart choice. The only things that invalidate them are rule changes, errata and new cards. There's no shortage of those but Vampire is nowhere near the set rotation upheavals that you get in Magic. And the Magic metagame is dominated by net decks, isn't it? >CCGs are about deck building. It's about 10% of VTES. Equally important are: Observation Charisma Knowledge of the cards and rules Tactical skill Strategic sense Money = cards, time, travel and expenses Stamina Luck of the draw Dedication = the will to win Currently I've got about 3/10 and deck-building is an easy one to tick off. What's your score? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:44:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >I strongly disagree. You can copy a decks from any number of sources but > >so what? There's very few reliable sources in existence. Just because some > >schmo declares he's won gads of tournaments with a deck doesn't mean it's > >a good deck. He may be exaggerating about the wins or about the quality of > >the competition. Even if he isn't, you don't know what the metagame he in > >which he was playing looked like nor exactly how he used the cards he used > >that led him to build in those particular cards. The latter is sometimes > >obvious but sometimes it isn't. > > The decks listed in the winning deck archive and the clan newsletters > come with enough of a pedigree to make them a smart choice. Then making a smart choice is skill. Anyway, this doesn't address the issues I have about local metagames and building decks that work with your style and preferences of play. > The only > things that invalidate them are rule changes, errata and new cards. And the local metagame. Also, the local metagame. Did I mention the local metagame? > >CCGs are about deck building. > > It's about 10% of VTES. Equally important are: > > Observation > Charisma > Knowledge of the cards and rules > Tactical skill > Strategic sense > Money = cards, time, travel and expenses > Stamina > Luck of the draw > Dedication = the will to win > > Currently I've got about 3/10 and deck-building is an easy one to tick > off. What's your score? 75-85%, if you don't count luck of the draw. Luck, if counted, is always very important in CCGs. The order in which cards come up and how sympathetic or non-sympathetic the luck factor can be seems to me to vary immensely from game to game. Aside from that, the fact is that I don't agree with the word, "equally", which you used above. These are just a list of things. Counting them equal is like giving every country in the U.N. an equal vote whether it's Luxembourg or China. "Stamina" is 1/10th of VTES?!? Really! (Maybe in some of those all-nighters where you're starting to get a little groggy...I usually quit when I start to notice the cards tapping themselves. :) ) Fred

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] There's a certain freedom that comes from playing someone else's deck. The crushing responsibility of being a total loser with 0 V.P. and the first person ousted (and making the beer run or whatever) is shared with whatever fool thought that putting a bunch of 10 cap vampires in the crypt would be a clever idea. - Jason Bell

> > There's a certain freedom that comes from playing someone else's > deck. The crushing responsibility of being a total loser with 0 V.P. > and the first person ousted (and making the beer run or whatever) > is shared with whatever fool thought that putting a bunch of 10 cap > vampires in the crypt would be a clever idea. > I totally agree. For a while I had deckmaking block so i played other people's decks. When you're playing someone else's deck you're totally free from any anxiety you might have about having your personal creation crushed and humiliated. You're also free from thoughts about what your deck is supposed to do which can sometimes inhibit creative play. As a bonus you get an insight into another player's mind which may spark some thoughts of your own.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:26:38 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Aside from that, the fact is that I don't agree with the word, "equally", which you >used above. These are just a list of things. Counting them equal is like giving >every country in the U.N. an equal vote whether it's Luxembourg or China. "Stamina" >is 1/10th of VTES?!? Really! (Maybe in some of those all-nighters where you're >starting to get a little groggy...I usually quit when I start to notice the cards >tapping themselves. :) ) Yes, really. I saw a VTES event at Orccon in which the finalists were just those players who were willing to play on so late. Myself, I have just come back from Origins in which I won a big event, playing the final at 3 am with 5 hours jet lag working against me and a missed night's sleep to boot. It took some serious will-to-win and a fair bit of stamina to get me through that one. Two nights later, I retired early from a VTES draft event because, amongst other things, I was feeling groggy. I was then bushwacked on the walkway and tempted into an 8-player Doomtown game. I was almost unable to keep my eyes open for that and eventually resigned early. I was using a borrowed deck but had no trouble wielding it in my sleep. Stamina is _more_ important than deck-building. It's 5 am now and the dawn is breaking so I'd better go to bed <grin>. I'm deliberately keeping US time now so that I'll be ready for Gencon in a couple of weeks ... Andrew

>>> CCGs are about deck building. >> >> It's about 10% of VTES. Equally important are: >> >> Observation >> Charisma >> Knowledge of the cards and rules >> Tactical skill >> Strategic sense >> Money = cards, time, travel and expenses >> Stamina >> Luck of the draw >> Dedication = the will to win >> >> Currently I've got about 3/10 and deck-building is an easy one to tick >> off. What's your score? 5/10 maybe? My luck is picking up. Last time I had hideous hand jam reminded me how long it had been since I *had* hideous hand jam. Well, I guess that could be deckbuilding, too, but either way I get a point. I think you should collapse "Charisma" and "Strategic Sense" into "Table Manipulation," at about 27% of ability. > "Stamina" > is 1/10th of VTES?!? Really! (Maybe in some of those all-nighters where > you're > starting to get a little groggy...I usually quit when I start to notice the > cards > tapping themselves. :) ) Agreed. Stamina is at least 17%, maybe 17.6%. =P Really, I don't think a tournament report goes by these days that there isn't a "After 7 hours of VTES playing, I just wasn't thinking straight." [ quoted text not captured ]

"theventrue" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I have made a couple of decks by centering them around the cards that, in my opponents' decks, made me cravenly afraid. - Jason Bell

<snip start of original message from Andrew davidson> [ quoted text not captured ] This is a nice idea. i see one problem, which is that the deck opened, being random, will be of use to one player at the table and not to the others [most likely, though depending on chance it could be of use to two]. So i suggest the following tweak to what is essentially a fine idea: Once the tables are all sitting comfortably, the referee breaks and shuffles x starters where x is the number of tables and x/n is as near integral as possible given the number [n] of starters in the set we are talking about. 90 cards are dealt to each table, and then [in the words of Blake, near enough] All Is Done as Andrew Davidson Hath Foretold.

On 12 Jul 2001 14:57:43 -0700, legbiter wrote: >This is a nice idea. i see one problem, which is that the deck opened, >being random, will be of use to one player at the table and not to the >others [most likely, though depending on chance it could be of use to >two]. So i suggest the following tweak to what is essentially a fine >idea: > >Once the tables are all sitting comfortably, the referee breaks and >shuffles x starters where x is the number of tables and x/n is as near >integral as possible given the number [n] of starters in the set we >are talking about. 90 cards are dealt to each table, and then [in the >words of Blake, near enough] All Is Done as Andrew Davidson Hath >Foretold. I'm not quite with you. The VTES/Jyhad starters (the WotC ones) are already pre-shuffled aren't they? They are the ones that you can buy cheap and that's what this system is for. They are stacked to a certain degree (a fixed number of vampires, for example) but I didn't think that a given starter was skewed towards any one clan or discipline. Are we at cross-purposes? Andrew

In message <BAEC28653CAF919C.168410D6...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Deck building is a poor test of skill because it's a simple matter to >copy a deck off the net. Not true. Deck building comprises building a deck, certainly. However, a deck is not just a deck. A deck is an extension of your play-style. If you just copy a deck off the net, you have "failed" to get that tick on your box unless you know that your play-style is so similar to that of the player you are copying that it is effectively a deck you can play exactly in the fashion intended. Jyhad is a highly strategic game, but it is also a highly personal game in a way I have never found The Other Game to be - partly, but not solely, because of the strong social element. You have to know your own limits in amongst other people, rather than in a 1-on-1 where social elements are, effectively, irrelevant. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses B457CA213D7E6 It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses 68C3695D623D5D

In message <3b4c9cdc$0$18891$272e...@news.execpc.com>, Eric Jome <ej...@earth.execpc.com> writes >>Not me. CCGs are about deck building. > >You play Magic and have never tried Doomtown or Shadowfist, right? > >Thats the only way I can see someone coming to this conclusion. >Fist and Doomtown are related much more to play than to deck >building, especially Doomtown. Certainly true - but all CCGs are, to some extent, about deck building; it's just not the *only* facet or, in any given set of circumstances, the most important one. Games with fast recycling, as I recall Shadowfist to be, are much forgiving, for instance. (As the old stalwart of Feldon's Cane made a lot of average players quite lazy in Magic.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<E5CFF895A452FB22.9B714111...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah. Sorry. When you mentioned starters i thought you meant the preconstructed decks, but now i realise you are talking about what i call boosters. OK! Your idea will work just fine without my suggested modification. Sorry for the confusion!

On 13 Jul 2001 03:23:31 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Ah. Sorry. When you mentioned starters i thought you meant the >preconstructed decks, but now i realise you are talking about what i >call boosters. I'm talking about the WotC Starters - 76 cards and a rulebook in a box, 10 to a display. Boosters are those smaller bundles in foil wrappers, right? Andrew

> There's a certain freedom that comes from playing someone else's > deck. The crushing responsibility of being a total loser with 0 V.P. > and the first person ousted (and making the beer run or whatever) > is shared with whatever fool thought that putting a bunch of 10 cap > vampires in the crypt would be a clever idea. > > - Jason Bell That was me putting them in, and it is clever, unless I die. Cameron

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<92FBDC53A9DA41B8.164DD239...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Righto, and for the purposes of your argument these are big boosters in my parlance. Your idea will work just fine! Good one, Andrew!