Thoughts RE Card Limitations

From the articles I've been reading here, it appears most people favor not using any card limits in deck construction at all. Personally, I can think of several reasons to have CL and want to offer my thoughts on it in hopes of convincing everyone to see things my way (isn't that what we all want?) When I was playing on a regular basis, we used the following CL: * limit of four of any given card OR limit of number of Methuselahs at the start of play, whichever is greater. (i.e. a game with 6 players means CL 6) * unique cards, including crypt cards had the same limitations (I've heard of people playing with a CL of one for unique cards). Our reasoning being that if you pull out multiple copies of the same unique card because you had too many in your deck, and thus found yourself crippled by luck of the shuffle, you got what you were asking for. WHY: Having a CL gives players who are unable to shell out lots of money on cards a reasonable chance to keep up with other, more wealthy players. A deck with 10 Wake With Evening's Freshness against the player who only has one WWEF that came in her starter deck will tend to be a little lop-sided. I've played Magic against people who have poured more than a thousand dollars into cards and it's simply impossible to beat them. Jyhad/VTES doesn't succumb to this as badly, partly due to the multiple-player nature of the game, but I can still see an extreme difference between players of different financial backgrounds. Having a CL tend to improve card-trading amongst folks--if you only need five or six of card X, you may be a little more willing to trade off the seventh and eighth copies. Having a CL puts some variety into the game, causing players to find new strategies rather than playing the same (effective, but boring) cards each round. I've blathered enough. Brian sago...@maroon.tc.umn.edu

I'd cover my head if I were you :-) -Peter D Bakija

Hi Jarrod, I mostly just skip over CL posts, but I didn't recognise your name so I thought I'd say hello.... On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Jarrod P. Stenberg wrote: [Polite and reasonable stuff about CLs deleted.] > WHY: Having a CL gives players who are unable to shell out lots of money > on cards a reasonable chance to keep up with other, more wealthy players. > A deck with 10 Wake With Evening's Freshness against the player who only > has one WWEF that came in her starter deck will tend to be a little > lop-sided. > I've played Magic against people who have poured more than a thousand > dollars into cards and it's simply impossible to beat them. Jyhad/VTES > doesn't succumb to this as badly, partly due to the multiple-player nature > of the game, but I can still see an extreme difference between players of > different financial backgrounds. It has been my experience that CLs in Jyhad give a huge advantage to people who buy lots of cards, where as NL decks can be made fairly cheeply, since they rely on common cards. Common cards can be purchased for $10 per thousand (random) or anywhere from .10 to .25 for individual commons. Thus a NL deck can be made fairly cheeply. Rare cards, on the other hand, come one to a booster pack, and go for about a buck apiece. And if you are playing CL then you need lots of rare cards to do the same things that NL decks can do. > > Having a CL tend to improve card-trading amongst folks--if you only need > five or six of card X, you may be a little more willing to trade off the > seventh and eighth copies. Well, this is probably true. You generally need to get 8 - 12 cards before you have enough (although, in my group people still trade a lot, we do have thousands of common cards though.) > > Having a CL puts some variety into the game, causing players to find new > strategies rather than playing the same (effective, but boring) cards each > round. I see this arguement a lot, so it must be true for most groups. In our group if you show up with the same deck two or three weeks in a row, it will be shut down. A lot of the fun we have is designing new decks every week, trying to guess if the person who won last week will have the same deck (unlikely).... Algustas *****Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.***** George Bernard Shaw

In article <sten0013-160...@dialup-5-114.gw.umn.edu>, sten...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Jarrod P. Stenberg) wrote: > From the articles I've been reading here, it appears most people favor not > using any card limits in deck construction at all. Personally, I can > think of several reasons to have CL and want to offer my thoughts on it in > hopes of convincing everyone to see things my way (isn't that what we all > want?) This arguement has been hashed over twice (AFAIK) since the creation of this group. It is an arguement that usually wins few converts, and was recently hashed over. I hope we don't start a new round of debate ('cause then I wouldn't have time to play! :) > When I was playing on a regular basis, we used the following CL: > * limit of four of any given card OR limit of number of Methuselahs at > the start of play, whichever is greater. (i.e. a game with 6 players > means CL 6) > * unique cards, including crypt cards had the same limitations (I've > heard of people playing with a CL of one for unique cards). Our reasoning > being that if you pull out multiple copies of the same unique card because > you had too many in your deck, and thus found yourself crippled by luck of > the shuffle, you got what you were asking for. > WHY: Having a CL gives players who are unable to shell out lots of money > on cards a reasonable chance to keep up with other, more wealthy players. > A deck with 10 Wake With Evening's Freshness against the player who only > has one WWEF that came in her starter deck will tend to be a little > lop-sided. > I've played Magic against people who have poured more than a thousand > dollars into cards and it's simply impossible to beat them. Jyhad/VTES > doesn't succumb to this as badly, partly due to the multiple-player nature > of the game, but I can still see an extreme difference between players of > different financial backgrounds. Your arguement is one of the points of contention amongst NL/CL players. The CL camp feels as you, the NL camp thinks the CLs actually help the $-player. For the most part, no consensus was reached on this issue. > Having a CL tend to improve card-trading amongst folks--if you only need > five or six of card X, you may be a little more willing to trade off the > seventh and eighth copies. CL or NL, trading is not effected. Even if a $-player is playing NL, you will still have extra copies of some cards to trade and not enough copies of other cards. Even if the same player is playing CL, they will still have extra copies of some cards, and not enough of the other. Why? Most $-players have more than one deck. For the players with only a starter and a booster pack, they will be trading either way. > Having a CL puts some variety into the game, causing players to find new > strategies rather than playing the same (effective, but boring) cards each > round. Another point of contention between NL/CL. Once again, only disagreement resulted. Your point is echoed by many CLers. The NL camp sees a lesser variety of viable strategies. As I said above, most people don't have their minds changed. My opinion changed over time, but I expect most people's opinion on CL/NL won't change overnight. Rather than hashing out these points again now, let's regroup and maybe argue them again next year after two more expansions. There will be two more expansions, right, WotC? <nervous look> I hope so. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

sten...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Jarrod P. Stenberg) writes: >From the articles I've been reading here, it appears most people favor not >using any card limits in deck construction at all. Personally, I can >think of several reasons to have CL and want to offer my thoughts on it in >hopes of convincing everyone to see things my way (isn't that what we all >want?) These are the standard points of CL, and I will endeavor to answer each with the standard replies of NL: >WHY: Having a CL gives players who are unable to shell out lots of money >on cards a reasonable chance to keep up with other, more wealthy players. >A deck with 10 Wake With Evening's Freshness against the player who only >has one WWEF that came in her starter deck will tend to be a little >lop-sided. In some instances, yes. But CL also favor the big$ player who can afford the rare "dupes" of the essential common/uncommon cards. Wakey is a common card that is simply invaulable to all decks. Wakey itself is a problem. The fact that it can be utilized effectively in every deck indicates this. The more you have, the better - so with this card left as a spoiler, the person with more will have better chances, true. > I've played Magic against people who have poured more than a thousand >dollars into cards and it's simply impossible to beat them. Jyhad/VTES >doesn't succumb to this as badly, partly due to the multiple-player nature >of the game, but I can still see an extreme difference between players of >different financial backgrounds. It is also different in that the rares are *not* usually more powerful "must-have" cards in Jyhad, like they are in magic. Most Jyhad rares are very flavorful, but hard to use effectively. A few (Freak Drive) can become spoilers when used in combination (5th Tradition) - but combos are supposed to be effective, and this combo isn't going to break a golden-tenent (GT) game (no repeat actions). >Having a CL tend to improve card-trading amongst folks--if you only need >five or six of card X, you may be a little more willing to trade off the >seventh and eighth copies. True, but only if the game is worth playing. Sure, Jyhad under CL is a good game, but Jyhad under NL is (opinion alert) a better game, simply because it was designed to be played NL. If I thought Jyhad sucked, I would be more willing to trade my second copy of card X - but that doesn't mean WotC should try to make the game suck just to boost trading (tho they took a step that way with the card backs and another step with the DS errors and the subsequent posturing) >Having a CL puts some variety into the game, causing players to find new >strategies rather than playing the same (effective, but boring) cards each >round. But CL also favor Malk S&B, which makes the CL game much more boring as you never see any of the unusual decks - just Malk S&B and an occasional Ventrue voter or Gangrel/Brujah combat deck. >I've blathered enough. There's never enough. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | My neurons must have tenure - http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | none of them can be fired. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |