Zip Gun

I've been playing the game since the original release and understand that the game is intently based on keeping some realism in an unrealistic world. Recently after being asked to ressurrect some of my old decks to start playing again I went to the Wizards page for updates to the rules and was dismayed to find that for no reason whatsoever the infamous Zip Gun and ammo cards don't work. Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the ammo cards. Vince

"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The decision to ban the use of ammo from Zip Guns wasn't based on intuition, but rather on the "broken" combo of Zip Gun/Dragon Breath Rounds, which had a weak expense to effect ratio. Now, if you wish to generate the same effect, you need to do a Disguised Weapon/Saturday Night Special/Dragon Breath Rounds combo. Let me assure you it's not that much more dificult to pull off, and the expense is much more in line with the result... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

Richard D. Zopf wrote: > "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: <snip> > >Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively > >the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the > >ammo cards. > > The decision to ban the use of ammo from Zip Guns wasn't based on > intuition, but rather on the "broken" combo of Zip Gun/Dragon Breath > Rounds, which had a weak expense to effect ratio. Do you really believe a *gun* that shoots *pencil stakes* can shoot DBR also?IMHO this card should be re-labeled as weapon and nothing more. Madjack

"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > I've been playing the game since the original release and understand that > the game is intently based on keeping some realism in an unrealistic world. > Recently after being asked to ressurrect some of my old decks to start > playing again I went to the Wizards page for updates to the rules and was > dismayed to find that for no reason whatsoever the infamous Zip Gun and ammo > cards don't work. > > Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively > the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the > ammo cards. Game balance. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

LSJ wrote in message <77vcun$jn2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >> I've been playing the game since the original release and understand that >> the game is intently based on keeping some realism in an unrealistic world. >> Recently after being asked to ressurrect some of my old decks to start >> playing again I went to the Wizards page for updates to the rules and was >> dismayed to find that for no reason whatsoever the infamous Zip Gun and ammo >> cards don't work. >> >> Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively >> the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the >> ammo cards. > >Game balance. > >-- Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of "fixing them"... personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to 2)...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the other overpowering cards... BTW I never found dragon's breath rounds with zip guns to be that overpowering... especially since most combat decks have their own ways to deal with it... and non-combat decks tend to avoid it or prevent it... leaving me with a damaged vamp holding an exploded gun. Thanks for not clearing that whole mess for me... Vince [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7804rc$5g3@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a >game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes >to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of >"fixing them"... They don't *just* ban them though. They restrict them, and re-print them with new wording. V:TES doesn't have the luxury of reprinting. The re-wordings and errata that would be reprinted are issued as errata instead. > personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way >they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to >2)... For the over-powered cards, perhaps it would be a possibility. However, a power card is a power card is a power card. When I draw it, it's still powerful. I just draw it fewer times. Also, the staple cards of many decks require being in there more than 5 times - Bewitching Oration, say, Kine Resources Contested, Corruption (especially), stealth (especially non-Obfuscate based stealth), intercept etc. Many deck styles just *don't* work without the No Limits game we play. Also, the game was designed from the start as being no limits. They screwed up a few times, messed up a few cards, didn't spot a few combos etc. But the vast majority of the game is designed on a no-limits basis. You may like to visit http://www.io.com/_mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html and read the various items against 4CL (4 card limit). >and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then >it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of >the other overpowering cards... Again, you need to go back and read the arguments to understand this. In a Magic environment, say, Lotus is still bloody powerful, even if it's only in your deck once. And the overpowering cards have also been "fixed" to make them not overpowering. There are arguments over what would have been better - re-writing, banning, restricting etc. - and all have their upside and downside. One way, rather than restricting the card, is just to make it balanced. See http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra and check under the recent batches of rulings. Unfortunately, what holds up in your play environment is not true of all play environments and tournaments and this is why the errata have to be issued. Some groups decide not to adopt them wholesale, although most people who have used them have found them to be helpful in the long run. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:16:01 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a >game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes >to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of >"fixing them"... personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way ...It's just Magic. (shrug) =) >they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to >2)...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then >it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of >the other overpowering cards... Jyhad was specifically designed so that card limits would not be necessary to maintain game balance. >BTW I never found dragon's breath rounds with zip guns to be that >overpowering... especially since most combat decks have their own ways to >deal with it... and non-combat decks tend to avoid it or prevent it... >leaving me with a damaged vamp holding an exploded gun. "Adds 2 aggravated damage to a gun's damage. This burns the gun after it is used. Only usable as damage is being resolved." - from DBR's card text. Zip guns provide an all-important maneuver (which DOES make things difficult for combat decks who'd like to IG you) and one point of damage. They come with a built-in Disguised Weapon, which means that they fit in any deck completely as a surprise, not just OBF decks. They cost zero pool, meaning that you can burn through guns until you run out of cards with no significant cost to you. Their only effective "cost" is one point of damage PER COMBAT to the vampire holding it, which can be prevented in 6,000,000 different ways OR just gained back via hunting later. Dodge or S:CE decks play their strategy during the strike phase, which happens before DBR can be played, so if you see Dodge or S:CE, you don't bother exploding your gun. Card text is a little vague about when the gun is burned in relation to additional strikes, but I'm going to take the narrow view and say that DBR only applies to one strike -- but even in this case, any prevention that isn't superior Skin of Steel is still largely worthless against a Blur. If you take the wide view, 3 points of normal and 6 points of agg in a round (all for the cost of two vampire blood - one for the gun damage, one for the Blur) is absolutely ridiculous. And you get to do it again next combat if you have both cards in your hand. Or you could just take a lot of Torie, Assamite, and Brujah weenies with CEL, and instead of using DBR rounds, use Glaser rounds - you only get 7 total points of damage on an opposing minion, and you now -must- use a Blur or you can't play the ammo, but you also get to keep your gun, all for the same 2 blood cost. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Vagabond <ill...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote: >Richard D. Zopf wrote: >> "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: ><snip> >> >Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively >> >the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the >> >ammo cards. >> >> The decision to ban the use of ammo from Zip Guns wasn't based on >> intuition, but rather on the "broken" combo of Zip Gun/Dragon Breath >> Rounds, which had a weak expense to effect ratio. >Do you really believe a *gun* that shoots *pencil stakes* can shoot DBR also?IMHO >this card should be re-labeled as weapon and nothing more. For all purposes that I can think of, the errata that's been issued amounts to the same thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >LSJ wrote in message <77vcun$jn2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Game balance. >> >>-- >Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a >game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes >to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of >"fixing them"... That is a much easier route to take, particularly when you're releaseing an expansion every three months to have poeple get new cards. The effort with V:TES has been to make a balanced game, using as many rpinted cards as possible. It's an ongoing process, and LSJ (the WotC Net-Rep) has demonstrated an open ear to revising previous errata, if said errata is shown to have too much of a debilitating effect on the card (cf Tomb of Ramses, III). >personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way >they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to >2)...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then >it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of >the other overpowering cards... Card limits like that haven't been around for about two to three years. The base rules have never provided for a card limit in V:TSE, and with good reason. It's a patch fix for any game when the real problem lies in a very few cards (this holds for V:TES, M:t$$, and any other). CL has been discussed here as nauseam, and the final resolution most people came to was that you could do one or more of the following: 1) Play in your gaming group any way you want. It's your gaming group, after all. 2) Play non-DCI V:TES tournaments any way you want, they're your tournaments, after all. 3) Play DCI Sanctioned V:TES tournments with DCI Tournament rules, including the full range of Official Errata, Rulings, and Clarifications. This includes no card limit. If you're uncomfortable with other "overpowered" cards, I'd encourage you to raise a rational discussion about them here, and search Dejanews for what's been said about them to date. >BTW I never found dragon's breath rounds with zip guns to be that >overpowering... especially since most combat decks have their own ways to >deal with it... and non-combat decks tend to avoid it or prevent it... >leaving me with a damaged vamp holding an exploded gun. Then use DBR's like crazy. Go for it! And hey, a Sawed Off Shotgun has two barrels anyway, so it should be able to use two DBR's per strike. That's only common sense, right? >Thanks for not clearing that whole mess for me... Oh, it ever remains our highest priority to clear up your messes.... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok so this brings me back to where I started... why place a limitation on the gun... while you're at it you could add errata to the Rulebook itself for ammo cards that despite what the cards says, they are to be used with the strike... now you cripple ANY ammo combo with any gun but to me it makes sense intuitive sense and is a rule that you could implement on the whole ... for instance, realistically, you can't decide that in the middle of a firefight that when you finally land a hit that you were using a non-average ammo(what the cards represent) And as for S:CE and Dodges... it's never been a bad thing that because of these cards that his (the one with the ammo) that he's stuck with those ammo cards in his hand if he is either relying on them and doesn't want to throw them away... not to mention the overload of zip guns when all of his kindred have them and now they're piling up in his hand not getting through for damage... start discarding them for the other cards in your deck...(perhaps thought betrays.... or similar cards to get the combo off)... and you're still crippling pieces of the puzzle when you only draw more of the same card(perhaps because you've dumped a dozen of each into the deck). At any rate... it's a moot point... as it has been pointed out to me... my group can decide how we choose to play the game and how we restrict cards(through errata or restrictions)... we plan to do this anyway with recent problems we've seen in other games... I just hate to take some rulings and ignore others based on the fact that the ruling was only made for those that couldn't deal with it correctly with what they have in front of them... overall though, I feel, it invalidates the rulings as a whole... Thanks Vince

Vince Johnosn wrote: "Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of "fixing them"..." WOTC has almost zero need to errata or "fix" cards for Magic that are broken, misprinted, too powerful, too weak, or just plain dumb. As Magic is still being printed, the bad cards just drop out of the cycle and get reprinted as something else. Compare Lightning Bolt to Shock, Repentant Blacksmith to Desciple of Law, or Black Lotus to Lotus Petal. Cards that came out wrong, or were determined to be wrong, for what ever reason get changed and reprinted as somthing closer to what is "balanced". Yes, cards get banned, but for the most part, these are in situations where reprinting cards does not prevent the use of the original busted versions (like in a Type 1 tournament environement). In a Type 2 tournament, where cards keep cycling in and out, the bad cards just fall out of the environement after a while and get replaced by the fixed version. Jyhad does not have this benefit. No more cards are getting printed. No revisions will be made. The balance of the set cannot be jiggered with by reprinting cards. The only option is to continue playing in an environment with unbalanced or broken cards, or issue errata to put balance in a propper place. What is or is not balanced is certainly a matter of debate, but LSJ, the Rules Team and this newsgroup are probably the best equipped to debate this. "personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to 2)" There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to some number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be played with no limits. "...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the other overpowering cards..." Wouldn't make the busted cards any less busted or the broken combos any less broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more of a crap shoot. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious I would have it all if I'd only have this much" -Liz Phair

PDB6 wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] You're wrong if WotC would properly support their games there would be no problem... as for broken cards... they sit there and MAKE the killer combos... they admitted to it in the last Duelist... then while sitting with their thumbs up their a$$ ignore that there are other sets... which is why there were recent bannings in cards .... > >"personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way >they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to >2)" > >There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten >tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to some >number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card >limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be played >with no limits. And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days of DCI... they were law within my gaming group until the last weeks when we resurrected interest in the game.... and without the restrictions... some games ... and some people complain that due to the fact that some disciplines lacking within certain areas it is important that cards not be restricted... that's the point... certain clans... certain disciplines lack in areas so that you have to think...( and the key word is think... something too many people do not do) ... about your designing a deck... ok... so I'm playing Gangrel... well they don't have auspex... they're not going to have huge access to intercept or even stealth(althought they have cat's guidance and earth meld)... that's the point... they're supposed to be more limited in those area's in comparison to the other disciplines and clans... because they can make up for it in generic cards... and the fact they are more combat oriented than, say... the malkies which are stronger in both areas than the gangrel and lack slightly more in combat(although I've made some fun malkie combat decks too).... > >"...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then it >wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the >other overpowering cards..." > >Wouldn't make the busted cards any less busted or the broken combos any less >broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more of a >crap shoot. exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they could not make the combos core deck designs... and even if people did still make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games... you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor... I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized games because they were built around the environment that was set up... [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Also, the staple cards of many decks require being in there more than 5 > times - Bewitching Oration, say, Kine Resources Contested, Corruption > (especially), stealth (especially non-Obfuscate based stealth), > intercept etc. Many deck styles just *don't* work without the No Limits > game we play. Such as? This is where I play the devil's advocate...seeing as I play in a 6CL group. We use 6CL as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. Corruption is an obvious exception....but to be honest, I'd rather use Temptation or Form of Corruption anyway. The other is the "Murder of Raptor" type decks. It's pretty difficult to get 7 Raptors in a 6CL deck. I can make virtually any other deck style work in 6CL with little or no impact on its effectiveness. Our guidline is to prevent people from playing lame Protean Dominate stealth bleed decks based on 25 Form of Mist and 25 Conditionings. Play a deck like that and I can guarantee you won't get invited to any of the local games. > Unfortunately, what holds up in your play environment is not true of all > play environments and tournaments and this is why the errata have to be > issued. Some groups decide not to adopt them wholesale, although most > people who have used them have found them to be helpful in the long run. This is certainly not true of all groups. The Michigan Jyhad League has its own rules team that looks over LSJ's errata and decides whether to use it or not. In the matter of the Zip Gun, we have decided to play as printed. All MJL sponsored tournaments use MJL errata and rulings rather than DCI or WotC rulings. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7816nq$eki@simba>, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > > PDB6 wrote in message > >There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten > And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the > restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned > copies to you... I think I remember these. IIRC, they lasted only a few months before they changed them again. > but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was > way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days > of DCI... they were law within my gaming group until the last weeks when we > resurrected interest in the game.... and without the restrictions... some > games ... and some people complain that due to the fact that some > disciplines lacking within certain areas it is important that cards not be > restricted... that's the point... certain clans... certain disciplines lack > in areas so that you have to think...( and the key word is think... > something too many people do not do) ... This is all covered on the web site someone posted in this thread. Here it is again: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html > about your designing a deck... > ok... so I'm playing Gangrel... well they don't have auspex... they're not > going to have huge access to intercept or even stealth(althought they have > cat's guidance and earth meld)... that's the point... they're supposed to be > more limited in those area's in comparison to the other disciplines and > clans... because they can make up for it in generic cards... and the fact > they are more combat oriented than, say... the malkies which are stronger in > both areas than the gangrel and lack slightly more in combat(although I've > made some fun malkie combat decks too).... The restriction is still there without card limits. Why? You can still only play 1 copy of each reaction modifier or action modifier in an action. So while the Gangrel can play Earth Meld and a couple other cards for stealth, the Malkavians have 10 different cards available to them. This makes a huge difference that anyone playing NL will tell you. The two biggest arguments for card limits are to keep powerful cards from being easily drawable and so people without as many cards can compete. The first problem is only partially solved. It introduces a larger element of luck where most people feel that the game should be skill based. So, using the as-written Return to Innocence, you might be able to only have 2 copies in your deck. You're playing Fortitude so you've got Day Operation and Daring the Dawn. You have other uses for these cards, but you also hope you draw them with an RtI. If you draw it at the right time, you are going to oust your prey. If you don't draw it, you just continue using your main strategy. The point is, it's entirely luck. There's no skill. The only thing you might worry about is a deflecting prey (assuming more than 2 players at this point). Otherwise, you just play it and your prey is generally ousted. The cost isn't that big a deal because you get 6 pool back. The second problem takes a reverse course when using CL. There are many cards in Jyhad that are similar but different - Guard Dogs and Rat's Warning, Fists of Death and Torn Signpost, etc. Generally, one of the cards is rare except in the GD/RW case. So if you have the rare cards, you can use them when you max out your CL using the common. And guess who has the most rares? The people with the most cards. So the guy without many cards is stuck because he can't take his friend's stack of commons and use as many copies as he wants of each card. > >broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more > >of a crap shoot. > > exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement > the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they > could not make the combos core deck designs... Ok, so you seem to be agreeing that it is luck when a restricted combo comes up, not deckbuilding skill. > and even if people did still > make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to > think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games... > you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's > never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor... Now are you talking about building decks around specific (restricted) cards or just specific cards in general? If you mean restricted, you're contradicting yourself because restricted cards make it a "crap shoot" if you build around them. So I'll assume you mean specific cards in general. If you are saying a 5CL and you build a 60 card deck, you have a 1 in 12 chance of drawing a specific card you built around. That's about an 8% chance of drawing your core card. Theoretically, that means I have to play my whole hand plus 4 more cards in order to draw the card I really want. That sure sounds like a crap shoot to me, too. Now if you had a real deck size like most people build their decks, with and without CL, you'd have 90 cards. Your chance now drops to 1 in 18. That's a 5.5% chance. > I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized > games because they were built around the environment that was set up... Are these 4 player games? With 60 cards, you're going to run out quickly in a combat deck. I've played in all sorts of groups. I've played 4CL, 4CL with a restricted list, 6CL, and NL. CL games have their merit because they can be fun merely for their different flavor and style. However, they do not have the effects that CL proponents are seeking. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78257d$vjq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Many deck styles just *don't* work without the No Limits game we play. > Such as? I would modify the statement with: There are many unique and interesting decks that just don't work without No Limits. And besides, you pretty much agree, Noal. :) > This is where I play the devil's advocate...seeing as I play in a 6CL > group. We use 6CL as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. So it's not technically a card limit then. Why not play a flat gentlemanly NL? You state below that if someone were to bring an "abusive" deck, they'd pretty much uninvite themselves from playing again. That way, people can make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks that are viable without having to be tournament competitive. > Corruption is an obvious exception....but to be honest, I'd rather use > Temptation or Form of Corruption anyway. So Mr. Suitcase has the advantage because he has more Temptations and Forms of Corruption? The reverse effect of what many CL'ers try to accomplish with limits. > The other is the "Murder of Raptor" type decks. It's pretty difficult to get > 7 Raptors in a 6CL deck. Yeah, that would be kind of hard. Where's that Jyhad Clone card.... > I can make virtually any other deck style work in 6CL with little or no > impact on its effectiveness. I'd agree. Pretty much any other deck style can work under CL without extreme detriment in comparison to the other decks. However, some decks are just plain knocked out of possibility under NL. Like Heart of Darkness and Fortitude deck. Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion, and Pulling Strings). > Our guidline is to prevent people from > playing lame Protean Dominate stealth bleed decks based on 25 > Form of Mist and 25 Conditionings. Play a deck like that and I can > guarantee you won't get invited to any of the local games. So just play NL and tell people that you are geared more towards fun than stiff competition, so no standard S&B decks or 25 Skin of Steel and 25 Pulled Fangs (you play as written, IIRC). > > Some groups decide not to adopt them wholesale, although most > > people who have used them have found them to be helpful in the long run. > This is certainly not true of all groups. The Michigan Jyhad League has its > own rules team that looks over LSJ's errata and decides whether to use it > or not. In the matter of the Zip Gun, we have decided to play as printed. > All MJL sponsored tournaments use MJL errata and rulings rather than > DCI or WotC rulings. Does MJL use CL, too, or just your group? I didn't think so, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:37:05 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > >Ok so this brings me back to where I started... why place a limitation on >the gun... while you're at it you could add errata to the Rulebook itself >for ammo cards that despite what the cards says, they are to be used with >the strike... now you cripple ANY ammo combo with any gun but to me it makes >sense intuitive sense and is a rule that you could implement on the whole >... for instance, realistically, you can't decide that in the middle of a >firefight that when you finally land a hit that you were using a non-average >ammo(what the cards represent) No, but S:CE is so prevalent that it's only fair to the gun users to make them not have to pack 30 ammo cards in hopes that they'll get one to land. (Dodge is pointless since any gun deck probably also includes Celerity, which beats Dodge hands down.) Guns are hard enough to make "go" without hurting them THAT badly. Also... The game is about supernatural creatures, "vampires" - which sort of defies realism in the first place, don't you think? So the primary concern when issuing errata is game balance, not "realistic" play. >And as for S:CE and Dodges... it's never been a bad thing that because of >these cards that his (the one with the ammo) that he's stuck with those ammo >cards in his hand if he is either relying on them and doesn't want to throw >them away... not to mention the overload of zip guns when all of his kindred >have them and now they're piling up in his hand not getting through for >damage... start discarding them for the other cards in your deck...(perhaps >thought betrays.... or similar cards to get the combo off)... and you're >still crippling pieces of the puzzle when you only draw more of the same >card(perhaps because you've dumped a dozen of each into the deck). What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat. There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the Retainer, but IANALSJ) If you have ammo cards and you're facing S:CE, you can always PLAY them in combat if you have a hand-jam issue - I certainly wouldn't waste time hanging on to multiple ammo cards when 75% of my strikes won't ever land. Every deck design has its own inherent flaws, but the Zip Gun-Ammo combination is just too low-cost for how easy it is to make work. >At any rate... it's a moot point... as it has been pointed out to me... my >group can decide how we choose to play the game and how we restrict >cards(through errata or restrictions)... we plan to do this anyway with >recent problems we've seen in other games... I just hate to take some >rulings and ignore others based on the fact that the ruling was only made >for those that couldn't deal with it correctly with what they have in front >of them... overall though, I feel, it invalidates the rulings as a whole... The ruling was not made for those who couldn't "deal with it", it was made because the cost-to-effect ratio of a Zip Gun and DBR was excessive - pay 1 vampire blood, get 2R agg with a free maneuver. Normally to get 2 points of aggravated damage, you either require an equip action (to get a weapon which does agg), OBF (to get the weapon via Disguised Weapon), superior Potence (to play Burning Wrath, which costs 3 vampire blood), superior Quietus (Taste of Death, cost 1 blood and you need to have a maneuver in hand as well)... a Gangrel and a Lucky Blow/Claws combination (cost 1 blood), or Tremere and a way to get to the 2nd round consistently. (Or Shotgun Ritual - cost 2 blood.) The only cost-to-effect ratio here that even comes close to a Zip Gun-DBR is having OBF and Disguised Weapon - but all weapons that naturally do 2 points of agg damage cost pool, not blood. (Example, a Flamethrower costs 4 pool for 2R agg - and doesn't come with a maneuver.) Burning Wrath is miserably expensive for what it does, but it can be easily combined with IG to ensure that your strike HITS, which none of the other listed combos can. (Not easily anyway.) Taste of Death can be outmaneuvered as WELL as S:CE'd or Dodged. Lucky Blow/Claws don't work at long range and don't come with a free maneuver like Zip Gun/DBR. Tremere require a press to continue or some way to prevent their own Burst of Sunlight's damage. Shotgun Ritual will cost you two blood, but without a maneuver you'll take at least one point of damage from a punch as well. Do you see yet? Zip Gun-DBR was an UNDISCIPLINED combo (meaning any vampire anywhere anytime could use it) that was more effective than all other DISCIPLINE combinations *and* cheaper. Yech. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > Such as? > > I would modify the statement with: > There are many unique and interesting decks that just don't work without > No Limits. And again I say, "Such as?" > And besides, you pretty much agree, Noal. :) ...which is why it's a guideline, not a hard rule. If I want to put 10 Raptors in a deck, nobody is going to care. We like to see cool and innovative decks. 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mist is _not_ cool or innovative. > > This is where I play the devil's advocate...seeing as I play in a 6CL > > group. We use 6CL as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. > > So it's not technically a card limit then. Why not play a flat gentlemanly > NL? You state below that if someone were to bring an "abusive" deck, they'd > pretty much uninvite themselves from playing again. That way, people can > make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks > that are viable without having to be tournament competitive. Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need 25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck. > > Corruption is an obvious exception....but to be honest, I'd rather use > > Temptation or Form of Corruption anyway. > > So Mr. Suitcase has the advantage because he has more Temptations and > Forms of Corruption? The reverse effect of what many CL'ers try to accomplish > with limits. *shrug* Calling me Mr. Suitcase is a bit silly when I freely loan and give cards. Besides, 6 Forms and 6 Temptations are hardly difficult to come by. I think I use 4 Forms and 6 (maybe 5) Temptations in my Setite political deck. > > I can make virtually any other deck style work in 6CL with little or no > > impact on its effectiveness. > > I'd agree. Pretty much any other deck style can work under CL without > extreme detriment in comparison to the other decks. However, some decks are > just plain knocked out of possibility under NL. Like Heart of Darkness and > Fortitude deck. How so? How would No Limits be detrimental to a Heart of Darkness/Fortitude deck? > Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred > Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion, and > Pulling Strings). Sounds like a lot of different cards. You would be surprised how effective 6 of each can be. Not to mention there are other master cards that require political actions to burn. Use some of them. > > Our guidline is to prevent people from > > playing lame Protean Dominate stealth bleed decks based on 25 > > Form of Mist and 25 Conditionings. Play a deck like that and I can > > guarantee you won't get invited to any of the local games. > > So just play NL and tell people that you are geared more towards fun than > stiff competition, so no standard S&B decks or 25 Skin of Steel and 25 > Pulled Fangs (you play as written, IIRC). Correct about Pulled Fangs, although we've ruled it to limit it to once per round of combat. *shrug* S&B decks don't show up too often since, like Peter, I play in a high combat and voting environment. They die quick. It's much more fair to instill a guideline that people can adhere to rather than tell someone they can't play a deck concept. Exceptions are always made when reasonable...and again, I assure you, the local competition is quite stiff. > Does MJL use CL, too, or just your group? I didn't think so, but it's > not beyond the realm of possibility. Actually it's a very good question since my group can be called the core of MJL as 3 of the 5 rules team members play in my group. It's not really a question that's been raised since most players in the MJL use a 6CL guideline. To my knowledge, a 6CL isn't enforced in a MJL tournament. I never have, and I don't recall any of the other folks who run MJL tournaments doing so either. The MJL really strives to make it possible for a new player to buy some cards and make a deck based on the printed rules and card text without needing to re-work it because of errata he's never heard of. When we issue errata, we try to make it with minimal impact on the way the game is played and still keep game balance in mind. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > I think I remember these. IIRC, they lasted only a few months before they > changed them again. *nods* They were printed in the Duelist about 3 years ago. > And guess who has the most rares? The > people with the most cards. So the guy without many cards is stuck because > he can't take his friend's stack of commons and use as many copies as he > wants of each card. *shrug* depends on the group. People make decks out of my stuff all the time. I allow people to use my rares as well as my commons. > Ok, so you seem to be agreeing that it is luck when a restricted combo comes > up, not deckbuilding skill. *nods* This is why I support the idea that if you use a card limit, do it on all cards, not just a few. Either that or use card limits as a guideline rather than a hrad and fast rule. Either way, using 4CL is a bit excessive in my opinion and limiting a card to 2 copies in a deck is pointless. Either ban it or don't. > If you are saying a 5CL and you build a 60 card deck, you have a 1 in 12 > chance of drawing a specific card you built around. That's about an 8% > chance of drawing your core card. Um...I don't know where you studied statistics but most people draw more than 1 card in their opening hand. You have about 56% chance of drawing one in your opening hand and 8% chance thereafter with each card that you draw. > Theoretically, that means I have to play > my whole hand plus 4 more cards in order to draw the card I really want. > That sure sounds like a crap shoot to me, too. *shrug* It's all a crap shoot unless your deck is 50% made up of one card. > Now if you had a real deck size like most people build their decks, with > and without CL, you'd have 90 cards. Your chance now drops to 1 in 18. > That's a 5.5% chance. Actually, 5 in 90 is 6%. You still have a 42% chance of drawing one in your opening hand. > I've played in all sorts of groups. I've played 4CL, 4CL with a restricted > list, 6CL, and NL. CL games have their merit because they can be fun merely > for their different flavor and style. However, they do not have the effects > that CL proponents are seeking. Depends on the effects they're seeking. We use it to prevent boring, repetitive decks. We don't use it as a control on over-powerful cards. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] >There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten >tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to some >number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card >limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be played >with no limits. And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days of DCI... they were law within my gaming group until the last weeks when we resurrected interest in the game.... and without the restrictions... some games ... and some people complain that due to the fact that some disciplines lacking within certain areas it is important that cards not be restricted... that's the point... certain clans... certain disciplines lack in areas so that you have to think...( and the key word is think... something too many people do not do) ... about your designing a deck... ok... so I'm playing Gangrel... well they don't have auspex... they're not going to have huge access to intercept or even stealth(althought they have cat's guidance and earth meld)... that's the point... they're supposed to be more limited in those area's in comparison to the other disciplines and clans... because they can make up for it in generic cards... and the fact they are more combat oriented than, say... the malkies which are stronger in both areas than the gangrel and lack slightly more in combat(although I've made some fun malkie combat decks too).... > >"...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then it >wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the >other overpowering cards..." > >Wouldn't make the busted cards any less busted or the broken combos any less >broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more of a >crap shoot. exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they could not make the combos core deck designs... and even if people did still make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games... you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor... I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized games because they were built around the environment that was set up... > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <782em4$8fn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks > > that are viable without having to be tournament competitive. > > Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our > decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need > 25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck. But your tournament environment, as you state later, is oriented towards 6CL. It took me about 3 months before I full adjusted from hard 6CL to NL. It's a lot different. Of course, I know that you and probably others make the transition quite well, but in general, I doubt that all of the soft 6CL decks people play would be tournament viable (meaning having a decent chance at winning). > > So Mr. Suitcase has the advantage because he has more Temptations and > > Forms of Corruption? The reverse effect of what many CL'ers try to > > accomplish with limits. > *shrug* Calling me Mr. Suitcase is a bit silly when I freely loan and give > cards. Mr. Suitcase was meant to refer to people with lots of cards in general. Nice Mr. Suitcases do like you do - give away extras. > Besides, 6 Forms and 6 Temptations are hardly difficult to come by. > I think I use 4 Forms and 6 (maybe 5) Temptations in my Setite political > deck. I wish I had even close to that many Forms and Temptations. I think I have 1 Form and 2 Temptations. And I've gotten about the equivalent of 3 boxes of AH. > > I'd agree. Pretty much any other deck style can work under CL without > > extreme detriment in comparison to the other decks. However, some decks are > > just plain knocked out of possibility under NL. Like Heart of Darkness and > > Fortitude deck. > > How so? How would No Limits be detrimental to a Heart of Darkness/Fortitude > deck? The Heart of Darkness is very fragile. Burnable with a (D) action. It needs to use most of its blood for actions - Heart of Darkness (2 blood), Force of Will (2 blood), and Daring the Dawn (1 blood). So you use the Fortitude to keep that precious blood by using damage prevention in combat. You could use 6 Skin of Rock and 6 Resilience (and 6 Flesh of Marble if you have them). Skin of Steel will probably be too much as far as cost goes because that's still one less blood. Why should the deck be restricted from using more Resilience? Plus, the strategy aspect of choosing the proper card is removed because you can't put in more than 6 of either one. > > Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred > > Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion, > > and Pulling Strings). > > Sounds like a lot of different cards. You would be surprised how effective 6 > of each can be. Not to mention there are other master cards that require > political actions to burn. Use some of them. But the 6 of the others are not what I'm concerned about. It's only the 6 of the EKN. Why should I arbitrarily use only 6? Seriously, what reason can there be to only be allowed 6? > Correct about Pulled Fangs, although we've ruled it to limit it to once > per round of combat. *shrug* S&B decks don't show up too often since, > like Peter, I play in a high combat and voting environment. They die quick. My group is mainly combat, too, with smaller equal amounts of voting and bleed. However, I'm the only one using 12 IG's in my Potence-based deck. And do you know how effective the other Potence based decks are against well proportioned S:CE? Not very. Actually, it would seem obvious why voting is competing well in your high combat environment. The Potence deck is limited to 6 IG's. The Presence vote deck has 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 Catatonic Fear (and possibly, God help us, 6 Mercy for the Weak). > It's much more fair to instill a guideline that people can adhere to rather > than tell someone they can't play a deck concept. Exceptions are always > made when reasonable...and again, I assure you, the local competition is > quite stiff. Exactly why there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with playing CL as long as everyone agrees. It's just as fun as NL. In your case though, with a soft limit, I'd just say, why bother with limits at all? > Actually it's a very good question since my group can be called the > core of MJL as 3 of the 5 rules team members play in my group. It's > not really a question that's been raised since most players in the > MJL use a 6CL guideline. I wish you hadn't scheduled your tourney on Super Bowl Sunday. Otherwise, I'd have made the trip up from Champaign, IL. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat. > There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth > Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all > at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side > note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still > receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the > Retainer, but IANALSJ) The minion takes the damage. Same deal if the Ghoul sets of a Grenade at close range - the minion takes the damage. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote in message <2B510934163E173B.DF08AD82...@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:37:05 -0500, "Vince Johnson" ><john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >No, but S:CE is so prevalent that it's only fair to the gun users to >make them not have to pack 30 ammo cards in hopes that they'll get one >to land. (Dodge is pointless since any gun deck probably also >includes Celerity, which beats Dodge hands down.) Guns are hard >enough to make "go" without hurting them THAT badly. Also... The game >is about supernatural creatures, "vampires" - which sort of defies >realism in the first place, don't you think? So the primary concern >when issuing errata is game balance, not "realistic" play. > I realize that "realism" in the game is difficult since it's based on something that doesn't exist, yet the point of the WW system for the game and the original intent of the game was to stick to a world that is similar to ours. The vampire excuse does not apply in this case because it's not a vampire ability that influences anything about gun and ammo cards. >What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat. >There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth >Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all >at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side >note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still >receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the >Retainer, but IANALSJ) > First off... if you're playing cards on Vampires "because you can".... is a waste too, I've done it in the past and it's a pain in the ass when that vampire gets entirely burned by combat... or torpored and diablerized by my opponent... >If you have ammo cards and you're facing S:CE, you can always PLAY >them in combat if you have a hand-jam issue - I certainly wouldn't >waste time hanging on to multiple ammo cards when 75% of my strikes >won't ever land. Every deck design has its own inherent flaws, but >the Zip Gun-Ammo combination is just too low-cost for how easy it is >to make work. And when facing S:CE... you can always discard them from your hand at the end of each of your turns to cycle... but my point is that you're discarding cards to get the combo to work or help you in some other way, yet slowly dumping cards a player that are key to the combo always makes a combo harder to pull off... >The ruling was not made for those who couldn't "deal with it", it was >made because the cost-to-effect ratio of a Zip Gun and DBR was >excessive - pay 1 vampire blood, get 2R agg with a free maneuver. >Normally to get 2 points of aggravated damage, you either require an >equip action (to get a weapon which does agg), OBF (to get the weapon >via Disguised Weapon), superior Potence (to play Burning Wrath, which >costs 3 vampire blood), superior Quietus (Taste of Death, cost 1 blood >and you need to have a maneuver in hand as well)... a Gangrel and a >Lucky Blow/Claws combination (cost 1 blood), or Tremere and a way to >get to the 2nd round consistently. (Or Shotgun Ritual - cost 2 >blood.) Ok... so what you're effectively looking for are 1 card versions that cost more blood but incidentally are more effective because you're not relying on having the other card in your hand which takes up hand size while you're waiting for an opportunity to play the combo. What you make up for in card numbers is made up for in those blood costs. And your 2 card versions of the same thing prove my point.... there are other ways to deal the damage that are just as powerful... or can be made more powreful... >The only cost-to-effect ratio here that even comes close to a Zip >Gun-DBR is having OBF and Disguised Weapon - but all weapons that >naturally do 2 points of agg damage cost pool, not blood. (Example, a >Flamethrower costs 4 pool for 2R agg - and doesn't come with a >maneuver.) AND is not burned so it can be used over and over which is why they tend to be very deadly... incidentally... I noticed you chose to not pick on ivory bow which (albeit is unique)... is even more cost effective than the > Burning Wrath is miserably expensive for what it does, but >it can be easily combined with IG to ensure that your strike HITS, >which none of the other listed combos can. (Not easily anyway.) >Taste of Death can be outmaneuvered as WELL as S:CE'd or Dodged. >Lucky Blow/Claws don't work at long range and don't come with a free >maneuver like Zip Gun/DBR. Tremere require a press to continue or >some way to prevent their own Burst of Sunlight's damage. Shotgun >Ritual will cost you two blood, but without a maneuver you'll take at >least one point of damage from a punch as well. Do you see yet? Zip >Gun-DBR was an UNDISCIPLINED combo (meaning any vampire anywhere >anytime could use it) that was more effective than all other >DISCIPLINE combinations *and* cheaper. Yech. Those combos don't work because you don't have the other cards listed to back them up... tremere tend to work nicely with mob connections... hey now they've got there press into a next round... and that's only one card that costs you nothing unless your opponent has one... and burst of sunlight works nicely at the first level with other damage prevention cards... there are "generic" ones you know... flak jacket.... leather jacket.... there are vamps in tremere that float over some agg damage... other than that I personally wouldn't touch the card because there are many other better uses of thaumaturgy like blood stealing... lucky blow and claws can work... and actually be more effective because there are other things you can tack ontop of the claws other than just the lucky blow.... manuevers can be dealt with as well... with another "generic" card... IR goggles... also fake outs work too... and they cost you nothing... but the pool used or goggles is negligible due to the fact its' useable after the combo is used... the vamp blowing off a DBR in his zip gun doesn't get to keep his manuever... and there are other generic combos that cost you nothing and could result in even worse amounts of damage for no blood cost and no blood... or with the addition of especially for cards like sengir dagger combined with add to strike cards and even one or 2 additional strikes... the same thing that could also result of a claw attack... at least the zip gun is burned after that first use... now taking for granted the dagger is unique once again.. but that is usually not a problem... Vince

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:17:04 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >...which is why it's a guideline, not a hard rule. If I want to put 10 >Raptors in a deck, nobody is going to care. We like to see cool and >innovative decks. 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mist is _not_ cool or >innovative. as a complete unrelated sidebar, remember the conversation about people being "upset" over a card game? =) now you know what sort of thing will earn you some scorn in my group - this is the kind of deck I meant. =) >> So it's not technically a card limit then. Why not play a flat gentlemanly >> NL? You state below that if someone were to bring an "abusive" deck, they'd >> pretty much uninvite themselves from playing again. That way, people can >> make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks >> that are viable without having to be tournament competitive. > >Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our >decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need >25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck. Hmm. You do if your prey packs six Majesties, six Staredowns, six Catatonic Fears, six Dodges, and if it's the Ventrue, six Skin of Steels, six Rolling with the Punches... you get the idea. Although I think most people prefer only 10-12 IG's anyway just to avoid that nasty hand clog - and also considering that each of your IG's will be effective (since I can't see playing an IG without the cards-in-hand to reduce a vampire to bits.) How do you manage to pull an effective Potence Pitch deck out of that, also? Mine uses 15 Thrown Gates and 20 Sewer Lids as basic "this is a damage card" damage. It's got 5 Sacraments of Carnage floating around for those times when somehow i've run out of maneuvers, and, hm, well, let's see since I have a little time to waste. There are only 4 "at range" Potence strike cards: Thrown Gate (1/2), Sewer Lid (3/press), Well-aimed Card (sic, 4/press), and Sacrament of Carnage (2/3). with a 6-card limit there are enough "big" strike cards so that you can have 18 "Big strikes", although the Car will hand jam you if you only have one of those on the first round. You have 6 maneuvers from the Gates, and 6 from Flash, and I assume 6 from Pursuit and 6 from Rapid Thought since if this deck is stuck at close range it'll self-destruct miserably. With the 2nd round problem from Well-aimed Card, you probably want to run a little lighter on additional strikes and heavier on presses - fortunately the Lid, Flash, Rapid Thought, (and since you only have 6 Blurs you'll stick Nimble Feet in it, i'm sure) all provide presses, although Flash and Rapid Thought cost you a maneuver to press with, and Nimble Feet costs you some of your additional strikes (though the maneuvers are a more serious problem), so you'll have to wedge ... hmm, looking through the database, the only press card you have left is Infernal Pursuit at inferior. =) Amusing, but throw 6 of those in since the superior version may well save your butt also. Rush actions are not a problem, obviously, with 6 Ambush and 6 Bum's Rush respectively. 6 Taste of Vitae is all this deck needs, if -that-; it's not taking damage and not spending a significant amount of blood - the only cards that cost anything are Blur and Sacrament. The limitation of 6 Psyche means you'll be raped by any S:CE deck even under 6CL, although the additional strikes mean you can pretty much laugh at S:Dodge. I couldn't see sticking Acrobatics in this deck since you only have 24 strike cards - with Pursuit, Blur, and Nimble Feet you have 18 sources of up to 24 additional strikes, and you'll undoubtedly run out of strike cards long before you find yourself wishing "Damn, I wish I had a Blur now." The other problem is maneuvers. I only see 24 maneuvers, some of which are forced to double as press actions or additional strikes, and that could get your vampires eaten alive at some point since everyone will block your Rush actions to deny you the free one as soon as they know what sort of deck you have. And half your strikes -require- long range. so, the best Pitch deck I can see under 6CL is: Strikes: 6 Gate, 6 Lid, 6 Car, 6 Sacrament Support: 6 Flash, 6 Rapid Thought, 6 Nimble Feet, 6 Infernal Pursuit Vital: 6 Blur, 6 Psyche, 6 Taste, 6 Ambush, 6 Bum's Rush Left: 12 masters in some form or other. 4 Haven, 4 Potence, 4 blood dolls, probably. ...Yuck. The maneuver from the Gate is absolutely vital, IMO, to making this sort of deck run - the 6CL version would not be crippled, but certainly would be less effective than a NL version of the same deck. >> Does MJL use CL, too, or just your group? I didn't think so, but it's >> not beyond the realm of possibility. > >Actually it's a very good question since my group can be called the >core of MJL as 3 of the 5 rules team members play in my group. It's >not really a question that's been raised since most players in the >MJL use a 6CL guideline. > >To my knowledge, a 6CL isn't enforced in a MJL tournament. I never have, >and I don't recall any of the other folks who run MJL tournaments doing >so either. The MJL really strives to make it possible for a new player to >buy some cards and make a deck based on the printed rules and card text >without needing to re-work it because of errata he's never heard of. When >we issue errata, we try to make it with minimal impact on the way the game >is played and still keep game balance in mind. -- Derek [ quoted text not captured ]

>> >> exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement >> the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they >> could not make the combos core deck designs... > >Ok, so you seem to be agreeing that it is luck when a restricted combo comes >up, not deckbuilding skill. > No... I am not agreeing with you... read what I said there and below before commenting... decks that use the combo get them less frequently and if you want to build a deck around the combo then fine... just make a smaller deck and not expect to make it too far in a very big game... and stop relying on the combo... >> and even if people did still >> make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to >> think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games... >> you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's >> never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor... > >Now are you talking about building decks around specific (restricted) cards >or just specific cards in general? If you mean restricted, you're >contradicting yourself because restricted cards make it a "crap shoot" if you >build around them. So I'll assume you mean specific cards in general. If >you are saying a 5CL and you build a 60 card deck, you have a 1 in 12 >chance of drawing a specific card you built around. That's about an 8% >chance of drawing your core card. Theoretically, that means I have to play >my whole hand plus 4 more cards in order to draw the card I really want. >That sure sounds like a crap shoot to me, too. > >Now if you had a real deck size like most people build their decks, with >and without CL, you'd have 90 cards. Your chance now drops to 1 in 18. >That's a 5.5% chance. > that's all good and fine in a game of say.... MAgic... where you only get one card a turn... but in jyhad it's possible to burn through several cards in a turn... increasing the likelihood you'll get to the card... so you're percentages are cycled a whole lot quicker than you've presented them... you can lower that 1 in 12 chance of drawing a card in no time... >> I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized >> games because they were built around the environment that was set up... > >Are these 4 player games? With 60 cards, you're going to run out quickly >in a combat deck. Gangrel Combat and Anarchy deck... it works and dominated most 3 player games by controlling my opponent's pools early and dominating(not the discipline) over the vamps he could get out through combat... it had an extremely good win percentage for 4 player games(incidentally if the question comes up in anyone's mind...I didn't use DBR/Zip in this deck... didn't need to because there were other cards that worked better in the deck)... the deck was built under the original restrictions that were notably removed not soon after... but because there wasn't much tourney support by DCI we never found out until recently.... it even included including the stupid ones that restricted some cards that really shouldn't have been restricted but the DCI felt were more powerful than they should be... I'll note that the deck was built before I could acquire any Ancient hearts and Sabbat wasn't out... but that is nebulous because it only proves that some of the other cards should be restricted... and because there are a few extra hundred cards that I have to deal with now if I plan to rebuild the deck. I'd also like to include with this response that I don't think there should be any restrictions to the game... in terms of deck construction AND card chnages... what I have said is that there can be changes in the rulebook because the cards have always dominated the rulebook as it is... decks work because they are built well by playing with the construction and realizing what the deck lacks and compensating for it.... Vince

I'll try to get to the other stuff later. I've got about five minutes before I go home. mboh...@shout.net wrote: > I wish you hadn't scheduled your tourney on Super Bowl Sunday. Otherwise, > I'd have made the trip up from Champaign, IL. Actually, we've made a decision to change it for that very reason. Wintercon 99 is at the Kennedy Rec Center in Lincoln Park, MI on Saturday, January 30. We have changed the tournament to that venue and game time will be at 6 pm. If you need directions, let me know. The con is $10 ($6 after 4pm) and the tournament will be free. Also, we just bashed our way through a load of rulings, so I'll get that to you tomorrow. If you're not able to make Wintercon, we will be running a tournament at BashCon at the University of Toledo, Ohio on the last weekend of February (I think). I'll get details soon. I believe Dave will be running that one. We're working on firming up our tournament schedule for the year, so there will be plenty others. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "And again I say, "Such as?"" Noal, Noal, Noal. You know what we are going to say, yet you ask anyway? :-) Ok. A Potence Rush deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Immortal Grapple. With a 6 CL, it is perfectly viable to play 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 Catatonic Fear. That is 6 anti S:CE cards vs 18 S:CE cards. The Potence deck will fail. An Animalism based Intercept deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Cat's Guidance. Without reliable access to Cat's Guidance, the deck has to rely on permanent intercept (Ravens and such), which is always the case with card limits. A Celerity based combat deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Psyche in the same manner as the IG based deck. A Presence vote deck _is_ going to suffer from only having 6 Bewitching Oration. Any card limit reduces the options available players and reduces the viablity of decks that rely on cards that have no redundant variations. An unitended result of any sort of CL game is making decks that rely on disciplines with a great deal of redundancy (Dom, Pre, Obf, Aus) much more capable than decks that rely on disciplines that don't have much redundancy (Pot, Ani, Tha, Qui). The more cards you have availabe to do what you want, the better your deck will work. When you are building a deck that has only one card that does what you want it to, 6 simply isn't enough, when other decks will be built out of disciplines that have multiple cards that do what they want them to, so they can have 6X cards that do what they want them to. "...which is why it's a guideline, not a hard rule. If I want to put 10 Raptors in a deck, nobody is going to care. We like to see cool and innovative decks. 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mist is _not_ cool or innovative." So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 Immortal Grapples :-) "Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need 25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck." No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE. Which there will be more than 6 of. [ quoted text not captured ]

Vince Johnson wrote: "You're wrong if WotC would properly support their games there would be no problem... as for broken cards... they sit there and MAKE the killer combos... they admitted to it in the last Duelist... then while sitting with their thumbs up their a$$ ignore that there are other sets... which is why there were recent bannings in cards ...." I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you are saying that is WOTC would continue to support Jyhad, then there would probably not be need for errata, yup, you are correct. However, this is a completely moot point, as WOTC isn't printing any more cards (well, there are pretty substantial rumors that they are going to print a mini expansion or something this year, but it seems unlikely that they will be reprints of fixed cards). WOTC has very little to do with this game any longer. There is a rules team and DCI support, but these both exist primarily due to player action, not WOTC action. "And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days of DCI..." Please do. It is possible that such a set of rules existed at one, very short, time, but as far as I am aware, the only CL tournament rules involved a list of restricted cards (KRC, CA, Majesty, Freak Drive, et al) and a limit of either 2 or 6, depending on the version of the DCI rules. I have never run across a flat card limit set of tournament rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Vince Johnson wrote: > [clip] > >"personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way > >they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to > >2)" > > > >There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten > >tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to > >some number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card > >limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be > >played with no limits. > > And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the > restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned > copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was > way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days > of DCI... I'd be interested in seeing those. The set of rules in effect for the briefest period of time was the 2CL on restricted cards. I never recall seeing any tourney rules that prescribed an across the board card limit. Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <782vbq$o6p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > I'll try to get to the other stuff later. I've got about five minutes before > I go home. Weak excuse. ;) > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > I wish you hadn't scheduled your tourney on Super Bowl Sunday. Otherwise, > > I'd have made the trip up from Champaign, IL. > > Actually, we've made a decision to change it for that very reason. > Wintercon 99 is at the Kennedy Rec Center in Lincoln Park, MI > on Saturday, January 30. We have changed the tournament to that > venue and game time will be at 6 pm. If you need directions, let me > know. The con is $10 ($6 after 4pm) and the tournament will be free. Still not possible. I'd obviously have to stay overnight and drive the seven hours back to get things ready for the party I'm hosting for the Super Bowl. Sorry. :( > If you're not able to make Wintercon, we will be running a tournament > at BashCon at the University of Toledo, Ohio on the last weekend of > February (I think). I'll get details soon. I believe Dave will be running > that one. Why can't you guys have something on the western side of Michigan? :) At least I know some people in Detroit that I could crash with. And I can drive up and back to western Chicago pretty easily. > We're working on firming up our tournament schedule for the year, so > there will be plenty others. Looking forward to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:26:06 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > >Derek S. Ray wrote in message ><2B510934163E173B.DF08AD82...@library-proxy.airnews.ne >t>... >I realize that "realism" in the game is difficult since it's based on >something that doesn't exist, yet the point of the WW system for the game >and the original intent of the game was to stick to a world that is similar >to ours. The vampire excuse does not apply in this case because it's not a >vampire ability that influences anything about gun and ammo cards. Vampire: the Masquerade, the live-action role-playing game is not Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, the card game, although the latter was obviously based on and a spinoff of the former. And my point is that I don't believe Wizards of the Coast used "realism" in their design criteria for the card game. >>What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat. >>There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth >>Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all >>at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side >>note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still >>receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the >>Retainer, but IANALSJ) > >First off... if you're playing cards on Vampires "because you can".... is a >waste too, I've done it in the past and it's a pain in the ass when that >vampire gets entirely burned by combat... or torpored and diablerized by my >opponent... OK, three things. 1. If you have no ammo cards in your hand and need to cycle cards to draw one, it is CERTAINLY no waste to put a second, third, or seventh Zip Gun on a vampire if you were already going to have him use a Zip Gun anyway. Zip Guns cost no pool, so -unlike- all other weapons, can be freely cycled in time of desperation. 2. To properly abuse zip gun/dragon's breath, you need to think in terms of weenies. Who cares if you burn my 1-cap weenie, or torporize him? He didn't cost anything anyway, and you're probably going with him. And NOBODY diablerizes weenies, although nobody really rescues 1-caps from torpor either. 3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more than enough handy. >>If you have ammo cards and you're facing S:CE, you can always PLAY >>them in combat if you have a hand-jam issue - I certainly wouldn't >>waste time hanging on to multiple ammo cards when 75% of my strikes >>won't ever land. Every deck design has its own inherent flaws, but >>the Zip Gun-Ammo combination is just too low-cost for how easy it is >>to make work. > >And when facing S:CE... you can always discard them from your hand at the >end of each of your turns to cycle... but my point is that you're discarding >cards to get the combo to work or help you in some other way, yet slowly >dumping cards a player that are key to the combo always makes a combo harder >to pull off... You don't have to pull it off as often as you think. Assuming a lucky draw for us both: Round 1, I bring out 4 weenies. You bring out a 4-cap. Round 2, they bleed. You block the first, I play Zip Gun/DBR and your 4-cap is in torpor with 2 blood left on him. Next weenie diablerizes and is burned in the Blood Hunt. Next two weenies bleed. Assuming I haven't played any Effective Managements, I spend a pool to go fishing. I have just bled you for six pool and spent a mere five myself. I have three minions out, you have zero. You have taken no actions. If you quit blocking, you will be raped for a MINIMUM of four more pool every turn. If you have S:CE, you will eventually run out of cards, since every minion I bring out will equip with a Zip Gun until you fail to play Majesty when choosing a strike, at which point I will play another DBR during the damage resolution phase, torporize, and diablerize another one of your vampires. Are you getting the picture now? >>The ruling was not made for those who couldn't "deal with it", it was >>made because the cost-to-effect ratio of a Zip Gun and DBR was >>excessive - pay 1 vampire blood, get 2R agg with a free maneuver. >>Normally to get 2 points of aggravated damage, you either require an >>equip action (to get a weapon which does agg), OBF (to get the weapon >>via Disguised Weapon), superior Potence (to play Burning Wrath, which >>costs 3 vampire blood), superior Quietus (Taste of Death, cost 1 blood >>and you need to have a maneuver in hand as well)... a Gangrel and a >>Lucky Blow/Claws combination (cost 1 blood), or Tremere and a way to >>get to the 2nd round consistently. (Or Shotgun Ritual - cost 2 >>blood.) > >Ok... so what you're effectively looking for are 1 card versions that cost >more blood but incidentally are more effective because you're not relying on >having the other card in your hand which takes up hand size while you're >waiting for an opportunity to play the combo. What you make up for in card >numbers is made up for in those blood costs. And your 2 card versions of the >same thing prove my point.... there are other ways to deal the damage that >are just as powerful... or can be made more powreful... You are not reading what I am writing very carefully. I have four criteria for evaluating all the combinations I mentioned. 1. Number of cards in the combo. (Zip + DBR = 2) 2. Total Cost of the combo. (1 vampire blood, which is widely accepted as being much less expensive than 1 pool.) 3. Total damage and/or combat effectiveness of the combo. (Zip + DBR = 1 normal + 2 agg, at close OR at range. Comes with a free maneuver, which is prized highly in ANY combat as it permits you to escape being Immortally Grappled and actually have a chance of using the gun.) 4. Ease of actually getting the combo off. (Zip Gun + DBR does not require a discipline or a separate action.) Note that taking a separate equip action matters heavily - first, it slows down the deck's progress as a whole since you have a minion doing effectively nothing this turn. Second, equip actions are interceptable by both your predator and your prey. If either of them can generate ANY intercept, they're not going to let you equip the Ivory Bow on a vampire. That's just ASKING for trouble. Zip Guns are not interceptable. Now, let's go through the combinations I mentioned and rate them. I shall give one point to any criterion where the card mentioned -always- does better than a Zip Gun/DBR combo. I shall give one half point where the results are unclear or vary depending on the situation (Burning Wrath with a Torn Signpost and Fists of Death can do an obscene amount of damage, but requires 3 blood, 3 cards, superior Potence, and close range) A Flamethrower is one card, costs 4 pool (INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE), requires an equip action OR a discipline to bring into play, and does less damage (2R agg) without providing a maneuver. By the criteria above: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 to 1 in favor of ZG/DBR over a Flamethrower. (If you use Disguised Weapon, it is 3.5 to 0.5 since you're now using 2 cards.) Burning Wrath requires one card and in its WORST form provides 2 aggravated hand damage. It costs three vampire blood to play. It requires inferior Potence and a minimum three-capacity vampire (since you have to be able to pay the three blood somehow.) It is a hand strike, so can be played at any time. By the criteria above - 1 + 0 + .5 + .5 makes it 2 to 2. It is one fewer card, a much higher cost, roughly equivalent combat effectiveness (must be used at close range, but provides stackable agg damage with Torn Signpost or Fists of Death and can be paired with IG to prevent S:CE), and -does- require a discipline, preferably superior Potence although inferior will do. I'd still give the nod to the Zip Gun/DBR because weenie decks can use it, whereas Koko, Mitchell, and Lupo can't use Burning Wrath without a skill card, and Jacob Bragg, Dr. Dre, and other 3-cap Potence weenies will go to torpor after using it (but do some good on the way). Potence decks generally do better to rely on stacked normal damage and Decapitate as a combo instead. Taste of Death provides 1R/2R agg, *only* usable at long range. It requires a maneuver card or an equip action (to get IR Goggles). It requires superior Quietus. It costs one vampire blood to play. By the criteria above, .5 + .5 + 0 + 0 leaves it as 3 to 1 in favor of Zip Gun/DBR. Gangrel playing Lucky Blow/Claws provide 2 aggravated hand damage. It requires 2 cards. It costs one vampire blood to play. It requires a discipline - inferior Protean. By the criteria above, .5 + .5 + 0 + 0 leaves it in the same boat as Taste of Death - 3 to 1 in favor of Zip Gun/DBR. There is an intangible here - Gangrel Protean Claws are a -very- common sight, and so the element of surprise is in Zip Gun's favor too - nobody expects Smudge to blow your head off when you block him, whereas Chandler Hungerford might as well have vampire blood dripping from his hands and "I'm a Badass" tattooed on his forehead. Walk of Flame provides 2 aggravated ranged damage for 0 blood. It is only one card by itself, but in order to use it you must either have a press card such as Trap or Apportation, a press master such as Mob Connections, or Shotgun Ritual for 2 blood. It requires a discipline - superior Thaumaturgy. By the criteria above - .5 + .5 + 0 + 0 (anyone who's ever played Thaumaturgy decks can tell you that it's a lot easier to say "oo, i'll just press to the 2nd round and Walk of Flame him" than it is to actually do it. I'd like to put a -1 in slot #4, but in the interest of fairness I won't.) 3 to 1 in favor of Zip Gun/DBR *again*. Burst of Sunlight provides 2 aggravated ranged damage for 0 blood. It is only one card by itself, but you MUST have a damage prevention card such as Skin of Night or your vampire is going to torpor with him - a bad end result. So, .5 + 1 + 0 + 0 makes it 2.5 to 1.5 in favor of Zip Gun/DBR - and there is an intangible. THA/FOR decks are not the easiest things in the world to make "go", so i'd seriously want to put a -.5 or -1 on "ease of use". Since you mentioned it below... the Ivory Bow. It provides 1 aggravated ranged damage for 1 pool. Its disadvantages are identical to a Flamethrower (no maneuver, requires Disguised Weapon or an equip action), and it is also unique. It is a good weapon. For 1 pool, it is an excellent source of consistent aggravated ranged damage. By the criteria above, however... 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 to 1 for Zip Gun/DBR, which can burn vampires and is still cheaper, while an Ivory Bow can -only- send them to torpor and can't even maneuver itself out of harm's way. Reading through the above, there is simply no way to provide equivalent effects to a ZG/DBR combo without it costing much more or being much more difficult to make happen. An undisciplined pair of cards being much more powerful *and* cheaper than discipline cards themselves? That won't do for game balance at all. >AND is not burned so it can be used over and over which is why they tend to >be very deadly... incidentally... I noticed you chose to not pick on ivory >bow which (albeit is unique)... is even more cost effective than the With 20 Zip Guns and 15 DBR cards in my deck, I can use the Zip Guns over and over and over too. Don't worry. Ivory Bow didn't make it into my original listing because it can't ever do any more than 1R agg, and a Zip Gun does 1 normal and 2R agg - a huge difference since Zip Guns/DBR can burn vampires and Ivory Bows can't. >> Burning Wrath is miserably expensive for what it does, but >>it can be easily combined with IG to ensure that your strike HITS, >>which none of the other listed combos can. (Not easily anyway.) >>Taste of Death can be outmaneuvered as WELL as S:CE'd or Dodged. >>Lucky Blow/Claws don't work at long range and don't come with a free >>maneuver like Zip Gun/DBR. Tremere require a press to continue or >>some way to prevent their own Burst of Sunlight's damage. Shotgun >>Ritual will cost you two blood, but without a maneuver you'll take at >>least one point of damage from a punch as well. Do you see yet? Zip >>Gun-DBR was an UNDISCIPLINED combo (meaning any vampire anywhere >>anytime could use it) that was more effective than all other >>DISCIPLINE combinations *and* cheaper. Yech. > >Those combos don't work because you don't have the other cards listed to >back them up... tremere tend to work nicely with mob connections... hey now >they've got there press into a next round... and that's only one card that Mob Connections only works once per turn. Zip Gun/DBR can be played as many times during your turn as you have minions and cards. And if you add more cards to Walk of Flame, you're making the combo more difficult to get off and just increasing Zip Gun's advantage. What makes you think a 3-card combo that requires disciplines and does less damage is somehow "better" than a 2-card combo that requires no disciplines? How do you make this logic work? >costs you nothing unless your opponent has one... and burst of sunlight >works nicely at the first level with other damage prevention cards... there 1 point of agg won't ever burn a vampire - 1 point of normal and 2 points of agg will burn a vampire with 1 blood on him. That second point of agg damage means a LOT. >are "generic" ones you know... flak jacket.... leather jacket.... there are >vamps in tremere that float over some agg damage... other than that I >personally wouldn't touch the card because there are many other better uses >of thaumaturgy like blood stealing... There is one vampire, Merrill Molitor. He can only change one point, so you STILL can't burn a vampire with him. And in the end, you do have to admit that Burst of Sunlight is entertaining, but nowhere near as useful. >lucky blow and claws can work... and actually be more effective because >there are other things you can tack ontop of the claws other than just the >lucky blow.... manuevers can be dealt with as well... with another "generic" >card... IR goggles... also fake outs work too... and they cost you >nothing... but the pool used or goggles is negligible due to the fact its' >useable after the combo is used... the vamp blowing off a DBR in his zip gun >doesn't get to keep his manuever... Lucky Blow and Claws *can* be more effective, at the opportunity cost of still more cards played on top of the original two. Zip Gun/DBR costs you two cards. No more. No less. IR Goggles cost you an additional equip action as well as the third card, and it's a good thing they don't cost pool cause then they'd REALLY suck. Form of the Ghost is a third card. Fake Out is a desperation maneuver card, since you do not get to replace it til after combat - yuck. I don't get to keep my maneuver? Sure I do. Since ANY of my weenies can use a Zip Gun, when I play another two cards (Zip Gun and DBR) I get another maneuver for free! How bout that? If I don't blow up the gun (for example, someone plays Majesty) I -also- get to keep my maneuver! >and there are other generic combos that cost you nothing and could result in >even worse amounts of damage for no blood cost and no blood... or with the Name three. Go on. I'm waiting. >addition of especially for cards like sengir dagger combined with add to a Sengir Dagger costs 2 pool - expensive. It only works at close range. It only does one agg. It requires an equip action or Disguised Weapon. It is unique. by our criteria above - 1 + 0 + 0 + 0, 3 to 1 for Zip Gun/DBR. If you play it with, say, Undead Strength or Torn Signpost, both of which produce 2 agg from inferior Potence, >strike cards and even one or 2 additional strikes... the same thing that >could also result of a claw attack... at least the zip gun is burned after >that first use... now taking for granted the dagger is unique once again.. >but that is usually not a problem... No? When someone has an obvious source of agg damage (Sengir Dagger), it's easier to decide to avoid getting into combat with him. You know exactly who to not block, and so his only way of getting into combat is to commit Rush actions. If I have six weenies out, you know that I could play a Zip Gun/DBR at any moment, for any or all of them - which means you have to let ALL of them by if you can't handle agg damage, instead of just the one. Consider this deck: Crypt: one copy of each 1-cap. one copy of each 2-cap. Total # vampires in crypt: 45. (should be plenty. If you think that's too many, pull out 2-caps 'til you get down to where you're happy. Don't go below 20 total vamps. You may need 'em, and there are only 14 1-caps. I'd play this with 28 vamps, 1 of each 1-er and a matching 2-er.) Library: 10 Effective Management 5 Information Highway 5 Tribute to the Master total masters: 20 15 Zip Gun 15 Dragon's Breath Rounds total combat: 35 15 Computer Hacking 5 Rumors of Gehenna total actions: 15 Total cards: 70 Abuse Potential: huge. Send everyone to computer hack. Get blocked? Zip Gun, maneuver to long, DBR. Send the next guy to diablerize if you really want them to stay gone, and let the bloodhunt burn 'em to a crisp ... time to bring out the next weenie. Biggest problem may be too many Zip Guns once people quit blocking you - and people WILL quit blocking you after they lose a couple vampires. There we go. That took about ... two minutes to create. I don't want to spend the time to make it any more effective since we don't play with Zip Gun ammo. This type of deck is the reason we don't, and the reason the errata was issued in the first place. I should probably pull the Computer Hackings out as superfluous and put in a few Delaying Tactics for those nasty people who call Ancilla Empowerment and other fun stuff, but... even having spent all of two minutes on it, it should be obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > But your tournament environment, as you state later, is oriented towards > 6CL. It took me about 3 months before I full adjusted from hard 6CL to > NL. It's a lot different. Actually, it's my local game group that uses the 6CL, not the MJL tournaments. The reason I state that the local competition is stiff is because 3 of the regular players are people that have made it to the Origins finals in the past and consistently finish in the top 5 of most tournaments. Myself, Bernie and Matt Latham. I know you met Bernie at last year's Origins. Matt was at the infamous one before that. Either way, even within 6CL we can build some pretty brutal decks. > Of course, I know that you and probably others > make the transition quite well, but in general, I doubt that all of the > soft 6CL decks people play would be tournament viable (meaning having a > decent chance at winning). *shrug* I've never had a problem. The deck I took to Origins last year was something that I put together to have fun with. After I took a closer look at it later, I realized I had forgotten to make some changes that I had intended. 6CL isn't nearly as restricitve as you seem to think it is. > Mr. Suitcase was meant to refer to people with lots of cards in general. > Nice Mr. Suitcases do like you do - give away extras. Ahhh. Gotcha. Though I'm not sure how I feel about being called "nice". I'm often rather fond of being thought of as an asshole...*grin* After all, nice guys don't get the girl. > I wish I had even close to that many Forms and Temptations. I think I have > 1 Form and 2 Temptations. And I've gotten about the equivalent of 3 boxes > of AH. I might be able to dig up a couple spares for you. > > How so? How would No Limits be detrimental to a Heart of Darkness/Fortitude > > deck? > > The Heart of Darkness is very fragile. Burnable with a (D) action. It > needs to use most of its blood for actions - Heart of Darkness (2 blood), > Force of Will (2 blood), and Daring the Dawn (1 blood). So you use the > Fortitude to keep that precious blood by using damage prevention in combat. > You could use 6 Skin of Rock and 6 Resilience (and 6 Flesh of Marble if you > have them). Skin of Steel will probably be too much as far as cost goes > because that's still one less blood. Why should the deck be restricted from > using more Resilience? Plus, the strategy aspect of choosing the proper card > is removed because you can't put in more than 6 of either one. ...and this has what to do with "no limits"? Okay, even in a NL group, 6 Heart of Darkness, 6 Force of Will and 6 Daring the Dawns will be plenty. The trick in a 6CL environment isn't to load your deck with a billion copies but to get the card flow to go fast enough to get what you need when you need it. A skilled deck builder will not have that many problems...in fact it encourages deck skill, rather than discourages it. >>> Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred >>> Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion, >>> and Pulling Strings). >> >> Sounds like a lot of different cards. You would be surprised how effective >> 6 of each can be. Not to mention there are other master cards that require >> political actions to burn. Use some of them. > > But the 6 of the others are not what I'm concerned about. It's only the 6 > of the EKN. Why should I arbitrarily use only 6? Seriously, what reason > can there be to only be allowed 6? Firstly, 6 EKN and 6 Political Backlashes will prolly be plenty anyway for what you want to do. The Anarch Revolt trick will really only work once. As for the "abitrary" use of a soft 6CL, it's a reasonable number that discourages repetitve decks and encourages people to try to build inovative decks based on combos rather than centering it around one card. > My group is mainly combat, too, with smaller equal amounts of voting and > bleed. However, I'm the only one using 12 IG's in my Potence-based deck. > And do you know how effective the other Potence based decks are against well > proportioned S:CE? Not very. Actually, it would seem obvious why voting is > competing well in your high combat environment. The Potence deck is limited > to 6 IG's. The Presence vote deck has 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 Catatonic > Fear (and possibly, God help us, 6 Mercy for the Weak). *shrug* If someone is basing his entire deck around S:CE, I'd be amazed that they can do anything else. Of course, a 6CL environment makes Dog Pack a hell of a lot more effective, but without card limits a deck can be all S:CE rather than a limit of 18. However, most people don't use 18 S:CE cards in their deck because they have other things to do, not to mention it gets tiresome. > Exactly why there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with playing CL as long as > everyone agrees. It's just as fun as NL. In your case though, with a soft > limit, I'd just say, why bother with limits at all? Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks. Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun? Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Ok. A Potence Rush deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Immortal Grapple. > With a 6 CL, it is perfectly viable to play 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 > Catatonic Fear. That is 6 anti S:CE cards vs 18 S:CE cards. The Potence deck > will fail. This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along. A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG deck anyway. > An Animalism based Intercept deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Cat's > Guidance. Without reliable access to Cat's Guidance, the deck has to rely on > permanent intercept (Ravens and such), which is always the case with card > limits. A deck that relies on Cat's Guidance for intercept is already in a world of hurt. If you're counting on animalism for intercept, you need permanent intercept and Pack Tactics (and Elder Intervention) to make intercept useful. Having only +1 intercept isn't going to cut it. > A Celerity based combat deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Psyche in the > same manner as the IG based deck. *shrug* So combine them... At least Psyche is a good answer to maneuvers. > A Presence vote deck _is_ going to suffer from only having 6 Bewitching > Oration. *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. If it's not, you're doing something wrong. > When you are building a deck that has only one card that does what you > want it to, 6 simply isn't enough, A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent. Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged. > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 Immortal > Grapples :-) Uh...Peter, not everyone plays an IG deck and to require one to beat such a deck is silly. I'd rather go the other route as it keeps the arms race to a minimum. > No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need > them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE. > Which there will be more than 6 of. No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Still not possible. I'd obviously have to stay overnight and drive > the seven hours back to get things ready for the party I'm hosting > for the Super Bowl. Sorry. :( bummer. I was looking forward to doing battle with cards. *grin* > Why can't you guys have something on the western side of Michigan? :) > At least I know some people in Detroit that I could crash with. And > I can drive up and back to western Chicago pretty easily. Actually, we do have something on the western side. Our tentative schedule for the year is: January: Wintercon 99' Lincoln Park, MI February: BashCON, Toledo, OH March: GEMCON? Ypsilanti, MI April: TLC Cards Augusta, MI May: Gamer's Inn Rochester, MI June: Dave's House Grand Haven, MI *July: Origins 99' Columbus, OH JULY: <TBD> Lansing, MI August: TLC Cards Augusta, MI September: ANDCON Toledo, OH October: Grand Cafe Farmington, MI November: UCON Ann Arbor, MI December: None (It's a HOLIDAY!) Augusta and Grand Haven are on the west side. Most of the tournaments are on the last weekend of the month. If GEMCON in Ypsi is a dead con this year (due to the degradation of the student org over the last two years) then I'll try to get the con to be on the west side. ...and yes, we are planning on running a tournament at Origins. So warm up those Mind Rape/Return to Innocence and WVP decks. *grin* Or better yet, play decks that are as fun to play against as it is for you to play. Hell, I might even push for a prize for the most innovative deck. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S Ray wrote: "Abuse Potential: huge. Send everyone to computer hack. Get blocked? Zip Gun, maneuver to long, DBR. Send the next guy to diablerize if you really want them to stay gone, and let the bloodhunt burn 'em to a crisp ... time to bring out the next weenie. Biggest problem may be too many Zip Guns once people quit blocking you - and people WILL quit blocking you after they lose a couple vampires." (Fine analytical post, by the way). I would like to, in support of Derek's post, pre-emptively point out that trying to fix this sort of nightmare with a blanket card limit will curtail this sort of deck a bit, sure, but only at the expense of making thousands of other perfectly reasonable decks no longer playable as well as making certain common deck types far more powerful than they should be (Malk S+B?). Errataing Zip Gun succceeds in fixing this sort of nightmare (turning it from a complete horror show to a fairly useful [sans the DBR], but in no way over powered, deck) without comprimising the structural integrity of the rest of the game. That is the purpose of all the errataed cards--to repair holes in the game (cards that are too powerful, combos that are too powerful, cards that don't cost enough, whatever) without comprimising the structure of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

> so, the best Pitch deck I can see under 6CL is: > > Strikes: 6 Gate, 6 Lid, 6 Car, 6 Sacrament > Support: 6 Flash, 6 Rapid Thought, 6 Nimble Feet, 6 Infernal Pursuit > Vital: 6 Blur, 6 Psyche, 6 Taste, 6 Ambush, 6 Bum's Rush > Left: 12 masters in some form or other. 4 Haven, 4 Potence, 4 blood > dolls, probably. First off, nobody plays 18 S:CE due to the spirit of the 6CL. Number two, you forgot RPG Launcher. *grin* Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <784t5m$c58$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them > out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along. > A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG > deck anyway. Maneuvers will run out pretty quickly. It only takes one time of not having them in the hand for the IG to be in position. > > A Presence vote deck _is_ going to suffer from only having 6 Bewitching > > Oration. > > *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. > If it's not, you're doing something wrong. This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip. None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card that I don't? Yes, this is always true, but in this specific case, there is a reasonable substitute for the Awe - more BO. "Listen, you smell something?" One pool to the person who names that movie reference, btw. :) > > When you are building a deck that has only one card that does what you > > want it to, 6 simply isn't enough, > > A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent. > Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged. What? Huh? I think you're taking his statement a little too literal possibly. I don't think he's referring to building a deck entirely or almost entirely of one card but to building a deck around a specific card. Like the Elder Kindred Network deck that I mentioned earlier. There are no real substitutes for that card, Political Backlash being a weak imitation. If I want to build a deck around that card, I am limited to only 6. So that card doesn't exactly become the main feature of the deck, and I won't reliably draw it. This is not to say that a 6CL deck using it won't work, but it won't be near as consistent as the NL version and the EKN just becomes another card in the deck. > > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going > > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 > > Immortal Grapples :-) > > Uh...Peter, not everyone plays an IG deck and to require one to beat such a > deck is silly. I'd rather go the other route as it keeps the arms race to a > minimum. The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires. > > No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need > > them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE. > > Which there will be more than 6 of. > > No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this. I built a pretty effective 6CL Pot/Ani/For rush deck once. It could go through 4 cards before range was even determined. And it was absolutely necessary against a Presence deck because the risk of wasted cards was so high. It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version. The rush deck has no actions to waste going after the same vampire multiple times. That's why Fortitude is such a bane. And without an IG against S:CE, you add another big block to it. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <784s42$b3g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > mboh...@shout.net wrote: [snip] > > The Heart of Darkness is very fragile. Burnable with a (D) action. It > > needs to use most of its blood for actions - Heart of Darkness (2 blood), > > Force of Will (2 blood), and Daring the Dawn (1 blood). So you use the > > Fortitude to keep that precious blood by using damage prevention in combat. > > You could use 6 Skin of Rock and 6 Resilience (and 6 Flesh of Marble if you > > have them). Skin of Steel will probably be too much as far as cost goes > > because that's still one less blood. Why should the deck be restricted from > > using more Resilience? Plus, the strategy aspect of choosing the proper card > > is removed because you can't put in more than 6 of either one. > > ...and this has what to do with "no limits"? Okay, even in a NL group, 6 > Heart of Darkness, 6 Force of Will and 6 Daring the Dawns will be plenty. > The trick in a 6CL environment isn't to load your deck with a billion copies > but to get the card flow to go fast enough to get what you need when you need > it. A skilled deck builder will not have that many problems...in fact it > encourages deck skill, rather than discourages it. The point here was that you can only have 6 Resilience under 6CL, and if you want more damage prevention you can put in 6 Skin of Rock, and if you want more damage prevention, you start resorting to substantially inferior cards. Under no limits, you can use as many Resilience as you think you need. (Nor is 6 Force of Will/6 Daring the Dawn enough for the theme to really work, but that's not the immediate point.) Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards. Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used. But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me. > > Exactly why there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with playing CL as long as > > everyone agrees. It's just as fun as NL. In your case though, with a soft > > limit, I'd just say, why bother with limits at all? > > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks. > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun? *Winning* is fun. This often appears to be the sticking point between people who advocate card limits to 'enforce fun' and those who prefer no limits. Being able to build your deck any way you want in order to accomplish the goals (or fulfill the themes) you want to is also fun. Thirty-five Cryptic Missions may not win tourneys, but it might be fun. My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by card limits, if you believe that using a CL will reduce the power of decks such that it is less likely that any one deck will completely foil another, or that any one deck will be so effective as to oust people excessively quickly, or that any abusive combinations will be available to players. However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks. And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. I could suggest that the deck might be more effective if it were less predictable. But ultimately it's his choice as to what he wants to build and play. If winning is what's fun, then what wins is what people will want to play. If winning is not the primary objective of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is* fun than by card limits. I don't presume to tell your group that you can't play with card limits if you want to, either, of course. ^_- But I (like some others, I expect) have a knee-jerk bad reaction to card limits because there have been people who feel that they're necessary for the game, whereas I (and some others) feel that they are nothing but bad for 'the game as a whole'. Josh full of hot air today [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them > > out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along. > > A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG > > deck anyway. > > Maneuvers will run out pretty quickly. It only takes one time of not > having them in the hand for the IG to be in position. Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck. My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a 6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in a NL environment. A Protean-Dominate-Animalism deck would be ugly. Use Protean for Form of Mist and maneuvers, Animalism for Terror Frenzy to keep them at long range so you can use your FoM and Dominate for all the fun bleed. The crypt would be limited to Don Cruez - The Idealist, Caitlin, Genevieve, Faruq, Ingrid Rossler and Stanislava but Minion Taps would be useful to offset the costs. > > *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. > > If it's not, you're doing something wrong. > > This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip. > None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence > deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card that > I don't? *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and traded, so it's not much of a problem. > > A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent. > > Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged. > > What? Huh? I think you're taking his statement a little too literal > possibly. I don't think he's referring to building a deck entirely or almost > entirely of one card but to building a deck around a specific card. No...not at all. A deck based on one card can be interesting and that's why we allow reasonable exceptions. However, we encourage card combos as a foundation of a deck rather than using a power card to base one on. > Like the > Elder Kindred Network deck that I mentioned earlier. There are no real > substitutes for that card, Political Backlash being a weak imitation. Why? After all, you can stack them. Besides, how often do you think people are going to call to burn Anarch Revolt after you unload a can of EKN whoopass on them? The trick will only work once. > If I want to build a deck around that card, I am limited to only 6. Notice that first part? Remember what I said we discourage? *grin* > So that card doesn't exactly become the main feature of the deck, > and I won't reliably draw it. Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math, (6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. If I don't draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another (which increases until I draw another) with each card I play. I'd say that's fairly reliable. > This is not to say that a 6CL deck using it won't work, but it > won't be near as consistent as the NL version and the EKN just > becomes another card in the deck. Depends on your card flow. If you play 4 cards all at once, you have about a 25% chance of drawing one. > > > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going > > > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 > > > Immortal Grapples :-) > > The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A > similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer > Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast > enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you > either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires. Minion Tap gets rid of the larger vampires problem. I could work out the rest of the details. > > No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this. > > I built a pretty effective 6CL Pot/Ani/For rush deck once. It could go > through 4 cards before range was even determined. And it was absolutely > necessary against a Presence deck because the risk of wasted cards was so > high. > > It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version. It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do. The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin* Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously. I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of looking at deck building. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that > what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a > strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a > particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates > looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards > because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards. What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll keep seeing the same old crap over and over again. > Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used. > But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me. Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. > > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks. > > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun? > > *Winning* is fun. For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, buy a porno mag or a video game. I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." It could not be more true. > My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled > by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've > been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by > card limits, ...and usually with some success. > However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just > by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really > have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks. One goes with the other. > And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that > consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and > 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't > play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get invited to any of the local games. > If winning is not the primary objective > of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be > more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is* > fun than by card limits. Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. > But I (like some others, I > expect) have a knee-jerk bad reaction to card limits because there have > been people who feel that they're necessary for the game, whereas I > (and some others) feel that they are nothing but bad for 'the game as > a whole'. Never once did I say that card limits are "necessary for the game," nor would I imply such. But card limits being "bad for 'the game as a whole'" is a bit excessive when we're discussing local groups. Noal -always full of hot air, among other things. *grin* -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7854ji$j0r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > In article <784s42$b3g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks. > > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun? Aha! The crux of the matter. > *Winning* is fun. Yes, but I've said before that people weight where they get their fun differently. For me, winning isn't fun when a deck seems abusive or cheesy. I feel dirty. :) Winning is about 30% of my fun. > Being able to build your deck any way you want in order to accomplish > the goals (or fulfill the themes) you want to is also fun. Thirty-five > Cryptic Missions may not win tourneys, but it might be fun. Yes, such a thing can be fun. And if you're using a combo under a CL and you don't draw your fun combo, you don't have any fun. Or at least I don't. A Heart of Darkness without a Force of Will and Daring the Dawn isn't fun. Heart of Darkness by itself just sucks. :) > My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled > by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've > been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by > card limits, if you believe that using a CL will reduce the power of > decks such that it is less likely that any one deck will completely > foil another, or that any one deck will be so effective as to oust > people excessively quickly, or that any abusive combinations will be > available to players. Under NL, the gentlemanly aspect of it isn't so great because you can make about any deck pretty competitive. So if someone doesn't play gentlemanly, you are usually equipped to handle it to at least some degree. Under CL, if someone doesn't play gentlemanly, you're generally hosed. Examples would be playing with all 18 Presence S:CE cards that Noal says people in his group don't do. Or playing S&B. Even though a group might be heavy combat, the properly made S&B deck is going to win quite often. > And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that > consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and > 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't > play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. I generally roll my eyes and give them a hard time. > I don't presume to tell your group that you can't play with card limits > if you want to, either, of course. ^_- But I (like some others, I > expect) have a knee-jerk bad reaction to card limits because there have > been people who feel that they're necessary for the game, whereas I > (and some others) feel that they are nothing but bad for 'the game as > a whole'. Playing with CL can be just as much fun as playing without them. However, your avenues for fun, ie. a deck that (ab)uses Betrayer an otherwise useless card, are limited. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7857kn$m2j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck. There's another rare I don't have.... Note that both of these rares are from the Sabbat, a set that really went overboard with rare power. > My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a > 6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in > a NL environment. You must have a lot of Terror Frenzies. I personally prefer Ani/Pot for the sake of you only need one Drawing Out the Beast to kill their maneuvers AND equipment. Terror Frenzy also requires you to pay an extra blood for combat cards at superior, no? > > This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip. > > None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence > > deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card > > that I don't? > *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and traded, so it's not > much of a problem. I give away vampires until I have only two of a given one left unless it uses disciplines I like. For other cards, I have yet to complete a set in Sabbat, so I always keep at least one of each that I have. So trading is difficult. Lastly, everyone in my group is on pretty limited funds (or appropriated elsewhere), so getting all these rares we need is pretty much out of the question. > > Like the > > Elder Kindred Network deck that I mentioned earlier. There are no real > > substitutes for that card, Political Backlash being a weak imitation. > > Why? After all, you can stack them. So let's say I have a hand of 2 EKN, 1 Kindred Coercion, 2 Surprise Influence, and 2 Political Backlash. I have two ready vampires (which is my thought on this deck). Someone calls a vote to burn and I quash it by 8 votes. I can then play both EKN's and both PB's and my prey will more than likely be ousted. Without being able to pack more EKN's, I might cause 8 less pool loss. That's a pretty weak imitation of PB. They aren't mutually exclusive. > Besides, how often do you think > people are going to call to burn Anarch Revolt after you unload a > can of EKN whoopass on them? The trick will only work once. Yes, once I do this, no one will probably call to burn. If no one burns the Anarch's, they just die. I've built my deck to prepare for 3 or 4 non-blockable, non-redirectable pool loss a turn; they haven't. And it won't just work against the Anarch votes, but any other votes. The AR's are just incentives for someone to call a vote. Plus, it'd feel oh so good to see everyone's jaw drop at that amount of pool loss using cards no one uses. :) > Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math, > (6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of > drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. If I don't > draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it > after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I > draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another > (which increases until I draw another) with each card I play. > > I'd say that's fairly reliable. But it's not totally reliable. What if I whack them with a couple Political Backlashes and they stop calling? Those 6 cards just became useless. At least if I have one when I want it the first time, I know I can probably oust my prey. > > It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version. > > It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do. > The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin* Hrmmm.... > Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously. I figured you wouldn't be that provocative. :) > I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage > to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of > looking at deck building. Which is the position I've always held. Switching back and forth once in a while can make it interesting. It forces people to think about cards they may never have considered and expands their playing ability in the long run....assuming an eventual switch back to NL. ;) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many >of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more >than enough handy. Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns... I rest my case Vince

Dhar...@yahoo.com writes: > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >> Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that >> what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a >> strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a >> particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates >> looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards >> because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards. >What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll >keep seeing the same old crap over and over again. True under NL as well. But, when a card limit causes you to keep using the same set of cards to supplement your decks... >> Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used. >> But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me. >Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. All the innovative decks that you can make under CL can be made under NL. The reverse is not true. Joshua, I believe, was referring to the fact that CL stifles the innovation by restricting your innovative ideas/combos in favor of the stock cards/combos (or, worse, less-effective "shadow" cards) because you can't pack enough of the individual cards required for some (not all) "innovations". >> > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks. >> > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun? >> >> *Winning* is fun. >For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, >buy a porno mag or a video game. >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how >you play the game." It could not be more true. Playing competitively is fun. Winning on the basis of competitive play is icing on the cake, and is still at least as fun, if not moreso. Being unable to play certain deck because of some arbitrary restriction makes the game less competitive, and less fun, in some people's opinion, by increasing the reliance on luck or the need to resort to cards that don't "fit" as well in your deck. >> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled >> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've >> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by >> card limits, >...and usually with some success. ... with a gentlemen's agreement, sure. But the same is true of NL. Straight CL won't address the "problem" of speed-kill S&B. NL at least gives more decks a fighting chance against that (and other) types of decks. >> However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just >> by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really >> have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks. >One goes with the other. CL addresses the decks. The "gentlemen's agreement" you have in place addresses the players. The two may "go together" where you play, but are not generally dependent on each other. >> And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that >> consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and >> 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't >> play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. >Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get >invited to any of the local games. Doesn't sound like a very amicable solution. But, whatever you find "fun"... >> If winning is not the primary objective >> of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be >> more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is* >> fun than by card limits. >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. Winning is the defined objective. If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Research has been shown http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | to cause cancer in mice. Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger |

In article <7857kn$m2j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip. > > None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your > > Presence deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful > > rare card that I don't? > > *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and traded, so it's not > much of a problem. Noal, I have to admit that your group sounds very cool. However, it appears that the rest of the world (most unfortunately) doesn't work that way. Cool traders aside *nudges Peter* However, I do have a few comments/questions... > > The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A > > similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer > > Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast > > enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you > > either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires. > > Minion Tap gets rid of the larger vampires problem. I could work out the > rest of the details. Well as you are probably aware, Minion Taps don't 'get rid of,' but maybe alleviate the difficulty of using larger vampires. They still can be torporized before you get the chance to tap them, or intercepted after they've been tapped & are hunting or 5th Traditioning or Restoring, or whatever. I think Mike's deck in JOL84 (which, by the way, I'm not horribly worried about sweeping the table...but I'm nearly through in that game anyway...) is perhaps the best deck at getting around all of that nastiness I've ever seen. But no one near him is playing rush, either. > > > No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this. Actually, I've been meaning to call you on this, Noal. In general, I understand the concept of card flow, but you've been referring to it so darn often, I want to know what *precisely* you mean by 'ensuring good cardflow'. I know you typically include 20 masters in a deck, but beyond that, do you go with specific proportions, or include extra discard stuff, or what? I guess what got me thinking on this was a comment that went something along the lines of 'developing good card flow skills' or something. Josh said something about winning being fun, and Mike countered with winning being about 30% of the fun for him. Overall, I think I'm with Mike on this one. Though I'd go for an even lower percentage of fun being winning. Though I don't deny that winning can be fun. We had a really evil blow-up at the last meeting of our little playgroup over this matter, when a new (to the group) player got *very* nitpicky after he decided to block a friend (who doesn't play lots of Jyhad) playing my Dom/For/Tha deck. When my friend played the Dawn Op, but asked for maneuvers before remembering to play his Weather Control, the new guy freaked out about how he had told my friend a bunch of times (@ 2 or 3, in actuality) previously that he had to remember to play it. Not that it would have affected the outcome. In a tournament, I can see getting that picky. In a local playgroup, that's above & beyond. But enough of my aside. Actually, I think my fun breaks down as: 10% winning 30% seeing my deck(s) do well (whether played by me or others...) 50% designing the deck...yup 10% tormenting others with my strangeness Josh also said: >However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just >by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really >have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks. This I definitely agree with. It doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand, as you indicate, Noal. Fun players = fun decks. Fun decks ~ fun players, sometimes...in the group I play with, even though they have semi-soft limits (i.e. they apparenly don't mind too much if *you* play NL, but they don't seem to bother...), one guy has built a Corruption deck that uses Carlotta & that Necromancy card to bring the Corruptions back from the ashheap. Yikes...I call that scary adherence to CL for no good reason (which I'm not accusing you of, Noal...it all sounds very cool...I'd still be upset about not being *encouraged* to play 8 Dawn Op, 8 Skin of Night, 10-12 Weather Control). But fun is the way to play. Fun fun fun. Xian, thinking that yeah, Noal is right that the 7-Raptor deck doesn't work very easily under 6CL... "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > Dhar...@yahoo.com writes: > > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > >> *Winning* is fun. > > >For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, > >buy a porno mag or a video game. > >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how > >you play the game." It could not be more true. > > Playing competitively is fun. Winning on the basis of competitive play > is icing on the cake, and is still at least as fun, if not moreso. The old quote almost certainly refers to playing fair and with respect for the other team. You can bet that a team that loses a baseball game in which they turned a triple play doesn't crack open the champagne afterwards. > >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants > >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. > > Winning is the defined objective. > > If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. > This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the > other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. Agreed. By rule, getting the most victory points is the only objective. The players I've seen play with a different goal (like maybe getting off this new six-card combo they think is sooo cooool.) end up screwing up the game because they don't put an effort into ousting their prey. I believe the game (and the meta game) only works properly when everyone plays to win. -- Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net _________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization

In article <782em4$8fn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes > mboh...@shout.net wrote: >> > Such as? >> >> I would modify the statement with: >> There are many unique and interesting decks that just don't work without >> No Limits. > >And again I say, "Such as?" The Betrayer deck The Corruption deck (what you prefer to use is not a problem - some people prefer this method, because it *can* be quicker and more permanent) A Tremere steal blood deck Robert Goudie's Cryptic Mission-Society of Leopold deck Many Brujah decks, designed to prevent S:CE Many Gangrel (non-POT) decks designed to get around S:Dodge The Might of the Camarilla-Possession deck (Chris Berger) Basically, any deck which wants to base itself around difficult to obtain effects, such as those only offered by one or two cards. Whether you or I choose to play such a deck is neither here nor there. Whether other people should be given the choice to play such decks *is* for me. You may think that one trick pony decks don't work. In principle, I agree to a limited extent. Every deck needs some diversification, IMO, but that's up to the player. In a game where every effect is available in similar form multiple times, a CL is okay (it's then mostly pointless, but okay). In Jyhad, you have many unique effects, especially for the newer disciplines, which can't at all easily be duplicated. An xCL stops them from working effectively, unless "x" is so large as to be meaningless. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <784u0d$iag$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >First off, nobody plays 18 S:CE due to the spirit of the 6CL. And this is the thing. If you have to rely on "spirit" to limit the game, the card limit is irrelevant. You should just play with people you trust not to build, whatever your opinion dictates are, sick decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <784s42$b3g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >6CL isn't nearly as restricitve as you seem to think it is. You *can* make viable decks under 6CL. Many tournament decks I see win are very close to 6CL anyway. But you just lose the ability to make those decks where you only have one, maybe two, sources of an effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <784t5m$c58$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >> Ok. A Potence Rush deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Immortal Grapple. >> With a 6 CL, it is perfectly viable to play 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 >> Catatonic Fear. That is 6 anti S:CE cards vs 18 S:CE cards. The Potence deck >> will fail. > >This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them >out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along. >A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG >deck anyway. But I don't want to do weenie pot and I'm playing Nosferatu. People aren't blocking so my Hidden Lurkers are useless. What would I do here? Is my Nosferatu deck all but useless, because I can't pack enough IG in it to stop the S:CE? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7859de$nqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll >keep seeing the same old crap over and over again. Okay, you want variety in decks I want to play Robert Goudie's 35 Cryptic Mission decks. That would be different to your usual decks. Why can't I have the variety to do that? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78126n$dv5@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >I just hate to take some >rulings and ignore others based on the fact that the ruling was only made >for those that couldn't deal with it correctly with what they have in front >of them... No, the ruling *wasn't* made because people couldn't deal with it. You might not have had a problem in your group. You just didn't get a deck degenerate enough to entirely exploit the card. And if you want to make a deck entirely devoted to blocking that deck, you kind of lose the point of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <785flr$n1j@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes > >>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many >>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more >>than enough handy. > >Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it >all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... Why restrict it though? The errata does *exactly* the same thing - makes making a 20-30 Zip Gun deck stupid for similar reasons. Restricting and errata may help achieve the same effects. You just don't like issuing errata. Fair enough, but it *works*. Zip Guns can still be used. If I want a lot of them in my deck, I still can. I just can't abuse them with DBR, which was the problem all along. Since the problem was with DBR, we stop them using DBR (or ammo cards in general). You can still use the Zip Gun as non-ammo defence, because you're not limited to having "x" in a deck. One up for the errata, methinks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <782j0g$qn7@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the >restrictions... And they were removed because they did untold damage to the tournament decks. Tell me how you would propose to construct the very viable Betrayer deck with a CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7816nq$eki@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... If a combo is not abusive, where is the problem in relying on that combo? Why can't a player choose to do so? If it is abusive, fix the thing making the combo abusive, but leave the options still open for using the cards on their own. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <782nbv$rsu@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >decks that use the combo get them less frequently and if you >want to build a deck around the combo then fine... If it's abusive, fair enough. But if you restrict the card, you stop it being used in non-abusive combos. Why would you want to do that? Would you also require that before every game, the judge checks the decks to make sure they have only so many of every card? With only 1 judge and 10-20 decks, it could take a while. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:51:34 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > >>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many >>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more >>than enough handy. > >Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it Hence the need for errata to Zip Gun, as opposed to silly sweeping restrictions that restrict OTHER combinations that are not so easily abused. Restricting one card is as difficult to remember as simply making errata for that card - zero difference in the end. >all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have >nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better I'm sorry? You think boxes of Jyhad are expensive? Go look at how many Zip Guns you get in a $7 box of Jyhad and tell me again how difficult it is to get 20 Zip Guns together, and how much it will probably cost you. With regards to wasting my money... I have purchased two boxes of Sabbat cards, mostly because of the Sabbat vampires. That is "expensive", to me, for a card game. I haven't purchased boxes of Ancient Hearts because they're even MORE expensive then Sabbat boxes, although someday I'm probably going to break down and do just that, again mostly for the vampires. I am hardly a Mr. Suitcase, if that's what you're implying - I just put my money where it would do some good, in multiple boxes (grand total: 8) of the base set so that I would have enough cards to build -any- kind of deck and also to have enough of the "common" cards like WWEF, Blood Doll, Minion Tap, etc., so that I would be able to keep multiple decks built at the same time. Oh, I also purchased two boxes of Dark Sovereigns somewhere along the way. My total investment in Jyhad-backed cards, which are apparently where you think I've "wasted my money", is approximately $56 (8 x 7, for the less mathematically inclined) - which is almost identical to the cost of ONE box of Sabbat, and FAR more useful and fun in the long run, since I don't have to worry about whether or not I happen to have got enough of any particular card to make an idea work. (Except Immortal Grapple... dammit. The fates conspire against my ever being able to try a traditional "12-IG Rush Deck" without proxies.) Anyway... that was part of the appeal this game had for me, was that I did NOT have enough money to even pretend to compete in the Magic arena, with individual cards costing several hundred dollars... but that I could easily buy enough cards to make almost any deck I wanted for less than $75. The game has so far provided many months of fun for me, and some truly hilarious moments... for example, last night Nik blocked an Assamite, paid his 1 blood for Acrobatics to pop him one on the nose, and then spent three CEL cards (Flash, Nimble Feet, Rapid Thought) pressing to end combat, to avoid having to go to torpor. The thought of Nik, 1-cap Caitiff with inferior Celerity and a special disability to boot, gratuitously escaping death at the hands of the evil Assamite combat monsters and even doing more damage in the process had the table laughing for at least fifteen minutes afterwards. (On a side note, of course it was a complete waste of cards, and yes, I DID have hand jam for the next three turns trying to get some maneuvers back into my hand so I could block again, but damn, it was funny. Nik survived hunting and was gloriously burned while blocking the turn afterwards, since I still had a l'il hand jam problem.) I don't consider my $56 wasted at all, and I'm not sure why you do either. If you have difficulty coming up with this much spare money... I'm afraid NO collectible card game is for you, since I don't know of any that don't require a certain initial investment, and I don't know of any that don't require a significantly larger initial investment. My final point is something I've seen no other CCG do... I can build a deck out of those $56 worth of cards that will absolutely, completely ruin any deck you build, with as many Sabbat cards as you care to include, with as many astonishing rares, however abusive you would like to make the deck... I can make a deck out of those cards that will beat it like a drum. My deck may lose miserably to the OTHER decks on the table, but I can certainly guarantee that if you are my predator, you will never oust me, and if you are my prey, you will BE ousted. That's part of the challenge of the game... there is no "one great deck that does it all". Innovation and creativity (agentzero's Computer Terrorists deck is pretty damn funny and brings pictures to mind of little goblins holding bombs twice the size of their bodies rushing headlong at the enemy) actually has a chance of succeeding. Want to beat that Zip Gun deck I posted? Make an Animalism deck with 12 Drawing out the Beasts and either Aid from Bats, Protean Claws, whatever. Stack a bunch of Rat's Warning in there as well so you can keep untapping and blocking all the weenies. There is lots of combat that can go great with DotB, and a deck like this will COMPLETELY ruin that Zip Gun deck. Acting minion has to play before-range cards first, and Zip Guns come out only before range, so you don't have to Draw out his Beast unless he plays a zip gun. Simple, huh? Just because there's an effective counter to a deck, though, doesn't mean the deck isn't abusive. >things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many >zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because >you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns... I wasn't attempting to build the deck to be perfect... I was attempting to build the deck to be abusive, to demonstrate that yes, it is VERY EASY to make a deck that will pound an awful lot of people silly with a broken Zip Gun/DBR combo. It took me five whole minutes to write up and post that deck, and it proved my point very nicely, thank you - that Zip Gun unquestionably required errata, which happily was provided. >I have no case, and I'm beginning to get personal about it >Vince I took the liberty of correcting your misspelling above, right before your name. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:23:31 -0800, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >Agreed. By rule, getting the most victory points is the only objective. >The players I've seen play with a different goal (like maybe getting off >this new six-card combo they think is sooo cooool.) end up screwing up >the game because they don't put an effort into ousting their prey. I >believe the game (and the meta game) only works properly when everyone >plays to win. Absolutely. That's why we only try to come up with six-card combos that do obliterative damage to your prey in the process, so maybe you only get it off once, but ... =) (I made a silly deck called Sneak, Bleed, and Videotape like this. 15 Incriminating Videotapes, lots of OBF weenies and enough stealth cards (forgotten labyrinth, woo! +3 stealth to a non-bleed action!) to ensure that I wouldn't ever be unable to equip one, and enough bleed retainers and assorted bleed whatevers (laptop, Spying Mission, Inverary, vampires with base +1 bleed) to jack a single bleed up somewhere around 10. 5 copies of Heidelburg Castle so that after I had a tape of all of my prey's vampires, i could consolidate them all along with the retainers on one unblockable vamp who could then happily bleed for 10 twice. Tournament-effective? ... well... no. Fun as hell to play a couple times? Yeah. Although it never bled for more than 7 due to some of the retainers not coming out by the time i had all the tapes made... poo.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along. A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG deck anyway." Not before they are dead. If I have 6 IG and you have, say, 10-12 S:CE (which is not at all unreasonable for any sort of Pre deck), it is highly likely that I won't have an IG in my hand when you have a S:CE. The life and death of the pure Rush deck is getting the maximum effectiveness out of its actions. If it is regularly getting foiled by S:CE (even half of the time), it is getting killed. Yes, a bunch of manuvers and Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck, and while an IG deck will be hamstrung by having only 6 IG, the manuver deck will not be hamstrung bu having only 6 manuvers. This (not the manuvers and TF in particular, but the general outclassing of IG based combat decks) makes playing a pure Rush deck mostly pointless. Yes, you can make other kinds of combat decks, or more well rounded combat decks, but then you are artificially restricting the types of decks that are effective. "A deck that relies on Cat's Guidance for intercept is already in a world of hurt. If you're counting on animalism for intercept, you need permanent intercept and Pack Tactics (and Elder Intervention) to make intercept useful. Having only +1 intercept isn't going to cut it." No, but being able to have, say, 12 Cats Guidance as along with a good supply of Ravens and Elder Intervention means you will regularly have the +1 transient intercept you need as well as being able to use the Cats for its inferior ability without having to worry about "wasting" the card. Again, the 6CL makes such a deck (which is a perfectly reasonable deck) a non option in a compettetive sense, while under NL, it is a perfectly viable deck idea. "*shrug* So combine them... At least Psyche is a good answer to maneuvers." So to be a compettetive Pot combat deck, you _have_ to be the Brujah. Again, substantially restricting what decks can be actually compettetive. "*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. If it's not, you're doing something wrong." Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just having 12 common as dirt commons. "A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent. Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged." I'm a bit mistified by this whole idea of thought policing the players in your group. If somone really enjoys playing a deck made out of 2 different cards, why is it their responsibility to not play such a deck for your enjoyment? If they are a really cool guy, but you don't like the decks they want to build, you aren't going to let them play? You'd actively "not invite them back"? "Uh...Peter, not everyone plays an IG deck and to require one to beat such a deck is silly. I'd rather go the other route as it keeps the arms race to a minimum." That wasn't my point. Such a deck (25 Conditioning/25 Form of Mist or whatever) simply isn't going to be overly effective in a situation where _all_ deck types are viable. And while I wouldn't really find playing such a deck to be all that amusing, why should I tell my pal that _he_ shouldn't find playing such a deck fun? "No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this." This is a highly sketchy concept. Yes, you can attempt to make up for not having enough of the particular card you need through making a smaller deck or using inferior "patch" cards to attempt to pick up the slack, or whatever wacky tricks you can come up with to compensate for the 6CL, but such a deck will always be at a disadvantage against decks that do not have to resort to such tricks (such as a bleed deck relying on Dom, Obf, or Pre, all of which are frought with redundancy). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7859de$nqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >> Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that >> what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a >> strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a >> particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates >> looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards >> because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards. > >What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll >keep seeing the same old crap over and over again. I don't know why I'm getting back into this tired old debate, but frankly I think this argument is just false. There are simply more viable decks under NCL than under CL. There are plenty of decks that can't work, or don't work as well under CL. Add that to the fact that there are pleny of decks completely unnaffected by CL (e.g. S:CE or S&B decks). Are you actually disputing this fact? This part has been gone over point by point repeatedly in the past, and I I even find that NCL decks tend to have more variety _within_ a given deck, as you don't simply see the CL of all the important cards. Most NCL decks also will only have alot of a few select cards, and will not be by the "Cond/GotU/FoM" beasts you suggest. >> Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used. >> But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me. > >Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. Innovative? What's innovative about including the card limit of a card, and then moving on to the next one? The 4CL decks I remember were quite cookie cutter, as there were a fastly reduced number of ones that worked (admittedly, back then the situation was worse, since there weren't as many duplicate cards). What's innovative is a ton of Raptors, viable corruption, cryptic mission decks, or a ton of other things that don't exist under CL (frankly, I'd add effective combat decks to that list). >> > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks. >> > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun? A deck with 12 IG is definitly fun. Alot of people simply don't have the knee jerk reaction that some decks having a few cards that are heavily used is boring. >> *Winning* is fun. > >For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, >buy a porno mag or a video game. Um, is there really any need to be this insulting? What Josh means, I believe, is that the game of trying to figure out how to win is fun -- that competition is fun. The number of cards used is really unimportant -- it's the variety and depth of play that's important. >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how >you play the game." It could not be more true. I think you're really missing the point here. >> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled >> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've >> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by >> card limits, > >...and usually with some success. No. Perhaps in other card games, but it has the _opposite_ effect in Jyhad. Card limits make a few decks better, and others worse. This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark? do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me. Strangely, nobody has claimed the money yet. >> However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just >> by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really >> have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks. > >One goes with the other. Not really. What Josh is saying is that such simple fixes don't really address the problem, as they're never comprehensive. You're basically stuck with shaming players out of playing unwanted decks. >> And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that >> consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and >> 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't >> play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. > >Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get >invited to any of the local games. What ever. Ostracizing someone because you don't like his deck is the same thing. >> If winning is not the primary objective >> of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be >> more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is* >> fun than by card limits. > >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. Why do people always misunderstand this argument? It's not that winning itself is so important for "serious gamers", but playing to win. It's not some childish need for gratification as you imply, but rather curiosity, problem solving, and competition. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <36A66573...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >L. Scott Johnson wrote: > >> >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >> >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. >> >> Winning is the defined objective. >> >> If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. >> This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the >> other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. > >Agreed. By rule, getting the most victory points is the only objective. >The players I've seen play with a different goal (like maybe getting off >this new six-card combo they think is sooo cooool.) end up screwing up >the game because they don't put an effort into ousting their prey. I >believe the game (and the meta game) only works properly when everyone >plays to win. Amen. Nothing is worse than a player who, unintentionaly or not, plays King Maker. It's more acceptable if it's done because a player doesn't care than if it's done intentionally -- but it's no more fun. It really has nothing to do with _who_ actually wins or loses. If the competitive game I'm in isn't being played to win, I'd much rather role play, read, go the symphony, or out dancing. Hell, I'd even rather watch TV. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <784t5m$c58$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need >> them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE. >> Which there will be more than 6 of. > >No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this. Fine. Let's see this hypothetical well-built deck. I predict that while a NL rush deck (with lots of Bum's Rush and IG) does fine with either weenie presence or S&B as it's predator, 6CL rush gets hosed (and 4CL rush gets completely hosed). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7857kn$m2j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > mboh...@shout.net wrote: >> Maneuvers will run out pretty quickly. It only takes one time of not >> having them in the hand for the IG to be in position. > >Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck. >My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a >6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in >a NL environment. Heh. Really? [snip] >No...not at all. A deck based on one card can be interesting and that's >why we allow reasonable exceptions. However, we encourage card >combos as a foundation of a deck rather than using a power card to >base one on. "Power Card"? Like what? >> So that card doesn't exactly become the main feature of the deck, >> and I won't reliably draw it. > >Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math, >(6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of >drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. If I don't >draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it >after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I >draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another >(which increases until I draw another) with each card I play. > >I'd say that's fairly reliable. That's a fairly reliable chance of starting with it. It's _not_ a fairly reliable chance of using it often. Especially if multiple variants of the counter card exist. >> This is not to say that a 6CL deck using it won't work, but it >> won't be near as consistent as the NL version and the EKN just >> becomes another card in the deck. > >Depends on your card flow. If you play 4 cards all at once, you >have about a 25% chance of drawing one. No, it doesn't depend on your card flow: Good card flow works for NL decks as well as CL decks. Furthermore (in my experience) NL decks flow better than most CL decks (with the exception of the ones that approximate NL by using variant cards that are nearly the same). >> I built a pretty effective 6CL Pot/Ani/For rush deck once. It could go >> through 4 cards before range was even determined. And it was absolutely >> necessary against a Presence deck because the risk of wasted cards was so >> high. >> >> It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version. > >It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do. >The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin* Which you presume to have, Nice. Rather than a dubious implication of authority, perhaps you could show us such a deck? >Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously. >I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage >to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of >looking at deck building. *sigh* This isn't the issue (Nor do I even think it's true. Many CL decks work just fine playing against NL). The issue is whether 6CL rush is as viable in it's environment as the NL variant is in it's. You contend just above that it is, many others contend that it's not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <785flr$n1j@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > >>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many >>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more >>than enough handy. > >Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it >all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have >nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better >things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many >zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because >you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns... > >I rest my case >Vince You rest your case? You're contradicting yourself... You say limits are needed to stop such decks, since presumably always having Zip Guns is nice, and then mention the reason such decks suck later on (tons of wasted cards that you could easily find better uses for). Also, your point about the money is simply false, as even most CL advocates will agree: NL lets you use tons of easy to get commons, while CL tends to force you to substitute harder to get rare cards, that do essentially the same thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:35:04 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: <delurk mode> >> > *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. >> > If it's not, you're doing something wrong. >> >> This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip. >> None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence >> deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card that >> I don't? Dharzhak> *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and Dharzhak> traded, so it's not much of a problem. So you have to resort to card loaning just to conform to an artificial limit that you yourself have set? If it works for you, fine, but that sounds sort of screwy to me. In the above example, why exactly in your opinion would using 12 BO's be "worse" or "degenerate" as compared to 6 x BO and 6 x Awe? >> > A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent. >> > Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged. >> >> What? Huh? I think you're taking his statement a little too literal >> possibly. I don't think he's referring to building a deck entirely or almost >> entirely of one card but to building a deck around a specific card. Dharzhak> No...not at all. A deck based on one card can be Dharzhak> interesting and that's why we allow reasonable exceptions. Dharzhak> However, we encourage card combos as a foundation of a deck Dharzhak> rather than using a power card to base one on. But the point is that if you are using the newest rulings and errata, there aren't any such "power cards". If someone bases their deck around a single card, they will lose, more often than not. Besides, you yourself admit that you allow "reasonable exceptions". Since you are going by group concensus on what's ok and what's not in any case, why have any sort of limits at all? You're free to play however you want, of course :) I just don't really see your point for having 6-card limits. >> > > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't Dharzhak> going >> > > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 >> > > Immortal Grapples :-) >> >> The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A >> similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer >> Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast >> enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you >> either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires. Dharzhak> Minion Tap gets rid of the larger vampires problem. I could Dharzhak> work out the rest of the details. I don't buy this. I seriouly doubt that a 25 Conditioning / 25 FoM deck would be that nasty. One Immortal Grapple (or Psyche, since FoM is treated as an action modifier nowadays) would be serious bad news for that deck. Dunno. Someone want to test this one in JOL? *grin* Dharzhak> It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to Dharzhak> do. The extra level of difficulty builds deck building Dharzhak> skill. *grin* Dharzhak> Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it Dharzhak> seriously. Taunt or not, I'll send a resounding "oh ha ha" to that (Rimmer-style :) Handicapping yourself and then trying to overcome those handicaps in convoluted ways does not equate to "deck building skill" in my book. Dharzhak> I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the Dharzhak> advantage to the NL deck. Different environments build Dharzhak> different ways of looking at deck building. Yeah. Like I said, each group plays the way that's most fun for them. I just fail to see the exact "why" in your case, IMHO you're conviced that NL results in people building decks that focus on single cards. T'ain't so. We've always played NL here, and I rarely see more than, say, 8 of any single card in a deck. The exception to this are theme decks that sometimes have to focus on a single card (like the N Raptors concept). These decks aren't boring either, in general. //Petri

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:43:17 GMT, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) said: Joshua> *Winning* is fun. Joshua> This often appears to be the sticking point between people who Joshua> advocate card limits to 'enforce fun' and those who prefer no Joshua> limits. Well... no, in my experience. I've always played with NL and see no sense in card limits (provided you're using the new errata and rules). On the other hand, actually winning is only a small part of the fun for me (and for others in the local play group, it seems). A lot of the fun is simply in designing fun decks and seeing how well they do, and in the playing itself. If you happen to win it's a nice bonus, but nothing like "the point". Your mileage obviously varies :) //Petri

In this discussion, I think Noal is equating the playgroup "gentlemens' agreement" with the effect of the 6CL. IMHO, they are totally different things. Having a card limit in no way limits "boring" decks (pure S&B, etc), and makes a lot of innovative designs totally impossible. The thing limiting boring decks is the (perhaps unspoken) agreement of the players to not allow "boring" decks. *That* is what works, and it has nothing to do with a card limit. I think a lot of CL advocates make the same (IMHO mistaken) assumption between card limits and "interesting decks". We always play NL here, and the decks are nothing if not innovative. It's the play group that matters, not any numerical card limit. A one-trick S&B deck is just as viable (and just as boring) under CL as it is under NL. Having more than N of a single card does not make a deck boring. The focus of the deck is what matters. //Petri

In article <786np2$96e$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <785flr$n1j@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > > > >>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many > >>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more > >>than enough handy. > > > >Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it > >all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have > >nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better > >things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many > >zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because > >you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns... > > > >I rest my case > >Vince > > You rest your case? You're contradicting yourself... You say limits > are needed to stop such decks, since presumably always having Zip Guns > is nice, and then mention the reason such decks suck later on (tons > of wasted cards that you could easily find better uses for). > > Also, your point about the money is simply false, as even most CL > advocates will agree: NL lets you use tons of easy to get commons, > while CL tends to force you to substitute harder to get rare > cards, that do essentially the same thing. > > -- > /\ Jasper Phillips Oh contrare... I have watched the Zip Gun question spiral into the inveitable N/CL debate. My personal, and admittedly restricted view (Scotland), is that 4CL was initially very useful to prevent those with access to huge amount of cards the pathetic ease of beating players with smaller suitcases into trembling submission. Without the four card limit which encouraged our big case player (who to make the contrast uniquely stark worked in the WotC office in Glasgow) to trade such wonderful cards as even the simple Majesty - Jyhad would of died there and then (first printing, those were the days!). Four card limits allowed an even distribution of the commoner 'must have' cards, and a smattering of favoured cards as the smaller, occasional players eveloved into favoured decks and clans. Those who persued the game with financial vigour, to remain in a competitive stance with their large but only occasional group saw 4CL as a compromise that was all that stood between us and no-game oblivion. It may be easy to cite the availability of cards, but personally our collections have matured into 4's and 4's and 4's, as much as we need for continuing gaming. None of us see it as sensible to unilaterally, or even as a group evlove into NCL. Most NL advocates here cite the limitations that 4CL imposes; no 15 Raptors in your deck! I feel though that you are attacking the question from the angle of those who play regularly with large collections; consider the profile of the posters to this group... die hard fans with large collections which can support this level of play. Whereas I would suggest that for informal games, 4CL allows everyone to play... where NCL excludes those who do not have large collections; so for balanced play between different suitcase sizes - 4CL. Considering the amount of new blood coming into the game, this is now essentially a moot point, if not actually a point in favour of the NL advocates. One of the beauties of Jyhad used to be that everyone with minimal outlay and trading could build a deck that could show it's face in our games. It should of course evolve into NL, but if your group does not as a whole want to, say, double it's investment, then 4CL lets us all play together. Whilst 4CL may limit the number of decks viable. NL limits the munber of players viable. Everyone on this list could present a 4CL, not all a NL. I know which I prefer. artaxerxes [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck. > > There's another rare I don't have.... Note that both of these rares are > from the Sabbat, a set that really went overboard with rare power. Maybe so. But I don't think that Terror Frenzy or Awe are overpowered. Terror Frenzy at minor is pretty much a DotB but for long range. Awe isn't really that powerful unless you use it as a combo with Voter Cap. Bewitching Oration can give you 4 votes at superior without spending blood. With superior Awe, you have to spend 1 blood to get 3 votes and 2 blood for 5. Unless you have a way to fill back up, that can get your vampire killed if you go hog wild. > > My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a > > 6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in > > a NL environment. > > You must have a lot of Terror Frenzies. I personally prefer Ani/Pot for > the sake of you only need one Drawing Out the Beast to kill their maneuvers > AND equipment. Terror Frenzy also requires you to pay an extra blood for > combat cards at superior, no? *nods* At superior, Terror Frenzy makes the opposing vampire spend one extra blood for combat cards, but it's not cumulative with the inferior text. Terror Frenzy at minor kills their equipment and kills their ability to cancel maneuvers. As for having, a lot of Terror Frenzies, I'm not sure how many I have...5 or 6, I think. I just traded one away to someone who needed it for a deck. > I give away vampires until I have only two of a given one left unless it > uses disciplines I like. I keep up to 5 copies of a vampire unless I'm going to build a theme deck around a vampire. For example, a Uriah Winter/Betrayer deck. > For other cards, I have yet to complete a set in > Sabbat, so I always keep at least one of each that I have. I'm pretty sure I have a complete set. I finally got a Derange. That's the hardest card to get a hold of. I've prolly bought about 10 boxes of Sabbat and I've only gotten one copy. I try to keep 15 copies of any non-unique card so I can build multiple decks that use the same card. Unique locations, etc. I tend to keep 5 of. If someone needs a card, I'll usually trade something for it and when I get around to buying another box, I'll replace the copy. > So trading is > difficult. Lastly, everyone in my group is on pretty limited funds (or > appropriated elsewhere), so getting all these rares we need is pretty much > out of the question. Ah. There's the difference. I doubled my salary about 6 months ago and I'm almost in the position to double it again. Makes a big difference in your disposable income. > So let's say I have a hand of 2 EKN, 1 Kindred Coercion, 2 Surprise > Influence, and 2 Political Backlash. I have two ready vampires (which is my > thought on this deck). Someone calls a vote to burn and I quash it by 8 > votes. I can then play both EKN's and both PB's and my prey will more than > likely be ousted. Um...EKN is used before votes are cast. > Without being able to pack more EKN's, I might cause 8 less > pool loss. That's a pretty weak imitation of PB. They aren't mutually > exclusive. Um...I fail to see the above being a very good example against stacking EKN and Politcal Backlash, but...*shrug* > Yes, once I do this, no one will probably call to burn. If no one burns the > Anarch's, they just die. Not necessarily. Decks with very good pool gain have nothing to fear from Anarch Revolt decks and will prolly just ride them out until you've ousted yourself...much like I'm doing to my prey in jol94. *grin* > Plus, it'd feel oh so good to see everyone's jaw drop at that amount of pool > loss using cards no one uses. :) Heh. All of those cards get used in our group. We can be pretty vicious. > But it's not totally reliable. What if I whack them with a couple > Political Backlashes and they stop calling? Those 6 cards just became > useless. At least if I have one when I want it the first time, I know > I can probably oust my prey. That's assuming that your prey is the one calling the vote. More often than not, it's someone across the table. I've tried various versions of Anarch Revolt decks and they can be fairly inconsistent. > > I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage > > to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of > > looking at deck building. > > Which is the position I've always held. Switching back and forth once > in a while can make it interesting. It forces people to think about > cards they may never have considered and expands their playing ability > in the long run....assuming an eventual switch back to NL. ;) Perhaps. Like I said, it's our local group that uses 6CL, not the MJL tournaments...which I verified with the other Rules Team folks. It's a pretty unanimous consensus against card limits at all. Most felt the NRA rule was control enough. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > Noal, I have to admit that your group sounds very cool. However, it appears > that the rest of the world (most unfortunately) doesn't work that way. > Cool traders aside *nudges Peter* *takes a bow* thanks. Since most of the people in our gaming group play the game and don't collect the game, card stock isn't that big of a deal. Most of us would be just as happy playing poker or History of the World. The point is to have an enjoyable evening with your friends. I don't care if my deck wins or not...just as long as I and the other folks I play with have fun. Being stingy with cards doesn't promote fun. > Well as you are probably aware, Minion Taps don't 'get rid of,' but maybe > alleviate the difficulty of using larger vampires. *nods* I'm aware of the hazards of using huge vampires, which is why I rarely do. Given a bit of time and forethought, I could build good defense around rush combat with pro-ani-dom pretty easily. >>>> No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this. > > Actually, I've been meaning to call you on this, Noal. In general, I > understand the concept of card flow, but you've been referring to it so darn > often, I want to know what *precisely* you mean by 'ensuring good cardflow'. > I know you typically include 20 masters in a deck, but beyond that, do you go > with specific proportions, or include extra discard stuff, or what? I guess > what got me thinking on this was a comment that went something along the > lines of 'developing good card flow skills' or something. Card flow is the opposite of hand jam. If I'm able to keep my cards cycling through my hand, I can get the cards that I need when I need them....even under 6CL. You've played in two games with me. I typically go through about 5-6 cards per turn with little problem. Sometimes less, often more. I don't go with specific proportions other than master cards (which I fudge a little) in most decks. I try to tailor it to what the deck does. If the deck uses smaller vampires, I'll put more action cards. If I will typically only use one or two vampires (like the Tzimisce "Transformers" deck where the little ones become frozen) I will use less action cards. What I do is put together a deck concept and see if I get hand jam. If I do, I take note of what is overloading my hand and cut it down. The biggest problems are often action cards and master cards. I typically use a total of 20 master phases. This means that a Short Term counts as 4 master phases....one turn to play it and three to use it. Because of the time that it takes, I usually go with Blood Dolls, Powerbase: Chicago or something that doesn't take up master phases once in play. > Overall, I think I'm with Mike on this one. Though I'd go for an even lower > percentage of fun being winning. Though I don't deny that winning can be > fun. We had a really evil blow-up at the last meeting of our little > playgroup over this matter, when a new (to the group) player got *very* > nitpicky Sounds like this new person needs a tip from Ms. Manners on how to be a good guest. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get > >invited to any of the local games. > > Doesn't sound like a very amicable solution. But, whatever you find "fun"... We have limited space at the local games as it is. Monster Bob can hardly fit 15 people in his dining room. I think it's very reasonable to limit the type of people you want to play with at your home. > If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. Heh. I see a codependence issue here. Tell me about your childhood. *grin* Okay, ribbing aside, not everyone can win a game. Remember what I quoted before. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. If I find I've built a deck that's nearly impossible to beat, I stop playing it in the local games and shelf it for tournaments. Then I start developing another deck or two. After all, others should have the opportunity to win. > This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the > other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. ...speaking of what gets played in the background. *grin* Oh, and we also watch pro-wrestling or hockey. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > "*shrug* So combine them... At least Psyche is a good answer to maneuvers." > > So to be a compettetive Pot combat deck, you _have_ to be the Brujah. Again, > substantially restricting what decks can be actually compettetive. Or Nosferatu. DotB kills maneuvers dead. *shrug* > "*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. > If it's not, you're doing something wrong." > > Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just having 12 > common as dirt commons. Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them away as it is now. > I'm a bit mistified by this whole idea of thought policing the players in your > group. If somone really enjoys playing a deck made out of 2 different cards, > why is it their responsibility to not play such a deck for your enjoyment? If > they are a really cool guy, but you don't like the decks they want to build, > you aren't going to let them play? You'd actively "not invite them back"? *shrug* It's not my house, I don't make the rules. But there can be a sense of elitism, I'll grant you. But when there's already limited space, I think that limiting the type of players is reasonable. Keep in mind that this topic is quite different from the tournaments. Rules for local games often are different from tournaments. I will encourage _anyone_ to show up for a tournament. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:00:24 GMT, artax...@my-dejanews.com said: artaxerxes> Whereas I would suggest that for informal games, 4CL artaxerxes> allows everyone to play... where NCL excludes those who do artaxerxes> not have large collections; so for balanced play between artaxerxes> different suitcase sizes - 4CL. Ummmm... no. This has been done to death before, but to reiterate: 4CL does nothing to balance the game, in fact it *favors* Mr. Suitcase in many cases (since he will be able to get hold of 4 subsitute rares in addition to the 4 "base" cards of some type or the otherm getting an edge on the card-poor player). As an example, see the "6 Bewitching Orations + 6 Awes" 6CL suggestion earlier in this thread. artaxerxes> Whilst 4CL may limit the number of decks viable. NL limits artaxerxes> the munber of players viable. Everyone on this list could artaxerxes> present a 4CL, not all a NL. I know which I prefer. <heated discussion mode> You're free to prefer 4CL, of course, but your argument is nosense. NCL does not mean "a deck must have more than 4 copies of each card". You say that not everyone in this list could produce a NCL deck... what the hell does that mean, pardon my French :)? Don't confuse the number of a single card in a deck with the quality of the deck, or its viability in an NCL environment. A lot of my (NCL) decks have had a max of 3 of any single card, and are totally competitive. What matters is what those cards are and how they are used. With NCL, you have the freedom to put as many cards as the *deck needs* into it, not the "automatic 4 of each good card". You and some other CL advocates seem to think that a NCL environment degenerates into 25 Form of Mists -type of decks. Totally false, in my fairly long experience with this game. What NCL gives you is the *possibility*, not any hard and fast guidelines. Remember, the NCL equation works both ways in the Mr.Suitcase vs. Joe NotManyCards case. Most of the critical cards you may want a lot of are common or uncommon. How on earth do you make an effective rush deck (to combat stealth bleeders or vote decks) under 4CL? A Potence rush deck *needs* something like 8 Immortal Grapples in order to have a chance against strike: combat ends. Note that the 4CL environement does absolutely nothing to stop semi-degenerate stealth-bleed or strike-combat ends decks. It only hurts decks that are trying to defend against them. There are *lots* of ways of gaining stealth or s:ce. The are very few alternatives to Immortal Grapple. Thankfully the Sabbat edition made IG an uncommon, as a rare it was *way* hard to get. In addition, a CL environment makes counting cards a viable strategy. As in: "hmmm, now he's played 4 Immortal Grapples. I'm safe". IMHO, that's not a part of how the game should be played. //Petri

Petri Wessman wrote: > Well... no, in my experience. I've always played with NL and see no > sense in card limits (provided you're using the new errata and > rules). Our local group and all MJL tournaments do not use WotC errata. We use our own rules team decisions. > On the other hand, actually winning is only a small part of > the fun for me (and for others in the local play group, it seems). A > lot of the fun is simply in designing fun decks and seeing how well > they do, and in the playing itself. If you happen to win it's a nice > bonus, but nothing like "the point". This is entirely the point that I'm trying to get across. Thank you for putting it so well, Petri. I hope understand that everyone understands my position about fun and winning is entirely limited to local games. In tournaments, I do play to win, although I try to do it with innovative decks. While I have an extremely competitve nature, I also have a highly creative one. Noal -the typical Aries [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > In this discussion, I think Noal is equating the playgroup > "gentlemens' agreement" with the effect of the 6CL. IMHO, they are > totally different things. Having a card limit in no way limits > "boring" decks (pure S&B, etc), and makes a lot of innovative designs > totally impossible. This is why our 6CL is a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. Innovative designs are always welcome. Using 25 Form of Mist cards in a deck is not. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > >Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. > > Innovative? What's innovative about including the card limit of a card, > and then moving on to the next one? The 4CL decks I remember were quite > cookie cutter, Nobody is discussing 4CL. Bringing it up is a straw man argument. No to mention that you seem to miss the point about the 6CL that's being discussed is a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. > >> *Winning* is fun. > > > >For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, > >buy a porno mag or a video game. > > Um, is there really any need to be this insulting? *shrug* I don't see how this is insulting. My point is that when you play with a group, everyone should have fun. Not just you. > >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how > >you play the game." It could not be more true. > > I think you're really missing the point here. ...actually I think you are. > This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also > come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of > the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark? > do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me. > > Strangely, nobody has claimed the money yet. I'm not Mr. Miagi. I don't give a damn about balance. My focus here is on FUN. > >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants > >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. > > Why do people always misunderstand this argument? It's not that winning > itself is so important for "serious gamers", but playing to win. It's > not some childish need for gratification as you imply, but rather > curiosity, problem solving, and competition. You've obviously missed the point about this thread being entirely about not using boring, repetitive decks in a local game. I've stated from the beginning that we like to see innovative, competitive decks. I'm prolly one of the most competitive people you'll ever meet. I just realize that at a local game, the decks that I play should be as much fun for others as they are for me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > >My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a > >6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in > >a NL environment. > > Heh. Really? Yes. Really. > >It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do. > >The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin* > > Which you presume to have, Nice. Rather than a dubious implication > of authority, perhaps you could show us such a deck? Lasombra has a bunch on his page that I've posted here. The fact that I consistently end in the finals of any tournament I play in would speak well of my deck building skills, wouldn't you say? Not to mention that the above comment was intended as a joking jibe to Mike as was made obvious by the below comment which you seperated from the text: > >Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously. > >I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage > >to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of > >looking at deck building. > > *sigh* This isn't the issue (Nor do I even think it's true. Many > CL decks work just fine playing against NL). It is very much the issue. The fact that you can't see that would indicate that you might do well to stay out of the thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Dharzhak> *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and > Dharzhak> traded, so it's not much of a problem. > > So you have to resort to card loaning just to conform to an artificial > limit that you yourself have set? Um...I think you may have missed the point at which I said that isn't my house and I didn't set the rules. I'm merely stating _why_ they are there. Besides, the whole thisng started when I said that I'd play the devil's advocate. I do not advocate CL in a tournament. > But the point is that if you are using the newest rulings and errata, > there aren't any such "power cards". ...which as we know, I don't. MJL tournaments do not take WotC errata as the Holy Grail after the 7/7 fiasco. Besides, I'd say that Banishment is a fairly powerful card (among others). > Besides, you yourself admit that you allow "reasonable > exceptions". Since you are going by group concensus on what's ok and > what's not in any case, why have any sort of limits at all? Petri, I've already been thorugh this. Please don't make me repeat myself. > Dharzhak> Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it > Dharzhak> seriously. > > Taunt or not, I'll send a resounding "oh ha ha" to that (Rimmer-style > :) Okay....but all you've seen me play was the Presence Weenies deck and the subsequent re-working of it. I've got other decks that are much more interesting. I'm rather proud of "The Grind" deck. > Handicapping yourself and then trying to overcome those handicaps in > convoluted ways does not equate to "deck building skill" in my book. What it does do is make you take a closer look at cards that you may otherwise overlook. Granted, you can do the same things in a NL group...it really depends on the type of environment you are in. > IMHO you're > conviced that NL results in people building decks that focus on single > cards. T'ain't so. While it doesn't always happen, it frequently does. > The exception to this are > theme decks that sometimes have to focus on a single card (like the N > Raptors concept). These decks aren't boring either, in general. ...and these are the type of exceptions that get made. Besides, it's not like we have the 6CL police checking your deck before you play. *grin* [ quoted text not captured ]

> Lasombra has a bunch on his page that I've posted here. The fact that > I consistently end in the finals of any tournament I play in would speak > well of my deck building skills, wouldn't you say? Before I say anything, I just want to point out that this isn't a knock on your deckbuilding skills or on your playing skills... The only thing that it says to me is that your skills are good within the limits you've imposed on yourself and that are imposed on your group. If you can make the same claim where the tournaments you play consist of a majority of NL decks, then it would say even more of your skills. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just >>having 12 common as dirt commons. > Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them > away as it is now. Yes, hard to get. If you're just giving them away, I'd like to get my hands on 2 or 3... :p [ quoted text not captured ]

Okay....just to completely confuse the hell out of people that don't realize that I'm being completely objective, I will concede a couple of points. Petri Wessman wrote: > Ummmm... no. This has been done to death before, but to reiterate: 4CL > does nothing to balance the game, in fact it *favors* Mr. Suitcase in > many cases Absolutely. If Mr. Suitcase doesn't help out people with less cards, you betcha he's got the advantage. > You say that not everyone in this list could produce a NCL > deck... what the hell does that mean, pardon my French :)? I think he means that "not everyone on the list" has the cards to produce the kind of decks that someone who can afford to buy a box or two every month can build. He's correct of course. However, I'd say it's almost Mr. Suitcase's duty to help out newer or poorer players in the interest of having fun....although card limits should have no bearing on this kind of generosity. > You and some other CL advocates seem to think that a NCL environment > degenerates into 25 Form of Mists -type of decks. Totally false, in my > fairly long experience with this game. I've seen it happen enough in tournaments to say that it's not a totally false statement. However, it's up to us not to build this kind of nonsense. > There are *lots* of ways of gaining stealth or s:ce. The are > very few alternatives to Immortal Grapple. I can think of few myself. Psyche, Direct Intervention *bleh*, Dog Packs and cards that provide reusable rush (Bloodhunt, Haven Uncovered, etc.) But that's pretty much it. > Thankfully the Sabbat edition made IG an uncommon, as a rare it was > *way* hard to get. *nods* Very true. I think I even like the original art better. It looks less like a Warhammer 40K illustration. > In addition, a CL environment makes counting cards a viable > strategy. As in: "hmmm, now he's played 4 Immortal Grapples. I'm > safe". IMHO, that's not a part of how the game should be played. This I completely agree with. Card limits make counting cards possible. Not knowing what your opponent holds is entirely part of the game. ...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout, "Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of deck building skills. Even without card limits (and especially _without_ card limits) there is no such thing as an "unbeatable" deck. Card limits can produce decks that are impossible to beat without the entire table joining forces against a single player. Even a weenie horde can be easily killed with a Domain Challenge or a Anarchist Uprising. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787hf6$los$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > ...speaking of what gets played in the background. *grin* Oh, and > we also watch pro-wrestling or hockey. Well aimed chair? And you know, with Dennis Rodman doing some wrestling, he sort of looks like Anvil.... Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > The only thing that it says to me is that your skills are good within > the limits you've imposed on yourself and that are imposed on your > group. If you can make the same claim where the tournaments you play > consist of a majority of NL decks, then it would say even more of > your skills. Again, the MJL tournaments do not use a card limit. I also finished in the finals at Origins with a deck that, admittedly, was not as good as it should have been...but that was because there were some changes that I wanted to make that I had forgotten to do. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:55:15 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: Dharzhak> Um...I think you may have missed the point at which I said Dharzhak> that isn't my house and I didn't set the rules. I'm merely Dharzhak> stating _why_ they are there. Besides, the whole thisng Dharzhak> started when I said that I'd play the devil's advocate. I Dharzhak> do not advocate CL in a tournament. Ok, I got the impression from earlier posts that you were generally in favor of card limits. I stand corrected. >> But the point is that if you are using the newest rulings and errata, >> there aren't any such "power cards". Dharzhak> ...which as we know, I don't. MJL tournaments do not take Dharzhak> WotC errata as the Holy Grail after the 7/7 fiasco. Dharzhak> Besides, I'd say that Banishment is a fairly powerful card Dharzhak> (among others). At the risk on starting another thread, I liked the 7/7 rulings a lot. But maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms again. All I can say is: the new rulings work for us. As for Banishment, it's a powerful card, but it's dangerous only if you have vote dominance. You need a lot of other vote-providing stuff to back it up, and then something to prevent the other meth of just bringing the vamps back into play, i.e. you need ways of getting them low on blood first. Or after, with Cairo Airport etc. But in any case, I don't see it as a killer card, even if one included 30 of them in a deck. //Petri

In article <7859de$nqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that > > what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a > > strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a > > particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates > > looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards > > because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards. > > What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll > keep seeing the same old crap over and over again. I notice this discussion is getting a bit heated in places. I'm trying my best to avoid that. I like arguing (duh), but it makes me unhappy when I feel like people are just yelling at each other unconstructively. My position here is that any kind of CL completely *fails* to enforce variety. What it enforces is not having more than X of a card in your deck. To get 'variety' in the decks you see, you must browbeat _the players who make them_ into trying to build decks you consider 'varied'. If people don't _want_ to think about variety, a CL will not make them build new decks that you find interesting. > > Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used. > > But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me. > > Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. Using a different card doesn't make a deck innovative. If all you care about is seeing more different card names, why not force everyone to use no more than one of a particular card? Or to use at least one of each card printed for each discipline a vamp they're using has? You wouldn't do that because it's silly, right? But not more silly than 'protecting variety' by saying 'can't have more than 6 of any one card, by name, in your deck', in my opinion. > > *Winning* is fun. > > For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, > buy a porno mag or a video game. I think what you're trying to say here is that it's not fun for the other players for me to win, is that right? Since I'm sure you're not just trying to be insulting. ^_^ But it is fun for the other players to compete against me in trying to win. That is the very definition of 'a game', isn't it? An activity in which you compete against other people to accomplish some goal? > I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how > you play the game." It could not be more true. But it _is_ whether you win or lose. You wouldn't be playing a _game_ if you didn't care whether you won or lost. It's fun to throw a frisbee around, but it's not exactly a game. A bunch of NL advocates (Mike Bohlmann, Petri Wessman, and so on and so forth) have said that winning is not _all_ of the fun in playing, and I agree with that. But playing to win is, I think, what differentiates games from other forms of recreation. Sitting around with your friends, expressing creativity within the bounds of the game, etc, etc, are usually also part of what's enjoyable about playing games. But if you don't care at all about winning, why play a game with defined winning conditions? (And especially, why play a game where some people are knocked out before the winner is declared? Good lord, it's completely the opposite of fun for them, if they didn't enjoy trying to win when they were still in the game.) > > My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled > > by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've > > been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by > > card limits, > > ...and usually with some success. I played a lot of games under 4cl, and in none of them were any of those problems successfully addressed by the card limit. My group at the time browbeat people into not playing decks that were 'too good' in a 4cl environment _in addition_ to decreeing the 4cl, because we wanted to 'enforce fun'. We found that the 4cl was not sufficient to 'enforce fun', and eventually we decided that we liked competitive play enough that we'd rather just play no-limits and decree that 'playing to win' was fun. > > However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just > > by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really > > have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks. > > One goes with the other. But it doesn't. Enforcing fun can be done _without_ using a card limit, even as a guideline. If your group is willing to decree that some deck ideas are Not Fun and Will Not Be Tolerated, you don't have to _also_ say, Furthermore, You Will Not Put More Than Six Cryptic Missions In Your Deck, You Will Use Something Else Instead. > > And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that > > consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and > > 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't > > play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. > > Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get > invited to any of the local games. ie, you'll tell him he can't play it _with you_. If he doesn't know any other players, is this not equivalent to telling him he can't play it at all? (I know, not your house, you're not the one kicking him out, but you do agree with the philosophy, right?) > > If winning is not the primary objective > > of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be > > more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is* > > fun than by card limits. > > Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants > should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. Playing to win _is fun_ for _lots of people_. This is why people play competitive tennis, golf, baseball, softball, soccer, chess, Magic, and so on and so forth. They have fun _competing_ even if they don't win every time. To me, _that's_ the underlying meaning of 'it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game'. > Never once did I say that card limits are "necessary for the game," nor > would I imply such. But card limits being "bad for 'the game as a whole'" > is a bit excessive when we're discussing local groups. I know you didn't. I was just explaining why I have a bad reaction to card limits. I feel they're bad for 'the game as a whole' because I used to play with them, and now I think they're a bad idea. ^_^ Josh armed with a no-limits deck and a sunny disposition [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787ktt$p0t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. >> >> Innovative? What's innovative about including the card limit of a card, >> and then moving on to the next one? The 4CL decks I remember were quite >> cookie cutter, > >Nobody is discussing 4CL. Bringing it up is a straw man argument. >No to mention that you seem to miss the point about the 6CL that's >being discussed is a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. I don't see the two as being that different. I only bring up 4CL because I have played that, while I have not played 6CL. I believe the same arguments against 4CL also hold against 6CL, although clearly to a lesser extent. I think it's you whos bringing up the strawmen going into the differences between 4 and 6 CL. My statement about using substite cards clearly holds for whatever reasonable CL you happen to use. >> >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how >> >you play the game." It could not be more true. >> >> I think you're really missing the point here. > >...actually I think you are. That's nice. You've snipped my explanation of why I thought that was the case, and then didn't say what you thought I was missing. Quite a bit later on you >> This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also >> come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of >> the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark? >> do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me. >> >> Strangely, nobody has claimed the money yet. > >I'm not Mr. Miagi. I don't give a damn about balance. >My focus here is on FUN. Um, so? My point that you haven't, and I believe can't, support _your_ statement that CLs have a game balancing effect still stands. If you're going to make statements about balance, you should be able to defend them. Copping out with, oh, "I don't give a damn" when pressed to defend them is lame. >> >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >> >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. >> >> Why do people always misunderstand this argument? It's not that winning >> itself is so important for "serious gamers", but playing to win. It's >> not some childish need for gratification as you imply, but rather >> curiosity, problem solving, and competition. > >You've obviously missed the point about this thread being entirely about >not using boring, repetitive decks in a local game. I've stated from the >beginning that we like to see innovative, competitive decks. I'm prolly >one of the most competitive people you'll ever meet. I just realize that >at a local game, the decks that I play should be as much fun for others >as they are for me. I understood, and I think the point is quite relavent when debating "playing to win" vs. "playing for fun", as the part I'm responding too was. Hell, _you're_ the one quoting "It's not whether you win or lose...", and saying "Winning shouldn't be your primary objective". I think you were, and are, completely misunderstanding the opposing argument about "playing to win". Now, to respond to your new point. I don't find that CL lends itself to innovative or competitive decks, for the reasons I've outlined before. I feel it lends itself to cookie cutter decks, less variety, and less competition than NL. People are severly restricted in the deck design, a great many decks aren't possible, and the balance is skewed enough that you're forced to "play nice" to have any compitition. As an example, you mention having to shelve decks that win too much. Funny how I've never had to do that to make the game interesting in NL. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xemooa...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: >In this discussion, I think Noal is equating the playgroup >"gentlemens' agreement" with the effect of the 6CL. IMHO, they are >totally different things. Having a card limit in no way limits >"boring" decks (pure S&B, etc), and makes a lot of innovative designs >totally impossible. The thing limiting boring decks is the (perhaps >unspoken) agreement of the players to not allow "boring" decks. *That* >is what works, and it has nothing to do with a card limit. > >I think a lot of CL advocates make the same (IMHO mistaken) assumption >between card limits and "interesting decks". We always play NL here, >and the decks are nothing if not innovative. It's the play group that >matters, not any numerical card limit. A one-trick S&B deck is just as >viable (and just as boring) under CL as it is under NL. > >Having more than N of a single card does not make a deck boring. The >focus of the deck is what matters. > >//Petri I agree completely, and only wish I had such eloquence. :-( If it helps Noal, this is largely what I mean. CLs simply don't make the game innovative or competitive. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > Well aimed chair? And you know, with Dennis Rodman doing some wrestling, > he sort of looks like Anvil.... *laughs* Funny, Mike. Although I'm not sure what species Dennis Rodman is anymore. He's kind of filed under that "Freak" category with Michael Jackson and Marilyn Manson. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > At the risk on starting another thread, I liked the 7/7 rulings a > lot. But maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms again. All I can > say is: the new rulings work for us. *grin* Good man. I'm more than happy not to go through that again. It's enough that I have to debate each piece of errata on the MJL rules team without doing it again here. > As for Banishment, it's a powerful card, but it's dangerous only if > you have vote dominance. You need a lot of other vote-providing stuff > to back it up, and then something to prevent the other meth of just > bringing the vamps back into play, i.e. you need ways of getting them > low on blood first. Or after, with Cairo Airport etc. But in any case, > I don't see it as a killer card, even if one included 30 of them in a > deck. Hence, that "Grind" deck I came up with. Vote dominance is almost assured and after I stack Masquerade Endangered's, it doesn't matter whether they have it at capacity or not. But I agree, very few cards will win you a game if you build a crypt made up of 30% of that card. Banishment is one of those that can get quite deadly. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787ldc$phm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a >> >6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in >> >a NL environment. >> >> Heh. Really? > >Yes. Really. Oops! I forgot to finish that part of the argument off. Doesn't help I was in a nasty mood. What I meant to continue with is that you'd have to hope that it wasn't an pot/ani deck, which would trump your trump deck. Which deck trumps which is uninteresting. In any event, I don't see how your trump decks has much relevence to whether IG decks work well in CL or not (which is what was being discussed). >> >It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do. >> >The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin* >> >> Which you presume to have, Nice. Rather than a dubious implication >> of authority, perhaps you could show us such a deck? > >Lasombra has a bunch on his page that I've posted here. The fact that >I consistently end in the finals of any tournament I play in would speak >well of my deck building skills, wouldn't you say? I really just don't care what kind of authoriy you think you have. *shrug* You can either back up your statements, or you can't. I'll have to go look at the decks you've posted again, but at the time you posted them I recall thinking that they were actually a good example of why rush was weak under a CL, as the deck you posted was pretty much the same as others have come up with (not difficult, as CL restricts your options), and I couldn't see any reason it'd work any better. >Not to mention that the above comment was intended as a joking jibe >to Mike as was made obvious by the below comment which you >seperated from the text: >> >Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously. I wasn't taking that taunt seriously so much as your general attitude that your authority alone is enough backing for an argument. Your statement that it was just a matter of deck building skill, with the implication that you had it and those opposing you didn't, is one you've made before. >> >I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage >> >to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of >> >looking at deck building. >> >> *sigh* This isn't the issue (Nor do I even think it's true. Many >> CL decks work just fine playing against NL). > >It is very much the issue. The fact that you can't see that would >indicate that you might do well to stay out of the thread. What, that a CL deck is at a disadvantage against a NL deck? That was the issue? Very interesting argument. I was taking issue with your broad statement that you could work most any NL deck so it'd function in CL, if only you had the skill. I feel that CL requires less skill to construct decks (as you have less options), and that there are plenty of decks and even deck archetypes that don't survive the transition form NL to CL. I've posted my reasons for believing that, and I don't think you've refuted them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787j2v$nbr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >> "*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty. >> If it's not, you're doing something wrong." >> >> Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just having 12 >> common as dirt commons. > >Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them away as it >is now. Which qualifies you as exactly the kind of mister suitcase that Peter was talking about. It's not difficult for you to get that many Awe. But for most of the players I know it is, and that's even after having bought boxes of cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787bti$gpj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <artax...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >Oh contrare... > >I have watched the Zip Gun question spiral into the inveitable N/CL debate. Yah, > My personal, and admittedly restricted view (Scotland), is that 4CL was >initially very useful to prevent those with access to huge amount of cards the >pathetic ease of beating players with smaller suitcases into trembling >submission. [large Snip] I guess I just don't understand how this is so. When a CL forces you fairly often to substitue hard to get rares for easy to find commons, how does a Card Limit help the player with the smaller collection? I think a Card Limit makes it far easier for the Suitcase to have an advantage. I can see how the impression the the opposite is true might come about, but I can't see any evidence for it. I think a suitcase player is only going to be a problem if players have access to less than box of cards (and then whether it's CL or NL isn't going to matter). As boxes of Jyhad cost ~$7, I don't see it as much of an issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787rru$vrj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Petri Wessman wrote: >> Ummmm... no. This has been done to death before, but to reiterate: 4CL >> does nothing to balance the game, in fact it *favors* Mr. Suitcase in >> many cases > >Absolutely. If Mr. Suitcase doesn't help out people with less cards, you >betcha he's got the advantage. I agree, the problem is if you have players with only "Medium Sized" suitcases, who have enough of the rares for themselves, but not for other players. This is generally the case where I play, People are generally quite free with Commens, or even uncommons. But if you want to borrow rares from someone, you have to hope that he's not using it in any of his decks (popular uncommons are the same way). It's quite unusual for someone to have enough Awe to lend for instance (or even enough to use themselves, for that matter). > >> You and some other CL advocates seem to think that a NCL environment >> degenerates into 25 Form of Mists -type of decks. Totally false, in my >> fairly long experience with this game. > >I've seen it happen enough in tournaments to say that it's not a totally >false statement. However, it's up to us not to build this kind of nonsense. Really? Huh. Have you found such decks to be effective? I've always thought that while such decks were theoretically possible under NL, they tended to get weeded up simply because they sucked. >> There are *lots* of ways of gaining stealth or s:ce. The are >> very few alternatives to Immortal Grapple. > >I can think of few myself. Psyche, Direct Intervention *bleh*, Dog Packs >and cards that provide reusable rush (Bloodhunt, Haven Uncovered, etc.) >But that's pretty much it. Unfortunatly none of these are nearly as effective as IG, or even effective enough to really survive. :-( It's far, far easier to find S:CE. >> Thankfully the Sabbat edition made IG an uncommon, as a rare it was >> *way* hard to get. > >*nods* Very true. I think I even like the original art better. It looks >less like a Warhammer 40K illustration. Heh. At least they didn't emply SCAR. >...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout, >"Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of >deck building skills. Even without card limits (and especially _without_ >card limits) there is no such thing as an "unbeatable" deck. Card limits >can produce decks that are impossible to beat without the entire table >joining forces against a single player. Even a weenie horde can be >easily killed with a Domain Challenge or a Anarchist Uprising. I'm definitly baffled... I had thought you'd been, at times, arguing just the opposite... I guess the arguments between us simply boil down to you thinking that CL makes the game have more variety and depth, and my disagreeing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "Or Nosferatu. DotB kills maneuvers dead. *shrug*" Yes, but the point was that you needed 6 IG and 6 Psyche to compete against the completely reasonable 12 S:CE available to a 6CL deck. The Nosferatu get nothing but the 6 IG. Thus, they will not be competetive, and consequently not worth playing. "Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them away as it is now." Send some my way. I have a metric buttloade of Jyhad cards, but not all that many Sabbat/AH/DS cards. I have no Awe whatsoever. There in lies one of the main problems with CL of any type. With no CL, it is perfectly possible to build a very effective and compettetive deck with nothing but commons. For example, around here, a multi-time tourney winner was Steve Wamplers Pre weenie bleed deck that consisted of about 30 Social Charm/10 Aire/10 Majesty/10 Anarch Revolt. This deck was a nightmare, and almost entierly common cards. It was easily as effective as (if not more effective than) my Rush/IG deck that is, like, 50% Rares. Wheither or not Wamplers deck was fun to play or play against is not the issue here, so we will ignore that (personally, I found it very fun to play against, as long as everyone at the table is using a deck of equal intesity). With a 6CL, a very similar deck could be built out of 6 Social Charm/6 Legal Manip/6 Entrancement/6 Media Influence/6 Computer Hacking/6 Aire or whatever, but Steve the impovrished 17 year old HS student would have zero chance of aquiring all the needed rares. Thus, he can't compete. "*shrug* It's not my house, I don't make the rules. But there can be a sense of elitism, I'll grant you. But when there's already limited space, I think that limiting the type of players is reasonable." Granted. It'd be nice to have to turn players away... Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious I would have it all if I'd only have this much" -Liz Phair

Jasper Phillips wrote in message <786np2$96e$1...@news.NERO.NET>... >In article <785flr$n1j@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >> >>>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many >>>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more >>>than enough handy. >> >>Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it >>all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have >>nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better >>things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many >>zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because >>you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns... >> >>I rest my case >>Vince > >You rest your case? You're contradicting yourself... You say limits >are needed to stop such decks, since presumably always having Zip Guns >is nice, and then mention the reason such decks suck later on (tons >of wasted cards that you could easily find better uses for). sarcasm due to the fact it's nice to get parts of your combo in your hand... but is a nice waste when you've got them clumped in your deck > >Also, your point about the money is simply false, as even most CL >advocates will agree: NL lets you use tons of easy to get commons, >while CL tends to force you to substitute harder to get rare >cards, that do essentially the same thing. #1 I've never contradicted myself.... stop reading into what I'm saying(my comment was sarcastic meant to point out that there's too many... in fact... 20 is entirely too many for any deck because you will be throwing them away... and if you're "throwing" cards away... your deck isn't working and you need to fix it if possible...)... or reading what others are saying... I've never said that always having a zip gun is a good thing to have... I played against a "zip gun" style deck last night that got stuck with 4 guns in his hand because my deck never let him get into combat with me... and even discarding them he wasn't able to replace his hand with cards to help... discarding a zip gun and drawing another combat card doesn't help (particularly when they draw DBRs) ... my deck was deck with a 6CL and I won a game and ousted several players in each of other games(we play to the final methuselah in most games to determine the winner instead of victory points to see how our decks work on the whole).... It was a 60 card deck that was being played for the first time and needs some tuning... #2 I've been saying all along that restrictions should be placed... whether through a card limit or whatever... errata is not the answer because it leads to problems in other cards... or cards that now become too powerful as a result of the errata because of other card interactions not expected #3 just because some people have no originality in their deck designs and play half or more of their deck with one card because they can't think of anything better... don't get me wrong... theme decks are fun... but theme decks that rely so heavily on ... everyone that has advocated CL in what I've read in response to my postings has said the same thing... that most people that build decks out of restrictions tend to not have any originality and have no skill in playing the game... the people that advocate NL all have the same response.... "fine... play a deck with 20 of this card... or 30 of this card to stop that kind of deck"... that is not a proper response... it only discourages thinking... something a game is supposed to make you do... there's no point in playing if the deck could literally play itself... #4 Many of the NL card players advocate that with NL they can play with as many of a common that they have and it is easier to play them... so what about the rares?.... it makes it that harder for me to build a theme deck that I might want to build based on a particular rare cards... and I tend to find that the rare cards provide the best ideas for theme decks which tend to be the most fun to play... they are not fun to play when I've got to deal with 20-30 of the same card in someone else's deck... and the players that do spend $ upon $ on the game WILL have multiples on the rares from the newer sets... and by multiples... I mean they can have the #'s to build decks with a dozen or so of a type of rare... now I'll admit that I have rares in quantity like this from Jyhad(and some of you are right.. in what I said Jyhad itself is considerably cheap and doused me for stating what I said above what I thought about uncontrolled spending on the game... but I'm not talking about boxes for $7... I'm talking about Sabbat and Ancient Hearts... which if you can get that cheap, are uniquely lucky... don't EVER come to me and tell me you didn't spend a lot of money on the game when I've seen the quantities that people have dumped into the newer sets that have not been that cheap/box... also I'd like to say that some people don't spend that much on the game so don't get offended and think I'm talking about everyone) ... but I have not been able to acquire the rares in quantity like that from any of the other sets because its too hard to find it as cheap as the original Jyhad boxes... anyone that wants to refute that a deck with mulitples of the right rares is simply not looking at the game on the right level... some rares are rares because they are more powerful cards than most or provide very unique abilities...often though... the reason a card is rare because it is not as easily placed in all decks and has a more focused effect than most of the cards of the discipline, clan, or generic cards... for instance... regardless of any errata to the card(it is not relevant whether the card does agg or not because I know someone will try to comment about that... it's not the issue here...)... pulled fangs is by it's own right is a very defined card in its ability... and most often goes only in a high hand damage or similar combat deck for this reason... the card it is often compared to is lucky blow...lucky blow however is a decently usable in any deck that uses pulled fangs... but can be used to aid ANY deck that might need more hand damage... or just needs more or some combat.... thus the pulled fangs is a rare and the lucky blow is made common... BTW... if you people that cling to your dozens of commons in each of your decks don't seem to think that your supposed lack in rares would help you with your decks so I'd gladly take those Rares off of your hands for computer hackings and majesties... I've got dozens upon dozens of each ... but you and I know that's not correct and those rares are rare for a reason... if you are in a group of players that have quantities of cards like it sounds... it should not be difficult to acquire the proper number of rares to fill 5 or 6 slots in a deck... if you need that many of a card... now I'll mention the fact that some of the commons themselves are entirely too powerful... and in multiple quantites off balance decks in favor...I'd also like to say that Rares don't make the deck either... commons certainly are important... there are some commons that make decks flow properly... Malkie bleed relies on stealth... but anyone that says they need to have 20 lost in crowds and 20 conditionings is not building a deck that could work at full potential... there are at least 20 obfuscate cards that add to the stealth if you play a 6CL which seems to be the most popular(6 lost in crowds... 6 cloak... 6 faceless night... I think at 18 total cards right there for the deck (not to mention they're all common) there I don't need to go on and a similar situation exists for bleed modifiers...) Finally I'd like reiterate that some of the statements I make do not refer to ALL players... do NOT be offended by them if they do not apply to you... there are always exceptions to everything... I'd also like to point out I pieced this response together making sure when I thought of something I went to fill it in where it belongs... there may be some incomplete thoughts... if there are... just ignore them or let me know so I can finish them... don't jump to any conclusions...I hate to proof read Vince

>>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. > >Winning is the defined objective. > >If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. >This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the >other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. > >-- >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Research has been shown >http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | to cause cancer in mice. >Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to you... you are a horrible representative of the game... Winning is not the defined objective... winning is just what happens in the game... having fun is the objective of any game... as a representative never presume to put your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. no one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a game...and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have fun is to win... last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if you win you will have fun... stick to what you're supposed to be doing. Vince

>I predict that while a NL rush deck (with lots of Bum's Rush and IG) >does fine with either weenie presence or S&B as it's predator, 6CL rush >gets hosed (and 4CL rush gets completely hosed). and I predict that any rush deck sitting next to a well built stealth/bleed deck is going to get housed regardless of restrictions... and I stress well built... intercept combat decks mixed with rush tend to do the best in this situation...not to mention in a 6CL deck you have 12 rush cards... and most S/B decks do not have the cards to deal with your IGs if they make it into combat... Vince

Vince Johnson wrote: > > >>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants > >>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. > > > >Winning is the defined objective. > > > >If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. > >This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the > >other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. [clip] > For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to > you... you are a horrible representative of the game... Winning is not the > defined objective... winning is just what happens in the game... The Revised Rulebook: Section: The Object of the Game "Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methuselahs...As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game." The in-game objective isn't to "have fun" and then after you are done with the "fun" to go back and see who "happened to win". > having fun > is the objective of any game... We all have a personal objective to have fun. I think that is what you are probably talking about. I don't think anyone will argue with that (certainly not me). We found a game we like because it helps us achieve our personal objective of fun. In Monopoly, if we choose to get that fun by creating an "in-game objective" that is different from the objective defined in the rulebook, you will probably lose the game (especially if your only "in-game goal" is to try and win without owning anything.) but may still somehow meet your personal, out of game objective of having fun. Maybe you just enjoy the company and social aspect of the game. In Jyhad, the game only works when all players are attempting to meet the gamed defined objective of getting the most VPs--attempting to win. One common problem occurs mainly with new players. New players often play with the in-game objective of being the last player at the table. They typically play so defensively that their prey gets a free ride, allowing the new player's prey to have an easier time ousting their prey than any other player at the table. > as a representative never presume to put > your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. no > one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a > game...and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have > fun is to win... last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if > you win you will have fun... stick to what you're supposed to be doing. The defined objective L. Scott was referring to is the objective as stated in the rules. Seems perfectly reasonable for him to comment officially on something that is within the realm of the game rules. Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Caveat: I'm not trying to pick nits. Probability is useful stuff when buildings decks, especially crypt-building. Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math, > (6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of > drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. "Not bad odds" ??? Thos are terrible odds! Plus, they're wrong odds :) To find the odds of drawing a card over several draws, you have to multiply the odds of *not* drawing it together, and then subtract this product from 1. So instead of (6/90 + 6+89 + 6/87...) you want 1-(84/90 * 83/89 * 82/88...) The actual probability for drawing one of 6 cards in your opening hand from a 90 card deck is a measly 39.4%. > If I don't > draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it > after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I > draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another > (which increases until I draw another) with each card I play. Correct. > I'd say that's fairly reliable. Well, just because you have a 7% chance of drawing it as the next card, doesn't mean you have a 14% chance of drawing it among the next 2 cards. In fact, you could go through 9 cards after drawing the first special card, and still you would have *less than* a 50% of drawing a second copy! Nine cards! And even if you manage to cycle those 9 cards, you still won't have drawn your special card over half of the time! -davey!

[ quoted text not captured ] In my experience it simply doesn't work out that way. A good rush deck will never let a S&B predator even take an action. Hesina Kesi, etc. Rush decks are quite effective against S&B. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <788d11$k5q@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >don't jump to any conclusions...I hate to proof read I noticed. Makes people find another post to read. [ quoted text not captured ]

Vince Johnson wrote: "and I predict that any rush deck sitting next to a well built stealth/bleed deck is going to get housed regardless of restrictions... and I stress well built..." This is simply incorrect. Efficient stealth and bleed decks simply cannot have effective combat defense (effective enough to stand against a determined, pure Rush deck) and still be a viable, competetive S+B deck. It just won't work. In a CL environement, pure Rush decks are not a viable option, due to the lack of redundant necessary cards (Immortal Grapple, Taste of Vitae, Behind You, whatever). Under 4 CL, you can't even have enough Rush actions to make a relibale Rush deck. Under 6 CL, you can have enough Rush actions, but half of them are the ones you don't like (personally, I don't like Ambush). Your impressions are based upon a faulty supposition--that the game is somehow improved by a blanket card limit. "intercept combat decks mixed with rush tend to do the best in this situation...not to mention in a 6CL deck you have 12 rush cards... and most S/B decks do not have the cards to deal with your IGs if they make it into combat..." A Rush/Intercept deck will not have enough intercept to block a determined S+B deck on a reliable basis, yet all the intercept in there will prevent the combat aspect of the deck from working in any meaningful way. You have managed to lose me in your train of thought, here. Your first "scentence" is about how a Rush deck will get crushed by a S+B deck, but then your last statement is about how a S+B deck won't have enough cards to deal with IG. Wha? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious I would have it all if I'd only have this much" -Liz Phair

Vince Johnson wrote: "For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to you... you are a horrible representative of the game..." Sweet mother of god. Settle down, there, Beavis. L Scott was pointing out that the objective of any (and I stress _any_, well, ok, maybe not a few of those really hardcore 70's co-operative enlightenment games designed to make your relationships a better place, but those clearly aren't at issue here) game is to win. That is why competetive games exist. To try and win. No one is claiming that winning is sole reason for why one plays, but if one does not play a game with a mind towards victory, one would be better off doing something non-competetive. There are many ways of having a good time that don't involve trying to win something. However, a card game, where the objective is to crush your enemies, is not one of them. If the people playing are not playing with the idea of winning, then all concerned are probably better off doing something else. "Winning is not the defined objective..." I can say with fair certainty that under "objective of the game" in the Jyhad rule book, is how to win. This pretty much, well, makes winning the defined objective. "winning is just what happens in the game... having fun is the objective of any game..." I play to have fun. I also play to try and win. If I don't win, I don't feel as if I have wasted my time or anything, but if I don't try to win, I do. I play games to try and win. Heck, if I never win, I keep playing, but I keep trying to win. I play Titan all the time. I have played Titan for 6 years. I have won, maybe, 3% of the games I have played. I keep on playing 'cause I enjoy it. I keep on trying to win 'cause I enjoy it. If I wasn't playing and trying to win, A) I would be comprimising the enjoyment of all the other players, who were trying to win, and B) I would be better off doing somthing non competetive, like not playing a game (that has, as its objective, winning). "as a representative never presume to put your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings." LSJ is perfectly welcome to make his opinions known (If you were clever, you would have noticed that when he posts his own opinions, he does so under a different e-mail address. Not real important amzingly important, but makes his official capacity and his non official capacity obvious.) To say that him having opinions comprimises his ability to govern fairly is just insane, if not incredibly insulting. If he said "I want this card to change, well, 'casue I said so. Nyeah, nyeah.", I'd be with you. 100%. However, LSJ has a fabulous track record of justifying any of his statments in an official capacity with logical, though out reasoning. Not everyone always agrees with his reasoning, but it is there. Besides, the opinion that he was sharing here--that the objective of any game is to win--was completely correct, in any objective sense you wish to come up with. "no one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a game..." Wha? "and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have fun is to win..." At no point did he say that. Ever. What he said was that the objective of the game is to win. 'Cause it is. "last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if you win you will have fun... stick to what you're supposed to be doing." No, but it is written in the book that the objective of the game is to win by getting the most victory points. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 22 Jan 1999 02:36:48 GMT, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >Vince Johnson wrote: >"and I predict that any rush deck sitting next to a well built stealth/bleed >deck is going to get housed regardless of restrictions... and I stress well >built..." > >You have managed to lose me in your train of thought, here. Your first >"scentence" is about how a Rush deck will get crushed by a S+B deck, but then >your last statement is about how a S+B deck won't have enough cards to deal >with IG. Wha? I suspect he hasn't seen a proper Rush deck in action. In support of Peter's post... =) Your first turn, you get 1 transfer (poor you!), so you get out Hasina Kesi, inferior Potence. It trundles around the table, and your vicious S&B predator gets out ... hmm ... there aren't any 4 caps with obf/DOM or OBF/dom, and the only 5-caps are Zebulon with OBF/dom and Didi Meyers with obf/DOM. This should tell you something about how fast an S&B deck moves compared to a Rush deck, but we'll come back later. Let's assume he gets out Roland Bishop with obf/dom, because he has a DOM skill card in hand that he intends to play next round and then attempt to bleed for 6 at oodles of stealth. That's a pretty grim scenario for our heroine since Roland can do that twice before he has to hunt. Fast moving yes? Odds are Roland can generate +2 or +3 stealth with little to no effort, too, so an intercept deck had better be hard-core intercept to stop him. OK. Your turn! Assuming a properly built Rush deck, you probably have all these cards in hand or can draw them up as you burn cards... and we have already assumed some near-perfect table position for the S&B deck and a near-perfect hand and crypt draw, so we're going to assume that someone has made their Rush deck with a minimum of thought. Hasina Kesi, defender of the faith, Bum's Rushes Roland. Roland is rushed and can block if he wants since S&B doesn't pack maneuvers. Hasina plays Torn Signpost, Increased Strength, Immortal Grapple, and strikes with Undead Strength for 4 points of damage, and if Roland happened to have a Dodge in his hand he don't get to play it. Roland will be hunting next turn and will not be bleeding for 6 anytime soon if the Rush deck doesn't happen to have a Mighty Grapple handy - and if it does, well, Hasina is just going to have to play Taste of Vitae (silly but effective) so she doesn't go to torpor as well. Or you can just press and let her go to torpor, figuring that bleeding yourself for 2 once is a lot more effective than letting Roland bleed you for 6 multiple times even if it DOES cost you a useful minion. If you had a Potence skill card handy, Hasina plays Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, saves the Increased Strength and press cards for later, and strikes with Undead Strength for 5, and Roland will be taking no actions this game. And this is giving the Rush deck a nasty disadvantage in table position, starting transfers, and crypt draw. Imagine if Agatha or Hector Sosa could have been out (4 caps with superior Potence naturally). Imagine if it hadn't been Roland, but some 2 or 3 cap -- no press necessary, pick up your vampire parts at the door please. Well-built Rush decks really DO work this fast, yes. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> writes: > >>>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >>>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. >> >>Winning is the defined objective. >> >>If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. >>This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the >>other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. > >For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to >you... you are a horrible representative of the game... Winning is not the >defined objective... winning is just what happens in the game... having fun >is the objective of any game... as a representative never presume to put >your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. no >one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a >game...and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have >fun is to win... last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if >you win you will have fun... stick to what you're supposed to be doing. I think you're _way_ misinterpreting what LSJ is getting at. This is a classic case of two people "talking past" each other. There are multiple levels of motiviations, here. Above it all, you're basically correct as long as you're not talking about a professional player singing for his or her supper. Usually, when you're talking about playing games of this nature, you're talking about people wanting to have fun. I sure play to have fun. That said, games like this work as entertainment only if all players attempt to win them. This is because they were developed and optimized with the idea that players would have that motivation in mind while playing. If you don't accept it as a motifivation, the results are rather hard to predict and may very well *not* be fun for you or the other players. For instance, if you stop playing the game to win for yourself and start playing it to help your prey as much as possible, this skews the game in a way that standard strategy players are trying to use doesn't tend to account for...and hence, they will get frustrated with your actions and won't have much fun at all. *This* is what LSJ is talking about. And it's not accurate to say, "Winning is just what happens in the game", as if it happens by chance. It doesn't happen by chance, it happens because it's the motivation people adopt when they play the game because that's what they're supposed to do. As long as player keep their priorities straight and understand the relation- ship between them, gaming works great as entertainment. The relationship is that "fun" is the whole point, "winning" is the arbitrary motivation adopted in order to facilitate yourself and your friends having fun...but hopefully that is the *only* reason you attempt to win. And hopefully, you keep in mind the fact that if when the motivation to win starts to hinder the fun, the latter becomes counterproductive to its purpose. (There...that explaination was long-winded but hopefully clear.) Fred

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >Vince Johnson wrote: >"For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to >you... you are a horrible representative of the game..." > >Sweet mother of god. Settle down, there, Beavis. L Scott was pointing out >that the objective of any (and I stress _any_, well, ok, maybe not a few of >those really hardcore 70's co-operative enlightenment games designed to make >your relationships a better place, but those clearly aren't at issue here) game >is to win. Well, actually RPGs are a good example of an entertainment that is called a "game", yet is not governed by the same arbitrary subservient motivation to achieve the unique position of winner as in a board game or CCG. In RPGs, the abitrary subservient motivation is to advance your character to a better/more powerful position and to stay alive so you won't have to start a random new bottom rung weak character. Stange to relate, some of the same issues crop up when people start adopting subservient motivations that a given RPG game wasn't designed, developed, and optimized to support. Fred

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:24:42 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: In a way, i'm glad you're too embarrassed to actually respond to MY post and try to refute any points. I'd hate to try to read through it as well and figure out what the -hell- you're saying sometimes. You may hate to proofread, but when the written medium is the only means of communication, literacy is a must. >#1 I've never contradicted myself.... stop reading into what I'm saying(my >comment was sarcastic meant to point out that there's too many... in fact... >20 is entirely too many for any deck because you will be throwing them curiously enough, the abusive deck i posted had 15 zip guns and 15 DBR's. I'm sure I could make it more effective, but putting thought into a deck that doesn't work under current rulings and errata isn't much fun. >away... and if you're "throwing" cards away... your deck isn't working and >you need to fix it if possible...)... or reading what others are saying... Au contraire. Your deck may be working very well, you just may not need all 15 of the cards. If I know I have 15 of a certain card in a deck (best example I have is my all-Auspex intercept deck that has 12 Enhanced Senses in it), I'll always discard one unless it's the only one I have in my hand, because I KNOW I'll be seeing more of them. If I have too many (3-4) in my hand, I'll waste one whenever possible for the same reason - I'll DEFINITELY see more later. I don't put 10 or more of one kind of card in a deck unless I expect to always be able to play them - Enhanced Senses is one such card. I can always toss it out and say "I attempt to block. Oops. I fail." But I've cycled the card. The game also involves a certain amount of skill in the actual playing, if you're not aware. Knowing when to trust your deck and waste cards to get to others you need is a big one. >I've never said that always having a zip gun is a good thing to have... I >played against a "zip gun" style deck last night that got stuck with 4 guns >in his hand because my deck never let him get into combat with me... and So your deck didn't ever block him? At all? in his position I'd have just sent all 6-7 of my weenies to bleed over and over and over again for lots each turn until you were ousted, while discarding as necessary. Probably leaving one blocker every turn as well, to try to get into combat with my predator and play an extra discard there. A well-designed crypt can help wonders with problems such as potential hand jam -- it can negate it by virtue of not needing cards to be successful. A deck designed without its crypt in mind will fail. A crypt designed without its deck in mind will fail. Done properly they can supplement each other. >#2 I've been saying all along that restrictions should be placed... whether >through a card limit or whatever... errata is not the answer because it >leads to problems in other cards... or cards that now become too powerful as >a result of the errata because of other card interactions not expected And we're saying that card-limit restrictions and individual-card-amount restrictions have no place in Jyhad. That's what card errata was made for. Errataing Zip Gun to not use ammo led to zero (0) problems in other cards and made zero (0) cards more powerful as a result. Zip Guns still work great... they're just not ABUSIVE now. Errata: successful. >#3 just because some people have no originality in their deck designs and >play half or more of their deck with one card because they can't think of >anything better... don't get me wrong... theme decks are fun... but theme The official rules need to also allow for the person who intends to win a tournament by making the most abusive deck he can, and if that deck involves half or more of his deck being one card, so be it. You cannot tell someone they haven't won a tournament just because they "weren't original" and "couldn't think of anything better." - if their deck ousted people, it won. Plain and simple, by the rules. Card limits fix part of this problem, fail to fix other parts, and completely IGNORE some parts, and so are an unuseful solution for tournament play, which is what the official rules need to be geared for. >decks that rely so heavily on ... everyone that has advocated CL in what >I've read in response to my postings has said the same thing... that most >people that build decks out of restrictions tend to not have any originality >and have no skill in playing the game... the people that advocate NL all >have the same response.... "fine... play a deck with 20 of this card... or >30 of this card to stop that kind of deck"... that is not a proper Who are you kidding? Nobody has said that yet. Get your facts straight and quit making wild allegations. >response... it only discourages thinking... something a game is supposed to >make you do... there's no point in playing if the deck could literally play >itself... But there's lots of point in taking the deck that plays itself to a tournament, especially if it tends to win. >#4 Many of the NL card players advocate that with NL they can play with as >many of a common that they have and it is easier to play them... so what >about the rares?.... it makes it that harder for me to build a theme deck >that I might want to build based on a particular rare cards... and I tend to >find that the rare cards provide the best ideas for theme decks which tend >to be the most fun to play... they are not fun to play when I've got to deal >with 20-30 of the same card in someone else's deck... and the players that >do spend $ upon $ on the game WILL have multiples on the rares from the >newer sets... and by multiples... I mean they can have the #'s to build >decks with a dozen or so of a type of rare... now I'll admit that I have So with a 6CL, you will have 6 of a common card and the 1 rare you own. And Mr. Suitcase will have 6 common cards and 6 of his rares. Card limits does NOT address this issue effectively, as has been shown repeatedly. The balance designed into the game (if you had bothered to read my post, you'd know) DOES address it, however, since you can beat a deck composed entirely of rares with a deck composed entirely of commons and uncommons. Deck bleeding for lots? Telepathic Counter. Bleed bounce in multiple forms. Repulsive pool gain via repeat Autarkis Persecutions and Consanguineous Boons, or Minion Taps. Generate tons of intercept. Beat up his bleeders. How tough can it be? >rares in quantity like this from Jyhad(and some of you are right.. in what I >said Jyhad itself is considerably cheap and doused me for stating what I >said above what I thought about uncontrolled spending on the game... but I'm >not talking about boxes for $7... I'm talking about Sabbat and Ancient >Hearts... which if you can get that cheap, are uniquely lucky... don't EVER >come to me and tell me you didn't spend a lot of money on the game when I've I didn't spend a lot of money on the game. I paid $56 for my Jyhad cards. I paid $50 for my two boxes of Dark Sovereigns. I paid $112 for my two boxes of Sabbat. That's a total of $218. That's not a lot of money, either in my world, OR in the world of collectible card games. I could afford to buy multiple additional boxes of both Sabbat and Ancient Hearts, but $218 is already beginning to irritate me by how much I've spent, and I'm not -that- desperate to get tons of those cards. I'm still having fun making decks out of combinations of stuff. The most useful part I've found in making my wacky decks? The $56 worth of Jyhad cards that let me include enough of a "useless" card to make it more useful. (Cryptic Mission is an obvious candidate. As one card, it sucks. With a max of 6 cards... it still kinda sucks. If you can wedge 30 into your deck and have 5 or 6 THA weenies all taking Cryptic Mission actions on your prey's vampires each turn while you play Society of Leopold on them... it doesn't suck anymore. It actually begins to work.) >seen the quantities that people have dumped into the newer sets that have >not been that cheap/box... also I'd like to say that some people don't spend >that much on the game so don't get offended and think I'm talking about >everyone) ... but I have not been able to acquire the rares in quantity like >that from any of the other sets because its too hard to find it as cheap as >the original Jyhad boxes... anyone that wants to refute that a deck with >mulitples of the right rares is simply not looking at the game on the right You need to proofread. You didn't mention anything for us to refute. >level... some rares are rares because they are more powerful cards than most >or provide very unique abilities...often though... the reason a card is rare >because it is not as easily placed in all decks and has a more focused >effect than most of the cards of the discipline, clan, or generic cards... >for instance... regardless of any errata to the card(it is not relevant >whether the card does agg or not because I know someone will try to comment >about that... it's not the issue here...)... pulled fangs is by it's own >right is a very defined card in its ability... and most often goes only in a >high hand damage or similar combat deck for this reason... the card it is Or in a fortitude deck where you can do 1 hand damage, prevent all of his, and pull his fangs. >often compared to is lucky blow...lucky blow however is a decently usable in >any deck that uses pulled fangs... but can be used to aid ANY deck that >might need more hand damage... or just needs more or some combat.... thus >the pulled fangs is a rare and the lucky blow is made common... I wouldn't compare Pulled Fangs to Lucky Blow at all, personally. The two cards provide completely dissimilar effects, really, in their base wording. (Lucky blow is a strike card, which prevents you from using a strike such as Undead Strength (+2 hand damage), and is played during the strike phase. Pulled Fangs is played AFTER the damage phase, cannot be Dodged or S:CE'd, and the real reason it is rare is because of its additional side effects AFTER it has been played are significantly more powerful - not just because it can "only go" in a certain number of decks.) A Lucky Blow/Pulled Fangs deck would be entertaining, but probably a waste of time considering the errata removing the agg damage (since as many people will tell you, people were using Pulled Fangs to burn vampires all over the place. Bad). >BTW... if you people that cling to your dozens of commons in each of your >decks don't seem to think that your supposed lack in rares would help you >with your decks so I'd gladly take those Rares off of your hands for >computer hackings and majesties... I've got dozens upon dozens of each ... >but you and I know that's not correct and those rares are rare for a >reason... if you are in a group of players that have quantities of cards >like it sounds... it should not be difficult to acquire the proper number of >rares to fill 5 or 6 slots in a deck... if you need that many of a card... I'm not sure why you think just because we put 12 of a common card in a deck, that we don't use rare cards. I'll stick 10-12 Majesties in a Presence-using deck and consider my combat defense complete - I may run out, sure, but I won't run out FAST. But those 10-12 Majesties do NOTHING for any other aspect of the deck - they just ensure that someone has to have an Immortal Grapple to beat my vampires up. I still need to do lots more to make the deck do something useful. I have one copy of Awe. I will just not bother to waste my time trying to find 5 *SPARE* copies among my friends - since they would like to hang onto those copies themselves in case THEY want to make a deck using Awe, and I don't blame them. I don't know of anyone in our group with more than 5-6 of that card -total-, much less spare. Someone is posting mentioning that he thinks he has 15-16 Awe ... now -that- is a lot of money being spent on Sabbat boxes, or a singularly lucky draw in the boosters contained in those boxes. =) I'd bet a little bit of both, actually. 1 Awe in two boxes seems awful rare, so I'm sure I just got some different rares instead. (the 3 Quicknesses, for example.) As far as Jyhad rares? If I want them that badly, sure, I'll ask to see if anyone has spares, but if not, I'll just fork out the $7 for another box and get my additional 1-3 copies of the card. (except for stupid Immortal Grapple) >now I'll mention the fact that some of the commons themselves are entirely >too powerful... and in multiple quantites off balance decks in favor...I'd Hm, I don't know. If I put more than 15 Majesties in a deck, I'd be sure to always have a Majesty, but Majesties aren't playable as easily as some cards (mumble, zip gun, mumble) are. (Can't play Majesty once you've been IG'd - you can always waste a Zip Gun or two before range. =) The number of a card you put in the deck HAS to be directly influenced by how often you can reasonably expect to play that card. 20 Computer Hackings are probably fine, since you can probably play 4-5 of them each turn if you have to. Some turns you may even WANT to play 4-5 of them. 20 Lost in Crowds are going to jam you up like a big dog, since you can only play one of them for each action and ONLY when someone tries to block you. Sure, if you have a dumb player who will voluntarily attempt to block anything you do, you can play 4-5 of those per turn, but that just won't work in the long run. A good player will assume that you always have the stealth card in hand and not bother to try to block if he doesn't have the intercept - and in the process wedge your deck completely shut. >also like to say that Rares don't make the deck either... commons certainly >are important... there are some commons that make decks flow properly... A deck with no commons will lose consistently. I don't think you can make a deck of all rares that would have a prayer of winning, frankly - too many utility cards that EVERY deck needs some of are common. >Malkie bleed relies on stealth... but anyone that says they need to have 20 >lost in crowds and 20 conditionings is not building a deck that could work >at full potential... there are at least 20 obfuscate cards that add to the >stealth if you play a 6CL which seems to be the most popular(6 lost in >crowds... 6 cloak... 6 faceless night... I think at 18 total cards right >there for the deck (not to mention they're all common) there I don't need >to go on and a similar situation exists for bleed modifiers...) > >Finally I'd like reiterate that some of the statements I make do not refer >to ALL players... do NOT be offended by them if they do not apply to you... >there are always exceptions to everything... I'd also like to point out I >pieced this response together making sure when I thought of something I went >to fill it in where it belongs... there may be some incomplete thoughts... >if there are... just ignore them or let me know so I can finish them... >don't jump to any conclusions...I hate to proof read > >Vince [ quoted text not captured ]

I agree with some of your points, (although i like to exploit cards until they change the rules) Zip Gun was one of the nastiest combos with DBRounds.

Good lord, I can't believe that I read through 59 postings under the title of "ZIP GUN" to find the majority of the messages going over card limits. Whew.. Anyhow, thought I'd give a quick say after all that reading. For those that don't know me, I'm the guy what started the Michigan Jyhad League whose local playgroup mostly uses a soft 6CL (Hey Noal).. Truth is that you can rebuild any NCL competative deck under 6CL. As a challenge to myself after getting whooped by Peter's Nossies at Origins, I rebuilt the deck under 6CL with some minor modifications. I think Noal can attest that it was pretty nasty. That out of the way, I would also like to say that I believe NCL is the way to go due to some of the reasons mentioned in earlier posts. - In 6CL to rebuild a tournament level competative deck, you often need to resort to a higher ratio of Rare cards for similar effectiveness. - Some deck Archetypes really don't work as well under 6CL (Really only the Independant Clans, but hey!) - I like having the option to get wacky with a specific card from time to time. Not that NCL is without it's problems. Personally, I think many of the gripes I have with NCL would be dispelled with some simple rules changes*: *Action Modifiers: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card during a given action. *Combat Cards: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card during each round of combat. The effect of these would be much like the following examples: Action Modifiers: After playing a Lost in Crowds, I need more stealth to continue my action. Due to the above rule, I can play another stealth card but it cannot be another Lost In Crowds. Combat Cards: By the above rule it will prevent combat decks from emptying their hand for no good reason other than card cycling. At Origins I saw folks dropping 2-3 Torn Signposts during a round of combat simply because they can. Note: Playing multiple signposts have no cumulative effect. The above examples create a Soft Card Limit of sorts, as people building a combat deck that want maneuvers would add additional cards besides Flash. I also think it falls in line with the No Repeat Action, and New Voting rules. I kind of clump all of the above into what I term "The One Card Rule". All pretty much based on the same principle and promotes more of that Game Balance that I keep hearing so much about.. * Vampires are Unique: Another thought I've been toying with is that Vampires should be unique. That's why they contest when more than 1 are in play at a given time. When a given Vampire is Burned or Removed from the Game, further copies of that Vampire may no longer be brought into play. This solves some of the Weenie Madness, and brings Jyhad in line with other current game technologies (L5R/DoomTown). It's a fairly radical thought, but one that makes a lot of sense IMHO. Not that it's without problems. Someone like Jimmy Dunn would fall under Rule 1.4 which states text on card takes precedence over the rulebook. So before people start beating up on Card Limits, take the above into consideration. For a game that was designed by WOTC to be played in a NCL environment, Jyhad has stood the test of time pretty well considering the lackedasial attitude of it's creators. Bernie Bresnahan Michigan Jyhad League

Doh, While I was rambling on about my "One Card Rule" stuff in my previous post there was another thing I forgot to mention. Unique Locations/Allies. If a unique location/ally is in anyones ash heap, further copies of that location/ally may not be brought into play. I think the only problem this would have is that the ash heap (where burned cards go) and your discard pile would need to be kept track of seperately. Who wants to play Necromancy now? Bernie Bresnahan Michigan Jyhad League Note: Please keep in mind that these ideas are mine alone, and not in usage anywhere that I know of. Just my skull, and now out in the open for others to ponder.

My web browser crashed when I was replying to this. Let's see if I have better luck this morning. Joshua Duffin wrote: > I notice this discussion is getting a bit heated in places. I'm trying > my best to avoid that. I like arguing (duh), but it makes me unhappy > when I feel like people are just yelling at each other unconstructively. Sorry. *bashful grin* I like a good argument and occasionally my Irish temperment kicks in. Don't take it too seriously. I don't. We're all still friends here. *grin* > My position here is that any kind of CL completely *fails* to enforce > variety. What it enforces is not having more than X of a card in your > deck. Yes and no. Because you're limited to X amount of cards, certain decks won't work. But the central point is why we're doing it. If someone has an idea that won't work under 6CL, we're not going to be Nazis about it. > > > Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used. > > > But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me. > > > > Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile. > > Using a different card doesn't make a deck innovative. Didn't say it did. Card limits _can_ lead to innovative decks, not always. I find it does. YMV > You wouldn't do that because it's silly, right? But not more silly than > 'protecting variety' by saying 'can't have more than 6 of any one card, > by name, in your deck', in my opinion. As I've said before, reasonable exceptions are made. > > > *Winning* is fun. > > > > For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification, > > buy a porno mag or a video game. > > I think what you're trying to say here is that it's not fun for the other > players for me to win, is that right? Since I'm sure you're not just > trying to be insulting. ^_^ You can the guy out of the trailer park... *grin* My point here was that when you're playing with others at a local game, their enjoyment of the evening is just as important as yours. Would you rather lose to a cheesy S&B deck that's been done over and over or a deck built around some bizarre (but competitive) combo you've never seen before? I don't mind if I lose so much if I am entertained as well. > But it is fun for the other players to compete against me in trying to win. > That is the very definition of 'a game', isn't it? An activity in which > you compete against other people to accomplish some goal? See role playing games....so no. It's not. > > I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how > > you play the game." It could not be more true. > > But it _is_ whether you win or lose. You wouldn't be playing a _game_ > if you didn't care whether you won or lost. It's fun to throw a frisbee > around, but it's not exactly a game. My point was this statement: > A bunch of NL advocates (Mike Bohlmann, Petri Wessman, and so on and so > forth) have said that winning is not _all_ of the fun in playing, and > I agree with that. Please take note that I am a NL advocate of games at a tournament level. The 6CL works for our local group. > (And especially, why play a game where some people are knocked out before > the winner is declared? Good lord, it's completely the opposite of fun > for them, if they didn't enjoy trying to win when they were still in the > game.) See my earlier statement about losing to an innovative deck vs losing to a cheesy deck. > > Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get > > invited to any of the local games. > > ie, you'll tell him he can't play it _with you_. If he doesn't know > any other players, is this not equivalent to telling him he can't play > it at all? (I know, not your house, you're not the one kicking him out, > but you do agree with the philosophy, right?) Let me preface this by saying that last I checked there are about 5 separate play groups in the MJL, so ours is by far not the only option available. However, if our local group doesn't want to play with a person that insists on playing a cheesy deck, it's our perogative. Not to say that we're get all Nazi about it... > > Never once did I say that card limits are "necessary for the game," nor > > would I imply such. But card limits being "bad for 'the game as a whole'" > > is a bit excessive when we're discussing local groups. > > I know you didn't. I was just explaining why I have a bad reaction to > card limits. I feel they're bad for 'the game as a whole' because I > used to play with them, and now I think they're a bad idea. ^_^ Well...all right then. *smile* Noal -armed with a 6CL deck and my morning coffee -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Jasper Phillips wrote: > I think it's you whos bringing up the strawmen going into the differences > between 4 and 6 CL. My statement about using substite cards clearly > holds for whatever reasonable CL you happen to use. Eh? I never brought up 4CL, much less the differences between the two. > >> >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how > >> >you play the game." It could not be more true. > >> > >> I think you're really missing the point here. > > > >...actually I think you are. > > That's nice. You've snipped my explanation of why I thought that was > the case, and then didn't say what you thought I was missing. Considering I'm the person that launched this thread, I should hope I know what the point is. > >I'm not Mr. Miagi. I don't give a damn about balance. > >My focus here is on FUN. > > Um, so? My point that you haven't, and I believe can't, support _your_ > statement that CLs have a game balancing effect still stands. Never did I say that CL enforce game balance. If you can find where I said that, I invite you to quote it. I've been talking about variety, not balance. > If you're > going to make statements about balance, you should be able to defend them. > Copping out with, oh, "I don't give a damn" when pressed to defend them > is lame. Let's play a game of "Where's Waldo". Find one post where I stated that I believe that CL=game balance. > I understood, and I think the point is quite relavent when debating > "playing to win" vs. "playing for fun", as the part I'm responding too > was. Hell, _you're_ the one quoting "It's not whether you win or lose...", > and saying "Winning shouldn't be your primary objective". > I think you were, and are, completely misunderstanding the opposing > argument about "playing to win". No you are. I was talking about the difference between losing to a cheesy deck and losing to an innovative deck. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > deck (best example I have is my all-Auspex intercept deck that has 12 > Enhanced Senses in it), I'll always discard one unless it's the only > one I have in my hand, because I KNOW I'll be seeing more of them. If > I have too many (3-4) in my hand, I'll waste one whenever possible for > the same reason - I'll DEFINITELY see more later. I don't put 10 or > more of one kind of card in a deck unless I expect to always be able > to play them - Enhanced Senses is one such card. I can always toss it > out and say "I attempt to block. Oops. I fail." You cannot "always" toss it out - you must wait until someone takes an action that you are entitled to attempt to block (i.e., one that is directed at you or and undirected action taken by your Predator or Prey). And then you can only play it by a minion that is attemptin to block *and* needs the intercept (i.e., the stealth of the action exceeds the intercept of the chosen blocker). Moreover, if playing the card makes your intercept equal or exceed the action's stealth, you will succeed in blocking (provided no more stealth is added)- you cannot choose to fail at that point. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > >If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. > >This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the > >other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. Vince wrote: > For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to > you... you are a horrible representative of the game... > ... > as a representative never presume to put > your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. no > one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a > game... EEP!!!!! Hell, I can't even consider defending you on this one. Giving LSJ a little shit for his comments is one thing, but calling him a "horrible representative of the game"?!?!? Christ....lighten up. I for one would like to see LSJ not have to take an official stance on things every time he posts. I certainly don't object to hearing his personal (and unofficial) views of topics and people's decks. After all, he's a Jyhad player just like the rest of us. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@mich.com wrote: > [... snip ...] > Not that NCL is without it's problems. Personally, I think many of > the gripes I have with NCL would be dispelled with some simple rules > changes*: > > *Action Modifiers: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card > during a given action. This is, and has always been, part of the official rules. A minion cannot play a second copy of the same action modifier on a given action. Also, a minion cannot play a second copy of the same reaction card on a given action. > *Combat Cards: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card during > each round of combat. This sort of rule has been examined. It doesn't hold water when one looks at multiple strikes (e.g., you *should* definately be able to play two Undead Strengths in a round if you have two strikes.) And it probably shouldn't apply to damage prevention effects, either (multiple use of which was an explicit consideration of the original design, as can be seen in the card text on Sideslip). It may also unnecessarily restrict Fists of Death, although that point is an extremely minor one. > The effect of these would be much like the following examples: > > Action Modifiers: After playing a Lost in Crowds, I need more stealth > to continue my action. Due to the above rule, I can play another > stealth card but it cannot be another Lost In Crowds. This is how things work officially, as well. > Combat Cards: By the above rule it will prevent combat decks from > emptying their hand for no good reason other than card cycling. At > Origins I saw folks dropping 2-3 Torn Signposts during a round of > combat simply because they can. Note: Playing multiple signposts have > no cumulative effect. This is a good objective, but a suitable implementation is hard to come by (things get a bit complicated when you try to word the rule to allow multiple strikes and damage prevention effects while disallowing multiple Torn Signposts, etc.) > The above examples create a Soft Card Limit of sorts, as people > building a combat deck that want maneuvers would add additional cards > besides Flash. I also think it falls in line with the No Repeat > Action, and New Voting rules. NRA is definately an after-thought rule. It doesn't "feel" particularly clean and it causes a few complications of its own (i.e. can a Possessed vampire repeat an action it took in its previous life? (Yes). or can a minion whose action was Masked attempt the same type of action? (Yes). and so on.) Which is why it was left as a DCI rule and not incorporated into the rulebook proper. > I kind of clump all of the above into what I term "The One Card Rule". > All pretty much based on the same principle and promotes more of that > Game Balance that I keep hearing so much about.. But extending this style of rule to strikes and damage prevention promotes imbalance, I believe. > * Vampires are Unique: > Another thought I've been toying with is that Vampires should be > unique. That's why they contest when more than 1 are in play at a > given time. When a given Vampire is Burned or Removed from the Game, > further copies of that Vampire may no longer be brought into play. > > This solves some of the Weenie Madness, and brings Jyhad in line with > other current game technologies (L5R/DoomTown). > > It's a fairly radical thought, but one that makes a lot of sense IMHO. > Not that it's without problems. Someone like Jimmy Dunn would fall > under Rule 1.4 which states text on card takes precedence over the > rulebook. This idea, suggested a few months (years?) ago by David Pontes, was also examined. It has its problems, as you note. Those problems proved too complicated (or too dependent on VtM knowledge) to be really workable, as well. e.g., a vampire who is retrieved and then removed by Illusions of Kindred should *not* be restricted from coming out later (or remaining out, for that matter). > So before people start beating up on Card Limits, take the above into > consideration. For a game that was designed by WOTC to be played in a > NCL environment, Jyhad has stood the test of time pretty well > considering the lackedasial attitude of it's creators. Good suggestions. And highly commendable objectives. But these avenues have been looked into before. So far, a suitable (simple, effective, and not overly-restrictive) implementation has been elusive. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > >...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout, > >"Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of > >deck building skills. Even without card limits (and especially _without_ > >card limits) there is no such thing as an "unbeatable" deck. Card limits > >can produce decks that are impossible to beat without the entire table > >joining forces against a single player. Even a weenie horde can be > >easily killed with a Domain Challenge or a Anarchist Uprising. > > I'm definitly baffled... I had thought you'd been, at times, arguing > just the opposite... I guess the arguments between us simply boil > down to you thinking that CL makes the game have more variety and depth, > and my disagreeing. BINGO!!! But, hey, we both love a good argument. Was it good for you? *grin* [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78a1nc$r79$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > My web browser crashed when I was replying to this. > Let's see if I have better luck this morning. Man, I hate when that happens. Especially when it's in the middle of a really long reply... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I notice this discussion is getting a bit heated in places. I'm trying > > my best to avoid that. I like arguing (duh), but it makes me unhappy > > when I feel like people are just yelling at each other unconstructively. > > Sorry. *bashful grin* I like a good argument and occasionally my > Irish temperment kicks in. Don't take it too seriously. I don't. > We're all still friends here. *grin* I do my best not to take anything too seriously. ^_- > > My position here is that any kind of CL completely *fails* to enforce > > variety. What it enforces is not having more than X of a card in your > > deck. > > Yes and no. Because you're limited to X amount of cards, certain > decks won't work. But the central point is why we're doing it. If > someone has an idea that won't work under 6CL, we're not going > to be Nazis about it. Sure. I just can't get away from the feeling that it's counterproductive to use even a 'soft' 6CL if certain approved decks can break it. From my point of view, it is (as Peter put it) the forceful and persuasive players who can enforce an idea of fun; the card limit is completely ancillary. But you guys like it, so clearly you're not going to stop doing it just because I think it's weird. ^_^ > > Using a different card doesn't make a deck innovative. > > Didn't say it did. Card limits _can_ lead to innovative decks, not > always. I find it does. YMV My mileage was (as you may have guessed) incredibly low. Luckily I got off the road, or world average temperatures this year would be up another full degree. > You can the guy out of the trailer park... *grin* > My point here was that when you're playing with others at a local game, > their enjoyment of the evening is just as important as yours. Would you > rather lose to a cheesy S&B deck that's been done over and over or > a deck built around some bizarre (but competitive) combo you've never > seen before? I don't mind if I lose so much if I am entertained as well. Actually, I don't mind losing to a cheesy (read cliched, since I don't know of any cheesy=unfairly powerful NL decks) S&B deck either. To me, it's largely the strategy and tactics of playing the game that produces the entertainment. I do also love to see a deck concept I've never seen or heard of, especially if it's effective, yeah. But that's an entirely different pleasure from that of playing a competitive game, to me. > > But it is fun for the other players to compete against me in trying to win. > > That is the very definition of 'a game', isn't it? An activity in which > > you compete against other people to accomplish some goal? > > See role playing games....so no. It's not. Role playing games, like the 70s style cooperative games Peter mentioned, are not really 'games', I would say. They are completely open ended, and I think they're much more like cooperative storytelling than they are like any traditional 'game'. The only reason I can think of that they're called games is that they are sold in games stores. (Although my history of games stores is pretty weak, I would guess that those stores carried wargames (which are 'real games') before role playing games were invented; I know that some of the first RPGs grew out of the wargame tradition.) Most 'games' I can think of have defined winning conditions. Blackjack, poker, roulette, rugby, polo, pictionary, pin the tail on the donkey, etc., fit into that mold. Certain other types of 'games' don't: drinking games, spin the bottle, etc. But I would say that the latter type are simply misclassified by being grouped with games that can be won - in fact they are social activities, but not games of the sort that, for example, game theory can be applied to. > Well...all right then. *smile* > > Noal > -armed with a 6CL deck and my morning coffee Good, good. Hey, remember that game we played at Origins after the tourney was over? I was playing this stupid 17 Arms Dealer deck? I take it that would be allowed in Michigan... ^_^ Josh 'don't want a cigarette, cause it's a form of slavery' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36a81ca2...@news.mich.com>, ber...@mich.com wrote: > *Action Modifiers: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card > during a given action. This is an official rule. It's been in the rulebook since the dawn of time, no? It's part of the 'action modifiers/reactions' limit, which is that no minion may play more than one of the same action modifier or reaction during a given action. I think it's right next to the 'no unneeded stealth/intercept' rule. > *Combat Cards: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card during > each round of combat. This I (surprise surprise) don't like. It's almost as annoying as playing with card limits. ^_- > The effect of these would be much like the following examples: > > Combat Cards: By the above rule it will prevent combat decks from > emptying their hand for no good reason other than card cycling. At > Origins I saw folks dropping 2-3 Torn Signposts during a round of > combat simply because they can. Note: Playing multiple signposts have > no cumulative effect. No, but playing multiple Fists of Death or Increased Strengths does. So does playing Undead Strength, Blurring, and playing two more Undead Strength. Or playing two Resilience to prevent six damage. Does card- intensive combat really need to be weakened just for the purpose of not seeing people play cards with the same name too often? > The above examples create a Soft Card Limit of sorts, as people > building a combat deck that want maneuvers would add additional cards > besides Flash. I also think it falls in line with the No Repeat > Action, and New Voting rules. My feeling is that fighting in combat is too hard already for it to be good to make it harder. The one card rule doesn't adversely affect people who want to avoid combat, who only need to play one Majesty or Earth Meld in a round, but hurts any deck that wants to beat people up. > I kind of clump all of the above into what I term "The One Card Rule". > All pretty much based on the same principle and promotes more of that > Game Balance that I keep hearing so much about.. > > * Vampires are Unique: > Another thought I've been toying with is that Vampires should be > unique. That's why they contest when more than 1 are in play at a > given time. When a given Vampire is Burned or Removed from the Game, > further copies of that Vampire may no longer be brought into play. > > This solves some of the Weenie Madness, and brings Jyhad in line with > other current game technologies (L5R/DoomTown). This and the Unique Stuff (Ain't No Comin' Back) rule I don't object to so much. To me, the game is abstract enough already that it's not really necessary to try to bring in more 'real world logic', but whatever floats your boat. > So before people start beating up on Card Limits, take the above into > consideration. For a game that was designed by WOTC to be played in a > NCL environment, Jyhad has stood the test of time pretty well > considering the lackedasial attitude of it's creators. That I definitely agree with. Josh 'the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36a81ca2...@news.mich.com>, ber...@mich.com wrote: > Not that NCL is without it's problems. Personally, I think many of > the gripes I have with NCL would be dispelled with some simple rules > changes*: > > *Action Modifiers: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card > during a given action. This is in the rules. I'm not sure that it was in the Jyhad rulebook, but it was definitely in the V:tES rulebook. > *Combat Cards: Minions may not play duplicates of a given card during > each round of combat. In my opinion, this would have other adverse effects that would not make it worthwhile. Example A: You're playing Celerity, and your opponent is also playing Celerity. You have a bad hand or whatever including 2 Sideslips and a Blur. Your opponent plays a Torn Signpost and will Blur with it. Why shouldn't you be able to play both Sideslips to dodge his strikes? Example B: Someone hits you with 8 points of damage, and you don't have a Skin of Steel in your hand. Why shouldn't you be able to play 2 Skins of Rock? > Combat Cards: By the above rule it will prevent combat decks from > emptying their hand for no good reason other than card cycling. At > Origins I saw folks dropping 2-3 Torn Signposts during a round of > combat simply because they can. Note: Playing multiple signposts have > no cumulative effect. If someone dropped 2-3 Torn Signposts, I wouldn't be worried about it. It has several things of interest attached to it. First, he just wasted 1 or 2 Torn Signposts. Second, he may be panicking because he doesn't have cards in his hand that he wants. Third, his deck is probably poorly constructed. These last two points help you out. There are very few instances where multiples of combat cards throw things out of whack to begin with, IMO. These would be Increased Strength, Fists of Death, Weather Control, and superior Terror Frenzy. Most other cards that would be powerful in multiples have card text restricting them like Carrion Crows or have costs that make multiples inefficient. > The above examples create a Soft Card Limit of sorts, as people > building a combat deck that want maneuvers would add additional cards > besides Flash. Forcing people to use different cards simply for the sake of doing so is not a good thing, IMO. Plus, you still can't maneuver to cancel your own maneuver. And by removing some Flash, you are forced to substitue other press cards if you want to press. Putting in lots of Flash can already have its own adverse effects - DotB causes hand jam as does just having multiples in your hand at once. > I also think it falls in line with the No Repeat Action, and New Voting > rules. I'm not sure how this associates to NRA, as S:CE and untap without NRA is nuts... I'm still trying to convince my group of that, but apparently they don't mind always losing to the weenie Protean Computer Hacking hordes when I decide to play that deck. The vote pushing rules are different than combat card dumping. First, you can dump the vote cards during any political action. It doesn't even have to be yours. And when you have weenies, you're eventually going to get a vote action through to dump them. The cards serve three purposes - calling the vote, passing the vote, and getting perhaps more useful cards into your hand. With combat, if you are dumping cards, you may more may not be moving towards accomplishing your goal - putting vampires in torpor or burning them. For example, playing 3 Torn Signposts does you no good. A more proper equivalent to VP would be playing 3 Fists of Death, but you've also just spent 3 blood and aren't assured of actually being able to hit your target. > * Vampires are Unique: > Another thought I've been toying with is that Vampires should be > unique. That's why they contest when more than 1 are in play at a > given time. When a given Vampire is Burned or Removed from the Game, > further copies of that Vampire may no longer be brought into play. This is essentially a card limit on the crypt. The reason being, if a core vampire of yours gets burned for whatever reason, you had better have replacements. This would possibly help combat decks and hurt weenie decks, but I'm not sure that it'd be sufficient to counteract all the other effects. > This solves some of the Weenie Madness, and brings Jyhad in line with > other current game technologies (L5R/DoomTown). Jyhad is not L5R or DoomTown. We will not be assimilated. :) > It's a fairly radical thought, but one that makes a lot of sense IMHO. > Not that it's without problems. Someone like Jimmy Dunn would fall > under Rule 1.4 which states text on card takes precedence over the > rulebook. Jimmy's powerful enough already, but his card text actually becomes about even between benefit and penalty depending on whether anyone else is playing with him. > So before people start beating up on Card Limits, take the above into > consideration. For a game that was designed by WOTC to be played in a > NCL environment, Jyhad has stood the test of time pretty well > considering the lackedasial attitude of it's creators. The limit on reaction and action modifiers makes sense, especially the one on action modifiers, because of the effects of multiples. S&B is pretty strong when not faced by heavy bounce or determined rush. But just imagine if it only had to use Lost in Crowds to stack up the stealth it needed? The same goes for vote push. Combat cards, for the most part, either aren't stackable or aren't worth playing multiples of. The vampire thing makes for an interesting house rule, but there's no real big use for it other than a slight curtailment of weenie decks. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> writes: > [sjoh...@math.sc.edu writes:] >>>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants >>>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this. >> >>Winning is the defined objective. >> >>If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely. >>This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the >>other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game. >> >>-- >>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Research has been shown >>http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | to cause cancer in mice. >>Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | >For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to >you... you are a horrible representative of the game... sjoh...@math.sc.edu (me, the author of the post you quoted) is not a representative of the game. You are thinking of vte...@wizards.com. sjoh...@math.sc.edu is my personal account. >Winning is not the >defined objective... winning is just what happens in the game... Winning by accumulation of victory points the defined by the rulebook as the objective of the game. See the Rulebook: Object of the Game. >having fun >is the objective of any game... Having fun is the objective of playing the game, yes (unless you're just playing to win prizes in a tourney, I suppose). Do not confuse that with the object of the game itself. "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" (as Noal, among others, has said). How you play the game can be: 1) give your best effort, play fair, and conduct yourself properly - no whining or 2) give less than your best effort, cheat, or whine. If you don't give your best effort (to achieve the objective defined by the game), then the game will be less fun for all the players (in general - I'm sure there are a few people out there that wouldn't mind being "handed" a win), and the objective of playing the game will not be met. This is what I was trying to get across in the post you quoted. >as a representative never presume to put >your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. As you say. >no >one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a >game...and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have >fun is to win... Sorry - I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase this? >last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if >you win you will have fun... Ah, something we agree on. Playing to win (giving you best effort) doesn't guarantee a win. And winning doesn't guarantee fun (especially if others weren't giving their best efforts). >stick to what you're supposed to be doing. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Research has been shown http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | to cause cancer in mice. Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger |

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > In addition, a CL environment makes counting cards a viable > > strategy. As in: "hmmm, now he's played 4 Immortal Grapples. I'm > > safe". IMHO, that's not a part of how the game should be played. > > This I completely agree with. Card limits make counting cards possible. > Not knowing what your opponent holds is entirely part of the game. So when your facing a rush deck you don't know he has IG ???? When your facing a vote deck you don't know he has KRC???? When facing a bleed deck you don't know he has Conditioning??? C'mon if you know your opponent's entire deck after he gets off his first combo Where's the fun? > > > ...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout, > "Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of > deck building skills. This my good man is a load of crap. I could respond in the same vein with NL is a crutch for poor playing skill. I mean I could train a monkey mindlessly pump out Bums Rush, IG, Torn Signpost, and Undead Strength on every vampire in play. That is not a deck it's a combo. A deck is a group of multiple combo's that all work together to form a stratagy.A lot of the "deck's" I see posted are the same 4 or 5 cards repeted endlessly. It takes much more deck building skill with a limit than without, and more playing skill to win with a 4CL deck.Rather than endlessly repeating the same combo over and over and over..... I just love arguing about this Eric Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things. >

Bernie> Combat Cards: By the above rule it will prevent combat decks from Bernie> emptying their hand for no good reason other than card cycling. At Bernie> Origins I saw folks dropping 2-3 Torn Signposts during a round of Bernie> combat simply because they can. Note: Playing multiple signposts have Bernie> no cumulative effect. LSJ> This is a good objective, but a suitable implementation is hard LSJ> to come by (things get a bit complicated when you try to word the LSJ> rule to allow multiple strikes and damage prevention effects LSJ> while disallowing multiple Torn Signposts, etc.) You could say that you are unable to play multiples of a card that give you no cumulative (or additional) effect. That, I think, would just about do it. That would prevent people from playing 2 Torn Signposts or Damage Prevention cards when they don't need to. Bernie> I kind of clump all of the above into what I term "The One Card Rule". Bernie> All pretty much based on the same principle and promotes more of that Bernie> Game Balance that I keep hearing so much about.. LSJ> But extending this style of rule to strikes and damage prevention LSJ> promotes imbalance, I believe. Maybe, maybe not. I'd say it warrants playtesting as an optional rule. For tournaments? No. If for no other reason that some guy that shows up with a reasonable deck that would be ruined by this errata. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

oop's after reading more of the thread it appears we are on the same side :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote in message <786kuv$85i$1...@news.NERO.NET>... >In article <7859de$nqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >>> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled >>> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've >>> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by >>> card limits, >> >>...and usually with some success. > >No. Perhaps in other card games, but it has the _opposite_ effect in >Jyhad. Card limits make a few decks better, and others worse. > >This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also >come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of >the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark? >do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me. It's a lot simpler than that, really. The offer is $25 from me, $25 from Jasper, and maybe another $15 to $50 for *anyone* who can go to http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/, read the articles for and against a CL, and send me a rebuttal of all the anti-CL articles I have there. By a rebuttal, I mean you have to address the points that have already been made and counter them with new arguments, or at least new facts to support old arguments. For example, original CL advocates claimed that a CL stops S&B decks cold, and the NCL advocates countered (with examples) that it didn't affect the S&B decks, but it hosed many of the defensives. Since then, the CL advocates have kept making the same claim, instead of addressing the NCL issues. $50+ for anyone who rebuts the NCL advocates. How hard is that? -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Bernie> Combat Cards: By the above rule it will prevent combat decks from > Bernie> emptying their hand for no good reason other than card cycling. At > Bernie> Origins I saw folks dropping 2-3 Torn Signposts during a round of > Bernie> combat simply because they can. Note: Playing multiple signposts have > Bernie> no cumulative effect. > > LSJ> This is a good objective, but a suitable implementation is hard > LSJ> to come by (things get a bit complicated when you try to word the > LSJ> rule to allow multiple strikes and damage prevention effects > LSJ> while disallowing multiple Torn Signposts, etc.) > > You could say that you are unable to play multiples of a card > that give you no cumulative (or additional) effect. That, I think, > would just about do it. That would prevent people from playing > 2 Torn Signposts or Damage Prevention cards when they don't > need to. Players are already prevented from playing damage prevention when they don't need to - 1, 2, or otherwise. And one of the "targets" of the proposed "fix" would be Drawing Out the Beast (at least, that seems like one of the worst "abuses" of the current state of affairs) - and that would not be restricted by your proposed alternate fix. > Bernie> I kind of clump all of the above into what I term "The One Card Rule". > Bernie> All pretty much based on the same principle and promotes more of that > Bernie> Game Balance that I keep hearing so much about.. > > LSJ> But extending this style of rule to strikes and damage prevention > LSJ> promotes imbalance, I believe. > > Maybe, maybe not. I'd say it warrants playtesting as an optional rule. "optional" == "house"? Sure. I know I've played with / playtested optional rules that were much too convoluted/esoteric to even consider for inclusion in the official set. But it does help to see exactly what makes the game tick. > For tournaments? No. If for no other reason that some guy that > shows up with a reasonable deck that would be ruined by this errata. Agreed. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> You could say that you are unable to play multiples of a card > that give you no cumulative (or additional) effect. That, I think, > would just about do it. That would prevent people from playing > 2 Torn Signposts I don't know if I'd like this.. >or Damage Prevention cards when they don't need to. You already can't. I remember it stating somewhere in the rules that you can't prevent damage that isn't there (paraphrase). While you could play 3 Skin of Rocks to prevent 5 damage, you couldn't play 4. Once you've prevented all the damage, there is nothing more to prevent and as such, you are disallowed from playing prevention cards. say that 20 times fast. :) a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

Josh wrote: > Good, good. Hey, remember that game we played at Origins after the > tourney was over? I was playing this stupid 17 Arms Dealer deck? I > take it that would be allowed in Michigan... ^_^ That was you? I remember that deck. *shudder* I feel like a dunderhead for forgetting your name. The only person on the newsgroup that I knew I met in person was Peter. Well, at least you know that I'm not a complete dick in person. *wry grin* Noal -- "...but simply by putting my hair in a ponytail, I transform into the coolest guy in the office." -Wally (Scott Adams), "Jan 12 Dilbert" [ quoted text not captured ]

erijfman wrote: > So when your facing a rush deck you don't know he has IG ???? not if he's playing Gangrel > When your facing a vote deck you don't know he has KRC???? I've built very effective voting decks without KRC and CA. > When facing a bleed deck you don't know he has Conditioning??? I've also built a Presence weenie bleed deck that doesn't use them Besides, I like Bonding better for the stealth. > C'mon if you know your opponent's entire deck after he gets off his > first combo Where's the fun? Um..notice I said "not knowing" what's in your opponents hand is part of the fun. In a 4CL game, if my opponent has 4 IG's in his ash heap, I know that he has no more IG's to defeat my S:CE cards. > > ...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout, > > "Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of > > deck building skills. > > This my good man is a load of crap. I could respond in the same vein > with NL is a crutch for poor playing skill. Care to figure out which is the bigger load of crap? > I mean I could train a monkey mindlessly pump out Bums Rush... ...speaking of mindless, trained monkeys, I could say th <sarcastic, rude and insulting comments have been censored to protect the innocent> [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 14:43:01 GMT, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: >lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: >> deck (best example I have is my all-Auspex intercept deck that has 12 >> Enhanced Senses in it), I'll always discard one unless it's the only >> one I have in my hand, because I KNOW I'll be seeing more of them. If >> I have too many (3-4) in my hand, I'll waste one whenever possible for >> the same reason - I'll DEFINITELY see more later. I don't put 10 or >> more of one kind of card in a deck unless I expect to always be able >> to play them - Enhanced Senses is one such card. I can always toss it >> out and say "I attempt to block. Oops. I fail." > >You cannot "always" toss it out - you must wait until someone takes >an action that you are entitled to attempt to block (i.e., one that >is directed at you or and undirected action taken by your Predator >or Prey). And then you can only play it by a minion that is >attemptin to block *and* needs the intercept (i.e., the stealth of >the action exceeds the intercept of the chosen blocker). Granted -- but a deck with 10 enhanced senses in it is probably going to be some sort of intercept deck, so it's rare when I'll want to fail. I meant that the only problem I'll have playing this card, since most likely i'll have the opportunity to intercept ALL my predator's actions, is if my prey keeps bleeding, taking (d) actions at his own prey or across the table, and if my predator QUITS taking actions altogether. If for some wack reason I actually -wanted- to definitely fail, as opposed to just block someone and move cards around, I could always try playing it at inferior instead of superior and hope he can come up with +2 stealth easily. I spose I shouldn't have added the little "oops, i fail" tag in there. =) >Moreover, if playing the card makes your intercept equal or exceed the >action's stealth, you will succeed in blocking (provided no more stealth >is added)- you cannot choose to fail at that point. hm. i think the mental picture I had in mind was deliberately playing the card even though the stealth on the action already exceeded the potential intercept I could generate, just to get rid of the card. (specifically, to fish in the library for bleed bounce cards.) [ quoted text not captured ]

erijfman <eric...@uswest.net> wrote: > oop's after reading more of the thread it appears we are on the same side :-) What? That I'm an advocate of strict card limits? No....I'm not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal> You could say that you are unable to play multiples of a card Noal> that give you no cumulative (or additional) effect. That, I think, Noal> would just about do it. That would prevent people from playing Noal> 2 Torn Signposts or Damage Prevention cards when they don't Noal> need to. LSJ> Players are already prevented from playing damage prevention when they LSJ> don't need to - 1, 2, or otherwise. oops. pardon me. I knew that. really. *sheepish grin* LSJ> And one of the "targets" of the proposed "fix" would be Drawing Out LSJ> the Beast (at least, that seems like one of the worst "abuses" of LSJ> the current state of affairs) - and that would not be restricted by LSJ> your proposed alternate fix. You're right. It wouldn't...at superior. Using multiples at the inferior has no additional affect and therefore would be disallowed. At superior, you could stack them to ensure that you do significant damage to minions that regularly do S:CE in combat. If you want to limit abuse of combat cards that are not strikes, maneuvers, presses and damage prevention, you almost have to do it on a case by case basis. Kind of like what you did with Taste of Vitae. The MLJ has already limited the use of Pulled Fangs to once per round of combat. We felt that allowed the card to be played as printed and still be reasonably balanced. (No...I'm not fishing for a debate on Pulled Fangs) The same might be done with DotB, but to be honest, I'd rather see more options on dealing with S:CE than less. Noal> Maybe, maybe not. I'd say it warrants playtesting as an optional rule. LSJ> "optional" == "house"? Sure. I know I've played with / playtested LSJ> optional rules that were much too convoluted/esoteric to even consider LSJ> for inclusion in the official set. But it does help to see exactly LSJ> what makes the game tick. *nods* Exactly. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

You don't agree. Let it rest. FC Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote in message <78a266$rhu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Jasper Phillips wrote: >> I think it's you whos bringing up the strawmen going into the differences >> between 4 and 6 CL. My statement about using substite cards clearly >> holds for whatever reasonable CL you happen to use. > >Eh? I never brought up 4CL, much less the differences between the two. > >> >> >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how >> >> >you play the game." It could not be more true. >> >> >> >> I think you're really missing the point here. >> > >> >...actually I think you are. >> >> That's nice. You've snipped my explanation of why I thought that was >> the case, and then didn't say what you thought I was missing. > >Considering I'm the person that launched this thread, I should hope >I know what the point is. > >> >I'm not Mr. Miagi. I don't give a damn about balance. >> >My focus here is on FUN. >> >> Um, so? My point that you haven't, and I believe can't, support _your_ >> statement that CLs have a game balancing effect still stands. > >Never did I say that CL enforce game balance. If you can find where >I said that, I invite you to quote it. I've been talking about variety, not >balance. > >> If you're >> going to make statements about balance, you should be able to defend them. >> Copping out with, oh, "I don't give a damn" when pressed to defend them >> is lame. > >Let's play a game of "Where's Waldo". Find one post where I stated that >I believe that CL=game balance. > >> I understood, and I think the point is quite relavent when debating >> "playing to win" vs. "playing for fun", as the part I'm responding too >> was. Hell, _you're_ the one quoting "It's not whether you win or lose...", >> and saying "Winning shouldn't be your primary objective". >> I think you were, and are, completely misunderstanding the opposing >> argument about "playing to win". > >No you are. I was talking about the difference between losing to a >cheesy deck and losing to an innovative deck. > >Noal >-- >DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. >-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" > [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Noal> You could say that you are unable to play multiples of a card > Noal> that give you no cumulative (or additional) effect. That, I think, > Noal> would just about do it. That would prevent people from playing > Noal> 2 Torn Signposts or Damage Prevention cards when they don't > Noal> need to. > > LSJ> Players are already prevented from playing damage prevention when they > LSJ> don't need to - 1, 2, or otherwise. > > oops. pardon me. I knew that. really. *sheepish grin* > > LSJ> And one of the "targets" of the proposed "fix" would be Drawing Out > LSJ> the Beast (at least, that seems like one of the worst "abuses" of > LSJ> the current state of affairs) - and that would not be restricted by > LSJ> your proposed alternate fix. > > You're right. It wouldn't...at superior. Using multiples at the inferior has > no additional affect and therefore would be disallowed. Sorry to keep bursting your bubbles (nah, not really :-), but the each copy played at inferior provides your opponent with an additional strength, so would still be allowed. > If you want to limit abuse of combat cards that are not strikes, maneuvers, > presses and damage prevention, you almost have to do it on a case by > case basis. Kind of like what you did with Taste of Vitae. Yeah, but so far I haven't seen any of these come even close to being abused (like I saw with Taste) - with the possible exception of Drawing Out the Beast. <Name obfuscated to protect the guilty> built a pretty wicked DotB deck to illustrate the point to me. It didn't win that particular game, but it was certainly a force. Anyhow, without a clear avenue of abuse, the argument for any sort of case-by-case errata is not very strong. > The MLJ has already limited the use of Pulled Fangs to once per round > of combat. We felt that allowed the card to be played as printed and still > be reasonably balanced. (No...I'm not fishing for a debate on Pulled Fangs) > The same might be done with DotB, but to be honest, I'd rather see more > options on dealing with S:CE than less. Noted. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric wrote: "So when your facing a rush deck you don't know he has IG ???? When your facing a vote deck you don't know he has KRC???? When facing a bleed deck you don't know he has Conditioning??? C'mon if you know your opponent's entire deck after he gets off his first combo Where's the fun?" The fun is in the strategy of deck design vs deck design and of building decks. Personally, I enjoy Jyhad because it is a deeply rich strategy game with almost infinite possibility. Part of this enjoyment comes from other players in a particular game trying their darndest to kill me, through clever game play and clever deck design. I don't, however, play Jyhad because I get a great joy out of being surprised by what card my opponent turns over next (well, unless it is particularly funny...). If my opponent has a well designed, strategically effective deck that happens to contain 30 of one particular card, who am I to say he shouldn't. I have seen all the cards. I know what they all look like. My enjoyment of the game is not increased because on this action my opponent played a Conditioning where as last action my opponent played a Threats. I'm not playing the game to see different cards. I'm playing for the strategy that comes from pitting good decks against good decks. "This my good man is a load of crap. I could respond in the same vein with NL is a crutch for poor playing skill. I mean I could train a monkey mindlessly pump out Bums Rush, IG, Torn Signpost, and Undead Strength on every vampire in play." But you couldn't train said clever monkey A) how to build an effective one or B) how to win with such a deck. "That is not a deck it's a combo. A deck is a group of multiple combo's that all work together to form a stratagy." Whatever makes you happy. "A lot of the "deck's" I see posted are the same 4 or 5 cards repeted endlessly. It takes much more deck building skill with a limit than without, and more playing skill to win with a 4CL deck.Rather than endlessly repeating the same combo over and over and over....." Ok. Before this thread continues, please, I repeat, please go to Mark Langsdorf's Jyhad web page (search for Langsdorf+Jyhad. It'll show up easily. Go on. Go there. Right now.) You will find many articles regarding this subject. Many pro Card Limit essays. Many anti-card limit essays. Read them all. You will see how the argument you stated in the above post has be presented (many, many times, I might add) and systematically refuted on every possible point. Over and over again. Please. Go now. "I just love arguing about this" Then you really should get better at it. Mind you, the argument between various persons on this group and Noal regarding CL is a different argument than you have presented here. Noal is claiming that his particular play group likes playing 6CL because he feels that it increases the variatey of the decks that show up at the table. People disagree with the idea that a CL increases variety (I know I do...), but no one has a beef with Noal 'cause he likes to play this way. My main arguing point with Noal was over his statement that no deck suffered from a 6CL environement, which I feel is completely incorrect. He is not, however, neccessarily stating that a blanket CL is good for the game as a whole, so I suspect you won't get any support there. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious I would have it all if I'd only have this much" -Liz Phair

vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: >> You're right. It wouldn't...at superior. Using multiples at the inferior >> has no additional affect and therefore would be disallowed. > > Sorry to keep bursting your bubbles (nah, not really :-), but the each copy > played at inferior provides your opponent with an additional strength, so > would still be allowed. Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor not a rules team member...er...wait, that's backwards. heh. Too much damned text on that card. I forgot about the +1 hand damage thing. >> If you want to limit abuse of combat cards that are not strikes, maneuvers, >> presses and damage prevention, you almost have to do it on a case by >> case basis. Kind of like what you did with Taste of Vitae. > > Yeah, but so far I haven't seen any of these come even close to being > abused (like I saw with Taste) - with the possible exception of Drawing > Out the Beast. <Name obfuscated to protect the guilty> built a pretty > wicked DotB deck to illustrate the point to me. It didn't win that > particular game, but it was certainly a force. Arguably, you could abuse Pulled Fangs just as easily, but that card has been de-fanged enough already. *grin* > Anyhow, without a clear avenue of abuse, the argument for any sort > of case-by-case errata is not very strong. Depends on the case. *shrug* Obviously there was for Pulled Fangs and Taste of Vitae, but not for Torn Signpost (which I still say should change to 2(3) hand damage as a strike rather than setting your base hand damage at 2(3)...*grins evilly at Peter*) when discussing multiple cards. I suspect if you limited Pulled Fangs to 1 per round, it would have made people almost as happy...especially after the current rules regarding agg damage were imposed. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "...but simply by putting my hair in a ponytail, I transform into the coolest guy in the office." -Wally (Scott Adams), "Jan 12 Dilbert" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

"FC" <fcap...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You don't agree. Let it rest. A lovely constructive comment, I must admit. *golf claps* While I do give all the thanks due such an insightful remark, I feel that I should tell you that occasionally a heated debate does come up and that none of the regular posters here take it perrsonally. Of course, if such a conversation bothers you, feel free not to read it. *ponders* I wonder if my morning coffee was decaf. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

>Au contraire. Your deck may be working very well, you just may not >need all 15 of the cards. Hence... wasted card positions... they're cards in the deck that you're drawing instead of drawing other cards.. >>I've never said that always having a zip gun is a good thing to have... I >>played against a "zip gun" style deck last night that got stuck with 4 guns >>in his hand because my deck never let him get into combat with me... and > >So your deck didn't ever block him? I had to block both a tremere agg dam deck as my pred in most games and I never need to really block my prey not to mention with 6 form of mist and 6 rapid change and 6 earth meld combat wasn't really an issue >>and have no skill in playing the game... the people that advocate NL all >>have the same response.... "fine... play a deck with 20 of this card... or >>30 of this card to stop that kind of deck"... that is not a proper > >Who are you kidding? Nobody has said that yet. Get your facts >straight and quit making wild allegations. um... just about everyone... read older posts... >So with a 6CL, you will have 6 of a common card and the 1 rare you >own. It's called trading... most people have someone in their group that is a mr. suitcase... trade with him... or with your other friends that play... if the group as a whole doesn't spend a lot of money on the game then card restrictions usually aren't the problem it's the one person that has even one or 2 of that "really powerful rare" And Mr. Suitcase will have 6 common cards and 6 of his rares. I don't deny that... I never did... in fact i pointed it out that he usually has MORE than 6 of these cards incase you weren't thinking which seems to be the case... >I didn't spend a lot of money on the game. I paid $56 for my Jyhad >cards. I paid $50 for my two boxes of Dark Sovereigns. I paid $112 >for my two boxes of Sabbat. That's a total of $218. good then you're saying you've spent enough on the game that you can't speak as one of those players that is a mr. suitcase... yet with the quantity that you claim to have spent... you can't possibly compare yourself to someonethat does not have the cards to trade for cards you need... you've gotten more sabbat than I have... and more DS than me and I have no problem in the saying that I have more than enough... in fact compared to you and most people that have been replying to me... I probably have the fewer cards than they do... yet that's never influenced me... in fact it influences me to want limits because most other players in my area take advantage of no limits and they become real a$$holes about the game... everyone in my group has played under limits in games when people start buying the game in quantity (for example battletech never became a game with limits because everyone in the main group of us only bought a deck and split a box with another person...) >That's not a lot of money, either in my world, OR in the world of >collectible card games. I could afford to buy multiple additional >boxes of both Sabbat and Ancient Hearts, but $218 is already beginning >to irritate me by how much I've spent, and I'm not -that- desperate to >get tons of those cards. $218 is a fair amount to me to spend... if that's all you've spent... overall I've probably spent that much considering that I bought only a few boxes of jyhad... a box of dark sovereigns and about a half a box of sabbat... (most of it I've bought when it was released... at near full price as opposed to the dirt cheap prices most payed...)... I'm still having fun making decks out of >combinations of stuff. that's what most of my decks are... combinations or theme decks that play cards of a particular theme... The most useful part I've found in making my >wacky decks? The $56 worth of Jyhad cards that let me include enough >of a "useless" card to make it more useful. (Cryptic Mission is an >obvious candidate. As one card, it sucks. With a max of 6 cards... >it still kinda sucks. If you can wedge 30 into your deck and have 5 >or 6 THA weenies all taking Cryptic Mission actions on your prey's >vampires each turn while you play Society of Leopold on them... it >doesn't suck anymore. It actually begins to work.) > ok... .you just mentioned a rare... what happens when you only have one or two of the society... and "Mr.Suitcase" comes and plays half a deck of cryptics and a dozen societies(assuming the deck is of proportionate size... wouldn't do that in a 60 card...)... he's gonna get the society more often than you.... he's gonna probably get to use them more often... and anything that you would do to prevent him in playing the combo to make your deck stronger... he can do the exact same without influencing probability of drawing the society significantly... >You need to proofread. You didn't mention anything for us to refute. > um.... the point of throwing in an argument that you can't refute is that fact that I'm going to use information that is solid... why would I only use information that is false or faulty in my argument... ?... if I have a fact that you can't refute.... there's nothing to proofread... it's what makes a winning argument > >Or in a fortitude deck where you can do 1 hand damage, prevent all of >his, and pull his fangs. exactly... proof there that some commons are powerful enough to counteract the rares... and are often more versatile >I wouldn't compare Pulled Fangs to Lucky Blow at all, personally. The >two cards provide completely dissimilar effects, really, in their base >wording. (Lucky blow is a strike card, which prevents you from using >a strike such as Undead Strength (+2 hand damage), and is played >during the strike phase. Pulled Fangs is played AFTER the damage >phase, cannot be Dodged or S:CE'd, and the real reason it is rare is >because of its additional side effects AFTER it has been played are >significantly more powerful - not just because it can "only go" in a >certain number of decks.) A Lucky Blow/Pulled Fangs deck would be >entertaining, but probably a waste of time considering the errata >removing the agg damage (since as many people will tell you, people >were using Pulled Fangs to burn vampires all over the place. Bad). > I didn't say they were... but the fact is that's the reason that is given for the change in text... ok... so taking card for card with the errata in place... both are combat cards that are generic... and add to damage done in combat by one... now to reply to what you are saying... I already commented what I stated above was not the reason I chose both cards... what I did say is that a lucky blow can fit into any deck... pulled fangs rarely does... now certainly they can go together well as you've said... but that's not my point and you did not refute it... >I'm not sure why you think just because we put 12 of a common card in >a deck, that we don't use rare cards. I'll stick 10-12 Majesties in a >Presence-using deck and consider my combat defense complete - I may >run out, sure, but I won't run out FAST. But those 10-12 Majesties do >NOTHING for any other aspect of the deck - they just ensure that >someone has to have an Immortal Grapple to beat my vampires up. I >still need to do lots more to make the deck do something useful. > >I have one copy of Awe. I will just not bother to waste my time >trying to find 5 *SPARE* copies among my friends - since they would >like to hang onto those copies themselves in case THEY want to make a >deck using Awe, and I don't blame them. I don't know of anyone in our >group with more than 5-6 of that card -total-, much less spare. >Someone is posting mentioning that he thinks he has 15-16 Awe ... now >-that- is a lot of money being spent on Sabbat boxes, or a singularly >lucky draw in the boosters contained in those boxes. =) I'd bet a >little bit of both, actually. 1 Awe in two boxes seems awful rare, so >I'm sure I just got some different rares instead. (the 3 Quicknesses, >for example.) if people are having trouble in your group getting ahold of multiples of the "powerful" rares... why are you arguing that there shouldn't be limits... what it means is that the people in your group don't have enough to fill the limit to make a difference in a 60-90 card deck...what that means is if he's playing a small deck is that your friends won't be drawing it often... ok... now the other thing you said is that your friends are trying to build the deck... and you're doing exactly what you don't have to do... trade those powerful rares... personally... when I know somebody is building a type of deck I use it leverage to get more of hte rares I want for my decks so they can get the cards for their one deck... all of you seem to agree quantity outweighs quality... but as I have said you don't have to trade those cards... so that others get them... > >As far as Jyhad rares? If I want them that badly, sure, I'll ask to >see if anyone has spares, but if not, I'll just fork out the $7 for >another box and get my additional 1-3 copies of the card. (except for >stupid Immortal Grapple) if you get 1-3 copies of rares out of each box.... there must be more "god" boxes in existance than I thought... considering I only got ahold of one from the end of hte print run where half the packs were loaded with 2-3 extra cards per pack... with them about 50% of the time being rares... and I think it was just an error because it was only half the box... you also are pointing out there that I'm right... you always have the option to trade for rares you need... also typically people talk about running out of cards... in a 4 player game I've found that 60 card decks almost never run out... and our games tend to run very quickly... especially compared to the length I've heard some games go to... > >>now I'll mention the fact that some of the commons themselves are entirely >>too powerful... and in multiple quantites off balance decks in favor...I'd > >Hm, I don't know. If I put more than 15 Majesties in a deck, I'd be >sure to always have a Majesty, but Majesties aren't playable as easily >as some cards (mumble, zip gun, mumble) are. (Can't play Majesty once ok leave the zip gun alone... if you can't find another card then you really need to reconsider your argument... with 15 majesties in your deck... that's only 15 cards to counteract a 30 card block in my deck (that's 15 zips and 15 dbr if I were playing that many under NL) and zip gun alone isn't really worth it... I'd rather pay a pool to a saturday night special or even 2 pool on a .45 so that I don't have a vamp that continually damages himself only to do an equal amount of damage to his opponent >you've been IG'd - you can always waste a Zip Gun or two before range >=) The number of a card you put in the deck HAS to be directly >influenced by how often you can reasonably expect to play that card. >20 Computer Hackings are probably fine, since you can probably play >4-5 of them each turn if you have to. Some turns you may even WANT to >play 4-5 of them. 20 Lost in Crowds are going to jam you up like a >big dog, since you can only play one of them for each action and ONLY >when someone tries to block you. Sure, if you have a dumb player who >will voluntarily attempt to block anything you do, you can play 4-5 of >those per turn, but that just won't work in the long run. A good >player will assume that you always have the stealth card in hand and >not bother to try to block if he doesn't have the intercept - and in >the process wedge your deck completely shut. did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or maybe that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents IG... nothing that's common enough to get ahold of it... especially since they made IG uc... just a few questions I'd like to throw in > >A deck with no commons will lose consistently. I don't think you can >make a deck of all rares that would have a prayer of winning, frankly >- too many utility cards that EVERY deck needs some of are common. > proving my point.... Vince

In article <78adn3$6k6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Josh wrote: > > Good, good. Hey, remember that game we played at Origins after the > > tourney was over? I was playing this stupid 17 Arms Dealer deck? I > > take it that would be allowed in Michigan... ^_^ > > That was you? I remember that deck. *shudder* > I feel like a dunderhead for forgetting your name. Heh, heh. Boy was that deck stupid. I bet it would have had a lot more going for it if I'd done something like Brujah weenie presence vote with Autarkis Persecutions... Hey, there's an idea... and I could put in Anarch Revolts to make sure the games don't go on forever... hmm, I might have to do that now. > The only person on the newsgroup that I knew I met in person was Peter. > Well, at least you know that I'm not a complete dick in person. *wry grin* Well yeah, I knew that. The internet has the magical power of making everyone more vitriolic. ^_^ (I think Peter made a point of mentioning you to me as the guy from the Michigan Jyhad League who was on the net at some point, so that's why I didn't forget who you were. I'm afraid I don't remember the names of the other people in that game besides you and Peter...) Josh > "...but simply by putting my hair in a ponytail, I transform into the > coolest guy in the office." > -Wally (Scott Adams), "Jan 12 Dilbert" 'We will no longer fund you unless you dazzle us with buzzwords!' [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > erijfman wrote: > > So when your facing a rush deck you don't know he has IG ???? > > not if he's playing Gangrel I was working within the archetypes > > > > When your facing a vote deck you don't know he has KRC???? I was working within the archetypes > > > I've built very effective voting decks without KRC and CA. The exception that proves the rule > > > > When facing a bleed deck you don't know he has Conditioning??? I was working within ahh I think you get the picture > > > I've also built a Presence weenie bleed deck that doesn't use them > Besides, I like Bonding better for the stealth. I'm also a fan of bonding however Conditioning gives more bang for the buck > > > > C'mon if you know your opponent's entire deck after he gets off his > > first combo Where's the fun? > > Um..notice I said "not knowing" what's in your opponents hand is > part of the fun. In a 4CL game, if my opponent has 4 IG's in his > ash heap, I know that he has no more IG's to defeat my S:CE cards. Where's the difference If you know (insert arch typical key card here) is there for sure or is not there for sure the Strategic implications are the same in that you can pretty much count on it either being there or not being there and base your decisions accordingly. > > > > > ...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout, > > > "Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of > > > deck building skills. > > > > This my good man is a load of crap. I could respond in the same vein > > with NL is a crutch for poor playing skill. > > Care to figure out which is the bigger load of crap? The crap load should be shared equally > > > > > I mean I could train a monkey mindlessly pump out Bums Rush... > > > ...speaking of mindless, trained monkeys, I could say th > <sarcastic, rude and insulting comments have been censored to protect the > innocent> > Let me see if I understand you here. When you make an unfounded blanket statement it's " ok" "Good debate" "your brilliance shining wonderfully" When I respond with a similar unfounded blanket statement. I'm a monkey Hmmm....wanna share my banana :-) Eric He heard the high sweet evil laughter of a child.... and then the sucking sounds Stephen King > >

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:12:14 -0500, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >>Au contraire. Your deck may be working very well, you just may not >>need all 15 of the cards. > >Hence... wasted card positions... they're cards in the deck that you're >drawing instead of drawing other cards.. No, they're not wasted card positions. They're included to lean the laws of probability in your favor to assure that you always have the card, since you will always need the card. For example, skill cards. I play a deck that has a crypt of 12 4-cap vampires with inferior Dominate. I have 12 Dominate skill cards in my deck. I only expect to get six vampires out during any given game. I require superior Dominate, since I have many Governs in the deck and the idea is to get a vampire out, give him DOM, and then let him Govern at superior and get a second vampire out for 1 transfer. Then give HIM DOM, and let them both Govern at superior and get two more vampires out for 2 transfers. This means I get 4 vampires, two with superior DOM, and two with inferior, for a total of 7 pool. Now, why do I have 12 cards and not 6? So that I'm assured of drawing the skill cards EARLY in the game, instead of LATER, when it will be much too late. I can always discard the extra skill cards later, but if I have to bring out four vampires manually and pay 16 pool instead of 7, then the deck has failed in one of its stated purposes - get vampires out cheap. Simply put: it's basic probability math. get a calculator and figure it out. > >>>I've never said that always having a zip gun is a good thing to have... I >>>played against a "zip gun" style deck last night that got stuck with 4 >guns >>>in his hand because my deck never let him get into combat with me... and >> >>So your deck didn't ever block him? >I had to block both a tremere agg dam deck as my pred in most games and I >never need to really block my prey not to mention with 6 form of mist and 6 >rapid change and 6 earth meld combat wasn't really an issue let's see, you had 18 S:CE cards, demonstrating EVERYTHING which is wrong about card limits to begin with -- but BESIDES that obviously hypocritical deck you have there, I still don't understand how your prey failed to cycle cards. Your deck obviously gets INTO combat, and so before range you just play a Zip Gun and go on, whether or not it's effective. You can even play a Dragon's Breath and blow it up, just to cycle the card. You never bother blocking your prey? goodness, that must make the Minion Tap/5th tradition people happy, as well as the people who like to equip Raven Spies and Sport Bikes and stuff. >>>and have no skill in playing the game... the people that advocate NL all >>>have the same response.... "fine... play a deck with 20 of this card... or >>>30 of this card to stop that kind of deck"... that is not a proper >> >>Who are you kidding? Nobody has said that yet. Get your facts >>straight and quit making wild allegations. > >um... just about everyone... read older posts... I did. Who are you kidding? Nobody has said "fine, play a deck with 20 of this card or 30 of this card." Get your facts straight and quit making wild allegations. The only remotely similar statement has been my suggesting you make a deck with 12 Drawing out the Beast cards. The difference between 12 and 20 of the same card in a deck is enormous. Get a clue. >>So with a 6CL, you will have 6 of a common card and the 1 rare you >>own. >It's called trading... most people have someone in their group that is a mr. >suitcase... trade with him... or with your other friends that play... if the >group as a whole doesn't spend a lot of money on the game then card >restrictions usually aren't the problem it's the one person that has even >one or 2 of that "really powerful rare" I don't see the problem, sorry. Yeah, I've got one Tier of Souls. It's a Sabbat rare. It is just a beautiful Animalism card and a Very Good Rare(tm). It provides +1 bleed to the vampire with the card. It's great. But my one Tier of Souls in my 90-card deck is: (a) not gonna come up much (b) not gonna have THAT much impact on the game, even when it does. And this is one of the GOOD rares. The only way it'll have an impact is if I have 6-10 of them in my deck, and then you can expect that all my clawy, agg-damagey Gangrel will have default bleeds of 2 instead of just 1 - but while that's a significant difference, it's hardly game-unbalancing. > And Mr. Suitcase will have 6 common cards and 6 of his rares. > >I don't deny that... I never did... in fact i pointed it out that he usually >has MORE than 6 of these cards incase you weren't thinking which seems to be >the case... as many people have said previously to this ... That's why card limits ruin it. Under No Limit, I could have 12 of my common cards, and Mr. Suitcase would probably still have 6 commons and 6 rares, and we'd be on nearly even footing. Under CL, I have my 6 commons and my 1 rare, and Mr. Suitcase not only has more cards of that type, he's going to beat me senseless with the rares as well. Do you actually read anything anyone else posts or do you just sort of let your fingers do the walking at random on the keys? > >>I didn't spend a lot of money on the game. I paid $56 for my Jyhad >>cards. I paid $50 for my two boxes of Dark Sovereigns. I paid $112 >>for my two boxes of Sabbat. That's a total of $218. > > good then you're saying you've spent enough on the game that you can't >speak as one of those players that is a mr. suitcase... yet with the >quantity that you claim to have spent... you can't possibly compare yourself >to someonethat does not have the cards to trade for cards you need... you've Buy more boxes then. i don't understand this fanaticism y'all have about "trading", frankly - I find that if I trade my rares off for other rares, then I won't have the rares I need when I want to make a different deck. I have my two Brujah Debates on loan to my friend for two Telepathic Vote Countings - I really need to just break down and spend the $14 for a couple boxes to be sure that I'll always have enough of cards like that. The 6 in the deck is functional when I am the only vote deck at the table. Need a few more to handle competing votes properly though. I don't like having the Brujah Debates gone either - I might want to try sticking them in a Brujah deck sometime, and it's tough to do when they're part of my friend's deck, but oh well. >gotten more sabbat than I have... and more DS than me and I have no problem >in the saying that I have more than enough... in fact compared to you and >most people that have been replying to me... I probably have the fewer cards >than they do... yet that's never influenced me... in fact it influences me >to want limits because most other players in my area take advantage of no >limits and they become real a$$holes about the game... everyone in my group Not being able to afford $7 boxes of cards is not a very good argument for Card Limits, Vince. I think you need to look closely at your deck designs, since the portion of one you posted above is a CLASSIC argument of why card limits don't matter - you have 18 Strike: Combat Ends cards, they just have 3 different faces to them. Your deck and the deck with 18 Form of Mists is nigh-identical. They do slightly different things at superior, but they're obviously only all in there because you want to play S:CE. Under no limits, you could use 6/6/6 or use 9 Form of Mist/9 Earth Meld, or you could just use 18 Earth Meld (s:ce at inferior) - depending on what you want to do. The risk of hand jam is almost identical either way, and I would -hate- to have to avoid hand jam by playin Form of Mist deliberately at inferior just so I could play Earth Meld on the second round and cycle two cards instead of one. i also would hate to NEED a form of mist only to find that I've got an Earth Meld in hand. >>That's not a lot of money, either in my world, OR in the world of >>collectible card games. I could afford to buy multiple additional >>boxes of both Sabbat and Ancient Hearts, but $218 is already beginning >>to irritate me by how much I've spent, and I'm not -that- desperate to >>get tons of those cards. > >$218 is a fair amount to me to spend... if that's all you've spent... I do not lie. That is all I've spent. Are you astonished? Good. >overall I've probably spent that much considering that I bought only a few >boxes of jyhad... a box of dark sovereigns and about a half a box of >sabbat... (most of it I've bought when it was released... at near full price >as opposed to the dirt cheap prices most payed...)... well, that -is- a shame in a way that the game has devalued so much, but it doesn't stop you from picking up more cards at the handy-dandy $7 a box price. > The most useful part I've found in making my >>wacky decks? The $56 worth of Jyhad cards that let me include enough >>of a "useless" card to make it more useful. (Cryptic Mission is an >>obvious candidate. As one card, it sucks. With a max of 6 cards... >>it still kinda sucks. If you can wedge 30 into your deck and have 5 >>or 6 THA weenies all taking Cryptic Mission actions on your prey's >>vampires each turn while you play Society of Leopold on them... it >>doesn't suck anymore. It actually begins to work.) > >ok... .you just mentioned a rare... what happens when you only have one or >two of the society... and "Mr.Suitcase" comes and plays half a deck of >cryptics and a dozen societies(assuming the deck is of proportionate size... >wouldn't do that in a 60 card...)... he's gonna get the society more often >than you.... he's gonna probably get to use them more often... and anything >that you would do to prevent him in playing the combo to make your deck >stronger... he can do the exact same without influencing probability of >drawing the society significantly... the Society really isn't the point of the combo, when you get down to it. It hurts almost as much to have a 6-blood vampire you just brought out reduced to zero by 6 Cryptic Missions and suddenly having to hunt next turn. I probably DO only have like 1 or 2 of the Society. Well... nah. Maybe as many as 5, but I don't remember seeing it much when sorting masters. The point was Cryptic Mission - a worthless card by itself, a near-worthless card under 6CL, a much more useful card when you can play it in large quantities. The combo doesn't NEED the Society to still be effective. Mr. Suitcase can have his 12 Societies, since they are unique and will eventually hand jam him. I can make a deck that specifically defeats a zillion-CM, 12-Society deck very easily, since with a zillion cryptics and 12 societies he probably doesn't have much room for little things like combat defense, bleed defense, or vote defense. >>You need to proofread. You didn't mention anything for us to refute. >> >um.... the point of throwing in an argument that you can't refute is that >fact that I'm going to use information that is solid... why would I only use >information that is false or faulty in my argument... ?... if I have a fact >that you can't refute.... there's nothing to proofread... it's what makes a >winning argument No, Vince. In the part you conveniently deleted without quoting, you didn't actually make a point. Your sentence trailed off into nothingness and didn't actually say anything, make a point, or go anywhere. You need to proofread. You didn't mention anything for us to refute. Your argument is losing anyway - proofreading could only help it. >>Or in a fortitude deck where you can do 1 hand damage, prevent all of >>his, and pull his fangs. > >exactly... proof there that some commons are powerful enough to counteract >the rares... and are often more versatile Which was my original point, so why are you complaining all through the rest of this post about rares? You're contradicting yourself again. If commons are this good (which they are), how tough is it to buy another $7 box of Jyhad and get yourself another bucketload of commons? Skin of Steel isn't common, but I have a TON of them lying around. >>were using Pulled Fangs to burn vampires all over the place. Bad). > >I didn't say they were... but the fact is that's the reason that is given >for the >change in text... ok... so taking card for card with the errata in place... >both are combat cards that are generic... and add to damage done in combat >by one... now to reply to what you are saying... I already commented what I >stated above was not the reason I chose both cards... what I did say is that >a lucky blow can fit into any deck... pulled fangs rarely does... now >certainly they can go together well as you've said... but that's not my >point and you did not refute it... OK, I'll do it now. Since you aren't bothering to state what your point might have been -- i'm just going to have to read what you said and respond to that. Pulled Fangs after the errata is STILL much different from Lucky Blow, because Lucky Blow is a combat STRIKE CARD that adds +1 to your hand or melee weapon damage, played during the strike phase. While it's not total wallpaper, it prevents you from playing any other STRIKE CARDS, such as Burning Wrath, Undead Strength... even Blood Fury, so take your pick. Pulled Fangs adds one EXTRA to the damage you do in any given round, and prevents the victim from hunting as well. You can opt not to play Pulled Fangs if your opponent S:CE's - not always true of Lucky Blow. In fact, you CAN'T play Pulled Fangs since you didn't do more damage at close range. The two cards are significantly dissimilar, and the decks they fit into will also be significantly dissimilar. I'd still call Pulled Fangs more effective/useful, frankly, but I wouldn't want to use either of them in my decks. Much better stuff to put in instead. >>I have one copy of Awe. I will just not bother to waste my time >>trying to find 5 *SPARE* copies among my friends - since they would >>like to hang onto those copies themselves in case THEY want to make a >>deck using Awe, and I don't blame them. I don't know of anyone in our >>group with more than 5-6 of that card -total-, much less spare. >>Someone is posting mentioning that he thinks he has 15-16 Awe ... now >>-that- is a lot of money being spent on Sabbat boxes, or a singularly >>lucky draw in the boosters contained in those boxes. =) I'd bet a >>little bit of both, actually. 1 Awe in two boxes seems awful rare, so >>I'm sure I just got some different rares instead. (the 3 Quicknesses, >>for example.) > >if people are having trouble in your group getting ahold of multiples of the >"powerful" rares... why are you arguing that there shouldn't be limits... Because I don't argue from the basis of what will help ME the most, I argue from the basis of what I feel is good for the game as a whole. >what it means is that the people in your group don't have enough to fill the >limit to make a difference in a 60-90 card deck...what that means is if >he's playing a small deck is that your friends won't be drawing it often... You're not proofreading again. This makes no sense. Mr. Suitcase has an advantage under both Card Limits and No Limits, and Jyhad has done very well at addressing the issue by not making "rare" cards too powerful. And you're back to bitching about rare cards again, when you KNOW that commons can counteract them if a deck is built well. >ok... now the other thing you said is that your friends are trying to build >the deck... and you're doing exactly what you don't have to do... trade >those powerful rares... personally... when I know somebody is building a Er... what? You're not proofreading again. >type of deck I use it leverage to get more of hte rares I want for my decks >so they can get the cards for their one deck... all of you seem to agree >quantity outweighs quality... but as I have said you don't have to trade >those cards... so that others get them... We normally don't tell each other extensive details of what's in our deck before we play them, because part of the game is surprise and not knowing what's coming after you. That's some of the MOST fun in the game, frankly - to see what you'll have to play against today. I don't need to "use leverage" against my friends, either ... card blackmail is a very Magic-like sounding situation and I don't EVER want to be involved in it. We do not all agree that quantity outweighs quality, nor have any of us said that. and as far as the last bit, you may have said it but you didn't do it in English either then or now. >>As far as Jyhad rares? If I want them that badly, sure, I'll ask to >>see if anyone has spares, but if not, I'll just fork out the $7 for >>another box and get my additional 1-3 copies of the card. (except for >>stupid Immortal Grapple) > >if you get 1-3 copies of rares out of each box.... there must be more "god" >boxes in existance than I thought... considering I only got ahold of one There are no "god" boxes in existence. There are a fixed number of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in each booster pack, and by extension in each box. You always get the same number of rares - you may just get DIFFERENT rares than others. (I only got 6 Immortal Grapples out of my 8 boxes. Wacky. But I'm sure I still have the exact same # of rare cards as someone ELSE who bought 8 boxes - I just got different ones than he did.) >from the end of hte print run where half the packs were loaded with 2-3 >extra cards per pack... with them about 50% of the time being rares... and I >think it was just an error because it was only half the box... you also are >pointing out there that I'm right... you always have the option to trade for >rares you need... no, actually, you're wrong again, because we don't have tons of Sabbat rares or Ancient Hearts rares floating around at all... hence why I only have one Tier of Souls. Trading is not -especially- prevalent in our group. We'd just rather all make the investment to get a good "base" set of cards, and then dibble around with individual cards. This is why I just figure Noal got very lucky to get 15-16 Awes. Or he bought a ton more Sabbat than anyone else in our group did. >also typically people talk about running out of cards... in a 4 player game >I've found that 60 card decks almost never run out... and our games tend to >run very quickly... especially compared to the length I've heard some games >go to... goodness. I played a 4 player game today and ran my 90-card Toreador vote deck down to its last 4 cards in the library. My prey ran his 90-card deck down to his last 7 cards before I ousted him. The other two 90-card decks made it about halfway through their deck. It all depends on how fast your deck moves and how many cards it uses. Rush decks burn cards like well-oiled grass. >>>now I'll mention the fact that some of the commons themselves are entirely >>>too powerful... and in multiple quantites off balance decks in favor...I'd > >>Hm, I don't know. If I put more than 15 Majesties in a deck, I'd be >>sure to always have a Majesty, but Majesties aren't playable as easily >>as some cards (mumble, zip gun, mumble) are. (Can't play Majesty once > >ok leave the zip gun alone... if you can't find another card then you really >need to reconsider your argument... with 15 majesties in your deck... that's >only 15 cards to counteract a 30 card block in my deck (that's 15 zips and >15 dbr if I were playing that many under NL) and zip gun alone isn't really Those 15 Majesties will be plenty, especially if you are playing a deck that people will want to block (presence weenie bleed or presence vote). Especially since they come with an untap attached to them, so I Majesty, untap, and either take a second action or keep my blocker up. >worth it... I'd rather pay a pool to a saturday night special or even 2 pool >on a .45 so that I don't have a vamp that continually damages himself only >to do an equal amount of damage to his opponent I have an intercept deck that makes effective use of Zip Guns - you must remember that it is the equivalent of each of you striking with your hands for 1 at close range, but NOT AT CLOSE RANGE. Zip Guns help avoid Immortal Grapple while still doing damage. And in this intercept deck, it is absolutely worth it for me to "nickel-and-dime" someone's vampires down until they are 3 or less blood. >>player will assume that you always have the stealth card in hand and >>not bother to try to block if he doesn't have the intercept - and in >>the process wedge your deck completely shut. > >did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or maybe >that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents IG... >nothing that's common enough to get ahold of it... especially since they >made IG uc... just a few questions I'd like to throw in It has occurred to many people that S:CE, specifically Majesty, Earth Meld, and Form of Mist, may possibly be a l'il too powerful. The debate goes on here constantly. I won't attempt to address it other than that they are unquestionably -very- strong cards. You don't know a card that prevents Immortal Grapple? You need to play more... I'll name one: Flash. Maneuver to long range and you can't be grappled. Flash is a common card, from the Jyhad set. IG *is* very powerful, but it needs to be to provide an effective counter to those 15 Majesties. Guns that come with a maneuver also work great, as does Form of the Ghost, Movement of the Mind (superior), um... i dunno, there are a LOT of common cards that provide maneuvers, and one retainer (Jackie Therman) and one piece of equipment (IR goggles). >>A deck with no commons will lose consistently. I don't think you can >>make a deck of all rares that would have a prayer of winning, frankly >>- too many utility cards that EVERY deck needs some of are common. > >proving my point.... No, vince. You have been complaining about how rares are too strong for most of this post, and that's why you need card limits, to prevent people from playing with tons of that rare. You have not been trying to make the point that I just made. Please check the number and dial again when you are ready to actually -debate- something... it's awful painful to try to decipher your posts. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:48:12 GMT, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >>or Damage Prevention cards when they don't need to. > >You already can't. I remember it stating somewhere in the rules >that you can't prevent damage that isn't there (paraphrase). >While you could play 3 Skin of Rocks to prevent 5 damage, you >couldn't play 4. Once you've prevented all the damage, there >is nothing more to prevent and as such, you are disallowed from >playing prevention cards. >say that 20 times fast. :) loophole note: you could play all 5 Skin of Rocks at inferior to prevent 1 each, since you always have the option to select at what level you will use the discipline on the card. (Unless your vampire only has inferior in that discipline, and then you get no option. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

First of all I Just wanted to say thanks you to LSJ for responding in a well written manner to my post of thoughts. I'm not a guy that continuously looks to the rulebook for every little thing, so please cut me a little slack if I slip occasionally. One of the things that has always bothered me about this newsgroup is the focus on how best to manipulate a loophole. Please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not out to slam anyone today (though the day ain't over, >;-) V:TES is a wonderful game, where I now find myself discovering new and amusing ways to pound my friends. Having been an avid player, I can't help but be bothered by some of the card flow during matches. Why should people be able to play multiples of a given card during combat? Why should you be able to play 4 or 5 skins of rock? How many layers is "Your" epidermous? (Hmm, just remembered I never took biology). After playing in the soft 6CL environ for the past year or two, it would appease many of the problems that I have with the NCL environment. Fun decks aside, many of the decks I've seen under NCL are pretty much "no-brainers". Much like the Form of Mist/Bleed combo mentioned earlier. One of members of my group commented about multiple strike cards, and that you should be able to use multiple Undead Strengths (fer instance). I agree. Pretty easy to expand my original idea to include the above. On another note, Mike Bohlman responded about the idea of Vampires being Unique: B> * Vampires are Unique: B> Another thought I've been toying with is that Vampires should be B> unique. That's why they contest when more than 1 are in play at a B> given time. When a given Vampire is Burned or Removed from the B>Game, further copies of that Vampire may no longer be brought into B>play. M>This is essentially a card limit on the crypt. The reason being, if M>a core vampire of yours gets burned for whatever reason, you had M>better have replacements. This would possibly help combat decks and M>hurt weenie decks, but I'm not sure that it'd be sufficient to M>counteract all the other effects. I disagree. It is not a card limit on the crypt, it is a tool that will encourage people to spend a bit more forethought on Crypt construction. B> This solves some of the Weenie Madness, and brings Jyhad in line B>with other current game technologies (L5R/DoomTown). M>Jyhad is not L5R or DoomTown. We will not be assimilated. :) Can't argue that. Though I am very interested in learning more about Legend of the Burning Sand. Part of it's game dynamic is supposed to be very much like Jyhad. One last comment. V:TES as a game was created on the coattails of MAGIC way back when. Magic has evolved beyond it's original inception and other games (like L5R and DT) have set a new standard which should not be ignored. I'm not a big fan o' change in VTES (I'm sure a few of ya'll can remember my ranting about 7/7), but a sensible evolution of the game would be a boon. Of course, no such evolution could occur unless WOTC were to do another revision of the game to the general masses. Thanks for listening. Bernie Bresnahan Michigan Jyhad League "How come Walled Lake, Mi. doesn't have a wall around the lake?"

did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or maybe that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents IG... nothing that's common enough to get ahold of it... especially since they made IG uc... just a few questions I'd like to throw in V>did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or V>maybe that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that V>prevents IG... V>nothing that's common enough to get ahold of it... especially since V>they made IG uc... just a few questions I'd like to throw in Hey Vince, Thought I'd mention that I've always been a BIG fan that First Strike should preclude Strike:CE. First Strike should at least be able to beat the lowly dodge.. (Sorry Newsgroup, couldn't resist) Bernie

I agree Bernie. First strike is first strike. ber...@mich.com wrote: > did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or > maybe > that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents > IG... > nothing that's common enough to get ahold of it... especially since > they > made IG uc... just a few questions I'd like to throw in [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787k06$o3e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > In tournaments, I do play to win, although I try to > do it with innovative decks. While I have an extremely competitve > nature, I also have a highly creative one. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Man, Noal...if that sounded any more *artsy* I'd start wondering about your claims of a girlfriend. :P Hehehe. Xian, who definitely should have gotten more sleep last night...stupid all that email... "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or maybe > that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents IG... Fake out is the most common, followd by all other maneuvers Eric >

In article <36a9153b...@news.mich.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I have been playing Jyhad since it's come out. The group I play in rages from 4 to 25 different people. We have local tourney's, and 1-2 nights a week where we all get together. As more expansions have come out their have been some very disruptive to most decks i.e.(Thoughts Betrayed). We all sat down and agreed a card limit was better than changing errata to either make a card less powerful or more to the role playing game. The reason for this is that it will make people less likly to play theme decks because you need the special cards to make certain decks work. Also we notice that before Sabbot expansion this did make some decks handicapped like a Brujah deck for it limited them on the uses of WWEF. The reason why we back a CL is improves your players because now you have to use strategy over just throwing in 20 deflections or 15 Thoughts Betrayed. We use a 5 card limit and if I have 5 TB. I have to think about everytime I play it. Instead of throwing it down because I know I've got 14 more. I have firm disliking of the RTR on most cards because there are cards that can defeat the other cards out there. Like Tomb III instead of changing the wording why not think of ways to get rid of it. Like Arson,Rampage,Unatural Disaster, Contest it. If you look at most of the cards I've named I'm sure most of us have them laying around collecting dust instead of thinking how to use them. Form what I've been reading in this news group is that most everybody bags on MAGIC because it does not challenge you mentally.For you are going against 1 other person where JYHAD you go against multiple foes. So I ask anyone to show me where a CL does not make you a better player or thinker than being able to throw in as many cards as you want. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78g080$8fg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgo...@sprynet.com wrote: Peter, Jasper, I'm joining up with you jack-booted thugs!! (And I just got the boots for it...20 hole, steel-toed & 3 big buckles at the top...mmm...) > In article <36a9153b...@news.mich.com>, > ber...@mich.com wrote: [snip a bunch of interesting stuff Bernie wrote, if not completely feasible...] #1...It is really really annoying to have to read down to the end of a long post to read your looooong 1 paragraph response. Either snip out irrevelant parts of the previous post and let us know about it, intersperse your thoughts with the post you're responding to, or snip all of it. And try to write in paragraphs of less than screen-length. Ideally, around 1/4 screen or maybe a little less. > I have been playing Jyhad since it's come out. The group I play in rages Many people here have. Thanks for the info. > from 4 to 25 different people. We have local tourney's, and 1-2 nights a > week where we all get together. As more expansions have come out their > have > been some very disruptive to most decks i.e.(Thoughts Betrayed). We all sat > down and agreed a card limit was better than changing errata to either make a > card less powerful or more to the role playing game. The reason for this is Fine. We really don't care what you do within your playgroup. However, most of the discussion here is geared toward tournament-style play... > that it will make people less likly to play theme decks because you need the You want people to play *fewer* theme decks? Either you mean something really really really different by 'theme deck,' or you are waaaay high on smack. Personally, I find theme decks (a deck constructed around a concept related to an unusual card combination [can we say lots of Raptors?], or a 'thematic' --hence the name-- concept from elsewhere...i.e. a Black Hand Deck, the Deep Space Nine deck, and so on...) to be the most entertaining to play...and IME, most players seem to agree on that. > special cards to make certain decks work. Also we notice that before Sabbot > expansion this did make some decks handicapped like a Brujah deck for it > limited them on the uses of WWEF. The reason why we back a CL is improves Huh? Wouldn't all decks be limited on WWEF? Or do you mean that all the clans without animalism wouldn't have 'untap/react as if untapped' reaction cards? Then again, I suppose I'd be more miffed by only having 5 Bum's Rush. It seems that would hurt a standard Brujah rush deck more than not having WWEF. Although I'm not certain you were talking about a rush deck... > your players because now you have to use strategy over just throwing in 20 Please define strategy. Also, please read *all* the articles at http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ > deflections or 15 Thoughts Betrayed. We use a 5 card limit and if I have 5 How would 15 Thoughts Betrayed help a deck? And what are you going to do with *20* Deflections? Stay untapped, not block, and have your minions just deflect everything that comes your way? What if you get your ass rushed? Either of those examples seems like waaay to many or those specific cards for any deck, as they are only useful as reactions or in combat. Admittedly, if you're playing Dom & Pot/Pro/whatever bruise & bleed, I can see putting TB in, but that still seems like a lot. > TB. I have to think about everytime I play it. Instead of throwing it down > because I know I've got 14 more. I have firm disliking of the RTR on most > cards because there are cards that can defeat the other cards out there. Like > Tomb III instead of changing the wording why not think of ways to get rid of > it. Like Arson,Rampage,Unatural Disaster, Contest it. If you look at most of You forgot Disputed Territory, Kine Dominance/Dominate Kine, Arika, Sudden Reversal... What if I don't have a TOR3, or it just doesn't go in the deck? I can't contest it. Why should I have to tweak part of my deck in order to have a counter against specific (horribly) broken cards? Why not fix the problem at the root? Do you tend to housebreak a dog when you can, or do you just let it poo (hehe...I said 'poo') in the house 5 times in a given time period, and then start over? > the cards I've named I'm sure most of us have them laying around collecting > dust instead of thinking how to use them. Form what I've been reading in this No. I believe people tend to put a few in decks in which they are appropriate. Exactly what do you mean by 'thinking how to use them'? Do you mean...'oh, I should put Rampage in this deck instead of Arson, because most of my vampiires have potence,' or do you mean 'oh, I think there's going to be lots of people playing TOR3, because it's sooo broken that it's a sure bet to play...better clog up my deck so I can make sure I get *my* copy out'? > news group is that most everybody bags on MAGIC because it does not > challenge you mentally.For you are going against 1 other person where Everyone rips on M:tG because it's a cash cow in which game-play is driven by the amount of powerful rare cards you have, generally. > JYHAD you go against multiple foes. And decks with no card limits are more *likely* to rely on common/uncommon cards with rares thrown in for spice. Oh, and Jyhad has better mechanics. Oh, and there's more strategy involved, rather than outright force vs. outright force. Oh...almost forgot...it is nigh impossible to build a degenerate deck, as there is an effective counter-style for any deck that *I* can think of. > So I ask anyone to show me where a CL does not make you a better player or > thinker than being able to throw in as many cards as you want. Please quantify 'better player or thinker.' Does CL increase your IQ? Does it allow you to process problems faster? Does CL really do anything more to the game than increase the randomness of your deck? If you're going to make statements like this, there should be some standard to measure against. And again, read Mark Langsdorf's page. And this is so damn frustrating, I'm tossing in $25 to the standing bet...not that I'm likely to lose it, but...hey, I gotta get in on the action...so it's at least $75 guaranteed, now...up to $125 or so? <mandatory lame parting shot> Crackbaby. </mandatory lame parting shot> Xian, now a jack-booted thug...and realizing at this point that the thugs were originally in reference to proponents of rush, but it's evolving, man... pant, pant, pant... "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78g080$8fg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgo...@sprynet.com wrote: [ Yet another pro-CL post with the same points as others snipped ] > So I ask anyone to show me where a CL does not make you a better player or > thinker than being able to throw in as many cards as you want. Does anyone else notice it besides me that almost every pro-CL post brings up the same points over and over again as the pro-NL (rather than anti-CL) counters each point? Yet there is never a new real counter-counter point to the NL counter points. Pro-CL arguments: A) Force you to be more innovative with your deck designs B) Fix cards that are much more powerful than comparable cards C) Allow anyone with a small collection to make a deck that competes with Mr. Suitcase Are there any other pro-CL arguments that I'm missing? Pro-NL counter arguments: A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or whatever of each card that does what you need. With a CL, the ability for knowing whether to use Guard Dogs or Rat's Warning in your deck falls to the wayside as you just put in the max of each or the max of one and some of the other. I've played in many very competitive CL groups including 4CL and 6CL. It was quite a deckbuilding challenge to convert to NL because it really is difficult to decide what is enough and what is too much of a given card. The NL decks containing 15 to 20 copies of a given card that the pro-CL crowd would like to think make up the majority of NL decks are far and few between. B) Short answer: the super powerful cards aren't any less powerful, they just show up less often. Yes, there are counters to each of the reworded power cards. However, regular defenses work fine except when having to deal with these cards; special defense preparations have to be made. For example, I don't plan on blocking any bleeds because I have enough deflection and pool gain to keep up with a heavy bleeder. But then Return to Innocence shows up, and I've already played my 6 Deflections and can't block the bleed. C) While Mr. Handbag has maybe 8 of a given common and 1 of a comparable rare, Mr. Suitcase has more of the common card and probably 8 of the comparable rare. So Mr. Handbag, under a 6CL, uses 6 of the common and his 1 rare. Mr. Suitcase uses 6 of the common, but can also use 6 of his rare. And Mr. Suitcase is unlikely to give away his two extra rares. Under NL, Mr. Suitcase could give Mr. Handbag all the copies of the common that he wants and not be affected by the reduced card pool. So Mr. Suitcase is basicaly unaffected by a CL. I'm not against CL if that's what people want to play, but I'll always be a proponent for NL in my own groups and official tournaments. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <787bti$gpj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, artaxerxes@my- dejanews.com writes >Most NL advocates here cite the limitations that 4CL imposes; no 15 Raptors >in your deck! I feel though that you are attacking the question from the >angle of those who play regularly with large collections; consider the >profile of the posters to this group... die hard fans with large collections >which can support this level of play. I want 15 presence "pass my vote" action modifier cards in a deck. I can put a lot of Bewitching Orations in (common). Business Pressure is possible, but Rare. And I can put Awe in (rare). NL helps newbies too. They can supplement areas where they don't have the rares by playing with the commons, which are similar, although perhaps more generic. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <78a6pp$vsj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >Was it good for you? *grin* Oh, it was wonderful dear. Can we do it again? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <788d11$k5q@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >BTW... if you people that cling to your dozens of commons in each of your >decks don't seem to think that your supposed lack in rares would help you >with your decks so I'd gladly take those Rares off of your hands for >computer hackings and majesties... Well, you can very easily make a viable deck with them. Weenie bleed, and maybe a bit of presence too. You could use alternative, more expensive, corner case rares too. >I've got dozens upon dozens of each ... >but you and I know that's not correct and those rares are rare for a >reason... In Jyhad, no. In later sets, one or two. Most cards are balanced regardless of commonality. Just out of interest, what commonality was Thoughts Betrayed (hint - it wasn't rare). When the game was designed, they opted to move away from Rare = Powerful because Magic had shown them what suitcases were for. They chose not to use an arbitrary card limit, and instead went for balance. This is not me talking off the top of my head. This is me paraphrasing Richard Garfield. *MOST* rares are balanced with a common. Awe is balanced with Bewitching Oration, say. Bewitching Oration can get you four votes for no blood. Awe requires you to spend two (both at superior). But Awe has the capacity to get you a lot more, for a helluva lot of blood. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78am46$aod@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful? No. I can pack a deck with 20 majesties. The deck will likely fall over in a heap, however, if it comes up against a combat deck, or a deck that it just doesn't get into combat with. >.... or maybe >that Ig is too powerful?.... Nope. >I don't really know a card that prevents IG... You obviously have no knowledge of the game then. Perhaps you should learn more before talking out of your arse. If you don't like IG, don't give them the option of utilising it well. Direct Intervention cancels any card. That prevents IG. Maneuvering to long range prevents IG from ever being played. Terror Frenzy and a Gun. Elysium (stop them getting to IG) Obedience - pointless having IGs if they don't get into combat with you Skin of Steel - so, you've hit me for lots. I care not. Blood of Acid - ditto. So I can't dodge. Who cares? You're going down with me. Thoughts Betrayed - doesn't stop the IG, but stops a powerful strike coming your way, meaning more reliance on non-strike cards, whittling them away, and causing hand jam with useless strikes Leather Jacket - *disciplineless* damage prevention - available to all [ quoted text not captured ]

One quick post on Mark's page which includes articles on card limits. Everyone keeps pointing to these past articles, however after reading them all in the not so distant past.. Be aware that they are ALL about using the 4CL. And really there is a HUGE difference between 6CL and 4CL. I wish I was an english major with some spare time to write an article backing up 6CL vs. NCL, but frankly I don't have the time. Bernie

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:31:59 GMT, ber...@mich.com wrote: >One quick post on Mark's page which includes articles on card limits. > >Everyone keeps pointing to these past articles, however after reading >them all in the not so distant past.. Be aware that they are ALL >about using the 4CL. > >And really there is a HUGE difference between 6CL and 4CL. Yes and no. If you're *going* to use a card limit, a 6CL is much more functional within the game than a 4CL, since the game was designed as a no-limit game. 4 WWEF are not worth bothering to put in your deck. 6 .... maybe. I prefer 8 or none, myself, to make sure that I'll have it handy when I need it, or to just not bother and remember not to tap everyone - tap & bleeds aren't all -that- common because of all the untap available. A 6CL is still much more like a 4CL than an NL, though. 6 wakes mean you either buy Sabbat for Forced Awakening or get raped by tap & bleed. 6 Rush actions mean you either buy Sabbat for Ambush or just don't play combat decks. 6 skill cards mean you can't design crypts with -everyone- at inferior, since you aren't guaranteed more than 1 or 2 in the early game. 6 Immortal Grapples mean that S:CE rules supreme in the combat world. There's just too much you can't do under a 6CL that you must have NL in order to do. >I wish I was an english major with some spare time to write an article >backing up 6CL vs. NCL, but frankly I don't have the time. that's ok, i'm not an english major and i certainly shouldn't waste time backing up NL, but i do anyway. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric wrote: > > did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or maybe > > that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents IG... > > Fake out is the most common, followd by all other maneuvers Which, it turn, is defeated by the Drawing Out the Beast/Immortal Grapple combo. No maneuvers and your Leather Jacket can't save your skin either. Pretty easy for Nosferatu to pull off. Noal -- "...but simply by putting my hair in a ponytail, I transform into the coolest guy in the office." -Wally (Scott Adams), "Jan 12 Dilbert" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > In tournaments, I do play to win, although I try to > > do it with innovative decks. While I have an extremely competitve > > nature, I also have a highly creative one. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Man, Noal...if that sounded any more *artsy* I'd start > wondering about your claims of a girlfriend. :P Well, Bernie can attest to my having a girlfriend, since he's met her. Besides, women like "arsty" men. Didn't you know? *grin* [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78i01i$l0v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Well, Bernie can attest to my having a girlfriend, since he's met her. > Besides, women like "arsty" men. Didn't you know? *grin* Hehehe. I just don't think I ever expected to see someone talking about their 'highly creative' natures on this newsgroup. :) Oh, I've noticed...but 'dark, aloof, & mysterious' is easier for *me* to pull off... Well, that and the magnetic qualities that toting around some Jyhad cards provide... ;) Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@mich.com wrote in message <36abd709...@news.mich.com>... >One quick post on Mark's page which includes articles on card limits. > >Everyone keeps pointing to these past articles, however after reading >them all in the not so distant past.. Be aware that they are ALL >about using the 4CL. > >And really there is a HUGE difference between 6CL and 4CL. > >I wish I was an english major with some spare time to write an article >backing up 6CL vs. NCL, but frankly I don't have the time. Will you do it for $15? If the difference is as great as you claim, and you can write a literate article about it, I might be willing to send a check your way, as part of the bounty program for CL rebuttals. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad

mboh...@shout.net wrote in message <78g812$dua$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <78g080$8fg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > cgo...@sprynet.com wrote: > >[ Yet another pro-CL post with the same points as others snipped ] > >> So I ask anyone to show me where a CL does not make you a better player or >> thinker than being able to throw in as many cards as you want. > >Does anyone else notice it besides me that almost every pro-CL post >brings up the same points over and over again as the pro-NL (rather than >anti-CL) counters each point? Yet there is never a new real counter-counter >point to the NL counter points. Yep. I've noticed it to. >Pro-CL arguments: > A) Force you to be more innovative with your deck designs > B) Fix cards that are much more powerful than comparable cards > C) Allow anyone with a small collection to make a deck that competes with > Mr. Suitcase >Are there any other pro-CL arguments that I'm missing? D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. >Pro-NL counter arguments: > A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or > whatever of each card that does what you need. > B) Short answer: the super powerful cards aren't any less powerful, they > just show up less often. > C) While Mr. Handbag has maybe 8 of a given common and 1 of a comparable >rare, Mr. Suitcase has more of the common card and probably 8 of the >comparable rare. D) In your dreams. Thanks, Mike. Remember folks, there's a $50 bounty for a literate article that rebuts Pro-NL counter arguments A-D without simply repeating Pro-CL arguments A-D. Easy money. I'm good for it. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

ber...@mich.com wrote: > One of the things that has always bothered me about > this newsgroup is the focus on how best to manipulate > a loophole. Please don't take that the wrong way, I'm > not out to slam anyone today (though the day ain't over, > >;-) *whistles innocently* After Bernie saw my Malk deck that used the White Phos Grenade/Rotschreck combo, he started taking a more stronger stance on loopholes. *grin* Standard Malk combat deck. Use equipment to put them in torpor and either Graverob them or Sacrificial Lamb them...depending on what I needed. It was effective at what it did, but didn't get as many VP's as I would have liked...but it was just a rough draft deck. *shrug* > V:TES is a wonderful game, where I now find myself discovering > new and amusing ways to pound my friends. Having been an > avid player, I can't help but be bothered by some of the card flow > during matches. This is one of the points I disagree with Bernie on. I tend to favor the idea that one should be able to play as many combat cards as you like, with the exception of a few very abusable cards. > Why should people be able to play multiples of a given card during > combat? Why should you be able to play 4 or 5 skins of rock? > How many layers is "Your" epidermous? (Hmm, just remembered > I never took biology). The skin has 7 layers...so I can play 7 Skin of Rock cards, right? And I never took biology, I just remember that from 6th grade science. *grin* > After playing in the soft 6CL environ for the past year or two, it > would appease many of the problems that I have with the NCL > environment. Fun decks aside, many of the decks I've seen under NCL > are pretty much "no-brainers". Much like the Form of Mist/Bleed combo > mentioned earlier. The "no-brainer" decks tend to be from beginning or unimaginative players. Those of us that play frequently tend to get bored with these type of decks and move on. I tend to keep my decks to a 6CL ideal, but they generally wouldn't need that much tweaking to be just as effective in a NL environment. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "...but simply by putting my hair in a ponytail, I transform into the coolest guy in the office." -Wally (Scott Adams), "Jan 12 Dilbert" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > Hehehe. I just don't think I ever expected to see someone talking about > their 'highly creative' natures on this newsgroup. :) *grin* Well...if a thousand monkeys on typewriters will eventually produce a Shakespearean play, imagine what a bunch of bored gamer dorks can do. > Oh, I've noticed...but 'dark, aloof, & mysterious' is easier for *me* to pull > off... I got over my goth phase by my mid-20's...long before being goth was fashionable. *grin* Now I'm just an angry old man in earth tones. > Well, that and the magnetic qualities that toting around some Jyhad cards > provide... ;) *laughs* My gf would burn my cards if it didn't mean I'd toss her out on her ear. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:37:24 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >Eric wrote: >> > did it occur to anyone that maybe s:ce could be too powerful?.... or maybe >> > that Ig is too powerful?.... I don't really know a card that prevents IG... >> >> Fake out is the most common, followd by all other maneuvers > >Which, it turn, is defeated by the Drawing Out the Beast/Immortal Grapple >combo. No maneuvers and your Leather Jacket can't save your skin either. >Pretty easy for Nosferatu to pull off. Which, to be fair to IG, requires two cards, is PROVIDING an enemy minion with +1 hand damage which he will be able to use immediately, and requires two disciplines only found commonly on the Nosferatu - who don't have damage prevention. (But who do have Taste of Vitae, so that +1 damage is negligible if they want it to be...) is IG strong? yep. but it's still not easy to build a table-sweeper deck around IG. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: Noal>Which, it turn, is defeated by the Drawing Out the Beast/Immortal Grapple Noal>combo. No maneuvers and your Leather Jacket can't save your skin either. Noal>Pretty easy for Nosferatu to pull off. > > Which, to be fair to IG, requires two cards, is PROVIDING an enemy > minion with +1 hand damage which he will be able to use immediately, *shrug* If the +1 hand damage is that big of a concern, you can use Song of Serenity to offset the +1 hand damage. > and requires two disciplines only found commonly on the Nosferatu - > who don't have damage prevention. True. But Brujah can use Celerity and the 1001 maneuvers to stay close. So, the IG deck works just as well there. But if damage prevention is your concern, you could always play with Leather Jackets or play an Animalism-Fortitude-Potence deck made up of Gangrel/Nosferatu. It would work out pretty well. > yep. but it's still not easy to build a table-sweeper deck around IG. I doubt Peter would agree. *grin* [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78iom6$age$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Derek S. Ray wrote: > Noal>Which, it turn, is defeated by the Drawing Out the Beast/Immortal > Noal>Grapple > Noal>combo. No maneuvers and your Leather Jacket can't save your skin > Noal>either. > Noal>Pretty easy for Nosferatu to pull off. > > > > Which, to be fair to IG, requires two cards, is PROVIDING an enemy > > minion with +1 hand damage which he will be able to use immediately, > > *shrug* If the +1 hand damage is that big of a concern, you can use > Song of Serenity to offset the +1 hand damage. As mentioned before, I think the main concern for the Nosferatu is agg damage. Well, and Fortitude...my theory: just don't rush the Gangrel...or at least pick on the ones without both Protean & Fortitude... > > and requires two disciplines only found commonly on the Nosferatu - > > who don't have damage prevention. > > True. But Brujah can use Celerity and the 1001 maneuvers to stay close. > So, the IG deck works just as well there. Mmm...I like that. I want to make a deck known as the '1001 Maneuvers, an Arabian Tale...' Ooooh...waitaminit...sounds like Brujah/Assamites...oh well... > But if damage prevention is your concern, you could always play with > Leather Jackets or play an Animalism-Fortitude-Potence deck made > up of Gangrel/Nosferatu. It would work out pretty well. It works okay...Badger, Zack North, and a couple others work, but as I mentioned in another post, it gets a little spendy... > > yep. but it's still not easy to build a table-sweeper deck around IG. > > I doubt Peter would agree. *grin* I dunno. I think Peter knows that while the Nosferatu rushing with IG are *horribly* cool, they really only sweep the table when conditions are *just* right. And it's hard to sweep with a rush deck. I bet we could get Peter to agree that it's *fun* to sweep with Nosferatu rush... :) Crossing threads, I can't see a deck with 30 IGs in it working well...they're a good card, but they're support, not horribly nasty on their own. Now, if they also gave 2/3 hand damage or an additional strike, then. I think though, it's hard to build a table-sweeper with a rush deck. I mean, combining the indirect-ness of rush along with the (seemingly) greater variety of combat defense as opposed to vote/bleed defense...it's hard, IMO. Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 21:45:45 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >*shrug* If the +1 hand damage is that big of a concern, you can use >Song of Serenity to offset the +1 hand damage. Or just go ahead, get whacked for 2, and Taste of Vitae it all. ;) >> and requires two disciplines only found commonly on the Nosferatu - >> who don't have damage prevention. > >True. But Brujah can use Celerity and the 1001 maneuvers to stay close. >So, the IG deck works just as well there. Yeah, but it's a lot tougher to make IG work with your chosen clan than it is to stick Presence skill cards and Majesties in. =) >But if damage prevention is your concern, you could always play with >Leather Jackets or play an Animalism-Fortitude-Potence deck made >up of Gangrel/Nosferatu. It would work out pretty well. > >> yep. but it's still not easy to build a table-sweeper deck around IG. > >I doubt Peter would agree. *grin* I think Peter would say that it was POSSIBLE, not easy... I've tried, and while my Rush decks are far from impotent (even the Pitch deck), they don't generally -sweep- tables, instead getting 2 or 3 VP's. Which is plenty effective for me. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: >>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many >>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more >>than enough handy. >Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it >all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have >nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better >things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many >zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because >you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns... Selective snippage, at best... What are your thoughts on the rest of Derek's post, specifically regarding cost and criteria for evaluating the expense of Zip Gun/DBR. Are his cirteria valid? Do you follow the comparisons to other sources of agg. damage, and their associated costs? What's the justification for Zip/DBR's real expense being so much less than comparable effects (if you agree with Derek's applied criteria)? I feel that we've been well served by the revisions made to cards to date. I watched from _early_ on in M:t$$ how the introduction of a 4CL had next to zero impact on the outrageous combos/power cards in the game. Next came a restricted list. Then cards were outright banned. Still, no effect on the basic way competitive play goes. (Find the overly powerful combo, and run as many iterations on it as deck space and card limitations will allow) Its so much better to alter a card, allowing it to be usable without being overpowered/undercosted. When balance of effect is applied on a card by card basis, card limits become moot. Powerful deck ideas then come from the successful merging of well thought out combinations of cards plus astute game play. Imposing a card limit on this sort of environment becomes an interesting artifact or meta-game alteration, but doesn't improve the game from its original design. Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <78i4pm$j13$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, Mark Langsdorf <mark.la...@amd.com> writes >>Pro-CL arguments: >> A) Force you to be more innovative with your deck designs >> B) Fix cards that are much more powerful than comparable cards >> C) Allow anyone with a small collection to make a deck that competes >with >> Mr. Suitcase >>Are there any other pro-CL arguments that I'm missing? > > >D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. I don't quite get you here. If this is Pro-CL, I don't get it. S&B is perfectly viable under CL and the counters to it are less so. I'm guessing I've misread what you mean. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <EE8379925395633F.9ECCAC3A...@library-proxy.airnews.net >, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:31:59 GMT, ber...@mich.com wrote: > > >One quick post on Mark's page which includes articles on card limits. > > > >Everyone keeps pointing to these past articles, however after reading > >them all in the not so distant past.. Be aware that they are ALL > >about using the 4CL. > > > >And really there is a HUGE difference between 6CL and 4CL. > > Yes and no. > > If you're *going* to use a card limit, a 6CL is much more functional > within the game than a 4CL, since the game was designed as a no-limit > game. 4 WWEF are not worth bothering to put in your deck. 6 .... > maybe. Where did you pull this startling piece of wisdom from? I am no tournament player, but I would suggest that 4,3 2 or even 1 WWEF can be incredibly useful. The narrow minded belief that 8 of a card are needed to make it effective (Okay Form of Corruption, but stealing Caitiff is quick and effective...) writes in big letters the idea that NCL have no idea of subtlety. Personally I don't think NCLers are like this, but your comment is on the bullseye of that stereotype. In my 4CL experience the appearance of one WWEF has the card counters in a spin, as they suspect the others may [or may not] be there... and so adjust their strategy, (exactly as I am sure ash pile scrutineers do in NCL). You don't need 8 (or 4, or 30), you need guile. I prefer 8 or none, myself, to make sure that I'll have it > handy when I need it, or to just not bother and remember not to tap > everyone - tap & bleeds aren't all -that- common because of all the > untap available. 8 or none? I now see the subtlety that NCL allows. It's not all about being sure you have, if it is in the minds of your opponents 'Dagmar always has a untap card', you have saved deck space and hand jam. > > A 6CL is still much more like a 4CL than an NL, though. 6 wakes mean > you either buy Sabbat for Forced Awakening or get raped by tap & > bleed. 6 Rush actions mean you either buy Sabbat for Ambush or just > don't play combat decks. 6 skill cards mean you can't design crypts > with -everyone- at inferior, since you aren't guaranteed more than 1 > or 2 in the early game. 6 Immortal Grapples mean that S:CE rules > supreme in the combat world. There's just too much you can't do under > a 6CL that you must have NL in order to do. Of course some strategies are more viable playing the game with different rules. We would not be having this discussion if the games allowed identical game play. And so the issue comes down to personal preference for the style of play encouraged by the specific rulings. In any event S:CE has many more counters than IG, many of them involving never getting into combat in the first place. If you are playing Rush and your prey happens to be Captain Defender of course your strategy is going to have an uphill struggle, but this is as true in NCL. Don't blame the rules for the results of your unfortunate placing; change seating with politics, encourage others to waste his S:CE with HAven uncovered and bribes (political or Succubus Club). If you rely on one [card?] strategy you are often going to be crippled -in both enviroments- should other decks [prey-predator especially] happen to be effective against you. That's the luck of the draw in meta game. I could simialry claim that it is unfair that Immortal Grapple 'rules' in a NL enviroment, in direct contrast to your statement that S:CE 'rules' in 4CL. As you ably pointed out 4CL limits skill cards, limiting the S:CE to the vampires who happen to have the right diciplines... and thus the effectiveness of the deck in other areas. > > >I wish I was an english major with some spare time to write an article > >backing up 6CL vs. NCL, but frankly I don't have the time. > > that's ok, i'm not an english major and i certainly shouldn't waste > time backing up NL, but i do anyway. =) > > -- Derek > (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :) > artaxerxes the monocled 4CLer [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5jPtAeAm...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <787bti$gpj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, artaxerxes@my- > dejanews.com writes > >Most NL advocates here cite the limitations that 4CL imposes; no 15 Raptors > >in your deck! I feel though that you are attacking the question from the > >angle of those who play regularly with large collections; consider the > >profile of the posters to this group... die hard fans with large collections > >which can support this level of play. > > I want 15 presence "pass my vote" action modifier cards in a deck. I > can put a lot of Bewitching Orations in (common). Business Pressure is > possible, but Rare. And I can put Awe in (rare). > > NL helps newbies too. They can supplement areas where they don't have > the rares by playing with the commons, which are similar, although > perhaps more generic. > > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) > I hear what you say. In my experience 4CL causes everyone to trade away their cards of which they have more than 4. Resulting in a balanced toolbox. And a use for many second tier cards, which gives all important value for money. Of course this is an entirely moot point in this, an arena which is dominated by members mature play groups. 4CL, allows infrequent players who have built modest collections to play on even footing with those who have large collections, because both have access to a 'common' pool of cards [with significant rares in their favoured deck styles for our modest players, matched by the variety of rares the Suitcase player has, but obvioulsy he is only playing one deck per game], which seems to entail that competition is about deck building not suitcases. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78i4pm$j13$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > > >Pro-CL arguments: > > A) Force you to be more innovative with your deck designs > > B) Fix cards that are much more powerful than comparable cards > > C) Allow anyone with a small collection to make a deck that competes > with > > Mr. Suitcase > >Are there any other pro-CL arguments that I'm missing? > > D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. > > >Pro-NL counter arguments: > > A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or > > whatever of each card that does what you need. Putting in 8-12 of the card under NCL is even less mentally taxing. However... NCLer 'But you just use the second tier cards instead, that not innovative!' This is a slanted view; of course in many instances second tier cards will be employed (which saves them from wallpaper, and is -as- creative as putting in 8-12 in the first place). However, in the situation where there is no standard second tier card, a 'creative solution' is -demanded-. Of course this eliminates several 'pure' strategies, but the idea isn't about specific strategies being available, it's about there being a derth of strategies available. [I am aware of the mathematical argument that 4CL limits the number of playable decks, but it appears heavily based on the difference between decks with 1,2...8, 9 or 10... 80 of a given card under NCL, of which 4CL is a significant subset]. > > B) Short answer: the super powerful cards aren't any less powerful, > they > > just show up less often. I don't really grasp your counter point... we are restricting all cards, because it is considered unbalancing for 'super powerful cards' (your words, so you suggest they exist) to appear in greater numbers. Without even needing to cite examples your 'rebuttal' is my argument; They do indeed show up less often, and hence have less inpmact on the game. So in essence you agree that 4CL does lessen the impact of 'imbalanced' cards? > > C) While Mr. Handbag has maybe 8 of a given common and 1 of a comparable > >rare, Mr. Suitcase has more of the common card and probably 8 of the > >comparable rare. In your experience that may be the case. We have played 4CL almost exclusively. 5 years of trading has seen collections evolve to 4s and 4s and 4s. Indeed Mr. Suitcase often has 2-4 of any given given rare. Mr Handbag [great term by the way] often has 2-4 rares -for the decks which were his favourites-. This point boils down to differing play groups, and only serves to emphasise that rare cards that are without second tier common equivalents will give the edge to Mr Suitcase -in either enviroment-, but according to your figures even more so in NCL in which trading and purchasing was geared to increasing the disparity. > D) In your dreams. Many suggest gentlemanly play, and evolved gamemanship as restraining factors in the non-play of degenerate decks. Even without needing to cite such a weak, but prominent argument common to both sides, the arrival of such cards as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B degeneracy much less of a head-ache (whilst admittedly conferring a 'must have' cachet on these cards). The fact remains that we want to win in intriguing and 'cool' ways just as much as you do and will similarly try new ideas... just try playing pure Ravnos in 4CL with no Sabbat. 4CL doesn't tame S&B anymore than NCL does, unless of course you are gambling on that counter strategy , and the random draw of the game may see you sandwhiched between rush and politics... oh dear. > > Thanks, Mike. > Remember folks, there's a $50 bounty for a literate article that rebuts > Pro-NL counter arguments A-D without simply repeating Pro-CL arguments > A-D. Easy money. I'm good for it. > > -Mark Langsdorf > Jyhad Archivist > http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ touche? artaxerxes the monocled 4CLer [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78j2r2$jdl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article > <EE8379925395633F.9ECCAC3A...@library-proxy.airnews.net > >, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:31:59 GMT, ber...@mich.com wrote: [snip] > > >And really there is a HUGE difference between 6CL and 4CL. > > > > Yes and no. > > > > If you're *going* to use a card limit, a 6CL is much more functional > > within the game than a 4CL, since the game was designed as a no-limit > > game. 4 WWEF are not worth bothering to put in your deck. 6 .... > > maybe. > > Where did you pull this startling piece of wisdom from? I am no tournament > player, but I would suggest that 4,3 2 or even 1 WWEF can be incredibly > useful. The narrow minded belief that 8 of a card are needed to make it This is true. However, (assuming 90 card deck...approx avg. size IME...) you are rather unlikely to draw the WWEF early enough to make it a critical factor in others' thought processes. I can never remember probability math, but I can remember most of my calc...sorry...I'm sure someone else can provide the details... [snip] > I prefer 8 or none, myself, to make sure that I'll have it > > handy when I need it, or to just not bother and remember not to tap > > everyone - tap & bleeds aren't all -that- common because of all the > > untap available. > > 8 or none? I now see the subtlety that NCL allows. It's not all about being > sure you have, if it is in the minds of your opponents 'Dagmar always has a > untap card', you have saved deck space and hand jam. > Hmm...but it seems unlikely that they'll be thinking that about this 'Dagmar,' if you're playing 4CL. I mean...okay. Yes, you can bluff, but there is a limit to how *much* you can bluff...especially if you don't have one in your hand the first few times you want to block something. Dagmar can have 4 WWEF. 4 Forced Awakening. Maybe 4 Rat's Warnings, and 4 Guard Dogs. Now, I realize you're not going to go with all of these, and maybe not most of them. But it seems that this recognition that Dagmar will always have an untap card would have to come about through multiple exposures to the deck. Not the most effective way of doing it. In addition, this means that you *must* hang on to your untaps to save for *important* actions. Personally, I only play with WWEF if I think it is useful to the deck as a whole. If I don't *need* to block in the first place, why bother waking? From my experience with 4CL, it seems that *every* deck thinks it needs wakes of some form. It seems to me that you need wakes if you are going to be tapping a lot *and* think you have a decent shot at blocking actions against you. > Of course some strategies are more viable playing the game with different > rules. We would not be having this discussion if the games allowed identical > game play. And so the issue comes down to personal preference for the style > of play encouraged by the specific rulings. True. However, it seems odd to NCL players that you would want to *restrict* the available deck types. CL play is a subset of NCL play. > In any event S:CE has many more counters than IG, many of them involving > never getting into combat in the first place. If you are playing Rush and Untrue. There may be more *ways* of avoiding S:CE, but there are still more *cards* which allow you to escape IG. And any method which lets you not be in combat also works against IG, natch? > your prey happens to be Captain Defender of course your strategy is going to > have an uphill struggle, but this is as true in NCL. Don't blame the rules > for the results of your unfortunate placing; change seating with politics, > encourage others to waste his S:CE with HAven uncovered and bribes (political > or Succubus Club). If you rely on one [card?] strategy you are often going > to be crippled -in both enviroments- should other decks [prey-predator > especially] happen to be effective against you. That's the luck of the draw > in meta game. Mostly true. > I could simialry claim that it is unfair that Immortal Grapple 'rules' in a NL > enviroment, in direct contrast to your statement that S:CE 'rules' in 4CL. As IG doesn't rule in a NCL environment. IG beats S:CE. IG tends to beat weak thaumaturgy decks and weak quietus decks. IG needs a *lot* of support to work properly. S:CE generally is just 1 card which is a combat trump. IG needs *at least* Drawing out the Beast to be effective, and even then, it doesn't do you much good unless you have Undead Strength or something as well. 3 card combo to do 3 damage, and taking 2 in return. + Torn Signpost = 4 cards, 5 damage (all assuming superior). + Fists of Death = 5 cards, 7 damage, 2 taken, 1 spent. + Taste of Vitae = 6 cards, maybe no damage taken, 1 still spent. Now...with a properly designed NCL deck, you can get this combo to cycle pretty well, but personally, I usually only come up with the Torn Signpost *or* a Fists of Death, IG, DotB, and Undead Strength. Oh....don't forget the rush you had to play to start with. That makes the final combo 7 cards. I can never pull my Taste of Vitae when I need them. Now...unless you're playing against a strictly S:CE deck, this still has many counters. If you don't draw the DotB or the maneuvers, you can't IG or strike...that combat may be wasted. If you're playing against a deck with Fortitude, you will probably have to pound many many times before you get lucky. Yup, that's part of the game...seating, but S:CE effectively employs its combat strategy against almost any other combat strategy *except* IG. Psyche, Fast Reactions and HL sort of work, but are less effective, in general... Please let me know if my arguments are unclear, not detailed enough, or you just don't understand my middle-of-the-night ramblings... Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:38:59 GMT, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >In article ><EE8379925395633F.9ECCAC3A...@library-proxy.airnews.net >>, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > >> Yes and no. >> >> If you're *going* to use a card limit, a 6CL is much more functional >> within the game than a 4CL, since the game was designed as a no-limit >> game. 4 WWEF are not worth bothering to put in your deck. 6 .... >> maybe. > >Where did you pull this startling piece of wisdom from? I am no tournament >player, but I would suggest that 4,3 2 or even 1 WWEF can be incredibly >useful. The narrow minded belief that 8 of a card are needed to make it >effective (Okay Form of Corruption, but stealing Caitiff is quick and >effective...) writes in big letters the idea that NCL have no idea of >subtlety. Personally I don't think NCLers are like this, but your comment is >on the bullseye of that stereotype. In my 4CL experience the appearance of >one WWEF has the card counters in a spin, as they suspect the others may [or >may not] be there... and so adjust their strategy, (exactly as I am sure ash >pile scrutineers do in NCL). You don't need 8 (or 4, or 30), you need guile. (This paragraph assumes, of course, that you're not doing something like putting 4 Wakes, 4 Forced Awakenings, and 4 2nd Traditions in your deck, which is just a complicated way to say "12 untap reaction cards, and 4 of them are really good if you're a Prince.") If you're only putting 4 Wakes in the deck, why are you bothering to Wake since you're, due to not having it in your hand most of the time, going to have to leave people untapped a lot to block anyway? I don't know how your playgroup works, but if someone taps out I will -assume- they are holding a Wake in their hand -- but I will *also* assume that they're only holding ONE, and so I had better be ready to send two guys with the same action. I'm not going to hold back my first Govern for a bleed of 3 just because I think you might have a Wake - i'm going to do it, let you Wake if you have it, let you fail to replace the card, then send the NEXT guy to Govern for 3 and see if you had *two* in your hand, and if you don't, then I'm going to Condition it. If I don't do this, then I'm taking NO actions and you don't EVER waste the Wake. If you have Guard Rats or Dog's Warning (sic), I might consider putting only 4 wakes in since my bleed untap is taken care of and I only need to stop OTHER things. But then I'm packing two kinds of untap in my hand and i'm down to 5 cards for when I -do- untap. Hmm. Messy. If your deck is designed to intercept people, it already suffers from the classic "can usually only intercept my predator" problem. The simplest way to balance out an intercept deck is to let your minions all take actions and Wake people as necessary to do the intercepting for your defense or when your prey does something to help himself. 4 Wakes are a joke in this instance - you're going to want to tap out more often than 4 turns, and if you are facing a Misdirection tap & bleed deck you'll get pummelled when you run out of Wakes, since he won't be bothering to waste Misdirections until you leave guys untapped. > I prefer 8 or none, myself, to make sure that I'll have it >> handy when I need it, or to just not bother and remember not to tap >> everyone - tap & bleeds aren't all -that- common because of all the >> untap available. > >8 or none? I now see the subtlety that NCL allows. It's not all about being >sure you have, if it is in the minds of your opponents 'Dagmar always has a >untap card', you have saved deck space and hand jam. Under 4CL and using 90 card decks, I'm going to assume you DON'T have it, and i'll be right most of the time. Every time I see one I'll be happily counting, and when you untap 4 times I won't even bother to do "tempting" actions first to see if you burn the Wake there. "Wanna come stop my KRC? It'll hurt you... Aw. you stopped it. OK, well, this OTHER guy will Fifth Tradition himself ... oops, used your wake? Shame." And yes, there is some subtlety involved - if I always have it the first few times I need it, my opponent has no idea if I've gone hog wild and put 20 in the deck, or if I've only put 4 in the deck and just played my last one. Both are perfectly conceivable. (although i'd reduce that to 12 instead of 20 to avoid having NOTHING but wakes in my hand.. but that's beside the point.) Especially if I have a deck that actually packs some punch behind its blocks. But rest assured, a lot of it is also being sure that YOU have it, just in case someone decides to say "Nah. You didn't put THAT many in." and tap out all his guys trying to get you. >> >> A 6CL is still much more like a 4CL than an NL, though. 6 wakes mean >> you either buy Sabbat for Forced Awakening or get raped by tap & >> bleed. 6 Rush actions mean you either buy Sabbat for Ambush or just >> don't play combat decks. 6 skill cards mean you can't design crypts >> with -everyone- at inferior, since you aren't guaranteed more than 1 >> or 2 in the early game. 6 Immortal Grapples mean that S:CE rules >> supreme in the combat world. There's just too much you can't do under >> a 6CL that you must have NL in order to do. > >Of course some strategies are more viable playing the game with different >rules. We would not be having this discussion if the games allowed identical >game play. And so the issue comes down to personal preference for the style >of play encouraged by the specific rulings. I do not believe that the designers of the game wished combat to be a joke. A 4CL or even a 6CL makes combat a joke. When nearly any deck that wants to can just shrug off a combat deck with minimal effort, the balance is, well, not balanced. >In any event S:CE has many more counters than IG, many of them involving >never getting into combat in the first place. If you are playing Rush and so what do you do when your prey is an intercept/run-away deck? You attempt to act. Your prey intercepts you and plays S:CE. You attempt a second action. Your prey intercepts you and plays S:CE. Your predator comes to bleed you. You wake and block. He plays Form of Mist. You could've not got into combat, sure - he would've still bled you and discarded the Form of Mist at end of turn (since he probably had 2 after not getting to play any). "not getting into combat" is not a worthwhile counter to S:CE, as that basically is acquiescing to the idea that combat wasn't supposed to be in Jyhad anyway, which is patently false. >your prey happens to be Captain Defender of course your strategy is going to >have an uphill struggle, but this is as true in NCL. Don't blame the rules >for the results of your unfortunate placing; change seating with politics, Assuming you're playing a vote deck. >encourage others to waste his S:CE with HAven uncovered and bribes (political Oh, yes, THAT'll go. "Hey Mr. Rush deck, would you come waste some Rush actions on my prey with a Haven please? He's got this nasty S:CE and I just can't do a THING to him when I block him." >or Succubus Club). If you rely on one [card?] strategy you are often going >to be crippled -in both enviroments- should other decks [prey-predator >especially] happen to be effective against you. That's the luck of the draw >in meta game. not often... not if you build the deck right. Most decks can, when properly built, deal with many different predators. IG hoses S:CE decks. S:CE hoses Gangrel claw decks. Gangrel claw decks hose IG. Note the well-balanced vicious circle? Make that a 4CL and IG immediately suffers - 4 IG vs. 4 Majesty + 4 Staredown + 4 Catatonic Fear vs. 4 Claws of the Dead + 4 Wolf Claws + 4 Bone Spur. And if that wasn't bad enough, the Gangrel can even S:CE with two different cards themselves. Under 4CL, the poor IG deck is just going to be raped, making combat a really piss-poor proposition. >I could simialry claim that it is unfair that Immortal Grapple 'rules' in a NL >enviroment, in direct contrast to your statement that S:CE 'rules' in 4CL. As But your claim isn't true. under NCL, Immortal Grapple merely requires that combat-avoiding decks consider alternatives to simply packing piles of S:CE cards,... such as maneuvers, fortitude, or discovering several types of nasty vicious combat of your own (Gangrel claws come to mind immediately... nothing more annoying than to Rush someone and have them poke you in the eye *and* prevent all your damage... the Tzimisce's Blood of Acid is also a wicked surprise for immortal grabbies people...),... you name it, there are plenty. Even the lowly Saturday Night Special can beat an IG deck that doesn't have a maneuver handy. An S:CE deck will still be quite effective against all other types of decks... but if someone has IG handy, "that's the luck of the draw in metagame." >you ably pointed out 4CL limits skill cards, limiting the S:CE to the vampires >who happen to have the right diciplines... and thus the effectiveness of the >deck in other areas. yeah, but there are an awful lot of vampires who have Presence. Or Protean. Necromancy has an S:CE card too if you're playing the Giovanni. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36a91dab...@news.mich.com>, ber...@mich.com wrote: > Hey Vince, > Thought I'd mention that I've always been a BIG fan that First Strike > should preclude Strike:CE. First Strike should at least be able to > beat the lowly dodge.. > > (Sorry Newsgroup, couldn't resist) > > Bernie > I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It *should* be able to beat at least the dodge. *sigh* In the beginning (Jyhad days) we played it that way. It made for a good game. I don't say that V:TES is not a good game with the actual dodge vs FS ruling, but I NEVER see any FS cards being played (apart from Canine Horde, but that has a different cause). With FS beating dodge, at least the Assamites would *bite* :) But I don't think that FS should preclude S:CE. I think S:CE has its place in the game, and FS beating it would upset the whole environment. Just my thoughts. Responses welcome (esp. from Mike Bohlmann, dessen Meinung ich hoch schaetze!) Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78j6in$mdr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: Me >Pro-NL counter arguments: Me > A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or Me > whatever of each card that does what you need. > Putting in 8-12 of the card under NCL is even less mentally taxing. However... 8 to 12. That's a four card swing. Too many and you'll hand jam. Too few, and you won't have them when you need them. For people that have never played NL extensively, I know that this can be difficult to understand, but that's the way it works. Choosing the right amount is quite difficult until you get good at NL deck construction. And even then, it takes several games to figure out if you've got the right amount. For CL, you might only have one or two options for a card you want as a backbone to your deck. So you put in the max of the one that matches exactly what you want (no thought) and possibly the max of the second card (some to no thought). If there is no comparable card to the first, there is no thought whatsoever to how many you should put in. And I'm not speaking in theory, I'm speaking from most of my Jyhad experience playing under CL, either 4CL or 6CL. I played with CL for about 3 years. I've only played NL for the last year or so. > NCLer 'But you just use the second tier cards instead, that not innovative!' > > This is a slanted view; of course in many instances second tier > cards will be employed (which saves them from wallpaper, and is -as- > creative as putting in 8-12 in the first place). Ok, as you see above, I use the word "thought." I can accept "less mentally taxing" as the same as "requiring less thought." And I'll give you a little leeway with "innovative." But in no way does "thought" equal "creativity," at least in my book. "Thought" is trying to decide how many of a given card to put in. "Creativity" in Jyhad is figuring out some strategy or card that isn't obvious. For example, Noal's "The Grind" deck is creative. It does something new that isn't entirely obvious. > However, in the situation where there is no > standard second tier card, a 'creative solution' is -demanded-. Of course. Whereas CL _requires_ creativity to get around the CL, NL groups push towards creativity. Creativity in CL is a necessity so that you can get around the CL. However, CL and NL have the same creativity available when it comes to designing interesting new deck ideas. The problem with CL is that your creative deck ideas may be limited by some cards not having second tier options. Robert Goudie brought up something a lot of us NL'ers have forgotten - the transition from CL to NL. At first, a group that switches to NL will probably see lots of non-creative decks as they explore the NL strategy. That means heavy S&B decks, decks composed entirely of a few cards, etc. As the group's NL skills mature, they will be back to creating competitive, creative decks that can also stand up to S&B monsters. > Of course this eliminates several 'pure' strategies, but the idea > isn't about specific strategies being available, it's about there > being a derth of strategies available. Under NL, there are multitudes of deck strategies. Under CL, there are also many deck strategies available, but those under NL which have require more of a card that has no second-tier option are right out. Me > B) Short answer: the super powerful cards aren't any less powerful, Me > they just show up less often. > > I don't really grasp your counter point... we are restricting all cards, > because it is considered unbalancing for 'super powerful cards' (your words, > so you suggest they exist) to appear in greater numbers. Without even > needing to cite examples your 'rebuttal' is my argument; They do indeed show > up less often, and hence have less inpmact on the game. So in essence you > agree that 4CL does lessen the impact of 'imbalanced' cards? They do not lessen the impact. A Return to Innocence has the same effect whether it is played under CL or without CL. If a person isn't prepared for it, they are ousted. This isn't like a Presence bleed that you can see coming each turn. This isn't like a Dominate bleed that you can see coming each turn. Any deck can use it at anytime (well, they need vampires of course:). The point is, if you aren't prepared for a 10 point bleed, you are dead. The way you have to prepare for it under CL and NL is the same. The impact is just the same. Me > C) While Mr. Handbag has maybe 8 of a given common and 1 of Me > a comparable rare, Mr. Suitcase has more of the common card Me > and probably 8 of the comparable rare. > In your experience that may be the case. We have played 4CL > almost exclusively. 5 years of trading has seen collections > evolve to 4s and 4s and 4s. Indeed Mr. Suitcase often has 2-4 > of any given given rare. Mr Handbag [great term by the way] > often has 2-4 rares -for the decks which were his favourites-. Hasn't Jyhad only been around since fall 1994? Not significant, but anyway. What you are saying is that after years of trading everyone in your group has more or less the cards they want to make the decks they want under 4CL, correct? Ok, two counter- points. First, I thought CL was supposed to increase creativity, but yet the Mr. Handbags (thanks, btw:) in your group have traded for rares to go in their favorite decks. Wouldn't that mean that they've been playing the same decks since you started? Sure, they might have others, but the ones they play the most are basically the same as when you started. That doesn't sound very creative to me. Second, what happens if a new Mr. Handbag wants to join the group? They don't have the benefit of years of trading with you guys and have a lot of catching up to do. It is possible that the pool is there to get him up to speed quickly, but what if that pool of rares isn't there? Note, this shows how CL is perfectly reasonable for home play, and I have nothing against that. But for tournament play, this reasoning just won't hold. > This point boils down to differing play groups, and only serves > to emphasise that rare cards that are without second tier common > equivalents will give the edge to Mr Suitcase -in either > enviroment-, but according to your figures even more so in NCL > in which trading and purchasing was geared to increasing the > disparity. In the Jyhad set, the rare cards were usually second-tier to commons in general situations, but perhaps better in specialized situations. When speaking of tiers of cards, NL'ers hold that commons are the first tier cards as they make up the majority of a person's deck while the rares (and sometimes uncommons) serve as second tier. Everyone has equal access to the commons, ie the first tier cards. There is, however, disparity of the rares. Under CL, Mr. Handbag is restricted from using the commons that he has all that he wants, perhaps freely given by Mr. Suitcase. Mark > D) In your dreams [that CL stops S&B] > > Many suggest gentlemanly play, and evolved gamemanship as > restraining factors in the non-play of degenerate decks. > Even without needing to cite such a weak, but prominent > argument common to both sides, the arrival of such cards > as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B > degeneracy much less of a head-ache (whilst admittedly > conferring a 'must have' cachet on these cards). Which are rare and uncommon respectively and require purchasing the more expensive V:tES vs. the cheaper Jyhad. That doesn't look good for Mr. Handbag. > The fact remains that we want to win in intriguing and > 'cool' ways just as much as you do and will similarly try > new ideas... just try playing pure Ravnos in 4CL with no > Sabbat. 4CL doesn't tame S&B anymore than NCL does, unless > of course you are gambling on that counter strategy , and Under NL, you can be prepared for S&B without a gentlemanly agreement. That includes bounce, reduce, rush, intercept, and pool gain. With a CL and especially so with 4CL, your access to some of these is limited. Take, for example, bounce. You have Redirection and Deflection with Deflection being preferable if you have vampires that keep plenty of blood and because Redirection requires two cards to play after you do it once (WwEF/FA/untap and Redirection). Obviously, Redirection is a weak alternative to Deflection when you want your vampires taking actions and not being untapped. Under NL, you can use 8 Deflections where under 4CL, you use 4 Deflections and 4 Redirections. It's a crapshoot for which you'll have when you really need a Deflection. Mark > Thanks, Mike. Mark > Remember folks, there's a $50 bounty for a literate article Mark > that rebuts Pro-NL counter arguments A-D without simply Mark > repeating Pro-CL arguments A-D. Easy money. I'm good for Mark > it. > touche? Not quite. Btw, thanks for the well thought out arguments and counter- counter points. I look forward to your response. It's nice to have a CL actually come up with something well thought out that just doesn't repeat what's already been said. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78k8i6$hia$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: Apologies to group for personal message...not in English for that matter, but my target doesn't have an e-mail address that I know. :( > Just my thoughts. Responses welcome (esp. from Mike Bohlmann, dessen > Meinung ich hoch schaetze!) Servus Carl! Kannst Du mir deine E-mail-Addresse schicken? Die Addresse bei bhak12.ac.at funktioniert nicht. Hast Du dein Foto an meine Web-Page gesehen? Es liegt unter dem Wien-Abteil meiner Fotogallerie. Die URL steht ganz unten. [ quoted text not captured ]

Okay...I may jump around a bit. Please bear with me. Mike>Pro-NL counter arguments: Mike> A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or Mike> whatever of each card that does what you need. In 4CL, this is true. It's not quite so true in 6CL as you often don't need more than 4 or 5 of a card...but that's more to do with deck design and card redundancy than anything else. aratx> Putting in 8-12 of the card under NCL is even less mentally taxing. I disagree...mostly for the same reasons that Mike uses. In a NL environment, you have more options...and so does your opposition. With the card limitations gone, there is no way of accurately predicting how many of a given card your opposition may have, forcing you to build your decks in a more pro-active manner. (Note that this can lead to S&B decks going unchallenged unless its vampires are rendered inert.) Mike> Choosing the right amount is Mike> quite difficult until you get good at NL deck construction. And even Mike> then, it takes several games to figure out if you've got the right Mike> amount. This can be true of a 6CL deck as well. Since most (not all) of my decks start out in a 6CL environment and I use card redundancy to overcome that, it's not often very difficult to tweak my decks for a NL game. Mike> And I'm not speaking in theory, I'm speaking from most of my Jyhad Mike> experience playing under CL, either 4CL or 6CL. I played with CL for Mike> about 3 years. I've only played NL for the last year or so. I would tend to largely agree with your findings. Mike> "Thought" is trying to decide how many of a given card to put in. Mike> "Creativity" in Jyhad is figuring out some strategy or card that Mike> isn't obvious. For example, Noal's "The Grind" deck is creative. Mike> It does something new that isn't entirely obvious. *blushes* Thanks. artax> However, in the situation where there is no artax> standard second tier card, a 'creative solution' is -demanded-. Mike> Of course. Whereas CL _requires_ creativity to get around the CL, Mike> NL groups push towards creativity. Creativity in CL is a Mike> necessity so that you can get around the CL. However, CL and NL Mike> have the same creativity available when it comes to designing Mike> interesting new deck ideas. The problem with CL is that your Mike> creative deck ideas may be limited by some cards not having second Mike> tier options. The above is entirely correct. Innovation under CL and NL are a result of different causes. However, a strict card limit places an inherent limitation on the development of creative ideas in a deck. > Robert Goudie brought up something a lot of us NL'ers have > forgotten - the transition from CL to NL. At first, a group that > switches to NL will probably see lots of non-creative decks as > they explore the NL strategy. That means heavy S&B decks, decks > composed entirely of a few cards, etc. As the group's NL skills > mature, they will be back to creating competitive, creative decks > that can also stand up to S&B monsters. The above entirely depends on the environment in which they play and the approach they have to the game. If a person is dedicated to trying to develop innovative decks in a CL environment, that person is likely to continue doing the same in a NL environment. A beginning player is likely to use a basic strategy until they develop stronger skills and larger collections of cards. > Note, this shows how CL is perfectly reasonable for home > play, and I have nothing against that. But for tournament > play, this reasoning [trading of cards for years] just won't hold. Absolutely. Most people aren't going to bring their collections to a tournament and just give their cards to players to help their decks. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Is my ponytail doing anything for you?" -Wally, "Jan 19 Dilbert" (by Scott Adams) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:53:16 GMT, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) said: >> Where did you pull this startling piece of wisdom from? I am no tournament >> player, but I would suggest that 4,3 2 or even 1 WWEF can be incredibly >> useful. Derek> If you're only putting 4 Wakes in the deck, why are you Derek> bothering to Wake since you're, due to not having it in your Derek> hand most of the time, going to have to leave people untapped a Derek> lot to block anyway? Look up "bluff" in the dictionary :) Ummm... I really don't see this "must reliably always have Wake in hand to include it in deck" point. In fact I think it's silly. Yes, it's a viable deck design to make a deck that virtually always can Wake, but to claim it's the only useful use for Wakes is tunnel vision. I usually put 1-5 Wakes in decks, depending on the deck. For intercept decks I usually put more, but I've found 1-4 Wakes to be extremely useful. Why? Because it keeps people on their toes. Once I demonstrate that I have Wakes, I can use it to bluff, tapping out and letting people think that I have a Wake when in fact I don't - or doing it only when I have a Wake, depending on how the game is going. You know, "mind games" and "strategy"? :) Being predictable is a bad thing. In short: if you're basing a deck around the concept that it must always be able to Wake, then using N of them is a good idea. But I strongly disagree with the idea that that's the *only* way to use Wakes. Your mileage may vary, of course. //Petri

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:22:51 GMT, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at said: CPilhatsch> In article <36a91dab...@news.mich.com>, CPilhatsch> ber...@mich.com wrote: >> Hey Vince, >> Thought I'd mention that I've always been a BIG fan that First Strike >> should preclude Strike:CE. First Strike should at least be able to >> beat the lowly dodge.. >> Bernie CPilhatsch> I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It *should* be CPilhatsch> able to beat at least the dodge. *sigh* AGREED! As it is, First Strike is a joke. In addition, it's very aggravating to try to explain to newbies why something called "first strike" doesn't work like a first strike - it actually resolves *after* S:CE and dodge. It makes no game world sense, it makes no general sense. I'd love to see First Strike resolved *first*, then S:CE and Dodge. I really can't see why it isn't that way, except "that's the way the Rules Team ruled it once upon a time". Or maybe there is a good argument, but I haven't heard it yet. In a game world sense, the current ruling doesn't make sense. First Strike means a surprise attack, it just doesn't compute that somebody would be able to use Majesty against that or dodge the attack when they don't know it's coming. I know, I know, game world rationales don't wash when it comes to the card game - but I can tell you that the illogic behind the current rule *does* create problems when explaining the game, from personal experience. As is, S:CE is an extremely powerful effect, and something that a lot of combat clans have great problems with. First Strike isn't a very common ability, and having it resolve first would give the Assamites a fighting chance (pun semi-intended :). LSJ (or others): is there any chance of changing the rules to that effect? Since the rules have already effectively been changed N times recently with the ton of errata and stuff, I don't see it as an impossible thing. Also since the new rules (available as PDF) haven't been officially printed in any form, there would be no distribution costs or stuff like that. In any case, I'd like to hear people's opinions/discussion on this. Am I in the minority here, or would something like this benefit the game? Are there things that it could break? I personally would like it for the following reasons: a) "It would make sense", and it would be easier and more logical to explain to beginners. b) It would give clans with First Strike capability (Assamites at the forefront) some much-needed boost. c) It would give one more general way of fighting S:CE. Since S:CE is (IMHO) an overly powerful effect, this is (again IMHO) a very good thing. Negatives: a) All rule changes are things that should be approached with caution. b) It might break something or introduce something really broken into the game. Nothing comes to mind yet, but there might be something I'm missing. Ok, Assamites might actually become frightening instead of jokes :) Opinions? //Petri

Petri Wessman wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:22:51 GMT, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at said: >> ber...@mich.com wrote: > >> Thought I'd mention that I've always been a BIG fan that First Strike > >> should preclude Strike:CE. First Strike should at least be able to > >> beat the lowly dodge.. > > CPilhatsch> I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It *should* be > CPilhatsch> able to beat at least the dodge. *sigh* > > AGREED! > > As it is, First Strike is a joke. In addition, it's very aggravating > to try to explain to newbies why something called "first strike" > doesn't work like a first strike - it actually resolves *after* S:CE > and dodge. It makes no game world sense, it makes no general sense. Game World: To strike, your fist (or other strike element) must traverse the distance from you to your opponent. When striking with First Strike, either your traverse that distance faster (e.g., Fast Hands) or you attack from a position/vantage point that allows your strike to connect before your opponent can connect his strike to you (e.g., Back Stab). When Dodging, however, you are not attempting to get your strike from here to there. You are simply moving out of the way of the incoming strike. When ending combat, the situation is much the same. > I'd love to see First Strike resolved *first*, then S:CE and Dodge. I > really can't see why it isn't that way, except "that's the way the > Rules Team ruled it once upon a time". Actually, no ruling was ever necessary, since (for Dodge) the rulebook says very clearly: "[Dodge] negates the effect of the opponent's strike that round." (Jyhad 15.3) Some people (prossibly influenced by the MtG notion of "First Strike") questioned it, so the clarification that, "yes, this is true, even against First Strke" was issued. (RTR 22-DEC-94) For S:CE, the rulebook was even clearer (Jyhad 15.3): [S:CE] ends combat immediately (before any damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place). Note that combat ends is not affected by Dodge and even cancels strikes with first strike. > Or maybe there is a good > argument, but I haven't heard it yet. See above. > In a game world sense, the current ruling doesn't make sense. First > Strike means a surprise attack, it just doesn't compute that somebody > would be able to use Majesty against that or dodge the attack when > they don't know it's coming. It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart dodge and S:CE. > I know, I know, game world rationales > don't wash when it comes to the card game - but I can tell you that > the illogic behind the current rule *does* create problems when > explaining the game, from personal experience. Try using "real world" terms that work to convey the official operation. Certainly using terms like "surprise attack" when descibing First Strike can lead to confusion. > As is, S:CE is an extremely powerful effect, and something that a lot > of combat clans have great problems with. First Strike isn't a very > common ability, and having it resolve first would give the Assamites a > fighting chance (pun semi-intended :). Not that this line of argument is related to how the rules should operate, Assamites do have access to both Hidden Lurker and Psyche! for combating S:CE. > LSJ (or others): is there any chance of changing the rules to that > effect? Since the rules have already effectively been changed N times > recently with the ton of errata and stuff, I don't see it as an > impossible thing. Also since the new rules (available as PDF) haven't > been officially printed in any form, there would be no distribution > costs or stuff like that. Not likely, since it isn't a problem (or, if it is a problem, it isn't severe enough to warrant such a change). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <78j6in$mdr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <78i4pm$j13$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, > "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > >> >> >Pro-CL arguments: >> > A) Force you to be more innovative with your deck designs >> > B) Fix cards that are much more powerful than comparable cards >> > C) Allow anyone with a small collection to make a deck that competes >> with >> > Mr. Suitcase >> >Are there any other pro-CL arguments that I'm missing? >> >> D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. [In answer to an earlier question in this thread, this a Pro-CL argument that is demonstratively wrong]. >> >Pro-NL counter arguments: >> > A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or >> > whatever of each card that does what you need. > >Putting in 8-12 of the card under NCL is even less mentally taxing. However... > >NCLer 'But you just use the second tier cards instead, that not innovative!' > >This is a slanted view; of course in many instances second tier cards will be >employed (which saves them from wallpaper, and is -as- creative as putting in >8-12 in the first place). However, in the situation where there is no >standard second tier card, a 'creative solution' is -demanded-. Well, for you, maybe. I just put some more Immortal Grapples in my deck if I need them, and proxy them if I don't have them. >> > B) Short answer: the super powerful cards aren't any less powerful, >> they just show up less often. > >I don't really grasp your counter point... we are restricting all cards, >because it is considered unbalancing for 'super powerful cards' (your words, >so you suggest they exist) to appear in greater numbers. Without even >needing to cite examples your 'rebuttal' is my argument; They do indeed show >up less often, and hence have less inpmact on the game. So in essence you >agree that 4CL does lessen the impact of 'imbalanced' cards? No, we claim that the 4CL makes any imbalanced cards more of a swing factor. Say I've got my weenie potence deck. Normally, it would rely on Bum's Rush for bleed defense. In an NCL environment, I have so many Bum's Rushes that I *know* I will always have at least one in hand. If you have a bleed deck that relies on the old, broken Return to Innocence, I can reliably deal with it by rushing every one of your big vampires. In a 4CL, I don't know that. If you bring out a big vampire and have an RtI available, I may be dead. Flat out. I may have had three vampires available and my Immortal Grapple, but I can't put in enough Bum's Rushes to get your big vampire. Therefore, I'm dead. Bigger swing effect. >> > C) While Mr. Handbag has maybe 8 of a given common and 1 of a >> >comparable rare, Mr. Suitcase has more of the common card and >> >probably 8 of the comparable rare. > >In your experience that may be the case. We have played 4CL almost >exclusively. 5 years of trading has seen collections evolve to 4s and 4s and >4s. Indeed Mr. Suitcase often has 2-4 of any given given rare. Mr Handbag >[great term by the way] often has 2-4 rares -for the decks which were his >favourites-. This point boils down to differing play groups, and only serves >to emphasise that rare cards that are without second tier common equivalents >will give the edge to Mr Suitcase -in either enviroment-, but according to >your figures even more so in NCL in which trading and purchasing was geared >to increasing the disparity. Nope. I can purchase Govern the Unaligned and Lost In Crowds in sets of 30 for basically the cost of postage, or buy another box for 7 and get more of them than I need. GtU + LiC is roughly equivalent to Dominate Kine, which will run me maybe a dollar apiece. Sure, the difference isn't much, but when you multiply that against every common/rare equivalence, it starts to get expensive. (And worse if the rare in question is only available in Sabbat, where the rares are expensive. $2 for 20 Bewitching Orations or $15+ for 4 Awes? Which investment gives me a better deck?) >> D) In your dreams. > >Many suggest gentlemanly play, and evolved gamemanship as restraining factors >in the non-play of degenerate decks. Even without needing to cite such a >weak, but prominent argument common to both sides, the arrival of such cards >as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B degeneracy >much less Let me explain this to you, just once, 'cause I'm tired of hearing it: "Stealth and Bleed IS NOT degenerate." Trust me on this. I play S&B sometimes when I play Jyhad in a NCL group. I am not guaranteed to sweep the table. Sometimes I get a couple of victory points. Sometimes I sweep the table. Sometimes a Rush deck hands me my head. Sometimes a voting deck outraces me. Rarely, a blood-gain deck *laughs* at me (more because very few people play blood gain decks around here). Sometimes Jeff is playing his "any action, anywhere, at any stealth" intercept deck and I die horribly. It's always an exciting and difficult fight, just like playing Rush or Intercept or Tremere Combat or Vote or "the 6 War Ghoul deck." Stealth and Bleed is not degenerate. >of a head-ache (whilst admittedly conferring a 'must have' cachet on these >cards). The fact remains that we want to win in intriguing and 'cool' ways >just as much as you do and will similarly try new ideas... just try playing >pure Ravnos in 4CL with no Sabbat. 4CL doesn't tame S&B anymore than NCL >does, unless of course you are gambling on that counter strategy , and the >random draw of the game may see you sandwhiched between rush and politics... >oh dear. 4CL doesn't tame S&B at all. NCL makes it another deck, with probably a 1 in 5 chance of winning at a 5 person table, same as any other well constructed and well played strategy. >> Remember folks, there's a $50 bounty for a literate article that rebuts >> Pro-NL counter arguments A-D without simply repeating Pro-CL arguments >> A-D. Easy money. I'm good for it. By the way, any Pro-CL rebuttal of the Pro-NL arguments that starts with "S&B is degenerate" is not going to get any money from me, 'cause it's not an adequate rebuttal. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:08:00 GMT, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:53:16 GMT, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) said: > >Derek> If you're only putting 4 Wakes in the deck, why are you >Derek> bothering to Wake since you're, due to not having it in your >Derek> hand most of the time, going to have to leave people untapped a >Derek> lot to block anyway? > >Look up "bluff" in the dictionary :) and see "Calling one's" right after it. ;) >Ummm... I really don't see this "must reliably always have Wake in >hand to include it in deck" point. In fact I think it's silly. Yes, >it's a viable deck design to make a deck that virtually always can >Wake, but to claim it's the only useful use for Wakes is tunnel >vision. There's an old saying from poker that one should "Only bluff once at a sitting." It usually means get caught bluffing wildly early on in the night, then never do it again, since you've put the idea in your opponents' heads that you're lying, and from then on any time one of them assumes you're lying he'll be (painfully) wrong. =) >I usually put 1-5 Wakes in decks, depending on the deck. For intercept >decks I usually put more, but I've found 1-4 Wakes to be extremely >useful. Why? Because it keeps people on their toes. Once I demonstrate >that I have Wakes, I can use it to bluff, tapping out and letting >people think that I have a Wake when in fact I don't - or doing it >only when I have a Wake, depending on how the game is going. You know, >"mind games" and "strategy"? :) Being predictable is a bad thing. That's excellent mind game, yeah. I even recommend it for other cards - a deck based around Form of Mist shouldn't have many Forms of Mist in it, since after seeing a couple your prey will suddenly quit blocking you and if you've put too many in, assuming that your prey WILL constantly block you, you'll have 7 Forms of Mist in your hand in no time. =) You can conceivably get away with only playing a couple. =) The problem with bluffing based on Wake is that first, when you get caught, it's not usually a "small" bad thing that happens. =) second, ... in our group, usually you see Wake being played to untap and defend against one's predator. consider this: if I am your predator and you tap out your 3 vampires early on in the game, I will look at you and evaluate your deck as best I can. Is it some form of racing bleed that doesn't defend itself? Is it animalism untap? Is it any sort of intercept deck? I will think "Hm. Well, he tapped out. He probably has at least one Wake in hand. If he's bluffing, we'll find out awfully quick." The problem is that a deck doesn't make any progress v. Wake when it's sitting and defending. If I decide "ok, he has a Wake, and I have no stealth in my hand", then I can either waste time with my own vampires hunting, equipping stuff, recruiting retainers, and basically doing lots of +1 stealth actions that you may or may not bother to Wake for, and STILL may draw no stealth into my hand, or I can just say "Well... either he has it or he doesn't", and send 3 guys to bleed for 6 and see how many times you untap. If you don't untap on the first, I may tap out to see if you untap on the LAST or are just waiting for "zee Big One!" If i have an obvious vampire who can play "zee Big One!", i'll try to do as much damage as I can with the little ones first to draw out any Wake you have. Perhaps even use up all my Conditionings on the little guys with little Dominate, just because you're letting those through and worrying about the guy with +1 bleed and big Dominate. =) Anyway... why I don't like wasting time waiting is... what am I waiting for? You'll never discard the Wake if you -did- in fact have it, because you know you'll need it. If you didn't have it, you won't discard it either, so there's never a signal to me that it's OK to come get you. In fact, about the only thing that I can be sure of is that the more I let you cycle cards without making you burn any, the more likely it is that you HAVE drawn one and definitely aren't bluffing anymore. So I might as well take actions against you and see if you have it NOW. The only real thing it'll do is make me order my actions carefully to see if you're inclined to Wake for one of the early ones, instead of Wake for the steamroller that I absolutely WANT to get off. (And adds an component to deck design - being sure of not being caught while taking actions and/or not being damaged if you ARE caught. combat defense; it isn't just for backwards anymore! ok sorry.) Even bleed bounce is much more bluffable than Wake, since you can always have it, and once you show it, your predator will constantly be pondering "Ok, he didn't block. Do I modify it and potentially bleed his prey for 6? Or do I leave it at 3 when he's maybe out of bounce? If he lets a bleed for 3 go, is he just waiting for the bleed for 6 to bounce it?" A true horror for any heavy-bleed deck =) >In short: if you're basing a deck around the concept that it must >always be able to Wake, then using N of them is a good idea. But I >strongly disagree with the idea that that's the *only* way to use >Wakes. Your mileage may vary, of course. Mine has. =) but it may just be a difference in playgroup style. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78ksfo$qna$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: [snip a lot of stuff...to get to the clearest point in days...] > > Let me explain this to you, just once, 'cause I'm tired of hearing it: > "Stealth and Bleed IS NOT degenerate." Thanks for saying that straight out, Mark. I actually haven't played S&B in a long time, mainly because I thought it was nasty & evil & degenerate at first. I was the guy in our group who got trapped into trying to play intercept combat, and usually getting my ass handed to me. But S&B is not scary under NCL. To illustrate, a month or two ago, I was playing a 4-player game, and my prey was !Malkavian S&B. My deck would have shut him down just as quickly if *I* had been the prey. I was playing my wacky Tremere Potence/Thaumaturgy rush deck. My prey got out about 4 or 5 vampires, including Virgil & Vasantasena. The *only* actions any of them had time to take were dragging themselves out of torpor. Sabine Lafitte, Merill Molitor, and Sarah Cobbler *crushed* the !Malks because they had no combat defense to compete with Immortal Grapple followed up with Walk of Flame in the next round. S&B can be cowed easily whether you are the predator or prey, and there are a number of effective methods to do this in NCL, which Mark referred to, sort of. Intercept works, but I think it's generally the weakest option. Blood gain, when it gets rolling is better. Rush combat is next, and it's a favorite on the newsgroup because it is *not* reactive...allowing you to use your vampires/resources to maximum usefulness, hopefully. I think that bleed bounce is the *best* way to shut down S&B. There are 4 (I think...?) bounce cards available...Deflection, Redirection, Telepathic Misdirection, and My Enemy's Enemy. In general, I think Deflection is preferred, because although it costs 1, your vampires don't tap. Redirection is probably slightly better than Telepathic in most decks, but if you're playing intercept/bounce, Telepathic is the one to go with. Personally, I can think of less use for My Enemy's Enemy, because you don't have a choice who it gets bounced to, but I suppose in smaller games this will matter less. Now...only 2 groups of vampires generally have access to all 4 of these, the Malkavians and the Tremere. You really need 3 or 4 of these to have a *consistent* bleed bounce defense in 4CL. In NCL, however, you can determine which is most appropriate to your deck. Do you have big Ventrue with *lots* of blood on them? Go all Deflection. Do you have lots of small Toreador with guns? Go with mainly My Enemy's Enemy (that's +1 int at inferior, right?). I hope the picture is clearer. Under 4CL, if you wanted to build a deck that could bounce most bleeds that come at it, you need 2 disciplines that are only found in 2 clans. One of which you have almost ruled out of playing altogether. And really, once the Tremere are bouncing, they've used up a significant portion of their room for combat support. > 4CL doesn't tame S&B at all. NCL makes it another deck, with probably > a 1 in 5 chance of winning at a 5 person table, same as any other well > constructed and well played strategy. Very true. IMO, most well-built decks have a method of defense against most counter-strategies. If you want simple, here's the defense strategies with Nosferatu rush. vs. S&B: Combat. Send minions to torpor/burn before they harm you. vs. vote: Combat. Send minions that may vote to torpor. Send minions after the prince who called the last harmful vote. vs. prey: Combat. Make him keep spending more for minions. There you have it. How about a classic Ventrue vote deck? vs. S&B: Deflections vs. vote: counter-vote from permanants & cards from the hand. vs. combat: Skin of Steel Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xsocyb5...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:22:51 GMT, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at said: > CPilhatsch> I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It *should* be > CPilhatsch> able to beat at least the dodge. *sigh* > > AGREED! > > As it is, First Strike is a joke. In addition, it's very aggravating > to try to explain to newbies why something called "first strike" > doesn't work like a first strike - it actually resolves *after* S:CE > and dodge. It makes no game world sense, it makes no general sense. > > I'd love to see First Strike resolved *first*, then S:CE and Dodge. I > really can't see why it isn't that way, except "that's the way the > Rules Team ruled it once upon a time". Or maybe there is a good > argument, but I haven't heard it yet. You're all right -- First Strike is a joke. And I agree that it would be nice if it weren't. I think the problem is that there aren't enough First Strike cards to make it a very useful anti-Dodge/S:CE measure; it appears to me that First Strike was almost dropped by the wayside like Close Quarters, but it was used on a couple original set cards (Fast Hands, Canine Horde, Shattering Blow). It was picked up in later sets a little bit, but still not enough to be a very practical combat angle even if it did beat Dodge and S:CE. Plus, since FS has never beaten Dodge or S:CE, the rules team is reluctant to change that for the sake of so few cards, and in the absence of a compelling game-balance argument. So I think we're pretty much out of luck on this one. Josh poor first strike... the red-headed stepchild of combat effects [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Plus, since FS has never beaten Dodge or S:CE, the rules team is reluctant > to change that for the sake of so few cards, and in the absence of a > compelling game-balance argument. So I think we're pretty much out of > luck on this one. Maybe not entirely. If you can't win with WotC, maybe you can win with MJL. I'm sure that getting our rules team to discuss First Strike wouldn't be difficult...esp since Bernie and I are both on it. Since there will be a MJL sponsored tournament at Origins, some of you can help playtest whatever we come up with. *smiles* Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Is my ponytail doing anything for you?" -Wally, "Jan 19 Dilbert" (by Scott Adams) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ> To strike, your fist (or other strike element) must traverse the LSJ> distance from you to your opponent. When striking with First Strike, LSJ> either your traverse that distance faster (e.g., Fast Hands) or LSJ> you attack from a position/vantage point that allows your strike LSJ> to connect before your opponent can connect his strike to you LSJ> (e.g., Back Stab). This would logically be because your reactions and speed are quicker. LSJ> When Dodging, however, you are not attempting to get your strike LSJ> from here to there. You are simply moving out of the way of the LSJ> incoming strike. If someone is trying to get out of the way of an attack that moves faster than they are able to (Fast Hands) or an attack they don't know is coming (Silence of Death) or an attack from a superior vantage point (Back Stab), they are still unlikely to be successful in avoiding the strike. I don't see why First Strike vs. Dodge doesn't take this into effect since Dodge is _still_ just a strike. If you don't believe me, try to dodge a bullet. LSJ> When ending combat, the situation is much the same. Not really. S:CE strikes are usually due to some pre-emptive power. In the LARP, Majesty is an aura of immense charismatic power and anyone within the range of the aura must try to overcome this aura before being able to attack. Even if you have Super-Duper (tm) Celerity and Quietus, you still have to overcome the aura first. Most of the other S:CE cards are based on similar effects. Catatonic Fear, Staredown, Eyes of the Serpent and Mercy for the Weak are also based on extreme charismatic power and intimidation. Earth Meld, Form of Mist, Mummify, Rapid Change and Shadow Body are based on a pliant or insubstantial form. Spiritual Intervention and Preternatural Evasion is based on foreknowledge of events. Riposte (a misspelling of ripost...let's hear it for WotC editors) is based on a critical strike (I suppsose). LSJ> It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). LSJ> That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart LSJ> dodge and S:CE. Blessing of Durga Syn (an illusion) and Silence of Death are both arguably based on "surprise attack". LSJ> Try using "real world" terms that work to convey the official LSJ> operation. Certainly using terms like "surprise attack" when LSJ> descibing First Strike can lead to confusion. If you know the basis for the cards, I don't see how you could argue that the 2 cards above aren't based on surprise attack. LSJ> Not likely, since it isn't a problem (or, if it is a problem, it isn't LSJ> severe enough to warrant such a change). Depends on who you ask. Based on a close examination of the cards, I'd argue that First Strike should be resolved before Dodge but after S:CE [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78ksfo$qna$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > > artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message > <78j6in$mdr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >In article <78i4pm$j13$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, > > "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> >Pro-CL arguments: > >> > A) Force you to be more innovative with your deck designs > >> > B) Fix cards that are much more powerful than comparable cards > >> > C) Allow anyone with a small collection to make a deck that competes > >> with > >> > Mr. Suitcase > >> >Are there any other pro-CL arguments that I'm missing? > >> > >> D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. > > [In answer to an earlier question in this thread, this a Pro-CL argument > that is demonstratively wrong]. This particular point, D) was inserted by a NCL'er. Whilst there may be a perception that 4CL cite this as an end to 'degenerate S&B', as Mr L points out there is no such thing. I would suggest that the NCL'er who posted point D) however beleived entirley the opposite, hence my use of the term, but more on that below. > > >> >Pro-NL counter arguments: > >> > A) Actually require less thought because you just put in 4 or 6 or > >> > whatever of each card that does what you need. > > > >Putting in 8-12 of the card under NCL is even less mentally taxing. > However... > > > >NCLer 'But you just use the second tier cards instead, that not > innovative!' > > > >This is a slanted view; of course in many instances second tier cards will > be > >employed (which saves them from wallpaper, and is -as- creative as putting > in > >8-12 in the first place). However, in the situation where there is no > >standard second tier card, a 'creative solution' is -demanded-. > > Well, for you, maybe. I just put some more Immortal Grapples in my > deck if I need them, and proxy them if I don't have them. > I must admit I hadn't considered proxies, or the even more sensible arena of JOL where Mr. Suitcase might only have tha advantage of knowing what some cards look like... However, in the case of Tournament play, which I have always felt is the thrust of the NCL argument, this is forbidden [LSJ?]. Even given proxies, it still does not address the point that 4CL in many circumstances 'encourages' the use of secondary cards in a creative fashion. Whereas your proxies suggest; NCL'ers are obsessed with card multiples, and would rather resort to proxies than play the game as Garfield intended with the cards you have at hand, limited by your own resources and trading. I would be the first to agree, however, that proxies seem like an outstanding idea to offer a level playing field; but you must admit that both proxies and 4CL are just different ends of the scale for dealing with lack of access to unlimited cards. > >> > B) Short answer: the super powerful cards aren't any less powerful, > >> they just show up less often. > > > >I don't really grasp your counter point... we are restricting all cards, > >because it is considered unbalancing for 'super powerful cards' (your > words, > >so you suggest they exist) to appear in greater numbers. Without even > >needing to cite examples your 'rebuttal' is my argument; They do indeed > show > >up less often, and hence have less inpmact on the game. So in essence you > >agree that 4CL does lessen the impact of 'imbalanced' cards? > > No, we claim that the 4CL makes any imbalanced cards more of a > swing factor. > Say I've got my weenie potence deck. [snip - 'conjured' scenario that pre-supposes the NCL limit response to deck X is the only viable response, which is unavailable in 4CL...]. Therefore, I'm dead. > Bigger swing effect. > You must agree that your response was patronising in the extreme. It seemed to be based on the assumption that we are playing a game where you have off-handedly noticed a killer strategy that we 4CLers would be unable to counter [or even to of though of ourselves]. If that was the case, ie there was an un-assailable deck type then I wouldn't still be interested in Jyhad. The decks you have described are of course strong strategies, and have had their moments of prominence. They are liklely to appear agian in an evolved form given the cyclic nature of Jyhad. Decks evolve to be robust against any repeatedly played strategy. Since the pure strategy you advocate is unsustainable in 4CL doesn't mean 4CL limit is poor, it just means you are fixated on showing that the systems encourage differing strategies, but note, if that wasn't the case there would be no reason to prefer one enviroment over the other. Please do not try to show how bad 4CL is by saying, once again, that an effective strategy in NCL doesn't work... such things are obvious. > >> > C) While Mr. Handbag has maybe 8 of a given common and 1 of a > >> >comparable rare, Mr. Suitcase has more of the common card and > >> >probably 8 of the comparable rare. > > > >In your experience that may be the case. We have played 4CL almost > >exclusively. 5 years of trading has seen collections evolve to 4s and 4s > and > >4s. Indeed Mr. Suitcase often has 2-4 of any given given rare. Mr Handbag > >[great term by the way] often has 2-4 rares -for the decks which were his > >favourites-. This point boils down to differing play groups, and only > serves > >to emphasise that rare cards that are without second tier common > equivalents > >will give the edge to Mr Suitcase -in either enviroment-, but according to > >your figures even more so in NCL in which trading and purchasing was geared > >to increasing the disparity. > > Nope. I can purchase Govern the Unaligned and Lost In Crowds in > sets of 30 for basically the cost of postage, or buy another box for 7 and > get more of them than I need. GtU + LiC is roughly equivalent to Dominate > Kine, which will run me maybe a dollar apiece. Sure, the difference isn't > much, but when you multiply that against every common/rare equivalence, > it starts to get expensive. (And worse if the rare in question is only > available in Sabbat, where the rares are expensive. $2 for 20 Bewitching > Orations or $15+ for 4 Awes? Which investment gives me a better deck?) > Having bought no Sabbat I will limit the comments to my experience. Kine Dominance requires merely dom, you combo requires dom+obf. This addresses issues of Crypt efficiency, now I must have obf. It also require double the deck space, before I even start considering obfustcate skill cards [working on the assumption that if Kine Dominance is important to my deck I am dominate clan sans obfuscate. Instead easily I could add some Bonding which require DOM which is certainly not rare, or Dominate Kine (which I suspect is). Ultimately you fail to address the point about trading. Cards that weren't rare under the 4CL were literally thrown at extracting rares from Mr Handbag, it was not unusual to see hundreds of cards pursuing single rares. In NCL such trades [except under present conditions where cards are filthy cheap] strike me as un-likely... especially in the cases of uncommons where 12 would be a uesful number. As I have said before the point is largely moot as large numbers are not entering the game [here at least]. I would be hard pressed to argue your conclusion about which gives the better deck - for that one situation. Add up your sums to buy this number of commons for each common card. We stand at 4's and 4's and 4's. You seem to be advocating a move to financial Jyhad to support a wide range of decks. This would immediately support Mr. Suitcase who has already demonstrated a much greater desire to pursue Jyhad financially... > >> D) In your dreams. > > > >Many suggest gentlemanly play, and evolved gamemanship as restraining > factors > >in the non-play of degenerate decks. Even without needing to cite such a > >weak, but prominent argument common to both sides, the arrival of such > cards > >as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B degeneracy > >much less > > Let me explain this to you, just once, 'cause I'm tired of hearing it: > "Stealth and Bleed IS NOT degenerate." I agree 100%, but as defending the alledged point that 'easy-cheesy [which I took to mean degenerate, and had been inserted by a NCLer] S&B decks where curtailed by 4CL' was part of my specifications for $x, you must note that it now seems a little harsh to tell me it was a trick question. You will therefore forgive me if a simply replace the word 'degeneracy' with the phrase 'easy-cheesy strategy', which paraphrases the oroginal point, and retains my original meaning. '"Even without needing to cite such a weak, but prominent argument common to both sides [gentlemanly play], the arrival of such cards as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B easy-cheesy strategy much less effective.'" This is true in both 4CL and NCL. So, yes I agree with you that 4CL doesn't curb S&B degeneracy, because even if there was such a thing it long ago became a non-issue. You'll see below that I had already made the point that 4CL doesn't 'tame' S&B any more than NCL. > Trust me on this. I play S&B sometimes when I play Jyhad in a NCL > group. I am not guaranteed to sweep the table.[snip S&B dege..erm easy- cheesy' > > >of a head-ache (whilst admittedly conferring a 'must have' cachet on these > >cards). The fact remains that we want to win in intriguing and 'cool' ways > >just as much as you do and will similarly try new ideas... just try playing > >pure Ravnos in 4CL with no Sabbat. 4CL doesn't tame S&B anymore than NCL > >does, unless of course you are gambling on that counter strategy , and the > >random draw of the game may see you sandwhiched between rush and > politics... > >oh dear. > > 4CL doesn't tame S&B at all. NCL makes it another deck, with probably > a 1 in 5 chance of winning at a 5 person table, same as any other well > constructed and well played strategy. > Ditto. With the reference to NCL replaced with 'Protected Resources, Archon Investigation'. > >> Remember folks, there's a $50 bounty for a literate article that > rebuts > >> Pro-NL counter arguments A-D without simply repeating Pro-CL arguments > >> A-D. Easy money. I'm good for it. > > By the way, any Pro-CL rebuttal of the Pro-NL arguments that starts with > "S&B is degenerate" is not going to get any money from me, 'cause it's > not an adequate rebuttal. My mistake, but the point D) was added by a NCL, and did seem to imply that was the argument. > > -Mark Langsdorf > Jyhad Archivist > http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ > > Bank account details available on request. artaxerxes the monocled 4CL'er [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78o0se$n0i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Even given proxies, it still does not address the point that 4CL in many > circumstances 'encourages' the use of secondary cards in a creative fashion. > Whereas your proxies suggest; NCL'ers are obsessed with card multiples, and > would rather resort to proxies than play the game as Garfield intended with > the cards you have at hand, limited by your own resources and trading. No one I've ever played any sort of CCG with has allowed proxies. The whole point of CCG's is basically pitting what you can make of your collection against what another guy can make of his collection. With proxies, that element is removed. JOL is an interesting case. For me, it's an interesting test bed for strategy feasability, but otherwise I could take it or leave it. > >Mark Langsdor wrote: > > No, we claim that the 4CL makes any imbalanced cards more of a > > swing factor. > > Say I've got my weenie potence deck. [snip - 'conjured' scenario > that pre-supposes the NCL limit response to deck X is the only viable > response, which is unavailable in 4CL...]. Therefore, I'm dead. > > Bigger swing effect. > You must agree that your response was patronising in the extreme. It seemed > to be based on the assumption that we are playing a game where you have > off-handedly noticed a killer strategy that we 4CLers would be unable to > counter [or even to of though of ourselves]. Actually, I believe the point he is trying to make is that cards like RtI take specific preparation (preparing for bleed isn't the same as preparing for RtI). If you aren't ready for an RtI when it comes, you are dead. You could have maybe taken a 6 point or higher bleed, but not a 10 or higher bleed which RtI usually is. The as-written RtI is the same problem under NL as it is under CL. That is, unless you are specifically prepared for that card when it comes, you are dead. > Ultimately you fail to address the point about trading. Cards that weren't > rare under the 4CL were literally thrown at extracting rares from Mr Handbag, > it was not unusual to see hundreds of cards pursuing single rares. In NCL > such trades [except under present conditions where cards are filthy cheap] > strike me as un-likely... especially in the cases of uncommons where 12 would > be a uesful number. As I have said before the point is largely moot > as large numbers are not entering the game [here at least]. Nope, not un-likely. I've often traded players with smaller collections several commons, uncommons, or vampires for that single rare I wanted. Under your system, once Mr. Handbag has benefited from Mr. Suitcase, how many more times does he need to make such trades before he has all the commons he can ever need, especially under CL? > I would be hard pressed to argue your conclusion about which gives the > better deck - for that one situation. Add up your sums to buy this number of > commons for each common card. We stand at 4's and 4's and 4's. You seem to > be advocating a move to financial Jyhad to support a wide range of decks. > > This would immediately support Mr. Suitcase who has already demonstrated > a much greater desire to pursue Jyhad financially... Mr. Suitcase has a similar advantage under CL as NL. However, under CL, his advantage is greater, especially if the difference between collection sizes is smaller. What I mean is, if Mr. Suitcase has 4 commons and 3 comparable rare, how likely is he to trade one of those 3 comparable rares to Mr. Handbag? > question. You will therefore forgive me if a simply replace the word > 'degeneracy' with the phrase 'easy-cheesy strategy', which paraphrases the > oroginal point, and retains my original meaning. I can certainly accept that. :) > '"Even without needing to cite such a weak, but prominent argument > common to both sides [gentlemanly play], the arrival of such cards > as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B easy-cheesy > strategy much less effective.'" This is true in both 4CL and NCL. I don't know who said this, but I disagree. Archon Investigation to a certain extent because of it's deterrent, but Protected Resources definitely doesn't. I've only seen 1 in the 3+ years it's been in circulation. > So, yes I agree with you that 4CL doesn't curb S&B degeneracy, because even > if there was such a thing it long ago became a non-issue. You'll see below > that I had already made the point that 4CL doesn't 'tame' S&B any more > than NCL. But many would say that S&B loses its balance with the other main strategies under 4CL. There are multitudes of stealth cards and lots of bleed cards. A 4CL actually forces a S&B deck to be a little better by being a little more diversified in card selection. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > [clip] > I must admit I hadn't considered proxies, or the even more sensible arena of > JOL where Mr. Suitcase might only have tha advantage of knowing what some > cards look like... However, in the case of Tournament play, which I have > always felt is the thrust of the NCL argument, this is forbidden [LSJ?]. Proxies are not allowed in tournaments. -- Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net _________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization

<Somewhat in response to LSJ's post> Back in the day I argued these points for First Strike (much of what has been said in this thread). That was also the days when we had a spotty rules team. Now that we have an active rules team who obviously aren't afraid to make changes to the game (7/7 anyone?) why is the idea of altering the timing of First Strike reprehensible? Of all the things that players may or may not agree with about Jyhad, the one thing many people would agree upon is that First Strike is underpowered for what it should be. Personally, I can live with the fact that Strike:Combat Ends can beat a First Strike. And per Noal's musing, Dodge is a strike card. And yes, to borrow from Magic:TG.. Every Magic player knows what First Strike is from that game, and many newcomers to V:TES will more than likely be coming from that group. It would be a better transition for NEWB's if game terms are kept as similar as possible. Can you give me an example of how allowing First Strke pre-empting a Dodge somehow puts Jyhad out of whack? It certainly would be a more well received rule change than some others.. Bernie Bresnahan Michigan Jyhad League

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:08 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >a pliant or insubstantial form. Spiritual Intervention and Preternatural >Evasion is based on foreknowledge of events. Riposte (a misspelling of >ripost...let's hear it for WotC editors) is based on a critical strike >(I suppsose). Nit-picky totally unrelated point on: Riposte (the correct spelling) is a fencing term which generally consists of a block that leads -immediately- into a counterstrike - a block that has been made in such a way to facilitate an immediate counterstrike, instead of a purely defensive block. Why it's an S:CE card I have no idea. Their spelling is accurate... but their word choice makes my teeth grind. To have an accurate name, this card could be dodge with additional strike at inferior for 1 blood, and dodge with a press and First Strike next round at superior for same. (both demonstrating superior combat speed in that you are able to defend -and- counterattack in the same action.) But then again, this card -does- come from the same editors who named a +hand damage card Torn Signpost. =) Nit-picky totally unrelated point off. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal>Riposte (a misspelling of ripost...let's hear it for WotC editors) Noal> is based on a critical strike (I suppsose). Derek> Nit-picky totally unrelated point on: Derek> Derek> Riposte (the correct spelling) is a fencing term which generally Incorrect. Ripost is the fencing term. Riposte has nothing to do with fencing. Now watch me get nit-picky. *grin* From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) Ripost \Ri*post"\, n. [F. riposte.] 1. In fencing, a return thrust after a parry. 2. A quick and sharp refort; a repartee. --J. Morley. From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) riposte n : a reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical one); "it brought a sharp rejoinder from the teacher" [syn: {rejoinder}, {retort}, {return}, {comeback}] v : answer back [syn: {retort}, {come back}, {repay}, {return}, {rejoin}] > consists of a block that leads -immediately- into a counterstrike - a > block that has been made in such a way to facilitate an immediate > counterstrike, instead of a purely defensive block. > Why it's an S:CE card I have no idea. Agreed. I could see it as a First Strike card much easier than a S:CE. > Their spelling is accurate...but their word choice makes my teeth grind. As noted above, the spelling is incorrect. However... > To have an accurate name, > this card could be dodge with additional strike at inferior for 1 > blood, and dodge with a press and First Strike next round at superior > for same. (both demonstrating superior combat speed in that you are > able to defend -and- counterattack in the same action.) I would agree with this. Their choice of title for this card leaves much to be desired. > But then again, this card -does- come from the same editors who named > a +hand damage card Torn Signpost. =) Amen brother. *grin* Noal -- "Is my ponytail doing anything for you?" -Wally, "Jan 19 Dilbert" (by Scott Adams) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36aff873...@news.mich.com>, ber...@mich.com wrote: > Can you give me an example of how allowing First Strke pre-empting > a Dodge somehow puts Jyhad out of whack? It certainly would be a > more well received rule change than some others.. Makes equipment even more generally worthless as stealing and destroying become much easier? Makes the Assamites too powerful? Not likely, but a possiblity. :) More than likely, they would be brough on par with the other combat oriented clans. As it currently stands, First Strike only does you any good if the other guys actually trying to hit you back rather than run away (S:CE) or get out of the way (dodge). Cards affected: Backstab - Moves towards being really useful. Still requires a block. Blessing of Durga Syn - Chimerstry steal with first strike Canine Horde - If they are at long range with a weapon, they probably already aren't going to dodge. Fast Hands - Celerity steal with first strike Muddled Vampire Hunter - Would improve slightly Shattering Blow - Potence destroy with first strike Silence of Death - First strike with hand or melee. Since Assamites are generally better at long range, I don't see it helping them a ton. And that's it. Are there any real benefits from changing how First Strike works in the rule book? Not really other than possibly eliminating some confusion. Perhaps the words First Strike should be chandged to First Attack. Then you don't have any sensical problems. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:36:14 GMT, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: Several layers of quotations snipped by me - a bunch of different people have posted in this thread. >> >> D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. >> >> [In answer to an earlier question in this thread, this a Pro-CL argument >> that is demonstratively wrong]. > >This particular point, D) was inserted by a NCL'er. Whilst there may be a >perception that 4CL cite this as an end to 'degenerate S&B', as Mr L points >out there is no such thing. I would suggest that the NCL'er who posted point >D) however beleived entirley the opposite, hence my use of the term, but more >on that below. Card Limit advocates USED to cite this as one of the good things that CL brought to the game. It was one of the easier ones to disprove. But just in case someone who hadn't been around wanted to bring it up... it's only fair to list -all- the arguments that have been aimed at your side in the past. >> >8-12 in the first place). However, in the situation where there is no >> >standard second tier card, a 'creative solution' is -demanded-. >> >> Well, for you, maybe. I just put some more Immortal Grapples in my >> deck if I need them, and proxy them if I don't have them. > >I must admit I hadn't considered proxies, or the even more sensible arena of > JOL where Mr. Suitcase might only have tha advantage of knowing what some >cards look like... However, in the case of Tournament play, which I have >always felt is the thrust of the NCL argument, this is forbidden [LSJ?]. Proxies are forbidden in tournament play, yes. =) Not to mention the wack 40% - 60% card back limit is still in force, which I suppose I understand but find it can be a real pain. Conveniently, the Sabbat reprinted enough identical cards with Vampire backs. =) >Even given proxies, it still does not address the point that 4CL in many >circumstances 'encourages' the use of secondary cards in a creative fashion. >Whereas your proxies suggest; NCL'ers are obsessed with card multiples, and >would rather resort to proxies than play the game as Garfield intended with >the cards you have at hand, limited by your own resources and trading. I believe that very few NCLers use proxies, actually. I've only seen our group use proxies to play cards from a set they didn't buy - and usually only 2 or 3 of one specific card, and no more. Which is not unreasonable in my eyes, since there -are- some handy cards that came out of other sets that aren't so easy to get anymore. I've never seen anyone proxy anything like 12 Kine Dominance, though - that's just silly. I've never used proxies in a deck, myself, even though I only have 9 Immortal Grapples and would really really REALLY like to have 12 since that sort of deck really -needs- 12. I just figured "well, i'll grab on to people less, i spose." and went with it. It was close enough. I don't see how 4CL encourages a creative use of secondary cards, frankly. Consider all the posts regarding BO v. Awe and the problems it causes under a 6CL... How do you make a vote deck that can consistently pass its own votes under a 4CL? Titles? those come out slow. If other people are bringing out titles too, you go nowhere. Praxis Seizures? You can't have more than 4 in your deck - so you won't always get them when you need them... which is early on. Justicars? better hope nobody is using that clan too, or you could be voted down right quick, AND the same problem as Praxis Seizures - not to mention you can only do it once. You -NEED- 12 'gain vote' modifiers to be sure of having your early votes passed, and potentially your later votes once other titles have shown up on the table. Under 4CL, your option is: 4BO, 4Awe, 4 Business Pressure, and Business Pressure is really just crap. There isn't any creativity involved there... just desperation. >> No, we claim that the 4CL makes any imbalanced cards more of a >> swing factor. >> Say I've got my weenie potence deck. [snip - 'conjured' scenario >that pre-supposes the NCL limit response to deck X is the only viable >response, which is unavailable in 4CL...]. Therefore, I'm dead. >> Bigger swing effect. > >You must agree that your response was patronising in the extreme. It seemed >to be based on the assumption that we are playing a game where you have >off-handedly noticed a killer strategy that we 4CLers would be unable to >counter [or even to of though of ourselves]. If that was the case, ie there >was an un-assailable deck type then I wouldn't still be interested in Jyhad. I wonder just how strong weenie Presence bleed IS when facing 4CL decks... let's see... social charm, legal manipulations, media influence, enchant kindred, entrancement, intimidation, and propaganda. That's roughly equivalent to Mr. Wampler's 30 Social Charm deck - 28 cards. Now for the combat defense - 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown, 4 Catatonic Fear, 4 generic Dodge maybe. 4 Blood Dolls will eventually give you someone you can make hunt every turn for you. 4 Tribute to the Masters are a must for this deck. 4 Delaying Tactics to stop Ancilla Empowerment. 4 Presence Masters to take advantage of the superiors as necessary. There's a 60 card deck right there. Swap out those 4 Dodge for 4 Effective Managements as well, and maybe rip out the 4 Propaganda for 4 Info Highways, since 2 blood is expensive. Either stick 4 Misdirections in just at random, or swap out for something else - maybe the Presence masters. The crypt: every presence weenie of 3 or less that you can cram in there. Duplicates of the 1-caps. I dunno. This deck is sufficiently ugly under NCL, where you can always pile on the Wakes, Deflections or Rat's Warnings as a defense. I'm not sure HOW i'd defend against this deck under 4CL - I think you'd be forced to use Justine or Atonement, and if I MUST include a card or vampire in every deck to defend, something is wrong with the system. In other words, there may BE a nearly unassailable deck under 4CL - that becomes defensible under NCL without completely sacrificing the purpose of the deck. > The decks you have described are of course strong strategies, and have had >their moments of prominence. They are liklely to appear agian in an evolved their moment of prominence is continuing as we speak. the weenie bleed deck is alive and well, and will continue to be alive and well for a long time. >form given the cyclic nature of Jyhad. Decks evolve to be robust against any >repeatedly played strategy. Since the pure strategy you advocate is >unsustainable in 4CL doesn't mean 4CL limit is poor, it just means you are >fixated on showing that the systems encourage differing strategies, but note, >if that wasn't the case there would be no reason to prefer one enviroment >over the other. Please do not try to show how bad 4CL is by saying, once >again, that an effective strategy in NCL doesn't work... such things are >obvious. It's not that 4CL encourages DIFFERENT strategies - it doesn't! It's that 4CL has FEWER strategies... when you go from NL to 4CL and start losing effective strategies to deal with things, eventually your decks all end up looking the same. Why should I be forced to put Wakes and intercept in my combat decks because a creative option is not available? Look at it this way. A deck is behind me that will bleed me heavily at stealth. The obvious solutions are: intercept the stealth, or bounce the bleed. The less obvious (creative) solutions are: gain more pool than he can bleed. oust my prey first (move fast)... and "Go beat up the vampires before they can take actions against me." A 4CL removes at least one creative solution, and pushes me more towards using the common intercept or bounce instead of building a deck whose offense and defense are interchangeable. >> Nope. I can purchase Govern the Unaligned and Lost In Crowds in >> sets of 30 for basically the cost of postage, or buy another box for 7 and >> get more of them than I need. GtU + LiC is roughly equivalent to Dominate >> Kine, which will run me maybe a dollar apiece. Sure, the difference isn't >> much, but when you multiply that against every common/rare equivalence, >> it starts to get expensive. (And worse if the rare in question is only >> available in Sabbat, where the rares are expensive. $2 for 20 Bewitching >> Orations or $15+ for 4 Awes? Which investment gives me a better deck?) > >Having bought no Sabbat I will limit the comments to my experience. > >Kine Dominance requires merely dom, you combo requires dom+obf. >This addresses issues of Crypt efficiency, now I must have obf. >It also require double the deck space, before I even start considering >obfustcate skill cards [working on the assumption that if Kine Dominance >is important to my deck I am dominate clan sans obfuscate. Instead >easily I could add some Bonding which require DOM which is certainly not rare, >or Dominate Kine (which I suspect is). Oh, goodness. Malkavians have obf + dom out the wazoo. Crypt efficiency of this particular combination is not very much in question. A brief search reveals that 29 different vampires have some form of obfuscate AND some form of dominate, and 12 of them are Malkavian. Compare this to another common sneak and bleed (Dominate/Protean), where only 15 vampires have at least dom/pro and the most common clan is the Gangrel... with 4 vamps. Kine Dominance is a 2-cost action-bleed of 2 at +1 stealth, by the way. Govern the Unaligned + Lost in Crowds is a 1-cost action-bleed of 3 at +1 or +2 stealth, depending on whether you have big or little OBF. It may require more space, but frankly, it's more effective by leaps and bounds since you can bring out smaller vampires who have to hunt less often since they aren't paying very much blood. For Kine Dominance, you MUST have a 4-cap vampire or he can only do it once before he has to hunt or gain blood in some way. For GtU + LiC... well... that same 4-cap, Roland Bishop, can do it 4 times instead of 2, and is bleeding for 1 extra bleed every action at the same stealth. Worth it in the library space investment? You betcha. It's not just the cards in your deck, it's whether you can PLAY them. >Ultimately you fail to address the point about trading. Cards that weren't >rare under the 4CL were literally thrown at extracting rares from Mr Handbag, >it was not unusual to see hundreds of cards pursuing single rares. In NCL >such trades [except under present conditions where cards are filthy cheap] >strike me as un-likely... especially in the cases of uncommons where 12 would >be a uesful number. As I have said before the point is largely moot >as large numbers are not entering the game [here at least]. And it's a damn good thing that such trades were unlikely - I dislike seeing people trick new players (as Mr. Handbags normally are very new) out of cards that they may wish they had later. I am about to GIVE away two boxfuls of commons, uncommons, and some rares to a local Mr. Handbag, and depending on which rare he needs I can probably give him some of those too. (I only have 9 Immortal Grapples. I can't give those away - they all live in one of my decks.) Present conditions aren't likely to change. Jyhad cards are going to remain filthy cheap for a long time. I'm not actually sure what the point about trading you were going to make is, by the way. >I would be hard pressed to argue your conclusion about which gives the >better deck - for that one situation. Add up your sums to buy this number of >commons for each common card. We stand at 4's and 4's and 4's. You seem to >be advocating a move to financial Jyhad to support a wide range of decks. most 4CLers advocate that 'more creativity is required to play under 4CL'. I submit that by permitting a wider range of decks, more creativity is being encouraged since some truly wack ideas can be brought forth. (The 35-cryptic mission deck. the Betrayer deck.) >This would immediately support Mr. Suitcase who has already demonstrated >a much greater desire to pursue Jyhad financially... and a 4CL supports Mr. Suitcase even more, who under a 4CL has a much less difficult time getting 4 of every card he needs. >> 4CL doesn't tame S&B at all. NCL makes it another deck, with probably >> a 1 in 5 chance of winning at a 5 person table, same as any other well >> constructed and well played strategy. > >Ditto. With the reference to NCL replaced with 'Protected Resources, Archon >Investigation'. Under 4CL, i suspect you require Protected Resources and Archon Investigation to deal with a properly made S&B. Under NCL, there are significantly more means besides just using those two cards. >> By the way, any Pro-CL rebuttal of the Pro-NL arguments that starts with >> "S&B is degenerate" is not going to get any money from me, 'cause it's >> not an adequate rebuttal. > >My mistake, but the point D) was added by a NCL, and did seem to imply that >was the argument. as mentioned above, and repeated here because it was a long way above, Point (D) has been tried before and therefore needs to be included for form's sake. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:08 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: LSJ> Not likely, since it isn't a problem (or, if it is a problem, it isn't LSJ> severe enough to warrant such a change). Dharzhak> Depends on who you ask. Based on a close examination of the Dharzhak> cards, I'd argue that First Strike should be resolved before Dharzhak> Dodge but after S:CE Agree with your comments on the S:CE game world effects (i.e. an attacker must overcome Majesty etc in order to attack), so on second thought having S:CE beat First Strike is more-or-less logical. Also agree with you that First Strike should beat dodge. I know it's a minor point (like LSJ said), but it still *is* a point. As a counterpoint to the "it's such a small thing that it's not worth the bother to change it" argument, one could also say that *since* it's such a small point, changing it would involve minor effort and would make quite a few players happy. Change a few lines in the rule book, issue a new Rules Team Ruling. Essentially, it would make Muddles a bit more scary against weenie decks (IMHO a good thing) and give Assamites and other clans with celerity a weapon against dodge by using Silence of Death / Backstab (IMHO also a good thing). Personally, I *do* know that the "dodge beats First Strike" rule causes a major "huh?" factor for new players. Having S:CE as the only special class of strikes would help, IMHO. //Petri

Ok, since this is a point that interests me and our local play group, I'd like to see how everyone else feels about the issue of First Strike. Let's try this: everyone who has an opinion on this issue please fill out the checkboxes below and email your opinion to me. I'll collect the votes and summarize everything sometime next week. LSJ: don't panic, I'm not trying to stage a "change the rules!" coup or anything :). I'm just curious as to what the general consensus is on this matter - and you might be, too. //Petri - - - - In my opinion: [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is fine, don't change anything. [ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to change. [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but not S:CE). [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE and Dodge. [ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) Other comments:

In article <7x90enn0...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > In my opinion: > > [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. > > [x] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to > change. > > [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). > > [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. > > [ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! > Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) > > Other comments: The net gain isn't worth changing what's already there. It sounds more like changing for the sake of changing rather than any kind of in game issues. Perhaps a re-wording of "First Strike" to "First Attack." [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@mich.com wrote: > Back in the day I argued these points for First Strike (much of > what has been said in this thread). That was also the days when > we had a spotty rules team. Now that we have an active rules team > who obviously aren't afraid to make changes to the game (7/7 anyone?) > why is the idea of altering the timing of First Strike reprehensible? It is not "reprehensible". It is merely not warranted. And change must be warranted to be implemented. > Of all the things that players may or may not agree with about Jyhad, > the one thing many people would agree upon is that First Strike is > underpowered for what it should be. > > Personally, I can live with the fact that Strike:Combat Ends can beat > a First Strike. And per Noal's musing, Dodge is a strike card. > > And yes, to borrow from Magic:TG.. Every Magic player knows what > First Strike is from that game, and many newcomers to V:TES will > more than likely be coming from that group. It would be a better > transition for NEWB's if game terms are kept as similar as possible. > > Can you give me an example of how allowing First Strke pre-empting > a Dodge somehow puts Jyhad out of whack? It certainly would be a > more well received rule change than some others.. Can you give me an example of how the rules the way they are (and have always been) somehow puts VTES out of whack? That is necessary for change. Just because a change doesn't produce an unbalancing effect isn't a sufficient reason to make a change. cf. Concealed Weapon. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > LSJ> To strike, your fist (or other strike element) must traverse the > LSJ> distance from you to your opponent. When striking with First Strike, > LSJ> either your traverse that distance faster (e.g., Fast Hands) or > LSJ> you attack from a position/vantage point that allows your strike > LSJ> to connect before your opponent can connect his strike to you > LSJ> (e.g., Back Stab). > > This would logically be because your reactions and speed are quicker. Well, because your speed is quicker, yes. Celerity and all. > LSJ> When Dodging, however, you are not attempting to get your strike > LSJ> from here to there. You are simply moving out of the way of the > LSJ> incoming strike. > > If someone is trying to get out of the way of an attack that moves faster > than they are able to (Fast Hands) The attack moves faster than they do, but they have to cover a much shorter distance - the point of the attck. So even at their "slower" speed, they can manage to get out of the way in time. > or an attack they don't know is coming > (Silence of Death) or an attack from a superior vantage point (Back Stab), > they are still unlikely to be successful in avoiding the strike. I don't see > why First Strike vs. Dodge doesn't take this into effect since Dodge is > _still_ just a strike. Right. Just a strike that protects the dodger from the opposing strike, regardless of the opposing strike's speed. I still don't see why the people who argue against this don't take this into account. > If you don't believe me, try to dodge a bullet. Improper argument. Try moving out of the way just as your opponent attempts to pull the trigger. Much easier (esp. for an immortal). > LSJ> When ending combat, the situation is much the same. > > Not really. S:CE strikes are usually due to some pre-emptive power. OK. So long as we both agree that S:CE should preclude First Strike. > Evasion is based on foreknowledge of events. Riposte (a misspelling of > ripost...let's hear it for WotC editors) is based on a critical strike > (I suppsose). Riposte is the proper spelling, according to Webster' II New Riverside University Dictionary. And I have no idea how that (riposte) is supposed to produce a combat ends effect. But there it is. :-) > LSJ> It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). > LSJ> That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart > LSJ> dodge and S:CE. > > Blessing of Durga Syn (an illusion) and Silence of Death are both arguably > based on "surprise attack". For Silence of Death, sure. Durga Syn, not so much, but arguably so. (It could just be a distracting tactic). I suppose the card designers just used the First Strike effect to simulate the surprise attack for Silence of Death, because attempting to do so by other means (like Hidden Lurker) was considered too complicated (or too powerful?). It seems like a Hidden-Lurker-style effect would have been more appropriate for Silence of Death. As it is, Silence of Death can give you a "surprise attack" on your additional strikes in the round (oh, big surprise there) or even on the second or later rounds. So the "surprise attack" explanation still fails for the current implementation of Silence of Death. > LSJ> Try using "real world" terms that work to convey the official > LSJ> operation. Certainly using terms like "surprise attack" when > LSJ> descibing First Strike can lead to confusion. > > If you know the basis for the cards, I don't see how you could > argue that the 2 cards above aren't based on surprise attack. OK. And the implementation could've modelled that better. But (by opting to use the S:CE mechanic, among other things), it didn't. > LSJ> Not likely, since it isn't a problem (or, if it is a problem, it isn't > LSJ> severe enough to warrant such a change). > > Depends on who you ask. Based on a close examination of the > cards, I'd argue that First Strike should be resolved before Dodge > but after S:CE Based on a close examination of the cards and rulebooks (throughout the ages), I'd argue that First Strike is right the way it is (and maybe some of the cards should've used a different mechanic, but it's a little late for that now - and certainly no reason to change the mechanic those cards use to match their particular slant). [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >I must admit I hadn't considered proxies, or the even more sensible arena of > > JOL where Mr. Suitcase might only have tha advantage of knowing what some > >cards look like... However, in the case of Tournament play, which I have > >always felt is the thrust of the NCL argument, this is forbidden [LSJ?]. > > Proxies are forbidden in tournament play, yes. =) Not to mention the > wack 40% - 60% card back limit is still in force, which I suppose I The "wack" 40% - 60% rule is not "in force" by the DCI - it is an optional rule that individual tournament coordinators can choose to use. If they choose to use it, that fact must be advertised before the tournament. If it is not announced before the tourney, then it is not in force. [DCI 2.1.1] For the complete set of official DCI rules, see the URL below: http://www.wizards.com/DCI/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

> Present conditions aren't likely to change. Jyhad cards are going to > remain filthy cheap for a long time. Snif... Not in Europe (at least in France). And the shipping costs make buying from American retainers even more expensive... L~R :(

Derek S. Ray wrote in message <2A5CC5C7CA40E766.21525868...@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:36:14 GMT, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >Several layers of quotations snipped by me - a bunch of different >people have posted in this thread. The comments in >>> and >>> >> are mine, by the way. I'd like to thank artaxerxes for trying to win my bounty. Could you write up your arguments as a single, clean article that I can easily post to my webpage? I'm willing to work with you on this - like go through my own page, figure out a short list of NCL arguments, and mail them to you. As it is, this is the right idea, but I'm not willing to cut and snip and edit your post to make a single coherent article. (When I did that with Robert Goudie, two years later he comes back and tells me I took his comments out of context. =) ). >>> >> D) Balances out easy-cheesy decks like Stealth and Bleed. >>> >>> [In answer to an earlier question in this thread, this a Pro-CL argument >>> that is demonstratively wrong]. >> >>This particular point, D) was inserted by a NCL'er. Whilst there may be a >>perception that 4CL cite this as an end to 'degenerate S&B', as Mr L points >>out there is no such thing. I would suggest that the NCL'er who posted point >>D) however beleived entirley the opposite, hence my use of the term, but more >>on that below. > >Card Limit advocates USED to cite this as one of the good things that >CL brought to the game. It was one of the easier ones to disprove. >But just in case someone who hadn't been around wanted to bring it >up... it's only fair to list -all- the arguments that have been aimed >at your side in the past. Right. Uhm, by the way, the "NCL'er who posted point D)" and Mr. L. would be the same person: me. >>Even given proxies, it still does not address the point that 4CL in many >>circumstances 'encourages' the use of secondary cards in a creative fashion. >>Whereas your proxies suggest; NCL'ers are obsessed with card multiples, and >>would rather resort to proxies than play the game as Garfield intended with >>the cards you have at hand, limited by your own resources and trading. > >I don't see how 4CL encourages a creative use of secondary cards, >frankly. Consider all the posts regarding BO v. Awe and the problems >it causes under a 6CL... How do you make a vote deck that can >consistently pass its own votes under a 4CL? Titles? those come out >slow. If other people are bringing out titles too, you go nowhere. >Praxis Seizures? You can't have more than 4 in your deck - so you >won't always get them when you need them... which is early on. >Justicars? better hope nobody is using that clan too, or you could be >voted down right quick, AND the same problem as Praxis Seizures - not >to mention you can only do it once. You -NEED- 12 'gain vote' >modifiers to be sure of having your early votes passed, and >potentially your later votes once other titles have shown up on the >table. Under 4CL, your option is: 4BO, 4Awe, 4 Business Pressure, >and Business Pressure is really just crap. There isn't any creativity >involved there... just desperation. Right. And as someone else pointed out, I don't put cards in my deck to look at the pretty pictures. I put them in to win. Why should I need to add a second type of card, that doesn't do what I want as well as I'd like, when I have 5 more of the first type that work better? >>> No, we claim that the 4CL makes any imbalanced cards more of a >>> swing factor. >>> Say I've got my weenie potence deck. [snip - 'conjured' scenario >>that pre-supposes the NCL limit response to deck X is the only viable >>response, which is unavailable in 4CL...]. Therefore, I'm dead. >>> Bigger swing effect. >> >>You must agree that your response was patronising in the extreme. It seemed >>to be based on the assumption that we are playing a game where you have >>off-handedly noticed a killer strategy that we 4CLers would be unable to >>counter [or even to of though of ourselves]. If that was the case, ie there >>was an un-assailable deck type then I wouldn't still be interested in Jyhad. Sorry. I really don't mean to be patronizing. Ever. At all. I don't agree with you. That doesn't mean I think you're less intelligent than me. >[Snip example 4CL presence deck] [ quoted text not captured ] Right. Okay. When a NCL'er says "card limits also limit deck variety" he doesn't mean the number of decks you can build. He means the number of viable decks is reduced. Under the original Jyhad rules and a 4CL, S&B dominates so heavily that all other decks need to include Bounce or Intercept. That, in turn, destroys all low-stealth decks, because everyone can block a 1 stealth action. So the problem just gets worse. >>> Nope. I can purchase Govern the Unaligned and Lost In Crowds in >>> sets of 30 for basically the cost of postage, or buy another box for 7 and >>> get more of them than I need. GtU + LiC is roughly equivalent to Dominate >>> Kine, which will run me maybe a dollar apiece. Sure, the difference isn't >>> much, but when you multiply that against every common/rare equivalence, >>> it starts to get expensive. (And worse if the rare in question is only >>> available in Sabbat, where the rares are expensive. $2 for 20 Bewitching >>> Orations or $15+ for 4 Awes? Which investment gives me a better deck?) >> >>Having bought no Sabbat I will limit the comments to my experience. >> >>Kine Dominance requires merely dom, you combo requires dom+obf. >>This addresses issues of Crypt efficiency, now I must have obf. >>It also require double the deck space, before I even start considering >>obfustcate skill cards [working on the assumption that if Kine Dominance >>is important to my deck I am dominate clan sans obfuscate. Instead >>easily I could add some Bonding which require DOM which is certainly not rare, >>or Dominate Kine (which I suspect is). Sigh. I want a Malk deck that can bleed consistently. I build a Obf/Dom crypt. I throw in Lost in Crowds, Faceless Night, Govern the Unaligned, and so on. But that's only 28 cards, and I think I need more S&B than that. I still have plenty of Lic, FN, GtU, CtG, Bon, Thr, and Con, but no other modifiers unless I buy them. So under a 4CL, I need to buy Kine Dominance. Kine Dominance isn't really any better than GtU + LiC. Maybe a little more effecient in the library space, but I have plenty of that. So why are you telling me my deck is unbalanced when I put in 5 GtU and 5 LiC but not when I put in 4 GtU, 4 LiC, and 1 KD? (Sorry, Derek, you missed the boat on the response). [snip some stuff I'm not interested in] >>I would be hard pressed to argue your conclusion about which gives the >>better deck - for that one situation. Add up your sums to buy this number of >>commons for each common card. We stand at 4's and 4's and 4's. You seem to >>be advocating a move to financial Jyhad to support a wide range of decks. > >most 4CLers advocate that 'more creativity is required to play under >4CL'. I submit that by permitting a wider range of decks, more >creativity is being encouraged since some truly wack ideas can be >brought forth. (The 35-cryptic mission deck. the Betrayer deck.) I *hate* the arguments toward creativity and fun. Address them or not as you please, but they are *not* counting for the required rebuttals for the bounty. I'm going to pull in a bunch of artaxerxes original arguments at this time. Excuse me... >>> Trust me on this. I play S&B sometimes when I play Jyhad in a NCL >>> group. I am not guaranteed to sweep the table.[snip S&B dege..erm easy- >>>cheesy' >> >>I agree 100%, but as defending the alledged point that 'easy-cheesy [which >>I took to mean degenerate, and had been inserted by a NCLer] >>S&B decks where curtailed by 4CL' was part of my specifications for $x, >>you must note that it now seems a little harsh to tell me it was a trick >>question. You will therefore forgive me if a simply replace the word >>'degeneracy' with the phrase 'easy-cheesy strategy', which paraphrases the >>oroginal point, and retains my original meaning. No, I don't think I will forgive you. I chose degenerate for a reason. S&B is degenerate under a 4CL, as there are few counters to it. It is easily a game winning strategy. A lot of original advocates for the 4CL claimed that the 4CL prevented the degeneracy of S&B. Most of the NCL counter-arguments shattered that claim. You can rebut the NCL counter-arguments, or concede them, or state that the original claim was wrong and that the 4CL does not hamper S&B. >>'"Even without needing to cite such a weak, but prominent argument >>common to both sides [gentlemanly play], the arrival of such cards >>as Protected Resources and Archon Investigation made S&B easy-cheesy >>strategy much less effective.'" This is true in both 4CL and NCL. AI and PR are mostly unnecessary in NCL, because there are better counters to S&B. Counters that most decks will include automatically, as part of their strategy, because they have to assume that someone at the table will be bleeding. (The specific style of counter - rush, intercept, bounce, race, or gain - depends on the deck, of course). Also, in terms of deck variety and keeping the cost down: you claim that the best way to keep S&B from breaking the game is for everyone to stick 4 uncommons and 4 rares in every non-intercept, non-S&B deck they have? My card collection is stored in 4+ boxes, but have neither of those cards, and it would cost me easily $100 to buy enough new VtES boxes to reliably get a copy of each of them. That's a big investment, to me, in a game that I don't spend that much money on anymore. How is that helping keeping the costs down and the decks varied? >>So, yes I agree with you that 4CL doesn't curb S&B degeneracy, because even >>if there was such a thing it long ago became a non-issue. You'll see below >>that I had already made the point that 4CL doesn't 'tame' S&B any more >>than NCL. Okay. NCL tames S&B degeneracy, and so does PR and AI in 4CL decks. Is that the correct statement? >>> By the way, any Pro-CL rebuttal of the Pro-NL arguments that starts with >>> "S&B is degenerate" is not going to get any money from me, 'cause it's >>> not an adequate rebuttal. >> >>My mistake, but the point D) was added by a NCL, and did seem to imply that >>was the argument. > >as mentioned above, and repeated here because it was a long way above, >Point (D) has been tried before and therefore needs to be included for >form's sake. Oh, my head. Let me try that again: any argument that starts "under NCL, S&B is degenerate" is not an adequate rebuttal. I need to think before I write. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Under the original Jyhad rules and a 4CL, S&B dominates so > heavily that all other decks need to include Bounce or Intercept. That, in > turn, destroys all low-stealth decks, because everyone can block a 1 > stealth action. So the problem just gets worse. In my experience S&B isn't an issue any more. It's sooo cheesy you simply don't play it. We play intercept to pound other vamps and we virtually never bounce anything. Call it social pressure if you like, or spontaneous support of the game's interest; the result is the same. L~R

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:28:05 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >Can you give me an example of how the rules the way they are (and >have always been) somehow puts VTES out of whack? That is >necessary for change. Just because a change doesn't produce >an unbalancing effect isn't a sufficient reason to make a change. >cf. Concealed Weapon. <slightly off topic> turn 1: I recruit the Muddled Vampire Hunter. turn 2: The Muddled Vampire Hunter rushes you. - Before range, he plays Concealed Weapon and Ivory Bow. - It is to be hoped that you have S:CE or Dodge. =) There are a lot of other allies for whom it would be a really rotten surprise if they could pull a weapon out of their butt, but he's probably the most annoying. Shame, that. Disciplineless Concealed Weapon would probably be good on vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > >Just because a change doesn't produce > >an unbalancing effect isn't a sufficient reason to make a change. > >cf. Concealed Weapon. > > <slightly off topic> For that, you should alter the subject line (see this message). > turn 1: I recruit the Muddled Vampire Hunter. This would actually be a minimum of turn 2, unless you used Malkvaina Dementia on your first turn to grab the Malk. > turn 2: The Muddled Vampire Hunter rushes you. > - Before range, he plays Concealed Weapon and Ivory Bow. (Reminder to readers just joining us: Concealed Weapon requires obfuscate, so Muddles cannot play it. This thread is examining the house rule of "Concealed Weapon doesn't require obfuscate" and the effect it would have on the game) > - It is to be hoped that you have S:CE or Dodge. =) Or the ability to prevent one point of damage (sideslip, random fortitude card, etc.). In which case you just poke him in the eye and watch him die. On top of that, I don't see using two extra cards (one of which is unique) to do 1 agg instead of 4 normal as overly powerful at all. Also, many of the people who suggest/use this house rule include a "the weapon must be non-unique" clause on it, since the Ivory Bow is already near the top of the usefulness/cost balance ratio. > There are a lot of other allies for whom it would be a really rotten > surprise if they could pull a weapon out of their butt, but he's > probably the most annoying. He's typically annoying even without that ability :-). But hardly broken in either case. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lambach wrote in message <36B09AD4...@opium.fr>... "> Mark Langsdorf said:" Please do not cut attributions. It took me a minute to realize you were responding to me. >> Under the original Jyhad rules and a 4CL, S&B dominates so >> heavily that all other decks need to include Bounce or Intercept. That, in >> turn, destroys all low-stealth decks, because everyone can block a 1 >> stealth action. So the problem just gets worse. > > In my experience S&B isn't an issue any more. It's sooo cheesy you >simply don't play it. We play intercept to pound other vamps and we >virtually never bounce anything. > > Call it social pressure if you like, or spontaneous support of the >game's interest; the result is the same. I call it an example of 4CL introducing degeneracy into the game. The result is the same: a viable deck building strategy gets snuffed because it becomes too effective because the counters are too ineffective. In my experience, under NCL, S&B isn't cheesy. It's an exciting and difficult deck to win with. There are so many viable defenses - bounce, rush, intercept, race, or gain - that you have to have a good deck and good skills in order to win. There has to be the right balance between stealth (to get around intercept), defense (to prevent Rush decks from torporing all your vampires) and bleed (to drain the other guy), and if it's too far off for the decks of your predator and prey, you don't get anywhere. I don't think eliminating a perfectly good deck design is in the game's interest. I'm curious as to why some people want to make the game's tournament rules more biased toward degeneracy. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad PS - Lambach, I think there are some other posts of yours I need to respond to. I plan to respond to them, as soon as they arrive on my server. Usenet propagation sucks.

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Noal>Riposte (a misspelling of ripost...let's hear it for WotC editors) > Noal> is based on a critical strike (I suppsose). > Derek> Riposte (the correct spelling) is a fencing term which generally > > Incorrect. Ripost is the fencing term. Riposte has nothing to do with > fencing. Now watch me get nit-picky. *grin* > > From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) > Ripost \Ri*post"\, n. [F. riposte.] 1. In fencing, a return thrust after a > parry. > 2. A quick and sharp refort; a repartee. --J. Morley. > > From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) > riposte n : a reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical > one); "it brought a sharp rejoinder from the teacher" [syn: {rejoinder}, > {retort}, {return}, {comeback}] v : answer back > [syn: {retort}, {come back}, {repay}, {return}, {rejoin}] Time to get an updated dictionary, I guess. English is a living language. Neither my 1984 dictionary (Webster's II New Riverside) nor the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm) have listings for "ripost". (I've actually never known any reference to "ripost" until you cited the 1913 one.) Both have entries for "riposte" which include both the fencing usage and the verbal usage. For example, the on-line entry: Main Entry: ri搆oste Pronunciation: ri-'pOst Function: noun Etymology: French, modification of Italian risposta, literally, answer, from rispondere to respond, from Latin respondEre Date: 1707 1 : a fencer's quick return thrust following a parry 2 : a retaliatory verbal sally : RETORT 3 : a retaliatory maneuver or measure - riposte verb Anyway, even if "ripost" is acceptable, clearly the editors at WotC cannot be blamed for using "riposte". > > consists of a block that leads -immediately- into a counterstrike - a > > block that has been made in such a way to facilitate an immediate > > counterstrike, instead of a purely defensive block. > > Why it's an S:CE card I have no idea. > > Agreed. I could see it as a First Strike card much easier than a S:CE. > > > To have an accurate name, > > this card could be dodge with additional strike at inferior for 1 > > blood, and dodge with a press and First Strike next round at superior > > for same. (both demonstrating superior combat speed in that you are > > able to defend -and- counterattack in the same action.) > > I would agree with this. Their choice of title for this card leaves much > to be desired. Agreed. But hopefully we can also agree that it is below the threshhold for errata. > > But then again, this card -does- come from the same editors who named > > a +hand damage card Torn Signpost. =) > > Amen brother. *grin* This issue has been examined before. It is quite possible that the card editors intended Torn Signpost to give a strike option, not a bonus to strength. This argument is helped by the way the card text was rewritten in VTES. Just because the card was ruled to give a bonus to strength doesn't mean the card editors made a mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

> In my experience, under NCL, S&B isn't cheesy. It's an exciting and > difficult deck to win with. There are so many viable defenses - bounce, > rush, intercept, race, or gain - that you have to have a good deck and > good skills in order to win. What you qualify "defenses" vs S&B I call "other tactics". Actually, this applies to rush, gain, race. These represent a way of winning by themselves, not just a defense vs S&B. These are still perfectly viable in 4CL (and do show up quite often in our games.) L~R PS: I don't know what you mean by "cutting attributions". On my news reader my message appears as a reply to yours, and I can't figure out how to configure Netscape to add these nifty "John Brown wrote in message vkhjsdfbg65463#e15..." lines. PPS: If any of the above sentences appear to make no sense to you, then a possible explanation might be that I'm drunk. Sorry all ;~>

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:57:16 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> >Just because a change doesn't produce >> >an unbalancing effect isn't a sufficient reason to make a change. >> >cf. Concealed Weapon. >> >> <slightly off topic> > >For that, you should alter the subject line (see this message). I should, but i'm stupid and don't often remember to. =) >> turn 1: I recruit the Muddled Vampire Hunter. > >This would actually be a minimum of turn 2, unless you used >Malkvaina Dementia on your first turn to grab the Malk. Yep. But believe it or not, I tend to have a flaw on details - I don't normally concern myself with exactly when it happens, it's just that in a game at some point, a sequence of turns could happen like this, and so it's convenient to label them "turn 1" and "turn 2". although I suspect the clarification is handy for those who don't follow the NG constantly. >> turn 2: The Muddled Vampire Hunter rushes you. >> - Before range, he plays Concealed Weapon and Ivory Bow. > >(Reminder to readers just joining us: Concealed Weapon >requires obfuscate, so Muddles cannot play it. This thread >is examining the house rule of "Concealed Weapon doesn't >require obfuscate" and the effect it would have on the game) > >> - It is to be hoped that you have S:CE or Dodge. =) > >Or the ability to prevent one point of damage (sideslip, >random fortitude card, etc.). In which case you just poke >him in the eye and watch him die. Well, yes. He is kinda fragile. But I don't typically let him rush people who have Fortitude-inclusive decks (early on in a game this is somewhat of a crapshoot, as who KNOWS what Marlene, the Infernalist is going to be using?), and Sideslip we don't see much of for some reason. Not sure why, it's a good card. >On top of that, I don't see using two extra cards (one >of which is unique) to do 1 agg instead of 4 normal as >overly powerful at all. not overly powerful in the sense of doing 1 agg, but overly powerful in the sense of that a deck not specifically guarding against this (with Fortitude or Sideslip) has no means of preventing someone from Rushing them every turn and either sending someone to torpor or making them burn an S:CE/Dodge card. That's part of the reason I use him in a couple decks - as a means, much like Beast but not quite as combat-effective, of efficiently burning through S:CE and Dodge cards. Granted, many decks pile on S:CE and Dodge until their eyes turn blue, but. =) >Also, many of the people who suggest/use this house rule >include a "the weapon must be non-unique" clause on it, >since the Ivory Bow is already near the top of the >usefulness/cost balance ratio. I'd certainly use this rule, since otherwise the Tzimisce will also lug out the Femur of Toomler on you, and the Tzimisce aren't exactly hurting as a clan. In fact, if Concealed Weapon ever got onto the "review for errata" list, i'd push for non-unique since there -are- a number of unique "toy" weapons that are a pretty wicked surprise. >> There are a lot of other allies for whom it would be a really rotten >> surprise if they could pull a weapon out of their butt, but he's >> probably the most annoying. > >He's typically annoying even without that ability :-). as i've noted from the glares of predator and prey as they carefully leave someone with 4 or more blood untapped every turn. =) (Or tap out and Wake. Although having a Malk play Cloak the Gathering on his rush action would be entertaining.... hmm.) >But hardly broken in either case. I wouldn't call him broken right now at all. If First Strike beat Dodge, he'd be 'good'. If Concealed Weapon were disciplineless, he'd be "very good". I just wonder overall about the possibility of abuse of a disciplineless CW, since later expansions obviously took into consideration that OBF was required to 'sneak' a weapon out when they designed weapons. Muddles makes a good example for "in fifteen seconds, I can point out one situation that could really suck if you can't prevent damage... now imagine what someone who spent a couple hours figuring out a way to abuse CW could do." =) [ quoted text not captured ]

I put my answer below. Unfortunately, my actual feelings on the issue is to make First Strike come before Dodge and to make S:CE either: 1) a pre-strike card - thus entering what would essentially be a new phase into combat, and changing the rules of combat. OR 2) a first-strike card itself (First Strike: Combat Ends). It would take precedence when first strikes are simultaneous but would be beaten by double first strikes. Please note: I fully understand that both of the above are unworkable, I'm just musing here. I FULLY support any effort to make first strike come before Dodge (this would be of great benefit to the Assamites - especially against Potence or Weapon based combat decks). The rushing Hasina would think twice about attacking that swarthy looking fellow down at the bazaar..... Petri Wessman wrote: > > Ok, since this is a point that interests me and our local play group, > I'd like to see how everyone else feels about the issue of First > Strike. > > Let's try this: everyone who has an opinion on this issue please fill > out the checkboxes below and email your opinion to me. I'll collect > the votes and summarize everything sometime next week. > > LSJ: don't panic, I'm not trying to stage a "change the rules!" coup > or anything :). I'm just curious as to what the general consensus is > on this matter - and you might be, too. > > //Petri > > - - - - > > In my opinion: > > [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. > > [ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to > change. > > [x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:55:12 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: >> > But then again, this card -does- come from the same editors who named >> > a +hand damage card Torn Signpost. =) >> >> Amen brother. *grin* LSJ> This issue has been examined before. It is quite possible that LSJ> the card editors intended Torn Signpost to give a strike option, LSJ> not a bonus to strength. This argument is helped by the way the LSJ> card text was rewritten in VTES. Just because the card was ruled LSJ> to give a bonus to strength doesn't mean the card editors made a LSJ> mistake. ...and on top of that, I've always understood the Torn Signpost to be a symbolic meaning, as in "he is now so strong that he can rip singposts with his bare hands", as opposed to the more boringly literal "I take a physical signpost and beat someone with it". *I* think that's what the designers meant with this card :) //Petri

Joshua Duffin wrote: > in the absence of a compelling game-balance argument...I think we're > pretty much out of luck on this one. Let's see if I can tackle this issue. Readers be warned. This post may take a while and is likely to be about as intersting to read as Bills of Congress from 1872. To begin with, please note the fact that while the original VTES book does say, "A "dodge"...prevents the effect of the opponent's strike that round, even if the opponent's strike was delivered with First Strike," there was no such statement in the Jyhad rulebook. And as has been pointed out in the past, there were many problems in the translation from Jyhad to VTES. However, both books do say, "The damage inflicted by a minion with First Strike is resolved before the strike of the opposing minion begins," and can be used as a basis to declare that First Strike _does_ happen before S:CE and Dodges. When I examined the cards that gave First Strike and Dodge, I examined them based on effect and opportunity cost. The cost of opportunity can be summed up by the following factors: Inf./Sup. Discipline Requirement, Blood Cost, Restrictions of Usage, and Additional Benefits. I found that the cost of opportunity of First Strike was much higher (almost 3 times as much) than the cost of opportunity of Dodges. The fact that a Dodge can cancel most of the strikes that you may get from a First Strike leads me to believe that there is a serious game balance issue...esp. when you consider that _any_ minion can use Dodge and very few minions can use First Strike. Restrictions of Usage includes the following: DNR (do not replace until combat has ended), Equip (requires the opposing minion to have equipment), Weapon (requires equipment to be a weapon), Close (must be at close range), Blocking (must be blocking minion) and SL (Strike Limit) (places additional limits on the type of strike the minion is allowed). Additional Benifits offset the cost of opporttunity and include: Press (additional press) Strike (additional strike) and Steal (opponent gets to keep stolen equipment). Destroying equipment was not included because the pool loss from the burned equipment is often less than the blood (and pool) loss from a damaged, torporized or burned minion. The headers will be abbreviations for: Discipline (inf=1, sup=2), Blood Cost, Restrictions (1 for every restriction on it use), Benefits (1 for every additional effect), Total and Notes. The points from Benefits will be subtracted from the total. Notes will have an abbreviation of the Restrictions and Benefits. At the end there will be a summary. (please note that if the columns don't line up, you need to change your font) First Strikes: Name | Disc | B.C.| Rest | Ben | Total | Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Canine Horde | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 | equip, SL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back Stab | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | block ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back Stab(s) | 2 | 2 | 1 | (1) | 4 | block, strike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fast Hands | 2 | 1 | 4 | (1) | 6 | equip, weapon, | | | | | | close, SL, steal ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blessing Durga Syn | 2 | 2 | 3 | (1) | 6 | eqip, close, | | | | | | SL, steal ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shattering Blow | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | equip, close, SL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silence of Death | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | close, SL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silence of Death(s)| 2 | 1 | 2 | (1) | 4 | close, SL, mnvr ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Muddled Vamp Hntr | 0 | 2pl | 2 | (2) | 2 | ally, clan | | | | | | 4dmg, rush ------------------------------------------------------------------------- average (out of 9) | 1.56 | 1.22| 2.22 | 0.67| 4.33 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dodges: Name | Disc | B.C.| Rest | Ben | Total | Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dodge | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | DNR ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Primal Instinct | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read Intentions | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acrobatics | 2 | 1 | 0 | (1) | 2 | strike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preternat'l Evasion| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sideslip | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Side Strike | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vampiric Speed | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vampiric Speed(s) | 2 | 0 | 0 | (1) | 1 | press ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spiritual Interv'n | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fade From View | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quick Exit | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arms of the Abyss | 2 | 0 | 0 | (1) | 1 | strike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staredown | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Form of Mist | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plasmic Form | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- average (out of 16)| 1.38 | 0.25| 0.06 | 0.19| 1.50 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Is my ponytail doing anything for you?" -Wally, "Jan 19 Dilbert" (by Scott Adams) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > Ok, since this is a point that interests me and our local play group, > I'd like to see how everyone else feels about the issue of First > Strike. > > Let's try this: everyone who has an opinion on this issue please fill > out the checkboxes below and email your opinion to me. I'll collect > the votes and summarize everything sometime next week. > > [*] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). If someone wants to do a statistical analysis of S:CE, be my guest. The one I did of Dodge and First Strike took two days. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7x90enn0...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: [posted and emailed] > In my opinion: > > [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. > > [x] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to > change. > > [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). > > [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. > > [ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! > Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) > > Other comments: I think it might make sense for First Strike to beat Dodge. However, because there are so few First Strike-granting cards, and their application is so limited, I don't think it's really worthwhile to issue errata/rules changes to make that happen. Also because (partly due to the minimal number of FS cards) there's no evidence of game imbalance being caused by FS behaving the way it does. Josh not quite an errata minimalist, but playing the part [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Time to get an updated dictionary, I guess. English is a living > language. *nods* The definitions I posted were from the Websters on-line gateway server. > Anyway, even if "ripost" is acceptable, clearly the editors at WotC > cannot be blamed for using "riposte". Besides, there's so much other stuff we can blame them for. *grin* > > > To have an accurate name, > > > this card could be dodge with additional strike at inferior for 1 > > > blood, and dodge with a press and First Strike next round at superior > > > for same. (both demonstrating superior combat speed in that you are > > > able to defend -and- counterattack in the same action.) > > > > I would agree with this. Their choice of title for this card leaves much > > to be desired. > > Agreed. But hopefully we can also agree that it is below the threshhold > for errata. heh. It's _way_ below the threshold for rewriting the card. > This issue has been examined before. It is quite possible that the card > editors intended Torn Signpost to give a strike option, not a bonus to > strength. This argument is helped by the way the card text was rewritten > in VTES. Just because the card was ruled to give a bonus to strength > doesn't mean the card editors made a mistake. Hey, if you want to change it to a strike, you got my vote. *grin* Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Is my ponytail doing anything for you?" -Wally, "Jan 19 Dilbert" (by Scott Adams) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: >Ok, since this is a point that interests me and our local play group, >I'd like to see how everyone else feels about the issue of First >Strike. >Let's try this: everyone who has an opinion on this issue please fill >In my opinion: >[ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. [X] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to change. >[ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). >[ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. >[ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! > Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) >Other comments: Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <36B0CEB0...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: [Debate about Ripost vs Riposte snipped] >Anyway, even if "ripost" is acceptable, clearly the editors at WotC >cannot be blamed for using "riposte". For a bit of random trivia... Riposte is the version of the word I've always seen in fencing circles (I teach a little bit) -- tournaments, books, etc. It's a French and/or Italian word meaning "Attack after a parry" (It's definitly not a counterattack). -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Lambach wrote in message <36B11F8A...@opium.fr>... >> In my experience, under NCL, S&B isn't cheesy. It's an exciting and >> difficult deck to win with. There are so many viable defenses - bounce, >> rush, intercept, race, or gain - that you have to have a good deck and >> good skills in order to win. > > What you qualify "defenses" vs S&B I call "other tactics". >Actually, this applies to rush, gain, race. These represent a way of winning by >themselves, not just a defense vs S&B. These are still perfectly viable >in 4CL (and do show up quite often in our games.) Well, I'd call them other strategies, really. But they are also defenses, in a way. My weenie blood gain deck deals with combat decks by having so many minions that a combat deck can't possibly torpor them all in a turn. It deals with bleed decks by gaining more blood each turn than a bleed deck can bleed, and it tries to outvote other vote decks. Strategy, sure. My point is that if these other tactics are so viable, why is S&B so much more viable that you call it "cheesy" or "degenerate"? Under NCL, it's a basic strategy. A little easier to put together, maybe, but just as hard to win with. > PS: I don't know what you mean by "cutting attributions". On my >news reader my message appears as a reply to yours, and I can't figure out >how to configure Netscape to add these nifty "John Brown wrote in >message vkhjsdfbg65463#e15..." lines. Hmmm... okay. On most newsreaders, when you reply to a message, it prints the "Joe Blow wrote in message" stuff. Some people then remove that stuff, which is known as cutting attributions. I can't tell you how to get Netscape to reply correctly, but I think it should be able to. In the meantime, you may want to do it manually, by saying "Mark Langsdorf wrote:" or whatever. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/mlangsdo

>In my opinion: > >[ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. > >[ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to > change. > >[ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). > >[x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. [x] The Rules should be modified so that First Strike beats S:CE, but does _not_ beat dodge. It's hardly a neccesary change, but it would increase the variety of combat decks possible. Right now you're pretty much limited to Pot based Immortal Grapple, due to the effectiveness of S:CE. Sure, there are other ways to make somewhat effective combat decks, but they all have serious weaknesses. It would also have the side effect of making all those things that IG hoses more viable (weapons, Discipline strikes, etc.) This is similarily why I think FS shouldn't beat dodge (although First Striking Decks will have Celerity, and can probably simply get extra strikes). This is the kind of change I'd ussually leave for a house rule, but then again it's rare that you can get (I suspect) so much improvement from such a simple change (Of course, it sucks that the relavent cards are Rare). The lack of variety in combat, and the power of some of the trump cards has turned several people I know off the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > To begin with, please note the fact that while the original VTES book does > say, "A "dodge"...prevents the effect of the opponent's strike that round, > even if the opponent's strike was delivered with First Strike," there was > no such statement in the Jyhad rulebook. And as has been pointed out in The Jyhad rules state that the Dodge "negates the effect of the opponent's strike that round" without making a special exception for a strike done with First Strike. > the past, there were many problems in the translation from Jyhad to VTES. And that there were many ambiguities/errors in the Jyhad (as well as VTES) rulebook. A valud explanation is that the (redundant) fact that Dodge beats First Strike was simply omitted, intentionally or not. > However, both books do say, "The damage inflicted by a minion with First > Strike is resolved before the strike of the opposing minion begins," and > can be used as a basis to declare that First Strike _does_ happen before > S:CE and Dodges. Except the S:CE explicitly states that it beats First Strike and Dodge. And dodge explicitly states that it negates the effect of the opponent's strike. Since it doesn't make any special provision for not negating a First Strike, that can (and is) used as a basis for the current rule. > When I examined the cards that gave First Strike and Dodge, I examined > them based on effect and opportunity cost. The cost of opportunity can > be summed up by the following factors: Inf./Sup. Discipline Requirement, > Blood Cost, Restrictions of Usage, and Additional Benefits. I found that > the cost of opportunity of First Strike was much higher (almost 3 times > as much) than the cost of opportunity of Dodges. The fact that a Dodge > can cancel most of the strikes that you may get from a First Strike leads > me to believe that there is a serious game balance issue...esp. when you > consider that _any_ minion can use Dodge and very few minions can use > First Strike. Very nice evaluation [snipped], but the handling of the conclusion is not so clear-cut. The opportunity cost of the dodges should be less than the opportunity cost of the First Strike. This is because of the difference between defense and offense. For instance, the opportunity cost of intercept is less than the opportunity cost of stealth for this very reason. While some cards have direct comparisons, LostInCrowds :: EnhancedSenses, there are no equivalent comparisons for effects like Mr. Winthrop, a Raven Spy, or KRCG News Radio. For instance, the closest thing to Raven Spy (a non-unique retainer that requires a discpline) is the Marijava Ghoul. The Ghoul costs an extra blood and is only good on a specified discipline's actions (rather than requiring that discipline in the first place - a more lenient restriction). This is also why there is no direct antithesis for Ascendance. And why Consanguinous Condemnation doesn't have the exact opposite effect of Consanguinous Boon (indeed, it has a *much* lesser effect). [ quoted text not captured ]

>[ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. > >[ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to > change. > >[ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). > >[ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. > >[ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! > Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) > [x] none of the above. Errata it so that First Strike hits everything first regardless of dodge or s:ce, then errata every card with dodge or s:ce to say dodge with first strike or s:ce with first strike hehehhehehe Ok... seriously, I think that first strike should beat out a dodge, but not s:ce, although I also don't feel it really matters enough to warrant any changes, things have been fine the way they are I feel in this department. I've yet to play a game where first strike has been such an integral part of the game. Vince

Petri Wessman wrote: > Ok, since this is a point that interests me and our local play group, > I'd like to see how everyone else feels about the issue of First > Strike. > > Let's try this: everyone who has an opinion on this issue please fill > out the checkboxes below and email your opinion to me. I'll collect > the votes and summarize everything sometime next week. > > LSJ: don't panic, I'm not trying to stage a "change the rules!" coup > or anything :). I'm just curious as to what the general consensus is > on this matter - and you might be, too. > > //Petri > > - - - - > > In my opinion: > > [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. > > [ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to > change. > > [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). > > [x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. > > [ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! > Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) > > Other comments:

>In my opinion: > >[ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is > fine, don't change anything. >[ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to change. [X] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but not S:CE). >[ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE > and Dodge. > >[ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! > Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) > Other comments: If we ever did get another full expansion for V:TES it would be better to at least get a vote of consensus now. The current rulebook doesn't have to change, but if/when they do print a new book & a new expansion it might make a difference. Assuming WOTC had their playtesters actually reading these discussions.. Sounds like some of the tunes around here would change if a common First Strike card was put into circulation.

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:26:24 GMT, ber...@mich.com wrote: >Other comments: > >If we ever did get another full expansion for V:TES it would be better >to at least get a vote of consensus now. > >The current rulebook doesn't have to change, but if/when they do print >a new book & a new expansion it might make a difference. Assuming >WOTC had their playtesters actually reading these discussions.. > >Sounds like some of the tunes around here would change if a common >First Strike card was put into circulation. Even without changing the way First Strike reacts between S:CE and Dodge, I'd be *so* in favor of a Celerity card granting First Strike - perhaps something like: Sucker Punch - 2 blood inferior: This vampire gets First Strike for this strike. superior: This vampire gets First Strike for ALL his strikes this round. Which would present some rules confusion, but the Assamites can already do this - does First Strike when applied to additional strikes still come after the opponent's initial strike? Or would a vampire playing the superior version of this card and a Blur be able to strike 3 times before his opponent even got to hit once? that would seem a little overpowered, though expensive... but if first strike applied to additional strikes hits AFTER the opponent's initial strike, the superior version of this card is useless except against other Celerity decks generating additional strikes. Blah. =) I'd still like to see an unqualified First Strike card from Celerity though, to re-add it to the game a little. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78ntqm$k8o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ> To strike, your fist (or other strike element) must traverse the > LSJ> distance from you to your opponent. When striking with First Strike, > LSJ> either your traverse that distance faster (e.g., Fast Hands) or > LSJ> you attack from a position/vantage point that allows your strike > LSJ> to connect before your opponent can connect his strike to you > LSJ> (e.g., Back Stab). > > This would logically be because your reactions and speed are quicker. Right. > > LSJ> When Dodging, however, you are not attempting to get your strike > LSJ> from here to there. You are simply moving out of the way of the > LSJ> incoming strike. > > If someone is trying to get out of the way of an attack that moves faster > than they are able to (Fast Hands) or an attack they don't know is coming > (Silence of Death) or an attack from a superior vantage point (Back Stab), > they are still unlikely to be successful in avoiding the strike. I don't see > why First Strike vs. Dodge doesn't take this into effect since Dodge is > _still_ just a strike. I can understand that dodge negates the opposing strike if played _at the same time_, but not when the opposing strike is played with first strike. FS means that the strike is resolved first. Then the dodge comes. Since the other strike has already been resolved, no effect. > > If you don't believe me, try to dodge a bullet. Not very likely. Not Even Ninjas (and there may be some in the RPG or LARP) can do it easily. :) > > LSJ> When ending combat, the situation is much the same. > > Not really. S:CE strikes are usually due to some pre-emptive power. Anyone playing the RPG or LARP will agree. > > In the LARP, Majesty is an aura of immense charismatic power and > anyone within the range of the aura must try to overcome this aura > before being able to attack. Even if you have Super-Duper (tm) > Celerity and Quietus, you still have to overcome the aura first. > > Most of the other S:CE cards are based on similar effects. Catatonic > Fear, Staredown, Eyes of the Serpent and Mercy for the Weak are > also based on extreme charismatic power and intimidation. Earth Meld, > Form of Mist, Mummify, Rapid Change and Shadow Body are based on > a pliant or insubstantial form. Spiritual Intervention and Preternatural > Evasion is based on foreknowledge of events. Riposte (a misspelling of > ripost...let's hear it for WotC editors) is based on a critical strike > (I suppsose). > > LSJ> It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). > LSJ> That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart > LSJ> dodge and S:CE. HL and Psyche have different mechanics than FS. > > Blessing of Durga Syn (an illusion) and Silence of Death are both arguably > based on "surprise attack". > > LSJ> Try using "real world" terms that work to convey the official > LSJ> operation. Certainly using terms like "surprise attack" when > LSJ> descibing First Strike can lead to confusion. > > If you know the basis for the cards, I don't see how you could > argue that the 2 cards above aren't based on surprise attack. > > LSJ> Not likely, since it isn't a problem (or, if it is a problem, it isn't > LSJ> severe enough to warrant such a change). > > Depends on who you ask. Based on a close examination of the > cards, I'd argue that First Strike should be resolved before Dodge > but after S:CE Yes, that is my opinion also. 1. S:CE 2. FS 3. Dodge and other strikes Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78qc7v$n4p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > And that's it. Are there any real benefits from changing how First > Strike works in the rule book? Not really other than possibly eliminating > some confusion. Perhaps the words First Strike should be chandged to > First Attack. Then you don't have any sensical problems. :) > Mike, Mike. IMO FS should get more attention. If the ruling is changed, then there would be more FS cards in the next expansion, as the cards would actually be useful. I guess that's the point. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) PS: Du hast meine letzte post nicht gelesen, gell? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7x90enn0...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > Ok, since this is a point that interests me and our local play group, > I'd like to see how everyone else feels about the issue of First > Strike. > > Let's try this: everyone who has an opinion on this issue please fill > out the checkboxes below and email your opinion to me. I'll collect > the votes and summarize everything sometime next week. > > LSJ: don't panic, I'm not trying to stage a "change the rules!" coup > or anything :). I'm just curious as to what the general consensus is > on this matter - and you might be, too. > > //Petri > > - - - - > > In my opinion: > [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is fine, don't change anything. [ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to change. [x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but not S:CE). [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE and Dodge. [ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Yes, that is my opinion also. > >1. S:CE >2. FS >3. Dodge and other strikes > >Carl >(VEKN Prince of Vienna) > I second this opinion. David McCarty Prince of South Haven.

In my opinion: [ ] The current rules of S:CE and Dodge both beating First Strike is fine, don't change anything. [ ] The current rule is a bit weird, but not worth the bother to change. [x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but not S:CE). [ ] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats both S:CE and Dodge. [ ] First Strike should immediately kill anything enywhere! Kill! Kill! Kill! (ok, ignore this one :) My vote Dave M.

Derek S. Ray wrote: > Even without changing the way First Strike reacts between S:CE and > Dodge, I'd be *so* in favor of a Celerity card granting First Strike - > perhaps something like: > > Sucker Punch - 2 blood > > inferior: This vampire gets First Strike for this strike. > superior: This vampire gets First Strike for ALL his strikes this > round. > > Which would present some rules confusion, but the Assamites can > already do this - does First Strike when applied to additional strikes > still come after the opponent's initial strike? Or would a vampire > playing the superior version of this card and a Blur be able to strike > 3 times before his opponent even got to hit once? No rules confusion. See 6.4.3.3. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> In my opinion: > [x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > not S:CE). This is the selection that most people seem to be in favor of, but really gets me. This rule would essentially do nothing (except making Muddles a little better)! Dodges are already quite weak in the metagame, and are rarely used -- occasionally if the card provides another use. Furthermore, decks using discipline cards to give first strike will probably have extra strikes, and so hose dodges fairly well already. Dodges don't need to be weakened, and weakening a very underused card has little effect. Making a change to the core rules that has essentially no effect just seems like a bad idea to me, and not even one worth considering. Now, if First Strike beat S:CE, that would actually have some _real_ effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7955j1$ni9$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > >> In my opinion: > > [x] The rules should be modified so that First Strike beats Dodge (but > > not S:CE). > > This is the selection that most people seem to be in favor of, but > really gets me. This rule would essentially do nothing (except > making Muddles a little better)! Dodges are already quite weak > in the metagame, and are rarely used -- occasionally if the card > provides another use. Furthermore, decks using discipline cards > to give first strike will probably have extra strikes, and so > hose dodges fairly well already. Well, that depends on the style of play within the differnt groups In my groups dodges are very common, and not weak. Few players use ultra-hard-hitting combat decks around here, so IG is not often seen. For me it makes sense to strengthten FS. This is also true if you consider possible new FS cards in future exp. (one should never give up hope! :) > > Dodges don't need to be weakened, and weakening a very underused card has > little effect. Making a change to the core rules that has essentially > no effect just seems like a bad idea to me, and not even one worth > considering. > > Now, if First Strike beat S:CE, that would actually have some _real_ > effect. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > LSJ> It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). > > LSJ> That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart > > LSJ> dodge and S:CE. > > HL and Psyche have different mechanics than FS. That's the point, yeah (well, for HL at any rate - not sure how Psyche got into the discussion - it doesn't seem to be a surprise attack in concept or in execution). To elaborate on/belabor the point: HL is written to be a surprise attack, that much is clear from the concept and execution (card text). First Strike lacks both the name and the instruction to make it a "surprise attack" - it is simply a fast attack - faster than the "normal" attack (but not faster than Dodge or Combat Ends). Some cards that perhaps are "surprise attacks" in concept (Noal mentioned Silence of Death) used (perhaps unwisely) the First Strike mechanic to implement the concept. FS doesn't do as good a job at modeling a "surprise attack" as Hidden Lurker's card text does. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <796p7q$sbe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: >In article <7955j1$ni9$1...@news.NERO.NET>, [my lead in snipped] >Well, that depends on the style of play within the differnt groups >In my groups dodges are very common, and not weak. Few players use >ultra-hard-hitting combat decks around here, so IG is not often seen. >For me it makes sense to strengthten FS. This is also true if you >consider possible new FS cards in future exp. (one should never give >up hope! :) Huh. People use combat decks that are seriously affected by dodge? What do these combat decks do about S:CE? Or do you just mean that decks focused on combat aren't seen often? If so, and people aren't playing very combat heavy decks, just what are people bothering to dodge? I must be missing your perspective entirely here, since I don't think I have a deck that would be helped with the addition of dodges, nor one that is particularily hindered facing a dodge (out of perhaps a dozen different decks I've got). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <796r2b$c8b$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > Huh. People use combat decks that are seriously affected by dodge? > What do these combat decks do about S:CE? Or do you just mean that [snip] > I must be missing your perspective entirely here, since I don't > think I have a deck that would be helped with the addition of dodges, > nor one that is particularily hindered facing a dodge (out of perhaps > a dozen different decks I've got). IIRC, Jasper, the environment in Vienna is CL. Which would explain why dodges are effective. Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <796r2b$c8b$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <796p7q$sbe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: > >In article <7955j1$ni9$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > > [my lead in snipped] > > >Well, that depends on the style of play within the differnt groups > >In my groups dodges are very common, and not weak. Few players use > >ultra-hard-hitting combat decks around here, so IG is not often seen. > >For me it makes sense to strengthten FS. This is also true if you > >consider possible new FS cards in future exp. (one should never give > >up hope! :) > > Huh. People use combat decks that are seriously affected by dodge? > What do these combat decks do about S:CE? Or do you just mean that > decks focused on combat aren't seen often? If so, and people aren't playing > very combat heavy decks, just what are people bothering to dodge? The decks are not focused on combat (well, not all). S:CE is not often used. Mainly FoM in defensive intercept decks to get the crucial intercept retainers and equipment. Some games are played NL, some with CL. In CL S:CE is not common, so its effect is not dictating the games. (i.e. players dont have to adjust using lots of IG). More often than not dodges are used to circumvent nasty equipment (Ivory bow, for example). I'd say the S:CE-Dodge ratio is 40-60. So in our evironment, FS would count. > I must be missing your perspective entirely here, since I don't > think I have a deck that would be helped with the addition of dodges, > nor one that is particularily hindered facing a dodge (out of perhaps > a dozen different decks I've got). Yeah, maybe you miss it, but that's ok. I can understand groups with serious S:CE problems using lots of IG, and not understanding why someone bothers for FS, as it is beaten by S:CE. Let me make this clear: I don't consider FS an option to battle S:CE. And I don't think it should be one. It should only beat dodges *not deliverd with FS*! Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79734r$4v7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > In article <796r2b$c8b$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > > > Huh. People use combat decks that are seriously affected by dodge? > > What do these combat decks do about S:CE? Or do you just mean that > [snip] > > I must be missing your perspective entirely here, since I don't > > think I have a deck that would be helped with the addition of dodges, > > nor one that is particularily hindered facing a dodge (out of perhaps > > a dozen different decks I've got). > > IIRC, Jasper, the environment in Vienna is CL. Which would explain why > dodges are effective. This is not entirely true anymore. Beginning with this year, our regular league consists of different formats: NL Standard 4CL Standard NL Sabbat-only 4CL Sabbat-only NL Basic-set 4CL Basic-set We are using both styles of play. This gives our player a challenge, as they have to adapt and rebuild their decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <796t2p$vh2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > LSJ> It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). > > > LSJ> That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart > > > LSJ> dodge and S:CE. > > > > HL and Psyche have different mechanics than FS. > > That's the point, yeah (well, for HL at any rate - not sure how Psyche > got into the discussion - it doesn't seem to be a surprise attack in > concept or in execution). > > To elaborate on/belabor the point: > > HL is written to be a surprise attack, that much is clear from the > concept and execution (card text). First Strike lacks both the name > and the instruction to make it a "surprise attack" - it is simply a > fast attack - faster than the "normal" attack (but not faster than > Dodge or Combat Ends). Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even an attack with FS? Fact is: if a vampire is in combat with another one, and the first has Celerity and the other hasn`t, then the cel-guy *is* faster using his discipline. (In RPG terms, the cel-guy could perform x actions in a combat round, where x is his celerity level (rather blood he spends), the other one gets only 1 action.) This means cel-guy can strike the other so fast, he cannot react in time. This again means he cannot dodge in time, because defending is not by any means faster then attacking. In VTES terms: FS is mostly (with 2 or 3 exceptions) a cel ability. (i.e. Fast hands, Backstab). FS can mean two differnt things: 1. the defender is too slow to react in time, so the strike hits, regardless of the defenders strike response. (which could be even a dodge) 2. the defender is surprised (attacked from behind or whatever), and cannot react in time, as he doesn't see the danger coming until it's too late. In VTES, FS represents both! (Think of Fast Hands and Silence of Death) FS is a concept, and there is no reason, why a minion should be able to dodge a first strike. From a real-world view this is not right. It would be different, if the dodger would dodge with first strike, too. Then his dodge would again have effect against the FS. > > Some cards that perhaps are "surprise attacks" in concept (Noal > mentioned Silence of Death) used (perhaps unwisely) the First > Strike mechanic to implement the concept. FS doesn't do as good a > job at modeling a "surprise attack" as Hidden Lurker's card text > does. Leave HL out of this discussion. It has nothing to do with FS. We are confusing things here. HL is a special designed card, just for VTES. It represents nothing in VTM-terms. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:40:44 GMT, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at said: CPilhatsch> In VTES terms: FS is mostly (with 2 or 3 exceptions) a cel ability. CPilhatsch> (i.e. Fast hands, Backstab). FS can mean two differnt things: CPilhatsch> 1. the defender is too slow to react in time, so the CPilhatsch> strike hits, regardless of the defenders strike CPilhatsch> response. (which could be even a dodge) CPilhatsch> 2. the defender is surprised (attacked from behind or CPilhatsch> whatever), and cannot react in time, as he doesn't see CPilhatsch> the danger coming until it's too late. CPilhatsch> In VTES, FS represents both! (Think of Fast Hands and CPilhatsch> Silence of Death) FS is a concept, and there is no reason, CPilhatsch> why a minion should be able to dodge a first strike. From CPilhatsch> a real-world view this is not right. ... CPilhatsch> Leave HL out of this discussion. It has nothing to do with CPilhatsch> FS. We are confusing things here. HL is a special designed CPilhatsch> card, just for VTES. It represents nothing in VTM-terms. I agree. There is no game-world excuse for the way FS currently works (which is very unintuitive). Yes, there are only a few first-strike cards currently, but is FS were made into a useful ability then we might see some interesting FS cards in the new VTES cards (whether promos or another expansion). Besides, I'm still in the opinion that *since* it's such a small detail *and* it's a detail that causes a lot of confusion - especially among new players - this would be a good time to change the rules regarding FS. As long as there is no printed, officially distributed rules document, changing a minor rule is not a hassle. Compared to the 7/7 rulings, this would be minor (and would make a lot of people happy). P.S. My local game store just told me that WotC is out of the Sabbat expanion - and consequently the price of Sabbat boosters went up. What, has the reprint of the Sabbat also sold out? Is this the same game that some people at WotC said isn't selling? :) //Petri

On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:51:33 GMT, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at said: CPilhatsch> Let me make this clear: I don't consider FS an option to CPilhatsch> battle S:CE. And I don't think it should be one. It CPilhatsch> should only beat dodges *not deliverd with FS*! Yeah, if both minions have First Strike then everything should cancel out. //Petri

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > > LSJ> It doesn't mean "surprise attack" (see above). > > > > LSJ> That's what Hidden Lurker mimics - and Hidden Lurker *does* thwart > > > > LSJ> dodge and S:CE. > > > > > > HL and Psyche have different mechanics than FS. > > > > That's the point, yeah (well, for HL at any rate - not sure how Psyche > > got into the discussion - it doesn't seem to be a surprise attack in > > concept or in execution). > > > > To elaborate on/belabor the point: > > > > HL is written to be a surprise attack, that much is clear from the > > concept and execution (card text). First Strike lacks both the name > > and the instruction to make it a "surprise attack" - it is simply a > > fast attack - faster than the "normal" attack (but not faster than > > Dodge or Combat Ends). > > Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even > an attack with FS? Because it resolves before a normal attack or even an attack with FS. If you're looking for the "real world" explanation, allow me to rephrase the point that I've made more than once in this thread: It is easier to move the short distance from where the opposing strike will land to where it won't than it is to cover the distance from where your fist is to where your opponent's head is (or used to be). distance = speed * time time = distance / speed Fist Strike increases the speed. But the distance to be traversed by the dodger is much less than the distance to be traversed by the striker. So the time it takes the dodger to get out of the way is still less than the time it takes the First Striker to complete his strike. > Fact is: if a vampire is in combat with another one, and the first has > Celerity and the other hasn`t, then the cel-guy *is* faster using his > discipline. (In RPG terms, the cel-guy could perform x actions in a > combat round, where x is his celerity level (rather blood he spends), > the other one gets only 1 action.) > This means cel-guy can strike the other so fast, he cannot react in time. > This again means he cannot dodge in time, because defending is not > by any means faster then attacking. If you say so. I don't play the RPG. The rules of the card game don't support that interpretation. I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > In VTES terms: FS is mostly (with 2 or 3 exceptions) a cel ability. > (i.e. Fast hands, Backstab). FS can mean two differnt things: > > 1. the defender is too slow to react in time, so the strike hits, regardless > of the defenders strike response. (which could be even a dodge) > > 2. the defender is surprised (attacked from behind or whatever), and cannot > react in time, as he doesn't see the danger coming until it's too late. It actually means (only): *. the attacker is moving faster than normal. This doesn't mean the defender is too slow to react at all - but that he is too slow to connect with his own strike against the attacker, if that was his intention, until after his opponent's strike connects. But the defender is still capable of moving. If the defender chooses "dodge" as his move, then the amount of movement required is so small that he is still successful in getting out of the way by the time the attacker's strike reaches the spot where its target used to be. > In VTES, FS represents both! (Think of Fast Hands and Silence of Death) > FS is a concept, and there is no reason, why a minion should be able > to dodge a first strike. From a real-world view this is not right. No. It represents speed only. Some cards have used it (First Strike) to attempt to simulate a surprise attack. Some other cards used a more appropriate mechanic to simulate a surprise attack (since First Strike doesn't do a good job simulating a surprise attack - since it wasn't designed to). > It would be different, if the dodger would dodge with first strike, too. > Then his dodge would again have effect against the FS. So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if that'll help the rules make sense to you. > > Some cards that perhaps are "surprise attacks" in concept (Noal > > mentioned Silence of Death) used (perhaps unwisely) the First > > Strike mechanic to implement the concept. FS doesn't do as good a > > job at modeling a "surprise attack" as Hidden Lurker's card text > > does. > > Leave HL out of this discussion. It has nothing to do with FS. We > are confusing things here. HL is a special designed card, just for > VTES. It represents nothing in VTM-terms. HL was designed to simulate a surprise attack. It did not use the First Strike mechanic to do so because the First Strike mechanic is not suited for that sort of use. First Strike is for speed, not surprise. Which is why Dodge "beats" First Strike. When the discussion involves the concept of surprise attack, Hidden Lurker is appropriate for the discussion. (Psyche, on the other hand, ...). If you'd like to leave HL out of the discussion, then simply leave surprise attack out of the discussion - neither one has anything to do with First Strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > I agree. There is no game-world excuse for the way FS currently works > (which is very unintuitive). Yes, there is. The dodger moves out of the way before the faster-than-normal strike gets to connect. > Yes, there are only a few first-strike cards currently, but is FS were > made into a useful ability then we might see some interesting FS cards > in the new VTES cards (whether promos or another expansion). Which is no more or less true than if the First Strike mechanic remains as it is. > Besides, > I'm still in the opinion that *since* it's such a small detail *and* > it's a detail that causes a lot of confusion - especially among new > players - this would be a good time to change the rules regarding It doesn't cause that much confusion - a quick check of the rules normally sets people straight. Of course, if the newbie is learning from a friend (rather than from the rules) and the friend is confused about how First Strike works and/or explains it with terms like "surprise attack" (which are not found in the rules and may give people the wrong impression of First Strike), then the newbie may get confused, yes. > FS. As long as there is no printed, officially distributed rules > document, changing a minor rule is not a hassle. Ah, but there is. The printed rulebook that was distributed with every V:TES starter deck is very clear on the interaction between Dodge and First Strike [8.3] > Compared to the 7/7 > rulings, this would be minor (and would make a lot of people happy). So would a change to concealed weapon. But there is a lot of errata already, and neither the First Strike mechanic nor the Concealed Weapon situation is unbalancing. So they remain as they are. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Fact is: if a vampire is in combat with another one, and the first has >Celerity and the other hasn`t, then the cel-guy *is* faster using his >discipline. (In RPG terms, the cel-guy could perform x actions in a >combat round, where x is his celerity level (rather blood he spends), >the other one gets only 1 action.) >This means cel-guy can strike the other so fast, he cannot react in time. >This again means he cannot dodge in time, because defending is not >by any means faster then attacking. > You cannot use the RPG in this case because the rule of dodges *does* apply in the WW system. Regardless of another character's celerity rating, you can always dodge if you have the capability to and while unlikely, you can outdodge a vampire with a rating of 5 in celerity (meaning 5+1 actions per your one) in a single round without a single level of celerity. The other thing to remember is that first strike is in no way connected to Celerity anyway, looking at first strike cards will see that most don't rely on celerity(m. vampire hunter for example). Also dodge is described as taking the time to get out of the way of another's action for the round. You're implying that even if combat range is determined as close, that the 2 vampires are locked solid together in combat when that isn't true(except in the case of IG which is a card combat action for close combat). The difference is that despite the inability to move out of range your vampire spent his time getting out of the strike of your opponent, not running up to the other vampire, screaming in his face and running away expecting not to get hit. As for the response to long range combat and guns at any range, the representation here is that your vampire found a very good place to dodge behind to get out of the line of fire. This is the similar representation in the RPG itself when at any range, the dodge becomes easier when in cluttered areas where there are plenty of places to get behind. Your playing of a dodge card of any type means your vampire was able to get to cover instead of sticking around to fight. S:CE is a different case, in the RPG relating to the case of Majesty, the ability is consistently active(although the effectiveness is different at different times and to different vampires). The game version prevents any vampire from attacking unless they overcome the Majesty of the vampire. The card game version is a representation of this in that the other particular vampire is adversely affected by the majestied vampire, and thus would not be able to have ever made an attack. The discipline cards in the card game are representations of effective uses of their vampiric abilities. The vampires ALWAYS have their abilites and can use them, but without them using them effectively they don't add up to much(and would provide too powerful of abilities, imagine if Majesty was permanent how powerful it would be). Vince

In article <799k91$bof$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: >In article <796r2b$c8b$1...@news.NERO.NET>, [snip] >> I must be missing your perspective entirely here, since I don't >> think I have a deck that would be helped with the addition of dodges, >> nor one that is particularily hindered facing a dodge (out of perhaps >> a dozen different decks I've got). > >Yeah, maybe you miss it, but that's ok. I can understand groups with >serious S:CE problems using lots of IG, and not understanding why >someone bothers for FS, as it is beaten by S:CE. > >Let me make this clear: I don't consider FS an option to battle S:CE. >And I don't think it should be one. It should only beat dodges *not >deliverd with FS*! I guess what I'm missing is why people don't use S:CE. Combat decks can be quite dangerous, and if they can't deal with S:CE, S:CE shuts them down completely. If people get hosed by combat, they naturally include S:CE, and then combat decks I would think naturally progress to deal with S:CE. Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start using S:CE again!? [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > In article <799k91$bof$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: > >In article <796r2b$c8b$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > > [snip] > > >> I must be missing your perspective entirely here, since I don't > >> think I have a deck that would be helped with the addition of dodges, > >> nor one that is particularily hindered facing a dodge (out of perhaps > >> a dozen different decks I've got). > > > >Yeah, maybe you miss it, but that's ok. I can understand groups with > >serious S:CE problems using lots of IG, and not understanding why > >someone bothers for FS, as it is beaten by S:CE. > > > >Let me make this clear: I don't consider FS an option to battle S:CE. > >And I don't think it should be one. It should only beat dodges *not > >deliverd with FS*! > > I guess what I'm missing is why people don't use S:CE. Combat decks > can be quite dangerous, and if they can't deal with S:CE, S:CE shuts > them down completely. If people get hosed by combat, they naturally > include S:CE, and then combat decks I would think naturally > progress to deal with S:CE. > > Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't > bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start > using S:CE again!? That's exactly what happens. Decks that rely on S:CE during combat rarely have any secondary defenses. If you have heavy S:CE in your deck, why bother with 8 skin of steel or 6 presses to end, etc. This gives the combat deck designer something to hang his hat on. S:CE is so prevalent in tournaments that I have made several combat decks that specifically target them. Sure, I've got no manuevers to ensure my IG will be available but I can count on the fact that the S:CE deck probably won't be manuevering. When the S:CE players adjust and start playing with Obedience, Damage Prevention, Heavy Manuevers or their own combat decks, that's when I put away the S:CE killers for a while. The meta-game in action! Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <36B8E405...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >> Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't >> bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start >> using S:CE again!? > >That's exactly what happens. Decks that rely on S:CE during combat >rarely have any secondary defenses. If you have heavy S:CE in your >deck, why bother with 8 skin of steel or 6 presses to end, etc. This >gives the combat deck designer something to hang his hat on. S:CE is so >prevalent in tournaments that I have made several combat decks that >specifically target them. Sure, I've got no manuevers to ensure my IG >will be available but I can count on the fact that the S:CE deck >probably won't be manuevering. When the S:CE players adjust and start >playing with Obedience, Damage Prevention, Heavy Manuevers or their own >combat decks, that's when I put away the S:CE killers for a while. The >meta-game in action! I guess I've always found IG so easy to cycle (not to mention that it's press is also good versus maneuvers, fortitude, and non-potence combat) that I never pull it out of my combat decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7x3e4n3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:40:44 GMT, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at said: > > CPilhatsch> [snipped] > > I agree. There is no game-world excuse for the way FS currently works > (which is very unintuitive). > > Yes, there are only a few first-strike cards currently, but is FS were > made into a useful ability then we might see some interesting FS cards > in the new VTES cards (whether promos or another expansion). Besides, > I'm still in the opinion that *since* it's such a small detail *and* > it's a detail that causes a lot of confusion - especially among new > players - this would be a good time to change the rules regarding > FS. As long as there is no printed, officially distributed rules > document, changing a minor rule is not a hassle. Compared to the 7/7 > rulings, this would be minor (and would make a lot of people happy). I assume you are right on this one. Little effort to change the rule. But: it has a straightening effect on the overall-rules outline. What I mean is: Instead of making an exception to the rules per se ("Dodge: cancels even strikes with FS"), it makes the strike-resolution smoother. You wouldn't have to make an exception, as it is otherwise clear from the rules that "FS resolves before a strike not dealt with FS". This is far more straightforward then the current ruling. It would be easier to teach (as there is no "wait, actually you have to bear in mind that...") and I guess it would make a *lot* of people happy. Including me. ;) > P.S. My local game store just told me that WotC is out of the Sabbat > expanion - and consequently the price of Sabbat boosters went > up. What, has the reprint of the Sabbat also sold out? Is this the > same game that some people at WotC said isn't selling? :) Same here in Vienna. Sabbat is available at our local store (only one store still sells VTES, but this one with steadily increasing success). They are able to provide Sabbat, even though the wholesaler has run out of displays. That's very important for us, as we are totally fond of small Sabbat sealed games with friends. (Each of us buys some boosters, we build decks and play for ante. No additional cards from our private stock, just the cards from the boosters. If one deck gets too strong in the course of a bunch of games, we start all over again. Huge fun!) I guess that Sabbat will be available for a long time. It's just that WotC seems to have sold all its stock to wholesalers and retailers. There must still be plenty of Sabbat to buy. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 08:41:51 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: LSJ> It doesn't cause that much confusion - a quick check of the rules LSJ> normally sets people straight. Of course, if the newbie is LSJ> learning from a friend (rather than from the rules) and the LSJ> friend is confused about how First Strike works and/or explains LSJ> it with terms like "surprise attack" (which are not found in the LSJ> rules and may give people the wrong impression of First Strike), LSJ> then the newbie may get confused, yes. Ummm... this is not the case here, I can assure you. Just about *every* new player that I've played with has thought that First Strike works differently than it does. It has nothing to do with the person teaching being confused, it has to do with what a person normally assumes the english words "first strike" to mean :) First Strike is such a rare capability that I rarely remember to mention it when teaching the game to newbies. They run into it later (in the form of Muddles, Fast Hands etc) and become a bit confused until someone explains things. Then they usually say "that's stupid", someone else says "yup, but that's the rules", and then play continues. //Petri

In article <7xzp6v1...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, [ quoted text not captured ] I like to be understood! :) Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36B87A2D...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > > > LSJ> (snipped) > > Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even > > an attack with FS? > > Because it resolves before a normal attack or even an attack with FS. Yes, but only according to the rules in effect at the moment. It's only, because of one additional sentence in the Dodge paragraph. (Which was not there in Jyhad) > > If you're looking for the "real world" explanation, allow me to > rephrase the point that I've made more than once in this thread: > > It is easier to move the short distance from where the opposing strike > will land to where it won't than it is to cover the distance from where > your fist is to where your opponent's head is (or used to be). > > distance = speed * time > time = distance / speed > > Fist Strike increases the speed. = more distance OR less time > But the distance to be traversed by the dodger is much less > than the distance to be traversed by the striker. So the time > it takes the dodger to get out of the way is still less than > the time it takes the First Striker to complete his strike. The fact that the distance to move out of the strike is less than the attackers attack distance is covered by the effect that a dodge cancels the opponents strike. No argument here. But a strike with FS is dealt at such a speed (you remember: more speed=less time) that a normal dodge is too slow (ineffective) against the speed-freak. It would be speedy enough again, if the dodger uses FS, too. > > > Fact is: if a vampire is in combat with another one, and the first has > > Celerity and the other hasn`t, then the cel-guy *is* faster using his > > discipline. (In RPG terms, the cel-guy could perform x actions in a > > combat round, where x is his celerity level (rather blood he spends), > > the other one gets only 1 action.) > > This means cel-guy can strike the other so fast, he cannot react in time. > > This again means he cannot dodge in time, because defending is not > > by any means faster then attacking. > > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > The rules of the card game don't support that interpretation. > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > > In VTES terms: FS is mostly (with 2 or 3 exceptions) a cel ability. > > (i.e. Fast hands, Backstab). FS can mean two differnt things: > > > > 1. the defender is too slow to react in time, so the strike hits, regardless > > of the defenders strike response. (which could be even a dodge) > > > > 2. the defender is surprised (attacked from behind or whatever), and cannot > > react in time, as he doesn't see the danger coming until it's too late. > > It actually means (only): > > *. the attacker is moving faster than normal. In VTES it seems to mean both. But that's not the point. > > This doesn't mean the defender is too slow to react at all - but > that he is too slow to connect with his own strike against the > attacker, if that was his intention, until after his opponent's > strike connects. But the defender is still capable of moving. If > the defender chooses "dodge" as his move, then the amount of > movement required is so small that he is still successful in > getting out of the way by the time the attacker's strike reaches > the spot where its target used to be. > > > In VTES, FS represents both! (Think of Fast Hands and Silence of Death) > > FS is a concept, and there is no reason, why a minion should be able > > to dodge a first strike. From a real-world view this is not right. > > No. It represents speed only. Some cards have used it (First Strike) > to attempt to simulate a surprise attack. Some other cards used > a more appropriate mechanic to simulate a surprise attack (since First > Strike doesn't do a good job simulating a surprise attack - since > it wasn't designed to). This may be true, but the cards still exist. Or do you want them to change accordingly????? > > > It would be different, if the dodger would dodge with first strike, too. > > Then his dodge would again have effect against the FS. > > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if > that'll help the rules make sense to you. Why should I pretend that? Ok, for simplicity, lets say that there are only two speed levels: normal and fast. (As the game mechanic suggests) Strikes with fast speed resolve before strikes with normal speed. All strikes are at normal speed by default. (We leave S:CE out of the discussion, as we don't dispute them) So a dodge against a strike, both with normal speed, has effect. If both strikes are at fast speed, one is a dodge, the other a strike, dodge is effective. If only the other strike is fast, and dodge normal, then the dodge would havne no effect. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79c03b$9pl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > In article <7x3e4n3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > > Yes, there are only a few first-strike cards currently, but is FS were > > made into a useful ability then we might see some interesting FS cards > > in the new VTES cards (whether promos or another expansion). Besides, > > I'm still in the opinion that *since* it's such a small detail *and* > > it's a detail that causes a lot of confusion - especially among new > > players - this would be a good time to change the rules regarding > > FS. As long as there is no printed, officially distributed rules > > document, changing a minor rule is not a hassle. Compared to the 7/7 > > rulings, this would be minor (and would make a lot of people happy). > I assume you are right on this one. Little effort to change the rule. > But: it has a straightening effect on the overall-rules outline. > What I mean is: > > Instead of making an exception to the rules per se ("Dodge: cancels > even strikes with FS"), it makes the strike-resolution smoother. > You wouldn't have to make an exception, as it is otherwise clear from > the rules that "FS resolves before a strike not dealt with FS". > This is far more straightforward then the current ruling. > It would be easier to teach (as there is no "wait, actually you have > to bear in mind that...") and I guess it would make a *lot* of people > happy. Including me. ;) My problem with making First Strike beat Dodge but not S:CE is that it seems to me the effect wouldn't be worth the effort of making the change. I mean, even though it might not be much effort, if FS still didn't beat S:CE, it would still be a nearly worthless combat effect, because S:CE is widely used compared to Dodge (in all the tournies I've seen). And if there isn't even game-world/RPG justification for making FS beat S:CE, then as far as I'm concerned we might as well leave FS to rot on the same pile as Concealed Weapon. The mechanic still won't be interesting enough if all it does is beat Dodge, to me. Josh I know, it's callous... just like Willow... [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > I guess what I'm missing is why people don't use S:CE. Combat decks > can be quite dangerous, and if they can't deal with S:CE, S:CE shuts > them down completely. If people get hosed by combat, they naturally > include S:CE, and then combat decks I would think naturally > progress to deal with S:CE. There are often cases when one would rather dodge than S:CE. For example, the dodge-additional strike-Disarm combo. Another example would be a deck that uses retainers and other environmental factors to inflict damage while the vampire dodges. > Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't > bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start > using S:CE again!? *shrug* I don't know about that, but I'm mostly concerned about the cost and effect issue of First Strike since it's a very pricy effect for such a low impact on combat. It amazes me that LSJ and/or the Rules Team has a problem with making a change on First Strike when people largely favor the idea, but has little problem with making and defending changes that few people like. I would urge LSJ to put this on the Rules Team docket to at least consider the idea before dismissing it out of hand. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even > > an attack with FS? > > Because it resolves before a normal attack or even an attack with FS. Under current rules, true. However, since we are discussing _changing_ the rules, using the current rules as a defense is silly. > Fist Strike increases the speed. > But the distance to be traversed by the dodger is much less > than the distance to be traversed by the striker. So the time > it takes the dodger to get out of the way is still less than > the time it takes the First Striker to complete his strike. First off, First Strike isn't necessarily about faster speed. In the cases that it is about superior speed, a vampire with celerity is going to be moving so fast that the opposing vampire can't focus on him, much less dodge him. > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at least familiarize yourself with it. > The rules of the card game don't support that interpretation. Again, using the rules to defend the rules is circular logic. > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. > It actually means (only): > > *. the attacker is moving faster than normal. Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? Last time I checked, Silence of Death was a zone of silence, not an increase of speed. > But the defender is still capable of moving. If > the defender chooses "dodge" as his move, then the amount of > movement required is so small that he is still successful in > getting out of the way by the time the attacker's strike reaches > the spot where its target used to be. This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. > No. It represents speed only. This is blatantly untrue. Try to dodge a pack of dogs. > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if > that'll help the rules make sense to you. This is so fucking stupid that I can't even believe that you would suggest it. A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case here. Why not go so far as to allow multiple dodges in a round without multiple strikes? > HL was designed to simulate a surprise attack. It did not use the > First Strike mechanic to do so because the First Strike mechanic is > not suited for that sort of use. ...and what makes you so sure of this? Talk to Mr. Garfield lately? > First Strike is for speed, not surprise. Which is why Dodge "beats" > First Strike. Say it with me, "Silence of Death." [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Petri Wessman wrote: > > I agree. There is no game-world excuse for the way FS currently works > > (which is very unintuitive). > > Yes, there is. The dodger moves out of the way before the > faster-than-normal strike gets to connect. First off, you already admitted to not being familiar with the rules of the RPG and LARP. Trying to say that there is a game-world reason without knowing the game rules is pretty much talking out of your ass. Go try to dodge a bullet. That's how fast a vampire with superior Celerity moves. A vampire without an equal or higher level of Celerity will not be able to keep up with the other. It's that simple. You cannot get out of the way of an strike that moves faster than you can see. > Ah, but there is. The printed rulebook that was distributed with > every V:TES starter deck is very clear on the interaction between > Dodge and First Strike [8.3] It's also clear about aggravated damage and the Golden Rule of Card Ownership, but you don't seem to have a problem with changing those. > But there is a lot of errata already, and neither the First Strike > mechanic nor the Concealed Weapon situation is unbalancing. So they > remain as they are. I disagree and I've shown in minute detail why. The First Strike effect is unbalanced towards being to weak for its cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > > > > LSJ> > > (snipped) > > > > Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even > > > an attack with FS? > > > > Because it resolves before a normal attack or even an attack with FS. > > Yes, but only according to the rules in effect at the moment. It's Which is the way the rules have always been. > only, because of one additional sentence in the Dodge paragraph. > (Which was not there in Jyhad). Right. In Jyhad, Dodge simply "negates the effect of the opponent's strike". Note the lack of any sort of exception for First Strike. The rules didn't change the effect - they simply clarified a point about which many people had questions. This point has been made before. > > If you're looking for the "real world" explanation, allow me to > > rephrase the point that I've made more than once in this thread: > > > > It is easier to move the short distance from where the opposing strike > > will land to where it won't than it is to cover the distance from where > > your fist is to where your opponent's head is (or used to be). > > > > distance = speed * time > > time = distance / speed > > > > Fist Strike increases the speed. > > = more distance OR less time > > > But the distance to be traversed by the dodger is much less > > than the distance to be traversed by the striker. So the time > > it takes the dodger to get out of the way is still less than > > the time it takes the First Striker to complete his strike. > > The fact that the distance to move out of the strike is less than > the attackers attack distance is covered by the effect that a dodge > cancels the opponents strike. No argument here. But a strike with > FS is dealt at such a speed (you remember: more speed=less time) that > a normal dodge is too slow (ineffective) against the speed-freak. It decreases the time, yes. But the time to dodge (which has not been decreased) is still less than the newly-decreased time to strike. The normal dodge is still fast enough (effective) against the speed-freak. > It would be speedy enough again, if the dodger uses FS, too. It would remain speedy enough, yes. [ quoted text not captured ] Some cards exist which could've been written better, yes. Some of them use the First Strike mechanic. Some of them don't. None of them unbalance the game, so there is no compelling reason to increase the errata list to alter the situation (either by altering the rules or the cards themselves). > > > It would be different, if the dodger would dodge with first strike, too. > > > Then his dodge would again have effect against the FS. > > > > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if > > that'll help the rules make sense to you. > > Why should I pretend that? So that the rules (as they have always been) regarding Dodge and First Strike will make sense to your conception of First Strike. > Ok, for simplicity, lets say that there are only two speed levels: > normal and fast. (As the game mechanic suggests) > > Strikes with fast speed resolve before strikes with normal speed. > All strikes are at normal speed by default. (We leave S:CE out of > the discussion, as we don't dispute them) Also leave out Dodge (as the rules indicate). The speed levels in question only apply to strikes that attempt to connect to the opponent. > So a dodge against a strike, both with normal speed, has effect. No, it is at "dodge speed" - actually it is at normal speed but has so little to do that the normal speed allows it to resolve almost immediately (before a connect-with-the-opponent strike done at either fast or normal speed). > If both strikes are at fast speed, one is a dodge, the other a strike, > dodge is effective. True. > If only the other strike is fast, and dodge normal, then the dodge would > havne no effect. No. The dodge (having so little to do) still resolves first. If the point hasn't been made clearly enough already (which is hard to believe), let me break down exactly what I mean in physics terms (none of this is necessary - the explanations that have been given and the rules themselves are clear enough): D: Distance. S: Speed. D (for punch) = X D (for dodge) = Y (Y = X/4, e.g.) S (normal) = N S (fast) = F (F = 2N, e.g.) Time to dodge = Y/N = X/4N Time to punch = X/N ; Y/N = X/4N < X/N : dodge wins. Time to punch with first strike = X/F = X/2N; Y/N = X/4N < X/2N : dodge wins Of course, you can choose different ratios, even some that lead to the conclusion that First Strike beats Dodge. But that would just mean the ratios were inappropriate for the illustration, since Dodge does beat First Strike (in a manner similar to the one illustrated with the ratios above). If that explanation doesn't clear it up for you, then just take the rules at their word: Dodge beats First Strike. Futher repetition of the points made would serve no purpose. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 14:49:07 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: Dharzhak> Jasper Phillips wrote: >> I guess what I'm missing is why people don't use S:CE. Combat decks >> can be quite dangerous, and if they can't deal with S:CE, S:CE shuts >> them down completely. If people get hosed by combat, they naturally >> include S:CE, and then combat decks I would think naturally >> progress to deal with S:CE. Dharzhak> There are often cases when one would rather dodge than Dharzhak> S:CE. For example, the dodge-additional strike-Disarm Dharzhak> combo. Another example would be a deck that uses retainers Dharzhak> and other environmental factors to inflict damage while the Dharzhak> vampire dodges. Yup. I see quite a lot of dodge in our local play group, especially with weenie decks without Presence. The dodge + additional strike combo is another frequent flyer. >> Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't >> bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start >> using S:CE again!? Dharzhak> *shrug* I don't know about that, but I'm mostly concerned Dharzhak> about the cost and effect issue of First Strike since it's a Dharzhak> very pricy effect for such a low impact on combat. It Dharzhak> amazes me that LSJ and/or the Rules Team has a problem with Dharzhak> making a change on First Strike when people largely favor Dharzhak> the idea, but has little problem with making and defending Dharzhak> changes that few people like. I would urge LSJ to put this Dharzhak> on the Rules Team docket to at least consider the idea Dharzhak> before dismissing it out of hand. Yeah, seconded. I'm also a bit puzzled. I'd understand dismissing at idea if the rules had been set in stone for N years, but since we've seen a *lot* of changes lately, with quite a few of the changes done simply because many people thought they were good ideas - *not* because they were needed in any absolute sense. Oh, quite a few of the recent rulings *were* needed, the game is much more balaced now - but that's not the point. With all respect towards LSJ, to me it looks like this is a change that LSJ doesn't personally think is necessary (as opposed to the N rule changes that he thought were necessary) so he won't even consider it. Since so far something like 80% of the people who have posted here and who have responded to my survey have been in favor of changing the FS rules - isn't that a basis for at least considering it seriously? Or does LSJ and/or the Rules Team have the stance that all of the other recent changes to game rules / errata / whatever have been *absolutely* necessary and were done only to stop the game from breaking (as seems to be the argument for not changing FS)? I can understand being opposed to changing Concealed Weapon, as that's only a single card. This is a class of cards, quite a different thing. //Petri

On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 15:29:02 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: >> Ah, but there is. The printed rulebook that was distributed with >> every V:TES starter deck is very clear on the interaction between >> Dodge and First Strike [8.3] Dharzhak> It's also clear about aggravated damage and the Golden Rule Dharzhak> of Card Ownership, but you don't seem to have a problem with Dharzhak> changing those. Yup. This selective leaning on "but the rule book says A and B" bothers me, too. As Noal said, there didn't seem to be any tears shed over changing how aggra damage works - a change which a LOT of people resisted. Here we have a case which the majority of players seem to agree on - why is changing this not even worthy of consideration when so much else seems to have been? If we go by the "what the makers of the game intended" argument that you've used before, by reading the Jyhad rule book and cards it could equally well be argued that the makers of the game intended First Strike to beat all non-S:CE strikes - which would be the logical conclusion. Since the Jyhad rules don't say one way or the other, this is just as valid as the opposite viewpoint. This leaved the V:TES rulebook Dodge addition of "including First Strike" as just a Rules Team ruling. And we all know how well-informed and coherent the rules team was at that time, and what other elightened rulings were made. :} >> But there is a lot of errata already, and neither the First Strike >> mechanic nor the Concealed Weapon situation is unbalancing. So they >> remain as they are. Dharzhak> I disagree and I've shown in minute detail why. The First Dharzhak> Strike effect is unbalanced towards being to weak for its Dharzhak> cost. I also disagree. And LSJ, please stop comparing this to Concealed Weapon. That's one single card, this is a rule mechanic. Big difference. As to why change (besides the "most players seem to support it" argument): it would give the Assamites a small boost as a combat clan. Not big, but any boost is still a boost. Anyone who thinks the Assamites are currently the powerful combat clan they should be please raise your hand. //Petri

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Jasper Phillips wrote: > > Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't > > bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start > > using S:CE again!? > > *shrug* I don't know about that, but I'm mostly concerned about the > cost and effect issue of First Strike since it's a very pricy effect for such > a low impact on combat. I addressed that issue (cost/effect) when you raised it. I didn't see your response, however. > It amazes me that LSJ and/or the Rules Team > has a problem with making a change on First Strike when people largely > favor the idea, but has little problem with making and defending changes > that few people like. I would urge LSJ to put this on the Rules Team > docket to at least consider the idea before dismissing it out of hand. Does it also amaze you that no errata has been issued implementing a Card Limit? People "largely" like card limits as much as they do altering the rules on Dodge, as far as I can tell. But, since both card limits and first-strike-beats-dodge do not match the intention of the game nor do they promote game balance (criteria for issuing errata, criteria which I thought you had agreed with in the past), such errata is not issued. If your group prefers to play with errata implementing a Card Limit or with errata that changes the order of strike resolution, then use that errata as a house rule. But unless the errata serves to correct an unbalancing situation or restore the original intention of a rule or card, that errata won't be issued. Even some errata that meets one or both of the criteria mentioned doesn't get issued (when the effect of the errata isn't great enough to warrant the change - like Concealed Weapon). I fail to see how applying a uniform guideline for issuing errata after careful study of the issues can be seen as "dismissing it out of hand". [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even > > > an attack with FS? > > > > Because it resolves before a normal attack or even an attack with FS. > > Under current rules, true. Under the rules from inception to date. > However, since we are discussing _changing_ > the rules, using the current rules as a defense is silly. He asked what made me think that dodge was faster. I answered. What's the problem? > > Fist Strike increases the speed. > > But the distance to be traversed by the dodger is much less > > than the distance to be traversed by the striker. So the time > > it takes the dodger to get out of the way is still less than > > the time it takes the First Striker to complete his strike. > > First off, First Strike isn't necessarily about faster speed. In the > cases that it is about superior speed, a vampire with celerity is > going to be moving so fast that the opposing vampire can't > focus on him, much less dodge him. Dodge beats First Strike.[6.4.5] So apparently, the opposing vampire can dodge him. > > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at > least familiarize yourself with it. Why? Would it help me understand the rules of the card game any better? It would seem that that is not the case. The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. > > The rules of the card game don't support that interpretation. > > Again, using the rules to defend the rules is circular logic. I wasn't defending the rules. I simply noted that the rules didn't support a particulat interpretation. Indicating that that particular interpretation is not the one modelled by the rules. Not circular. Very simple and direct. > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. Hmm. I tell you I don't play the RPG and you ask for me to give some example from the RPG. Now who's being silly? > > It actually means (only): > > > > *. the attacker is moving faster than normal. > > Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? No. In that case the attack is moving faster. That's pretty obvious. But thanks for bringing it up. The new, improved meaning: * the attack is moving faster than normal. > Last time I > checked, Silence of Death was a zone of silence, not an increase > of speed. Right, which is why that card should have used a different mechanic than First Strike, since First Strike fails to properly mimic that zone of silence. As I've said before. Please follow the thread. > > But the defender is still capable of moving. If > > the defender chooses "dodge" as his move, then the amount of > > movement required is so small that he is still successful in > > getting out of the way by the time the attacker's strike reaches > > the spot where its target used to be. > > This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. > Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back > and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit > a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before > the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire > without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. Not in the card game. Dodge beats First Strike. [6.4.5] > > No. It represents speed only. > > This is blatantly untrue. Try to dodge a pack of dogs. So that card made use of a mechanic that didn't quite fit. It (the First Strike mechanic) still works rather well for that card. How that card uses First Strike to achieve its effect doesn't change what the First Strike mechanic effectively represents. > > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if > > that'll help the rules make sense to you. > > This is so [bleep]ing stupid that I can't even believe that you would > suggest it. I said "if that'll help". You obviously don't think it will help, so please feel free not to use that suggestion. > A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case > here. Because it's in the rules. [6.4.5]. Just like it always has been. > Why not go so far as to allow multiple dodges in a round > without multiple strikes? Because that violates the rules. (Just like it always has). > > HL was designed to simulate a surprise attack. It did not use the > > First Strike mechanic to do so because the First Strike mechanic is > > not suited for that sort of use. > > ...and what makes you so sure of this? Talk to Mr. Garfield lately? Since Dodge beats First Strike, it follows that First Strike is not well suited for use in modeling a surprise attack. No need to talk to Garfield to see this plain fact. Since Hidden Lurker's name implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job of modelling a surprise attack (by not allowing a Dodge, e.g.) it can be assumed that the designers intended for it to do so. But you are free to assume that the designers stumbled across both the card name and card text by Dumb Luck, of course. You have agreed with this assertion (that First Strike, being beaten by a Dodge, fails to properly model a surprise attack). If you have changed your mind (and now think that First Strike, still as always being beaten by Dodge, adequately models a surprise Attack), then we can stop arguing. > > First Strike is for speed, not surprise. Which is why Dodge "beats" > > First Strike. > > Say it with me, "Silence of Death." Silence of Death. Now, say it with me: "Dodge beats First Strike". (and if you like, think "Silence of Death should've used a different mechanic" while you say it). I don't see the reason why you keep bringing up points that I've already supplied responses to. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at least > familiarize yourself with it. [...] > This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. Read > the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back and say this. We have: The RPG rules The LARP rules The CCG rules None of these are based on any of the others. They are all set in the same world, though. Playing the CCG and making CCG rulings have no requirement of familiarity, previous use, or awareness of the existence of the other two systems. But if you insist that they all must agree, why don't you go get the LARPers to change their rules to agree with the CCG? Hunter

In article <79cdjm$kua$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at > least familiarize yourself with it. Playing and be familiar with are two different things. I'm sure LSJ is familiar with the RPG because that's what the card game does. As a Jyhad player, if a person picked up the main V:tM book, they would already be familiar with how a lot of things are. > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. Sabbat Threat against a Sabbat-only deck, ditto for Camarilla Threat Independent vampires not capable of becoming Princes without joining Camarilla There are no inferior and superiors to discipline abilities, ie. you either have the ability to Form of Mist or you don't. Assamite blood is just as toxic to non-Assamites as vice versa No one should be able to diablerize an Assamite. Why Dread Gaze and Awe give you votes is beyond me.... In other words, there are several. > > But the defender is still capable of moving. If > > the defender chooses "dodge" as his move, then the amount of > > movement required is so small that he is still successful in > > getting out of the way by the time the attacker's strike reaches > > the spot where its target used to be. > > This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. > Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back > and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit > a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before > the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire > without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. In the table top, the only thing Celerity does is give you more actions in a round; rounds aren't necessarily just combat. In the LARP, the system is similar (I can't remember specifically). I think it allows you to move faster and/or have more challenges. For our situation (combat and dodges), you aren't going to strike before a person get's a chance to dodge, but you will have more strikes than they have dodges unless they also have Celerity or, in tabletop, start splitting dice and give themselves a lower chance to dodge. > This is so fucking stupid that I can't even believe that you would > suggest it. A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case > here. Umm, you can always try to dodge if you have dice. Celerity in the LARP and tabletop don't directly make you do a specific thing faster but rather do more things in the same amount of time. Yes, I know that doesn't make sense, but that's how it works. > Why not go so far as to allow multiple dodges in a round > without multiple strikes? Unfortunately, we just have Dodge. You either Dodge or you don't. If there were "worse" dodges and chances to hit, we'd be able to dodge more than once a round without additional strikes. > "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" > -woman at a gas station in Detroit Must have been the hair. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xu2x2c...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > As to why change (besides the "most players seem to support it" > argument): Most players participating in this discussion seem to support it. As far as getting the opinions of the actual players out there, we're far from representative of most. > it would give the Assamites a small boost as a combat > clan. Not big, but any boost is still a boost. Very, very small boost. S:CE is still a bigger killer than Dodge. > Anyone who thinks the > Assamites are currently the powerful combat clan they should be please > raise your hand. Al-Ashrad and Thetmes kick butt by themselves. Too bad a deck using only one vampire would suck. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > I addressed that issue (cost/effect) when you raised it. > I didn't see your response, however. Really? I missed it. I'll have to go back and look later. > Does it also amaze you that no errata has been issued implementing > a Card Limit? People "largely" like card limits as much as they do > altering the rules on Dodge, as far as I can tell. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Are you reading the same newsgroup I am?!? Last time I checked, only Vince was advocating card limits for tournaments. I certainly do not and neither does the majority of the regular posters. > But, since both card limits and first-strike-beats-dodge do not match > the intention of the game nor do they promote game balance I disagree with your assessment of first-strike-beats dodge...not to mention your insistence of putting cider in my orange juice. A card or effect doesn't have to be overpowered for it to affect game balance. If it's too weak, game balance can be tilted the other way. I certainly disagree with your assessment of the "intention of the game" since you haven't even read the rules of the game that it's based on. > If your group prefers to play with errata implementing a Card Limit > or with errata that changes the order of strike resolution, then use > that errata as a house rule. We do. However, none of the people in my local playgroup seek to impose card limits on tournaments because it does not make sense to do so for several reasons already covered over the last few weeks. (and years) > But unless the errata serves to correct > an unbalancing situation or restore the original intention of a rule > or card, that errata won't be issued. I'd argue that First Strike is unbalanced towards being too weak. Besides, if this is the case, why was WWEF issued errata? That made no sense whatsoever. It's my opinion that you are letting your personal feeling about issues affect your decision about what goes before the rules team and what doesn't. > Even some errata that meets > one or both of the criteria mentioned doesn't get issued (when the > effect of the errata isn't great enough to warrant the change - like > Concealed Weapon). ...or WWEF? *smirk* > I fail to see how applying a uniform guideline for issuing errata > after careful study of the issues can be seen as "dismissing it > out of hand". Because you have clearly failed to apply it uniformly. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xu2x2c...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 15:29:02 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: > [Noal also wrote] >> First off, you already admitted to not being familiar with the rules of the >> RPG and LARP. Trying to say that there is a game-world reason without >> knowing the game rules is pretty much talking out of your ass. >> Go try to >> dodge a bullet. That's how fast a vampire with superior Celerity moves. A >> vampire without an equal or higher level of Celerity will not be able to keep >> up with the other. It's that simple. You cannot get out of the way of an >> strike that moves faster than you can see. Note that combat is already very much metaphorical. How long would it take a 'damn he's fast' celeritous vampire to beat up some wimp with nothing but a little dominate? The dom weenie might not even get a strike off, right? But if the Cel vamp Blurs to simulate his astounding speed, he still has to take the Dom vamp's normal-speed hit before any of his extra strikes take effect. Suppose you have a .44 magnum. You can try to shoot people with it. Unless you are awfully damn good with it, you will not hit them all that often from any distance, especially if they are also shooting at you. But in Jyhad, if two combatants each have .44s and shoot them at each other, they will both take two points of damage at long range. Also (as seems to be usual) there seems to be some disagreement on how the RPG rules work. Someone else said that it could be possible (if unlikely) for a no-celerity vampire to dodge all X of Mr Lots Of Celerity's speedy attacks in VTM. [LSJ] >>> But there is a lot of errata already, and neither the First Strike >>> mechanic nor the Concealed Weapon situation is unbalancing. So they >>> remain as they are. [Noal again] >I disagree and I've shown in minute detail why. The First Strike effect >is unbalanced towards being to weak for its cost. I agree. [blatant controversial statement time] So is Dodge. How many Dodges do you see getting played that do nothing but Dodge? Only the disciplineless 'do not replace' one, right? And that one is used because there are some vamps/allies that have no better options but need combat defense, right? How much does Vampiric Speed get played around your way? Read Intentions? Usually for a Dodge to get used much, it has to either not require a discipline or else have some really good other effects. What about Concealed Weapon? Anyone ever play that? How about Sacre Coeur Cathedral? Arcanum Investigator? My reading of the big obstacle in the way of changing First Strike is that it amounts to errata to make wallpaper cards better. The general theory, as far as I've seen, has always been that it is more useful toward balancing the game to depower overpowered cards than it is to improve relatively weak ones. [Petri wrote] > Yup. This selective leaning on "but the rule book says A and B" > bothers me, too. As Noal said, there didn't seem to be any tears shed > over changing how aggra damage works - a change which a LOT of people > resisted. Here we have a case which the majority of players seem to > agree on - why is changing this not even worthy of consideration when > so much else seems to have been? > > If we go by the "what the makers of the game intended" argument that > you've used before, by reading the Jyhad rule book and cards it could > equally well be argued that the makers of the game intended First > Strike to beat all non-S:CE strikes - which would be the logical > conclusion. Since the Jyhad rules don't say one way or the other, this > is just as valid as the opposite viewpoint. > > This leaved the V:TES rulebook Dodge addition of "including First > Strike" as just a Rules Team ruling. And we all know how well-informed > and coherent the rules team was at that time, and what other > elightened rulings were made. :} Yeah, sort of. But the 'ruling' ('clarification' maybe) that Dodge beat First Strike preceded the printing of the VTES rulebook, as I recall. > I also disagree. And LSJ, please stop comparing this to Concealed > Weapon. That's one single card, this is a rule mechanic. Big > difference. I'm sorry, I just can't help bringing Concealed Weapon into every underpowered-cards discussion I see. ;-) > As to why change (besides the "most players seem to support it" > argument): it would give the Assamites a small boost as a combat > clan. Not big, but any boost is still a boost. Anyone who thinks the > Assamites are currently the powerful combat clan they should be please > raise your hand. Umm, Aye. Have you seen Assamites doing their Bum's Rush/lots of Flashes/ lots of Taste of Death action? Did you not think it was an effective combat angle? They don't have Immortal Grapple, sure, but they do have Psyche, and they also have long-range combat (and lots of maneuvers) to make them liable to beat IG decks. As far as I've seen, what holds the Assamites back is a lack of enough good vampires, not a lack of good combat cards. Josh always caught in the middle [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > However, since we are discussing _changing_ > > the rules, using the current rules as a defense is silly. > > He asked what made me think that dodge was faster. I answered. > What's the problem? If you can't see the problem with using the rules to justify the rules, I can't answer this. What I can do is gape at you for asking this question. > Dodge beats First Strike.[6.4.5] So apparently, the opposing vampire > can dodge him. *shakes head* Maybe I should refer to you as Mr. Brickwall from here on out. > > > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > > > > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at > > least familiarize yourself with it. > > Why? Would it help me understand the rules of the card game any > better? It would seem that that is not the case. I doubt that there is anybody who would agree with you at this point. > The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. After how many pages of errata? Clearly your record shows that what you do and what you say are inconsistent. > > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. > > Hmm. I tell you I don't play the RPG and you ask for me to > give some example from the RPG. Now who's being silly? I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. You said, "I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of the card game do not match the rules of the RPG." If you're sure, then name one. > > Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? > > No. In that case the attack is moving faster. That's > pretty obvious. But thanks for bringing it up. Superior Animalism improves the speed of the dogs?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! *looks in barrel of fish* *takes aim with shotgun* > > Last time I > > checked, Silence of Death was a zone of silence, not an increase > > of speed. > > Right, which is why that card should have used a different > mechanic than First Strike, since First Strike fails to > properly mimic that zone of silence. As I've said before. > Please follow the thread. *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing vampire any strikes whatsoever. >> This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. >> Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back >> and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit >> a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before >> the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire >> without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. > > Not in the card game. Dodge beats First Strike. [6.4.5] Polly wanna cracker? Squawk! C'mon. You can do better than this. Try to put some thought into it. > > This is blatantly untrue. Try to dodge a pack of dogs. > > So that card made use of a mechanic that didn't quite > fit. It (the First Strike mechanic) still works rather > well for that card. It amazes me how so many of the First Strike cards don't "quite fit." Perhaps your understanding of First Strike isn't as good as you think it is. > > A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much > > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case > > here. > > Because it's in the rules. [6.4.5]. Just like it always has been. Here. Let's play a game of Where's Waldo? Can you find the circular logic? I sure can. > > Why not go so far as to allow multiple dodges in a round > > without multiple strikes? > > Because that violates the rules. (Just like it always has). Who are you and what did you do with the real LSJ? Are you his kid pretending to be him? > > ...and what makes you so sure of this? Talk to Mr. Garfield lately? > > Since Dodge beats First Strike, it follows that First Strike is > not well suited for use in modeling a surprise attack. If First Strike _did_ beat Dodge, it would be well suited. In fact, all of those cards that don't "quite fit" would fit just fine. > No need to talk to Garfield to see this plain fact. I wonder how many people would agree at this point. > Since Hidden Lurker's name > implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job > of modelling a surprise attack What about Fast Reactions? *grin* > You have agreed with this assertion (that First Strike, being > beaten by a Dodge, fails to properly model a surprise attack). Agreed. > If you have changed your mind (and now think that First Strike, > still as always being beaten by Dodge, adequately models a surprise > Attack), then we can stop arguing. However, since I haven't changed my mind that First Strike should beat a Dodge and then would adequately model a suprise attack, making First Strike both useful and consistent, I guess we'll continue arguing. *sips coffee* *grin* > > Say it with me, "Silence of Death." > > Silence of Death. > > Now, say it with me: "Dodge beats First Strike". > (and if you like, think "Silence of Death should've used a > different mechanic" while you say it). *shakes head* Dodge be...bea...b..b..bea..b... Sorry. Can't do it. Of course, if First Strike beats Dodge, Silence of Death would be fine and happy in the Smurf Village again. > I don't see the reason why you keep bringing up points that > I've already supplied responses to. Because your responses have been inconsistent, used circular logic or just plain displayed a lack of knowledge of the game that Jyhad is based on and why First Strike _should_ beat dodge. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79d3rb$a57$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read > the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge > makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing > vampire any strikes whatsoever. Noal, I'm going to have to shoot you down now that I'm home. In the LARP and table-top primary rulebooks (I don't have any supplements, so it is possible that there might be an alternate rule that is akin to First Strike), there is nothing like first strike. In tabletop, Celerity gives you extra actions. In each turn, a vampire with Celerity may spend one blood to get as many extra actions as they have dots, or points, in Celerity. You don't get to do things before other people, you just get to do more things. In the LARP, you get abilities rather than dots. However, they also only give you extra actions. Equal levels of Celerity cancel each other out. Higher levels vs. lower levels adjust to the difference. Alacrity - If you know a physical threat is coming, you can use this to take a preemptive action. Examples given are drawing a gun of your own, moving out of the path of a falling object, and so on. By this, I take it to mean that you can't use it for a preemptive strike, or what would be a First Strike. The other Celerity abilities aren't even close. Swiftness - You can make an immediate second attack after your current. Rapidity - You can make two extra actions, otherwise like Swiftness. Fleetness - Three extra actions. First Strike is purely a CCG notion borrowing the term from Magic. What it really should have been called was First Attack. In tabletop, if you've still got dice, you can always try to roll a dodge. You get dice to roll depending on your skills. (_very_ simplified) In the LARP, you always get to try to dodge if you've got the actions. This is all taken from "Laws of the Night," the LARP rules reference and "Vampire: the Masquerade," the tabletop rulebook. So now that the whole RPG/LARP argument has been shot down, can we move on just spouting opinions back and forth rather than supposed fact? :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

(part 1 of 2) Noal wrote: "I doubt that there is anybody who would agree with you at this point." I would agree with him. What does or does not occur in the RPG has zero bearing on what happens in Jyhad, the CCG. Yes, Jyhad is based on VTM, other than that, VTM has zero bearing on Jyhad. Using examples from VTM to justify what does or does not work in Jyhad is pointless. Jyhad is already miles away from VTM, and trying to bring the two closer together will do nothing but compromise the quality of Jyhad. They are two completely different games. They use completely different mechanics. The similarities are completely cosmetic. That is all. There are currently two (if not 3 or 4) Babylon 5 based games. It would be just as silly to justify making certain cards in the B5 CCG work in a certain way because of something that happens in the B5 tactical space combat game. "Superior Animalism improves the speed of the dogs?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! *looks in barrel of fish* *takes aim with shotgun*" No. Superior Animalism causes the card to have a different effect. At inferior, it does 1R damage. At superior, it destroys equipment with first strike. There aren't actually any dogs... Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Occasionally I'm callous and strange" -Willow Rosenberg

(part 2 of 2) Noal wrote: "*shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing vampire any strikes whatsoever." Again, what does or does not happen in the RPG has zero impact on what happens in Jyhad. They are different games. With different rules. And different mechanics. "If First Strike _did_ beat Dodge, it would be well suited. In fact, all of those cards that don't "quite fit" would fit just fine." As has been pointed out repeatedly, making First Strike beat Dodge would be pointless. As it is, Dodge is a substandard ability. Dodge is not an adaquate defense. Anyone who would rely on Dodge as their combat defense would use S:CE instead, or a completely different form of combat defense. Dodge is completely inadequate combat defense. Against a deck with multiple strikes, it is pointless. Against decks with pressess, it is pointless. The only combat deck that Dodges are even slightly effective against is a Gangrel deck, and if the Gangrel don't have close to infinite presses available, they are playing a badly designed Gangrel deck. The only dodges that are worth playing are those non-discipline ones by minions with no other choice, or by offensive Cel combat decks that want to avoid repraisal from their victims. If the implication here is that if First Strike beat Dodge, somehow, somewhere, someone's combat ability will become improved, I must say you are incorrect. First Strike is weak. Dodge is weak. Making one weak effect cancel out another weak effect does nothing to improve combat as a whole. If the hope is to make the Assamites better, it won't. Psyche, pressess, and additional strikes already quite a number on Dodges. Getting FS to beat dodge as well simply won't improve their combat ability. "However, since I haven't changed my mind that First Strike should beat a Dodge and then would adequately model a suprise attack, making First Strike both useful and consistent, I guess we'll continue arguing. *sips coffee* *grin*" But to what end? I completely disagree that making FS beat Dodge would make FS more useful. The general consensus and current theory states that only cards that are too powerful are worth fixing. Cards that are weak have no negative effect on the play environment (they only have a negative effect on space in one's card holding boxes). Everyone agrees that keeping errata to a minimum is a good idea. A good way to do this is to not fix cards that are weak, as they aren't important to fix (as they do not have a negative impact on the game as a whole), and once you open the can of worms that is fixing weak cards, there is a pretty long line of cards waiting to be fixed. "Because your responses have been inconsistent, used circular logic or just plain displayed a lack of knowledge of the game that Jyhad is based on and why First Strike _should_ beat dodge." His logic is clear. The rules say that FS does not beat dodge. The RPG has zero bearing on the rules of Jyhad. There is no good reason to change the rules on FS. Thus, they are not changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79cc0v$jd4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Jasper Phillips wrote: >> I guess what I'm missing is why people don't use S:CE. Combat decks >> can be quite dangerous, and if they can't deal with S:CE, S:CE shuts >> them down completely. If people get hosed by combat, they naturally >> include S:CE, and then combat decks I would think naturally >> progress to deal with S:CE. > >There are often cases when one would rather dodge than S:CE. For >example, the dodge-additional strike-Disarm combo. Another example >would be a deck that uses retainers and other environmental factors >to inflict damage while the vampire dodges. Well, but if you try to use dodge offensively, then _you_ get screwed by S:CE. Your only recourse is Psyche, and that just doesn't cut it. I can think of no defensive reason why you'd rather dodge than S:CE, and dodges just make for a poor offense. Hmmm, I suppose you could Thoughts Betrayed, Arms of the Abyss with the Lasombra, at least in theory (The main problem being that you'd need huge vampires -- You'd be better off with the marginal Gangrel Potence). >> Is there some sort of post phase that I'm missing where decks don't >> bother to use S:CE for fear of things like IG, and so people start >> using S:CE again!? > >*shrug* I don't know about that, but I'm mostly concerned about the >cost and effect issue of First Strike since it's a very pricy effect for such >a low impact on combat. It amazes me that LSJ and/or the Rules Team >has a problem with making a change on First Strike when people largely >favor the idea, but has little problem with making and defending changes >that few people like. I would urge LSJ to put this on the Rules Team >docket to at least consider the idea before dismissing it out of hand. I think that's quite an unfair characterization. In my view most people liked the changes they made, and furthermore most of the ones that didn't were CL advocates -- people who aren't using the official rules anyway. I find it hard to knock him for sticking to attempting to fix only broken cards, and not make wallpaper more effective. There are certainly some cases where I wish he'd go a little further (like when I argue that non-unique weapons and allies should uniformly cost 1 less ;-) ), but those cases would likely piss of way more people than they'd please. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79d3rb$a57$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > He asked what made me think that dodge was faster. I answered. > > What's the problem? > > If you can't see the problem with using the rules to justify the rules, > I can't answer this. What I can do is gape at you for asking this > question. I don't know. I understand that it seems weird that LSJ seems to have been using circular logic or using the rules to justify the rules, but I believe that the primary point is that (I believe Josh said something similar) if something is wallpaper, issuing *more* errata to try to help it is counter- productive. Even in this case. Yes, I agree that it might be nice if First Strike beat Dodge, but it appears to be less than worthwhile to go about doing that. [re RPG] > > Why? Would it help me understand the rules of the card game any > > better? It would seem that that is not the case. > > I doubt that there is anybody who would agree with you at this point. I agree with LSJ on this one. You don't *need* to be familiar with the RPG (although I am rather familiar with it myself) to play the game, or make decisions about the rules. People are getting confused about a card game which is trying to abstractly represent a certain setting or world, if you will. I believe that I tended to bitch about this when I jumped on the ng a few years back. Flavor *isn't* everything. It's nice when the RPG and the CCG coincide, but not at all necessary. Example(s): In the RPG, every vampire with Presence doesn't have access to Majesty. In the CCG, in theory, every vampire with Presence *does* have access to Majesty. Canine Horde: In the CCG, it gets you some damage, or destroys something. In the RPG, you can tell animals to go attack someone, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how you're going to tell a couple of *dogs*, for cryin' out loud, how to destroy a freakin' assault rifle! Hmm...what else...what else...Dread Gaze. RPG, it scares someone away from you. I'm still not sure exactly how it gets you votes in the CCG. 'I scared a bunch of people away from where the referendum was being held! The Brujah take the vote!' I could probably go on for a while. RPG != CCG, nor should it. RPG is *flavor* for the CCG, and any time they can interact is cool. But is ***illogical*** to try to make anything that works in the RPG apply to the CCG. 2 different systems. > > The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. > > After how many pages of errata? Clearly your record shows that > what you do and what you say are inconsistent. Noal, you're showing inconsistencies as well. Errata minimization vs. waaaaay changing First Strike. I've been playing just as long as most of you have (i.e. since it hit the shelves, since I couldn't move my sorry ass 90 miles to get to GenCon...), and I've never been under the impression that First Strike didn't beat Dodge. It is an unnecessary change which moves away from the original (as interpreted by the disciples...hehe) situation in the game. Most of the recent changes have been towards Jyhad rulings, i.e. aggravated damage. I do not see how you feel LSJ is being horribly inconsistent. > > > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > > > > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. > > > > Hmm. I tell you I don't play the RPG and you ask for me to > > give some example from the RPG. Now who's being silly? Whoops. LSJ missed something here. The original challenge was to 'Name one card *game* where the rules of the [CCG] do not try to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on.' Problem #1 for challenger. Jyhad does *try* to maintain the flavor of the RPG, but as Josh mentioned, abstraction is often necessary. Problem #2, I cannot think of another CCG/RPG off the top of my head. Mythos is not (don't play it, though I should, perhaps...) based on the RPG, but on Lovecraft's novels. Shadowfist was created before the RPG was made. I'm not sure if Spellfire should count...isn't it more of a 'spend your money to get good cards' game than a CCG? Hmm...I know very little about Doomtown or L5R...but I can't think of an RPG they're based on. Rage was screwed up from the beginning...it attempts to maintain the flavor, sort of, but I would argue that combat isn't the *only* thing in the RPG, which is what most of the (1st edition, can't speak about 2nd time around) CCG was about. > I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. You said, > "I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG." If you're > sure, then name one. Done above...I *know* I can think up more. Flavor is really really good, but not the overriding factor for the game. Smooth play is. > *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read > the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge > makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing > vampire any strikes whatsoever. Again, I don't think it's valid to bring in a separate rules system to compare with. I could see it either way. Why the LARP rules instead of the RPG rules for Silence of Death? <checks books...> Poo. Can't find Laws of the Night. They're basically the same, IIRC. > Polly wanna cracker? Squawk! > C'mon. You can do better than this. Try to put some thought into it. Noal. Chill. You're getting a little too irate. > It amazes me how so many of the First Strike cards don't "quite > fit." Perhaps your understanding of First Strike isn't as good > as you think it is. Or perhaps the card designers were thinking of Magic when they created the cards, and thought the mechanic worked the same. Mistakely. > > > A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much > > > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case > > > here. > > > > Because it's in the rules. [6.4.5]. Just like it always has been. > > Here. Let's play a game of Where's Waldo? Can you find the > circular logic? I sure can. Wait a minute. I don't know who put the point above LSJ's about a vampire not being able to dodge a faster moving <foo> than it in the RPG, but this is obviously not true. Dodge bullets, dodge lots of stuff, dodge celeritous vampire. Someone tried to say that a celeritous vampire is faster in the RPG, which is technically true, but the RPG still represents it abstractly by saying 'everyone gets 1 action at the same time...after that, vampires with celerity get x additional actions, where x is the level of their celerity.' If you want a first strike mechanice, you'd have to introduce initiative or something like the Judge Dredd RPG action system into the game. Dodges do happen in the RPG. You can even get more actions by splitting up your dice pool. Enough to equal the number of actions of a celeritous vampire. Difficult, yes. Unlikely, yes. Definitely possible. Also, consider that a celeritous vampire is not necessarily really *using* his celerity unless he uses a card that says 'additional strike' I mean...is he taking an extra action to get First Strike? Whoops. Sorry...RPG stuff...I'll stop. > > Since Hidden Lurker's name > > implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job > > of modelling a surprise attack > > What about Fast Reactions? *grin* My theory? The person with Fast Reactions had some sort of precognitive vision of their friend getting hurt, and shows up at a surprising moment to nail their tormentor. Works for me... > However, since I haven't changed my mind that First Strike should > beat a Dodge and then would adequately model a suprise attack, > making First Strike both useful and consistent, I guess we'll > continue arguing. *sips coffee* *grin* Cool...'continue swimming naked' But calm down a little... Xian...damn this DN sig thing...I am *not* typing out that bit from 1984 every single time I post... [ quoted text not captured ]

<I snipped it all - so sue me> Jasper, what newsgroup were you reading after the 7/7 rulings were issued? There was a brick ton of people (myself included) that came out of the woodwork to voice our dissention. I got EXTREMELY tired of seeing posts which include statements like "Most people" or "The majority". These are self serving words used without basis. My perception of that period of time was a number of players expressing dissatisfaction, and then being dismissed out of hand. Which appears to still be the norm today. I would like to embrace the errata and decisions of the rules team, but cannot in good conscience. I find quite a few rulings to be self servient, rules loopholes encouraged, complete card re-writes, and a rules team that obviously could care less about what others think outside of their esteemed clique. Every arguement & flame session I see here just strengthens my opinon. I don't like coming across as the bad guy, but all the BS that goes on here really gets under my skin (ask Noal how I get after being on the newsgroup). So for now, I have the Michigan Jyhad League. We'll play by our rules, not by yours. The rules we use are not house rules, and so far not 1 person of the 40+ on my list has voiced any note of dissention over our current errata/clarifications which have been made to date. Done ranting for now, Bernie Bresnahan Michigan Jyhad League "Justicar" "Every man is my superiour in that I may learn from him" Note to Peter: Dude, I totally respect your opinions but find it hard to believe that you could think that the RPG has no bearing on the CCG. I'm not a big Vampire RPG guy, but I don't see how you can so casually dismiss the source material the game is based on.

In article <36B9AFD6...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > only, because of one additional sentence in the Dodge paragraph. > > (Which was not there in Jyhad). > > Right. In Jyhad, Dodge simply "negates the effect of the > opponent's strike". Note the lack of any sort of exception > for First Strike. The rules didn't change the effect - they > simply clarified a point about which many people had questions. NO. Dodge is a strike. It has been a strike even in Jyhad. The dodge does not resolve until any other strike resolves, too. That is in the resolve strike phase. OK? With FS, your resolve strike phase is resolved before the others. At the time the "negates opponents strike" effect comes into play, the opposing minion has already resolved his strike. Even when resolving a strike, we have to stick to the rules. > It decreases the time, yes. But the time to dodge (which has not > been decreased) is still less than the newly-decreased time to > strike. The normal dodge is still fast enough (effective) against > the speed-freak. Again NO. The time to dodge depends on what to dodge. You cannot simply assume that a dodge is always faster than an attack! It may be true sometimes, but on the whole it involves the same effort to attack. > > > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if > > > that'll help the rules make sense to you. > > > > Why should I pretend that? > > So that the rules (as they have always been) regarding Dodge and > First Strike will make sense to your conception of First Strike. NO. Jyhad worked different. They (NOT Garfield) changed that with VTES. See above. > > > Ok, for simplicity, lets say that there are only two speed levels: > > normal and fast. (As the game mechanic suggests) > > > > Strikes with fast speed resolve before strikes with normal speed. > > All strikes are at normal speed by default. (We leave S:CE out of > > the discussion, as we don't dispute them) > > Also leave out Dodge (as the rules indicate). NO. We are talking about changing (possibly) current VTES rulings. So we have to take dodge into our discussion. > > The speed levels in question only apply to strikes that attempt > to connect to the opponent. NO. You have to consider the *relative* speed levels of the combatants! > > > So a dodge against a strike, both with normal speed, has effect. > > No, it is at "dodge speed" - actually it is at normal speed but > has so little to do that the normal speed allows it to resolve > almost immediately (before a connect-with-the-opponent strike > done at either fast or normal speed). Where do you get the concept of a seperate "dodge-speed" from? There is nothing about that in the rules. Drop that silly assumption! NOW! ;) > > > If both strikes are at fast speed, one is a dodge, the other a strike, > > dodge is effective. > > True. > > > If only the other strike is fast, and dodge normal, then the dodge would > > havne no effect. > > No. The dodge (having so little to do) still resolves first. I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. As said above, there may be times where you have little to do to dodge, but more often than not, it depends on relative speed (remember Einstein?) and the type of attack to be dodged. > If the point hasn't been made clearly enough already (which is > hard to believe), let me break down exactly what I mean in > physics terms (none of this is necessary - the explanations that > have been given and the rules themselves are clear enough): > > D: Distance. S: Speed. > > D (for punch) = X > D (for dodge) = Y (Y = X/4, e.g.) > S (normal) = N > S (fast) = F (F = 2N, e.g.) > > Time to dodge = Y/N = X/4N > Time to punch = X/N ; Y/N = X/4N < X/N : dodge wins. > Time to punch with first strike = X/F = X/2N; Y/N = X/4N < X/2N : dodge wins BAH. Mr Mathematician, you are X/4 and 2N are figures chosen by you. They by no means can be real. We don't know their speed. We only know that FS has a faster speed than normal strikes (Which would include dodge, as it is yet a strike). > If that explanation doesn't clear it up for you, then just > take the rules at their word: Dodge beats First Strike. > Futher repetition of the points made would serve no purpose. Sigh. I know that the rules currently work the way you say. I would like to see that change. I merely argument for a change! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79do01$r4a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> wrote: >In article <79d3rb$a57$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: [snip] >Lovecraft's novels. Shadowfist was created before the RPG was made. I'm not >sure if Spellfire should count...isn't it more of a 'spend your money to get >good cards' game than a CCG? Hmm...I know very little about Doomtown or >L5R...but I can't think of an RPG they're based on. Rage was screwed up from >the beginning...it attempts to maintain the flavor, sort of, but I would argue >that combat isn't the *only* thing in the RPG, which is what most of the (1st >edition, can't speak about 2nd time around) CCG was about. This is a rather large tangent, and I'll probably get smacked, but... As I understand it the Shadowfist world and rpg were largely done before the card game itself, even though the cardgame was published first. The background is actually pretty cohesive, despite what one would think from a casual glance at the cards. Doomtown is based upon Deadlands. Rage 2 is far superior to Rage 1 (i.e. it's fairly well balanced). I've on occasion thought about running a rpg using Rage 2 as the combat mechanics. It's faster and has a hell of alot more color, while keeping pretty much all of the flavor. When you get down to it combat is really the core of the Rage rpg as well as the cardgame: Sure you can do alot of neat things in the Umbra, etc., but it all comes down to beating down the enemy. [no back to your regularily scheduled flame-fest] >> I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. You said, >> "I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of >> the card game do not match the rules of the RPG." If you're >> sure, then name one. > >Done above...I *know* I can think up more. Flavor is really really good, but >not the overriding factor for the game. Smooth play is. Heh, can anyone name a cardgame where the rules _do_ match the relavent roleplaying game? I can't think of a single one. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36ba74f9...@news.mich.com>, <ber...@mich.com> wrote: ><I snipped it all - so sue me> > >Jasper, what newsgroup were you reading after the 7/7 rulings were >issued? There was a brick ton of people (myself included) that came >out of the woodwork to voice our dissention. > >I got EXTREMELY tired of seeing posts which include statements like >"Most people" or "The majority". These are self serving words used >without basis. Ah yes. You now it really helps when you keep things in context, rather than snipping the context. If you go back you'll notice Noal asserting that few people liked the rules changes; I merely voiced my (counter) opinion that I had thought most people liked the rules, if you don't count CL advocates. But anyway, that wasn't the point. My point was I thought that LSJ was quite consistant. >My perception of that period of time was a number of players >expressing dissatisfaction, and then being dismissed out of hand. >Which appears to still be the norm today. *Shrug* I remember many people having bits of the rules they didn't like (you can't please everyone, or even anyone entirely if you try for consensus), with the only people against the changes entirely admiting they : 1. didn't think there were any over powered cards 2. didn't care if there were overpowered cards 3. _liked_ overpowered cards 4. thought that overpowered cards should be "fixed" with a card limit. The only people who's viewpoints were dismissed that I recall held one of those, IMHO untenable positions. Admitedly I found that particular thread to get tiring rather quickly, and stopped reading, as I thought the changes were for the most part good. >I would like to embrace the errata and decisions of the rules team, >but cannot in good conscience. I find quite a few rulings to be self >servient, rules loopholes encouraged, complete card re-writes, and a >rules team that obviously could care less about what others think >outside of their esteemed clique. I didn't find this at all. Self serving? That's a pretty ludicrous accusation. I can't think of anything I'd call a rules loophole. I also think that a _very_ good job was done rewriting cards (even if I don't agree personally with every change, I don't think anyone could do a better job), and I think that the "rules clique" did a good job of listening, as most of the changes were indeed suggested on this very newsgroup. >Every arguement & flame session I see here just strengthens my opinon. > >I don't like coming across as the bad guy, but all the BS that goes on >here really gets under my skin (ask Noal how I get after being on the >newsgroup). Usenet's like that. I'd wager that everyone that posts here gets the same way from time to time (I know I do; you can generally tell when I just drop out of a thread). >So for now, I have the Michigan Jyhad League. We'll play by our >rules, not by yours. The rules we use are not house rules, and so far >not 1 person of the 40+ on my list has voiced any note of dissention >over our current errata/clarifications which have been made to date. Ahhhh, so _you_ would be the official rules maker? Such hypocrisy! How is this any different from what LSJ's done? >Note to Peter: Dude, I totally respect your opinions but find it hard >to believe that you could think that the RPG has no bearing on the >CCG. I'm not a big Vampire RPG guy, but I don't see how you can so >casually dismiss the source material the game is based on. Peter has defended his point very well here, and repeatedly. The rpg is a good source for theme material (hell, the straight rules aren't adhered to by any of the GMs I know), but there are already so many differences between the two that you can hardly justify something as a good idea just because it works in the rpg. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok, since LSJ seems to be incapable of justifying the "Dodge beats First Strike" rule except with "the rules say so", here's my take on what "First Strike" means: <tadaa> A First Strike is a strike that happens before the other minion can react to this. In game-world terms, this can either be because of superior speed (Fast Hands), horde tactics (Dog Pack) or surprise attack (Silence of Death). In other words, there are multiple game-world reasons for the First Strike effect. Celerity, surprise, etc. The effect (i.e. game mechanic) remains the same. //Petri

In article <79crq7$2ku$1...@hiram.io.com>, jhun...@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) wrote: > <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > > > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at least > > familiarize yourself with it. > > [...] > > > This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. Read > > the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back and say this. > > We have: > The RPG rules > The LARP rules > The CCG rules > > None of these are based on any of the others. They are all set in the > same world, though. Playing the CCG and making CCG rulings have no > requirement of familiarity, previous use, or awareness of the > existence of the other two systems. > > But if you insist that they all must agree, why don't you go get the > LARPers to change their rules to agree with the CCG? I think what he really meant was, that in the LARP and RPG the rules are different, but they represent the same. Same applies to the CCG rules. The CCG rules were specifically designed to translate things like vampiric disciplines, genereations, combat abilities into the card game. Of course the mechanics are different. But when I use e.g. Protean in the CCG, I have the the impression that it basically the same as in the RPG or LARP. That's what this all is about. And IMO, the dodge beating the FS in the CCG is not at all the way it works in the RPG or LARP. (I mean the effects are not the same.) When speaking about the CCG-rules, it is a good thing to know what they *represent* in the RPG/LARP. After all, VTES is explicitely based on V:TM! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79d0v7$79e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <79cdjm$kua$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > > > > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at > > least familiarize yourself with it. > > Playing and be familiar with are two different things. I'm sure > LSJ is familiar with the RPG because that's what the card game > does. As a Jyhad player, if a person picked up the main V:tM > book, they would already be familiar with how a lot of things are. > > > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. > > Sabbat Threat against a Sabbat-only deck, ditto for Camarilla Threat > Independent vampires not capable of becoming Princes without > joining Camarilla > There are no inferior and superiors to discipline abilities, ie. you > either have the ability to Form of Mist or you don't. > Assamite blood is just as toxic to non-Assamites as vice versa > No one should be able to diablerize an Assamite. > Why Dread Gaze and Awe give you votes is beyond me.... > > In other words, there are several. Mike, I think he meant other CCG's. Others (like Middle Earth) are also trying to be true to their origin (i.e. RPG). That was what he wanted to bring across... :) > > > > But the defender is still capable of moving. If > > > the defender chooses "dodge" as his move, then the amount of > > > movement required is so small that he is still successful in > > > getting out of the way by the time the attacker's strike reaches > > > the spot where its target used to be. > > > > This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. > > Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back > > and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit > > a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before > > the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire > > without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. > > In the table top, the only thing Celerity does is give you more > actions in a round; rounds aren't necessarily just combat. > In the LARP, the system is similar (I can't remember specifically). > I think it allows you to move faster and/or have more challenges. It's that way: If you are not fast enough to react the way you do, the gamesmaster informs you that you tried to evade, but took the hit nonetheless. Believe me, I had several run-ins with *fast* vampires. (Ouch) :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Sigh. Ok, to avoid quoting millions of postings, here are some condensed opinions: a) Circular logic isn't a useful argument, nor is repeating "it's in the rules" when we are discussing the validity of those very same rules. Especially when the subject in question *is not* in the original game rules. b) On the other hand, modeling everything after the RPG/LARP isn't very useful either when we're talking about CCG rules. c) People are talking about "minimizing the errata", and giving that as a reason why an apperently popular change shouldn't be made. Let's examine that argument for a second. The current online rules document effectively doesn't matter. What matters is the validity of the printed rules booklets and the total resulting pile of errata. Now, the V:TES rulebook is essentially the most useless (read: out-of-date) rule document at the moment, since the massive LSJ changes have mostly been back towards the Jyhad rules. So, the closest *printed* rules document that we have are the original Jyhad rules. Now, it turns out that those rules don't mention one way or the other on the matter at hand. So no damage there. Also no change in the complexity of the rules, in fact they would simplify a bit. No additional "errata" is needed, just a withdrawal of a V:TES rule interpretation. So, on the plus side we have a change that would make the rules a bit more comprehensible and give a small boost to a class of cards (*not* just one card, note). The ONLY drawback I see is that it requires a new version of the online rulebook and a Rules Team Ruling to go with it. Now, I fully understand the reluctance to change a card just to make it useful, and if this was one card I wouldn't bother to argue. But: we're talking about a class of cards, with possible new cards being issued by WotC in the future. IMHO, the benefits of doing this now by far outweigh the disadvantages. I think we all want to make this into the best game it can be. IMHO this is one (small) step in that direction. Having the rules "make sense" is important, especially when teaching the game to newbies. It seems that the majority would be in favor of this change, going by news/email messages and the opinion of the players we have here in Finland. Of course, judging any sort of general player opionion is more-or-less impossible - but this is an indication of *something*. The reasons I've heard so far as to why NOT make the change are: 1) Too minor to be worth changing (DISAGREE, as I've outlined above). 2) Changes shouldn't be make just to make a card useful (AGREE in general when we're talking about single cards, DiSAGREE in this case). 3) Would result in yet more errata (mostly DISAGREE, see above). 4) LSJ thinks Dodges are always faster in game-world terms (DISAGREE with LSJ's interpretation of what First Strike means, and think making Dodges into a special case makes the rules unnecessarily complicated). 5) LSJ says Dodges beat First Strike because the (V:TES and current) rules say "Dodges beat First Strike". (DISAGREE, duh. "We can't change the rules because the rules say so". Kafka would be proud :). In short: I understand LSJ's reluctance in this matter, but don't agree with the reasons he has put forth. At the very least, this ruling should be taken into consideration the next time a Rules Team Rulings document needs to be issued. //Petri

In article <79d1m1$7u2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <7xu2x2c...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > > > As to why change (besides the "most players seem to support it" > > argument): > > Most players participating in this discussion seem to support it. > As far as getting the opinions of the actual players out there, > we're far from representative of most. We don't you make a survey, like the last time? I think you did a good job. :) You could even have some of my collected European e-mail addresses.... > > > it would give the Assamites a small boost as a combat > > clan. Not big, but any boost is still a boost. > > Very, very small boost. S:CE is still a bigger killer than Dodge. Depends on environment and playstyle. > > > Anyone who thinks the > > Assamites are currently the powerful combat clan they should be please > > raise your hand. > > Al-Ashrad and Thetmes kick butt by themselves. Too bad a deck using > only one vampire would suck. :) Yes, the two are good. But the clan itself sucks. It is a shame, in the RPG and LARP, everybody fears the Assamites (rightfully!) and in VTES.... :( [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79d1sf$81o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It certainly seems to be that way.... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 10:25:48 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: >> It amazes me that LSJ and/or the Rules Team >> has a problem with making a change on First Strike when people largely >> favor the idea, but has little problem with making and defending changes >> that few people like. I would urge LSJ to put this on the Rules Team >> docket to at least consider the idea before dismissing it out of hand. LSJ> Does it also amaze you that no errata has been issued LSJ> implementing a Card Limit? People "largely" like card limits as LSJ> much as they do altering the rules on Dodge, as far as I can LSJ> tell. What!?! Waiter, can I have the same thing that guy in the corner is smoking, please? In short: bullshit. <calms down> Either you're deliberately trying to build straw men, or you haven't been following this newsgroup. First of all, the vast majority here have been against any sort of card limits. Or I've been reading a different news group than you. Secondly, all of the arguments for CL have been eloquently disproved, many many times. The arguments for making this change have in no way been disproved, except by you quoting the rules as a reason the rules can't be changed. It's clear that you personally don't like this change. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that most people *do* like this change. Quite different from the CL case, as you well know. In addition, CL cripples the game. This does nothing of the sort - or can you give me a *game* reason why this would be a good idea. Not a "I don't like it" reason or a "rthe current rules say..." reason, but a game play reason? I'd be interested to hear one. LSJ> But, since both card limits and first-strike-beats-dodge do not LSJ> match the intention of the game nor do they promote game balance LSJ> (criteria for issuing errata, criteria which I thought you had LSJ> agreed with in the past), such errata is not issued. Bullshit. Excuse me, but something is shiming through quite clearly here. You talk about the "do not match the intention of the game". HOW DO YOU KNOW? By reading the Jyhad rules and by reading the Jyhad cards, I stringly suspect that Garfield meant for FS to trump all non-s:ce strikes. Yes, including dodge. This has a very strong "I know the intention of this game" smell to it. In the past I've mostly agreed with the rulings, but this is starting to give credibility to the argument that the rules shouldn't be at the whim of a single person. You clearly don't like this idea. Fine. A *lot* of us clearly do. Now tell us precisely why doing this change would be bad for the game. Relying on "criteria for issuing errata" is not an acceptaly agrument, since there has been a strong double standard in these so-called criteria. LSJ> I fail to see how applying a uniform guideline for issuing errata LSJ> after careful study of the issues can be seen as "dismissing it LSJ> out of hand". But you aren't applying a uniform guideline here. You're continually referring to a "guideline" of not changing single cards that don't break the game - yet you've done that, numerous times. On top of that, this is a rule mechanic, not some single card. Please explain why this change would be bad for the game. Or admit that you won't consider it because you personally don't like it. As other people have pointed out, this is not *your* game, even though you've done a lot of good things for it. //Petri

On 5 Feb 1999 01:01:12 GMT, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) said: Jasper> I think that's quite an unfair characterization. In my view Jasper> most people liked the changes they made, and furthermore most Jasper> of the ones that didn't were CL advocates -- people who aren't Jasper> using the official rules anyway. Not that simple. I liked most of the changes, but hated some others (the "let's complicate the game" aggra rules). Jasper> I find it hard to knock him for sticking to attempting to fix Jasper> only broken cards, and not make wallpaper more Jasper> effective. Ummm... this is a rules mechanic, not a single card. Big difference. Having wallpaper cards is acceptable. Having confusing and wallpaper rule sections is not excusable, IMHO, especially when a fix is simple. //Petri

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 05:01:04 GMT, ber...@mich.com said: bernieb> I got EXTREMELY tired of seeing posts which include bernieb> statements like "Most people" or "The majority". These are bernieb> self serving words used without basis. bernieb> My perception of that period of time was a number of players bernieb> expressing dissatisfaction, and then being dismissed out of bernieb> hand. Which appears to still be the norm today. I wouldn't be that harsh. I personally like most (not all) of the current rulings, and understand that LSJ and the Rules Team cannot please everybody. However, in the current matter is looks like LSJ's personal opinion is clouding matters. So far I can confidently talk about a "majority" here, since I've kept track of the opinions. Something like 75-85% of the people who have voiced an opinion on this matter think this minor section of the rules should be changed. Now, if someone could give me a reason why the change would be bad for game play, I'll gladly shut up. So far I haven't heard one. On the other hand, lots of people have commented on how it would slightly improve game play, and make the rules more comprehensible. What I *have* heard are rationalizations that amount to "it's too much of a bother and I don't personally like the idea". This is not a valid argument, at least to me. Anything that is beneficial to the game is something that should be pursued IMHO. So, the players seem to think this would be a good idea, and it would slightly help balance game play - not much, but slightly. Now, each RTR so far has contained changes that weren't absolutely necessary to game play or balance, but which were "nice, small improvements". How is this different? Until someone convinces me otherwise, the only reason I see is that LSJ doesn't like this idea. With most people on this newsgroup FOR the idea, this sets a nasty precedent unless someone comes up with an explanation of why this change would be bad for the game. I'm listening. //Petri

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > Noal, I'm going to have to shoot you down now that I'm home. In the > LARP and table-top primary rulebooks (I don't have any supplements, so > it is possible that there might be an alternate rule that is akin to > First Strike), there is nothing like first strike. Look up Alacrity in the LARP rules. Also look up Silence of Death. I don't have the LARP rules here at work for obvious reasons. > Alacrity - If you know a physical threat is coming, you can use this > to take a preemptive action. Examples given are drawing a gun of your > own, moving out of the path of a falling object, and so on. By this, > I take it to mean that you can't use it for a preemptive strike, or > what would be a First Strike. *brow furrows* I'm quite sure Alacrity can be used for a preemptive strike. I'll have to check my LARP book when I get home. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > >So for now, I have the Michigan Jyhad League. We'll play by our > >rules, not by yours. The rules we use are not house rules, and so far > >not 1 person of the 40+ on my list has voiced any note of dissention > >over our current errata/clarifications which have been made to date. > > Ahhhh, so _you_ would be the official rules maker? Such hypocrisy! > How is this any different from what LSJ's done? Jasper, befoore screaming "hypocrisy!" you might want to know what the hell you're talking about first. The MJL has a rules team made up of 5 people, two of which are Bernie and me, from the various playgroups in Michigan. Bernie has one vote just like the other four of us on all issues. The decisions made are used in all MJL-sponsored tournaments. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter wrote: > There aren't actually any dogs... So why's it called Canine Horde? Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > [Noal wrote:] > > > > [LSJ wrote:] > > > > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > > > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > > > > > > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > > > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. > > > > > > Hmm. I tell you I don't play the RPG and you ask for me to > > > give some example from the RPG. Now who's being silly? > > Whoops. LSJ missed something here. The original challenge was to 'Name one > card *game* where the rules of the [CCG] do not try to maintain the flavor of > the RPG that it's based on.' Ah. Right you are. My statement was that there were examples of the rules of the card game (that is, of VTES) do not match the rules of the RPG (that is, of VTM). I didn't notice that Noal changed it to "one card game" and "try to match" and "flavor" when before the topic was not about "flavor" or "trying" but of a specific failure of this specific game to match a specific rule. Obviously, VTES "tries to match" the "flavor" of VTM. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 13:13:29 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: Dharzhak> mboh...@shout.net wrote: >> Noal, I'm going to have to shoot you down now that I'm home. In the >> LARP and table-top primary rulebooks (I don't have any supplements, so >> it is possible that there might be an alternate rule that is akin to >> First Strike), there is nothing like first strike. Dharzhak> Look up Alacrity in the LARP rules. Also look up Silence of Dharzhak> Death. I don't have the LARP rules here at work for obvious Dharzhak> reasons. [with the disclaimer that this has gone off on a tangent and I don't personally think the RPG or LARP rules have *that* much to do with the CCG...] But since I *do* have the LARP rules here at work - I'm one of the narrators in the Helsinki Chronicles (big WoD LARP, http://www.akumiitti.fi/~orava/Vampire for the curious)... :) Alacrity in the LARP rules gives you the possibility for a preemptive action. Silence of Death gives you a 1-second surprise factor (which amounts to a first strike, usually). This from "Laws of the Night". //Petri

In article <79emrt$jf6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > We don't you make a survey, like the last time? I think you did > a good job. :) You could even have some of my collected European > e-mail addresses.... Unfortunately, we didn't get our goals. At least 100 people, half on-line, half off-line. Of the 1030 addresses we collected, we randomly sampled 300 of those. Each respondent was to return their results along with those of an off-line couterpart. There were 72 on-line and 34 off-line results. The statistical margin of error would have been too high. And as most people don't look at the margin of error on survey results anyway, useless arguments would have started up once again even though most if not all of the questions would have inconclusive results. > > Very, very small boost. S:CE is still a bigger killer than Dodge. > > Depends on environment and playstyle. Actually, no, it doesn't. S:CE prevents you from getting any chance. Against Dodge, you can play additional strikes or press. After all, if they're dodging, they probably won't be doing anything too nasty second round. > Yes, the two are good. But the clan itself sucks. It is a shame, in > the RPG and LARP, everybody fears the Assamites (rightfully!) and > in VTES.... :( Silence of Death should have been an action modifier adding +1 stealth at inferior and not allowing an opposing minion in combat to have their first strike. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > However, since we are discussing _changing_ > > > the rules, using the current rules as a defense is silly. > > > > He asked what made me think that dodge was faster. I answered. > > What's the problem? > > If you can't see the problem with using the rules to justify the rules, > I can't answer this. What I can do is gape at you for asking this > question. Please follow the thread. I wasn't justifying the rule. I was answering the question "Why do I think Dodge beats First Strike?" > > Dodge beats First Strike.[6.4.5] So apparently, the opposing vampire > > can dodge him. > > *shakes head* > Maybe I should refer to you as Mr. Brickwall from here on out. Eloquent as ever. > > > > If you say so. I don't play the RPG. > > > > > > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at > > > least familiarize yourself with it. > > > > Why? Would it help me understand the rules of the card game any > > better? It would seem that that is not the case. > > I doubt that there is anybody who would agree with you at this point. And I believe they would. Your supposed knowledge of the game VTES is based on doesn't seem to help you understand the rules on Dodge vs. First Strike. Indeed, quite the opposite. But, since you asked so nicely, I checked the games VTES is based on. From the CD-ROM V:TM book, page 223: Any time someone attacks the character, he has the option of dodging ... simply by declaring "Dodge!" before the opponent makes an attack roll. There is no reference to First Strike in that book, nor the Player's Guide. > > The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. > > After how many pages of errata? Clearly your record shows that > what you do and what you say are inconsistent. That's a different argument. Errata is issued to aid balance, restore intention of the designer (insofar as that can be determined), or simplify the rules (cf. ammo timing). I suppose if there was no possible "explanation" for Dodge beating First Strike, then that fact would be suspect. But there is, as I have reiterated time and again in this thread. > > > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > > > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. > > > > > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try > > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. > > > > Hmm. I tell you I don't play the RPG and you ask for me to > > give some example from the RPG. Now who's being silly? > > I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. You said, > "I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG." If you're > sure, then name one. I can be sure without having an example in mind. That comes from an understanding of the nature of the two/three games. But, since you asked so nicely, here's a few: * A vampire who finds Golconda can be controlled by another (or the same) Methuselah later in the game. * (I've heard): A 13th generation vampire in torpor would remain there for many years (in terms of the card game: for the rest of the game). * A Caitiff could not become a Prince. * (I've heard) Burning Wrath requires more than just Potence. You're the one who claims to know the rules of the RPG/LARP - why do I have to do this work for you? - I'm the Net.Rep for VTES, not VTM. > > > Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? > > > > No. In that case the attack is moving faster. That's > > pretty obvious. But thanks for bringing it up. > > Superior Animalism improves the speed of the dogs?!?!? > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > *looks in barrel of fish* > *takes aim with shotgun* No. > > > Last time I > > > checked, Silence of Death was a zone of silence, not an increase > > > of speed. > > > > Right, which is why that card should have used a different > > mechanic than First Strike, since First Strike fails to > > properly mimic that zone of silence. As I've said before. > > Please follow the thread. > > *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read > the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge > makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing > vampire any strikes whatsoever. The LARP has no such reference that I can find. It says (to the contrary) any strike can be dodged. Not that the rules of the LARP/RPG have anything to do with VTES - the VTES rules are independent (and perfectly clear on this point). > >> This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. > >> Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back > >> and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit > >> a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before > >> the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire > >> without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. > > > > Not in the card game. Dodge beats First Strike. [6.4.5] > > Polly wanna cracker? Squawk! > C'mon. You can do better than this. Try to put some thought into it. I have. See the myriad of "real world" (not: LARP-based) explanations that I have given that you keep ignoring. I quote the rule, someone asks for an explanation. I give an explanation, someone complains that I'm making it up. > > > This is blatantly untrue. Try to dodge a pack of dogs. > > > > So that card made use of a mechanic that didn't quite > > fit. It (the First Strike mechanic) still works rather > > well for that card. > > It amazes me how so many of the First Strike cards don't "quite > fit." Perhaps your understanding of First Strike isn't as good > as you think it is. Then we'll have to disagree. I don't think your understanding of Dodge is as good as you think it is. > > > A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much > > > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case > > > here. > > > > Because it's in the rules. [6.4.5]. Just like it always has been. > > Here. Let's play a game of Where's Waldo? Can you find the > circular logic? I sure can. Then by all means, do so. When you play the game, you do so accoring to the rules. That is not circular. It is inherent and direct. > > > Why not go so far as to allow multiple dodges in a round > > > without multiple strikes? > > > > Because that violates the rules. (Just like it always has). > > Who are you and what did you do with the real LSJ? Are you > his kid pretending to be him? The real LSJ didn't read/cite/quote the rules? > > > ...and what makes you so sure of this? Talk to Mr. Garfield lately? > > > > Since Dodge beats First Strike, it follows that First Strike is > > not well suited for use in modeling a surprise attack. > > If First Strike _did_ beat Dodge, it would be well suited. > In fact, all of those cards that don't "quite fit" would fit > just fine. In that case, why would Scorpion Sting not be a "First Strike"? > > No need to talk to Garfield to see this plain fact. > > I wonder how many people would agree at this point. Hmm. Quite a few, since it is so obvious, I'd guess. > > Since Hidden Lurker's name > > implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job > > of modelling a surprise attack > > What about Fast Reactions? *grin* What about them? *grin* Please make a point or drop the thread. The repeated no-content statement are merely clutter. > > You have agreed with this assertion (that First Strike, being > > beaten by a Dodge, fails to properly model a surprise attack). > > Agreed. > > > If you have changed your mind (and now think that First Strike, > > still as always being beaten by Dodge, adequately models a surprise > > Attack), then we can stop arguing. > > However, since I haven't changed my mind that First Strike should > beat a Dodge and then would adequately model a suprise attack, > making First Strike both useful and consistent, I guess we'll > continue arguing. *sips coffee* *grin* OK. > > > Say it with me, "Silence of Death." > > > > Silence of Death. > > > > Now, say it with me: "Dodge beats First Strike". > > (and if you like, think "Silence of Death should've used a > > different mechanic" while you say it). > > *shakes head* > Dodge be...bea...b..b..bea..b... > Sorry. Can't do it. > Of course, if First Strike beats Dodge, Silence of Death would be > fine and happy in the Smurf Village again. But it doesn't. > > I don't see the reason why you keep bringing up points that > > I've already supplied responses to. > > Because your responses have been inconsistent, used circular > logic or just plain displayed a lack of knowledge of the game > that Jyhad is based on and why First Strike _should_ beat > dodge. No circular logic. If you ask for the rule, I'll give you the rule. If you ask for an explanation, I'll give you an explanation. If you ask to make the game rules match exactly the LARP, I'll say that the two games are independent and you should play the one whose rules you prefer (as you understand them). If some cards don't seem to match the rules, it doesn't necessarily mean that the rules are in error. It is easier to correct the few wayward cards than alter the rules, but even such correction would only be done if the result warranted the change. [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > > Ok, since LSJ seems to be incapable of justifying the "Dodge beats > First Strike" rule except with "the rules say so", Aw, I'm hurt. :-) Odd that you could've missed all the various rephrasings of the explanation that I've given. Perhaps you should switch news servers. > here's my take on > what "First Strike" means: > > <tadaa> > > A First Strike is a strike that happens before the other minion can > react to this. In game-world terms, this can either be because of > superior speed (Fast Hands), horde tactics (Dog Pack) or surprise Dog Pack has nothing to do with First Strike. I believe you mean Canine Horde. > attack (Silence of Death). > > In other words, there are multiple game-world reasons for the First > Strike effect. Celerity, surprise, etc. The effect (i.e. game > mechanic) remains the same. > > //Petri -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 05:40:21 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: LSJ> Petri Wessman wrote: >> >> Ok, since LSJ seems to be incapable of justifying the "Dodge beats >> First Strike" rule except with "the rules say so", LSJ> Aw, I'm hurt. :-) :) LSJ> Odd that you could've missed all the various rephrasings of the LSJ> explanation that I've given. Perhaps you should switch news LSJ> servers. Hmmm... either they haven't arrived here yet (the local news server *is* slow), or I haven't understood them to be explanations. I've seen various "dodge is faster then a First Strike" articles with a bunch of pseudo-physics. If that's what you mean please try again. Even with my fairly limited martial arts skills, I know quite well that some things you just don't dodge, whether because you don't see them coming, are busy with other things, or are simply slower. Most of the black belts I've sparred with effectively have First Strike on me - they're simply so good and so fast that they leave you no time to react... and with Jyhad we're talking about magical cones of silence (Silence of Death), speed-enhanced attacks (Fast Hands, Backstab), and suchlike. >> A First Strike is a strike that happens before the other minion can >> react to this. In game-world terms, this can either be because of >> superior speed (Fast Hands), horde tactics (Dog Pack) or surprise LSJ> Dog Pack has nothing to do with First Strike. LSJ> I believe you mean Canine Horde. Yup. //Petri

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 13:40:48 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: Dharzhak> Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >So for now, I have the Michigan Jyhad League. We'll play by our >> >rules, not by yours. The rules we use are not house rules, and so far >> >not 1 person of the 40+ on my list has voiced any note of dissention >> >over our current errata/clarifications which have been made to date. >> >> Ahhhh, so _you_ would be the official rules maker? Such hypocrisy! >> How is this any different from what LSJ's done? Dharzhak> Jasper, befoore screaming "hypocrisy!" you might want to Dharzhak> know what the hell you're talking about first. The MJL has Dharzhak> a rules team made up of 5 people, two of which are Bernie Dharzhak> and me, from the various playgroups in Michigan. Bernie has Dharzhak> one vote just like the other four of us on all issues. The Dharzhak> decisions made are used in all MJL-sponsored tournaments. Which begs the question: who is on the current Jyhad Rules Team (besides LSJ)? What's the protocol that they follow? Who has how many votes? Why do we rarely see any discussion about new rule changes here on the Net before we're handed a Rules Team Ruling on that change? In other words, what is the group of people responsible for changes to this game, and where do they discuss things? //Petri

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > Right. In Jyhad, Dodge simply "negates the effect of the > > opponent's strike". Note the lack of any sort of exception > > for First Strike. The rules didn't change the effect - they > > simply clarified a point about which many people had questions. > > NO. Dodge is a strike. It has been a strike even in Jyhad. The dodge > does not resolve until any other strike resolves, too. That is in > the resolve strike phase. OK? Not exactly. Apparently the rulebook writers intended for Dodge to negate the opponents strike without resolving. Which caused (and continues to cause) quite a bit of confusion. The "pat" answer is that it (Dodge) resolves before First Strike. But in actuality (as I've said several times before), it simply negates the opposing strike without regard to when it resolves, since it always negates the opposing strike (just like, as I've just learned, it does in VTM). Or at least, that's how it worked in Jyhad. That method was too convoluted/confusing, so in V:TES the bit about the effect of Dodge vs. First Strike was put explicitly into the rules, and then it didn't matter how or when or if the Dodge actually "resolved". > With FS, your resolve strike phase is resolved before the others. Your strike is resolved before the other strike, yes. Unless the other strike was a Combat Ends. And the effect(s) of your strike's resolution is/are negated if the opposing minion has select a Dodge. > At the time the "negates opponents strike" effect comes into play, > the opposing minion has already resolved his strike. > Even when resolving a strike, we have to stick to the rules. Such as they are. But your strike's effects on the dodging minion are negated - that is the effect of the dodge. > > It decreases the time, yes. But the time to dodge (which has not > > been decreased) is still less than the newly-decreased time to > > strike. The normal dodge is still fast enough (effective) against > > the speed-freak. > > Again NO. The time to dodge depends on what to dodge. You cannot > simply assume that a dodge is always faster than an attack! > It may be true sometimes, but on the whole it involves the same > effort to attack. OK. The explanation was merely an attempt to illustrate how the rules as they are work in concept. The explanation is not flawed. There are other explanations that match the rules as you would like them to be. Those explanations are also not flawed. But, since the rules as they exist are not unbalanced and are not non-sensical and are not shown to violate the original design, they stay as they are. > > > > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if > > > > that'll help the rules make sense to you. > > > > > > Why should I pretend that? > > > > So that the rules (as they have always been) regarding Dodge and > > First Strike will make sense to your conception of First Strike. > > NO. Jyhad worked different. They (NOT Garfield) changed that with VTES. > See above. They could've worked different, based on some reading of the rules. But the could've (and did) work the same based on a different, equally valid, reading of the rules. As affirmed by the Design Team on 22-DEC-1994. This the DTR isn't a contradition of the rules, and the net result's concet is not unreasonable, and the net result is not unbalancing, there is no reason to overturn it (esp. since doing so would only be possible via the addition of errata). > > > Ok, for simplicity, lets say that there are only two speed levels: > > > normal and fast. (As the game mechanic suggests) > > > > > > Strikes with fast speed resolve before strikes with normal speed. > > > All strikes are at normal speed by default. (We leave S:CE out of > > > the discussion, as we don't dispute them) > > > > The speed levels in question only apply to strikes that attempt > > to connect to the opponent. > > NO. You have to consider the *relative* speed levels of the > combatants! And the relative effort/distance required. > > > So a dodge against a strike, both with normal speed, has effect. > > > > No, it is at "dodge speed" - actually it is at normal speed but > > has so little to do that the normal speed allows it to resolve > > almost immediately (before a connect-with-the-opponent strike > > done at either fast or normal speed). > > Where do you get the concept of a seperate "dodge-speed" from? > There is nothing about that in the rules. Drop that silly > assumption! NOW! ;) I don't get a concept of a separate "dodge-speed", as I said. That was merely a useful tool to illustrate my point of normal-dodge beats even fast-aggression. > > > If both strikes are at fast speed, one is a dodge, the other a strike, > > > dodge is effective. > > > > True. > > > > > If only the other strike is fast, and dodge normal, then the dodge would > > > havne no effect. > > > > No. The dodge (having so little to do) still resolves first. > > I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of > fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? > Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. Please offer concrete corrections. > As said above, there may be times where you have little to do > to dodge, but more often than not, it depends on relative speed > (remember Einstein?) and the type of attack to be dodged. ?! I *was* taking into account the relative speeds. I also was taking into account the relative distances involved. Einstein's Relativity has almost no bearing on the events in question. Even Super Celerity doesn't begin to approach "relativistic speeds". A "two trains" problem, while depending on the relative speeds of the trains in question to one another, has nothing to do with Einstein's relativity unless the trains are moving at large fractions of C (to each other or to an observer in question). > > If the point hasn't been made clearly enough already (which is > > hard to believe), let me break down exactly what I mean in > > physics terms (none of this is necessary - the explanations that > > have been given and the rules themselves are clear enough): > > > > D: Distance. S: Speed. > > > > D (for punch) = X > > D (for dodge) = Y (Y = X/4, e.g.) > > S (normal) = N > > S (fast) = F (F = 2N, e.g.) > > > > Time to dodge = Y/N = X/4N > > Time to punch = X/N ; Y/N = X/4N < X/N : dodge wins. > > Time to punch with first strike = X/F = X/2N; Y/N = X/4N < X/2N : dodge wins > > BAH. Mr Mathematician, you are X/4 and 2N are figures chosen by you. As I said in the section you clipped. So? > They by no means can be real. We don't know their speed. We only know > that FS has a faster speed than normal strikes (Which would include > dodge, as it is yet a strike). The rules clearly indicate that FS is beaten by Dodge,so I chose ratios to illustrate how that could be - ratios that showed dodge moving at "normal" speed beating an aggressive strike moving at "fast" speed. The ratios were chosen for the express purpose of illustrating the rules. As I said. And the ratios are not unreasonable. As you say: We don't know their speed. We only know that Dodge beats First Strike. > > If that explanation doesn't clear it up for you, then just > > take the rules at their word: Dodge beats First Strike. > > Futher repetition of the points made would serve no purpose. > > Sigh. I know that the rules currently work the way you say. > I would like to see that change. I merely argument for a change! The arguments I've seen simply show how "First Strike beats Dodge" is not unreasonable. Which I do not dispute. They fail to show how "Dodge beats First Strike" is any of: * contrary to (a possible) original intention * unbalancing * unreasonable * worth the errata to change -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: > Peter wrote: >> There aren't actually any dogs... > >So why's it called Canine Horde? > "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." The card could be called Janitorial Mishap. Net effect: no change. The problem is that you're trying to introduce flavor where the difficulty is in mechanics. First Strike vs. Dodge is a mechanics problem, not a flavor problem. If Canine Horde were called Janitorial Mishap, that would be a flavor problem. In any case, the RPG and CCG don't follow each other very well at all, anymore. If they did, the Assamites would be able to diablerize, the Gangrel would no longer be Camarilla, and the Tremere Antitribu just wouldn't exist anymore. Heck, most of the CCG's Princes, Archbishops, Cardinals, Prisci, and Inner Circle would have to renamed, probably with new art and disciplines, etc. If you'd like to fight problems in mechanics, leave the discussion to the mechanics. John Baker

Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 10:25:48 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: > LSJ> But, since both card limits and first-strike-beats-dodge do not > LSJ> match the intention of the game nor do they promote game balance > LSJ> (criteria for issuing errata, criteria which I thought you had > LSJ> agreed with in the past), such errata is not issued. > > [bleep]. Excuse me, but something is shiming through quite clearly > here. You talk about the "do not match the intention of the game". HOW > DO YOU KNOW? By reading the Jyhad rules and by reading the Jyhad > cards, I stringly suspect that Garfield meant for FS to trump all > non-s:ce strikes. Yes, including dodge. After reading the Jyhad rules and the Jyhad cards, I strongly suspect the designers (Garfield incl.) did not. > This has a very strong "I know the intention of this game" smell to Likewise. > it. In the past I've mostly agreed with the rulings, but this is > starting to give credibility to the argument that the rules shouldn't > be at the whim of a single person. You clearly don't like this > idea. Fine. A *lot* of us clearly do. Now tell us precisely why doing > this change would be bad for the game. Please tell me precisely why this change is *warranted*. > Relying on "criteria for issuing errata" is not an acceptaly agrument, > since there has been a strong double standard in these so-called > criteria. Oh? > LSJ> I fail to see how applying a uniform guideline for issuing errata > LSJ> after careful study of the issues can be seen as "dismissing it > LSJ> out of hand". > > But you aren't applying a uniform guideline here. You're continually > referring to a "guideline" of not changing single cards that don't > break the game - yet you've done that, numerous times. On top of that, > this is a rule mechanic, not some single card. The guideling is: balance, intent, simplicity/reasonableness (in that order). Obviously the change to Kalinda was not a balance issue. > Please explain why this change would be bad for the game. Or admit > that you won't consider it because you personally don't like it. As > other people have pointed out, this is not *your* game, even though > you've done a lot of good things for it. I have considered it. I haven't found/heard a suitable justification for the change, that's all. If you personally don't like the rule, that's fine. But that's not a reason to issue errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79eqkg$meu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Peter wrote: > > There aren't actually any dogs... > > So why's it called Canine Horde? Same reason Torn Signpost is called Torn Signpost. ;-) ;-) ;-) How come you can Decapitate someone and have them only take 3 damage? Or 1 if you were previously Disarmed... 0 if your opponent played a Song of Serenity... The card game is *just a card game*. Cards do *what they say* not *what they sound like they should do*. Regardless of whether the name for a card happens to be similar to (or the same as) the name for an ability in the role playing game, the live action game, or my Aunt Edna's personal dialect, those things have *zero* bearing on how things work in the card game. Do you need to be in a gymnasium to play Acrobatics? Do you need to be in a cave to play Aid from Bats? If you play Day Operation, what exactly is Mariel Lady Thunder doing hanging around awake Deflecting you? For that matter, how does Telepathy help you Counter someone's Hacking your Computers? Josh snark snark snark [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > But, since both card limits and first-strike-beats-dodge do not match > > the intention of the game nor do they promote game balance > > I certainly disagree with your > assessment of the "intention of the game" since you haven't even read the > rules of the game that it's based on. I mean "the intention of the designers of this game" - not of some other game. My assessment of the "intention of the designers of this game" comes from the original rulebook: Dodge: The Dodge strike card deals no damage, but it negates the effect of the opponent's strike that round. [Jyhad rules: 15.3] And from the ruling affirming/clarifying that entry from the rulebook issued very early in the game's life (this game, not some other): Dodge will cancel a first strike. [Design Team: 22-DEC-1994] > > But unless the errata serves to correct > > an unbalancing situation or restore the original intention of a rule > > or card, that errata won't be issued. > > I'd argue that First Strike is unbalanced towards being too weak. > Besides, if this is the case, why was WWEF issued errata? Because it was too powerful in the cost/effect arena. That debate was covered ad nauseum in early 1995. > That > made no sense whatsoever. It's my opinion that you are letting > your personal feeling about issues affect your decision about > what goes before the rules team and what doesn't. My job as net.rep is to filter this newsgroup for issues/ideas to put before the RT. My opinions are necessarily part of that filtering process. > > Even some errata that meets > > one or both of the criteria mentioned doesn't get issued (when the > > effect of the errata isn't great enough to warrant the change - like > > Concealed Weapon). > > ...or WWEF? *smirk* WwEF met the criterion of being overly powerful, and was fixed accordingly. *smirk* > > I fail to see how applying a uniform guideline for issuing errata > > after careful study of the issues can be seen as "dismissing it > > out of hand". > > Because you have clearly failed to apply it uniformly. Ah. You were simply using "out of hand" inappropriately for "after careful consideration", eh? Your "clearly" is perhaps affected by your own "personal opinion about issues". [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79escv$nt9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >So for now, I have the Michigan Jyhad League. We'll play by our >> >rules, not by yours. The rules we use are not house rules, and so far >> >not 1 person of the 40+ on my list has voiced any note of dissention >> >over our current errata/clarifications which have been made to date. >> >> Ahhhh, so _you_ would be the official rules maker? Such hypocrisy! >> How is this any different from what LSJ's done? > >Jasper, befoore screaming "hypocrisy!" you might want to know >what the hell you're talking about first. The MJL has a rules team >made up of 5 people, two of which are Bernie and me, from the >various playgroups in Michigan. Bernie has one vote just like the >other four of us on all issues. The decisions made are used in all >MJL-sponsored tournaments. I've heard at length what the Michigin league is like, but I don't see how it's relavent. Faulting someone else for being on a group making official rules, and then presuming to do the same thing oneself is hypocrisy, by definition. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xn22t3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > >What I *have* heard are rationalizations that amount to "it's too much >of a bother and I don't personally like the idea". This is not a valid >argument, at least to me. Anything that is beneficial to the game is >something that should be pursued IMHO. Keeping Needless, effectively pointless errata to a minimum is a decent goal, IMHO. Once you start changing the core rules to adjust the balance between weak sets of cards, you've got a precedent to change just about anything. I know if I were making rules changes, I'd be loath to touch such a change, unless I really was sure it would signifigantly improve the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xpv7p3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: >On 5 Feb 1999 01:01:12 GMT, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) said: > >Jasper> I think that's quite an unfair characterization. In my view >Jasper> most people liked the changes they made, and furthermore most >Jasper> of the ones that didn't were CL advocates -- people who aren't >Jasper> using the official rules anyway. > >Not that simple. I liked most of the changes, but hated some others >(the "let's complicate the game" aggra rules). True, I was mostly responding to the assertion that very few people liked them. >Jasper> I find it hard to knock him for sticking to attempting to fix >Jasper> only broken cards, and not make wallpaper more >Jasper> effective. > >Ummm... this is a rules mechanic, not a single card. Big >difference. Having wallpaper cards is acceptable. Having confusing and >wallpaper rule sections is not excusable, IMHO, especially when a fix >is simple. Fair enough, although I don't see it the same way. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 05:33:45 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: LSJ> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> LSJ wrote: nn>> > > However, since we are discussing _changing_ >> > > the rules, using the current rules as a defense is silly. >> > >> > He asked what made me think that dodge was faster. I answered. >> > What's the problem? >> >> If you can't see the problem with using the rules to justify the rules, >> I can't answer this. What I can do is gape at you for asking this >> question. LSJ> Please follow the thread. I wasn't justifying the rule. LSJ> I was answering the question "Why do I think Dodge beats First Strike?" Hmmm. Really? Here's the relevant snippet: ...... > > Why do you think that a dodge is "faster" than a normal attack, or even > > an attack with FS? > > Because it resolves before a normal attack or even an attack with FS. ...... In other words, Noal (I think) is asking why dodge is faster than any other attack, and you answer "because it resolves first". In other words, the answer to the question "Why do I think Dodge beats First Strike?" is "because it does", according to you. >> > Dodge beats First Strike.[6.4.5] So apparently, the opposing vampire >> > can dodge him. >> >> *shakes head* >> Maybe I should refer to you as Mr. Brickwall from here on out. LSJ> Eloquent as ever. ...which doesn't answer Noal's point. Referring to the rules in order to justify those same rules is not answering anybody, it's avoiding answering. >> > Why? Would it help me understand the rules of the card game any >> > better? It would seem that that is not the case. >> >> I doubt that there is anybody who would agree with you at this point. LSJ> And I believe they would. Your supposed knowledge of the game LSJ> VTES is based on doesn't seem to help you understand the rules LSJ> on Dodge vs. First Strike. Indeed, quite the opposite. No, it really doesn't help, since those "rules" seem quite illogical and based on interpretations of what First Strike means. I also seriously contest your idea that anything can be dodged. Try going against someone on a tatami and dodging all their blows. You'll quickly find that dodging is *slower* than attacking, since you have to see the attack coming before you can begin to dodge it (unless you use guesswork). Reaction time does count. Yes, that digresses into the "real world" much more than I'd like when discussing card game rules, but you're the one who dragged piles of pseudo-physics into this (with the intention of intimidating people with math, one presumes). No dice. As a soon-to-be M.Sc, I can also give you math if you want it. :) LSJ> But, since you asked so nicely, I checked the games VTES is LSJ> based on. From the CD-ROM V:TM book, page 223: LSJ> Any time someone attacks the character, he has the option of LSJ> dodging ... simply by declaring "Dodge!" before the opponent LSJ> makes an attack roll. LSJ> There is no reference to First Strike in that book, nor the LSJ> Player's Guide. ...sigh. Since you're referring to the RPG, let's do the same. I don't have the V:TM CD-ROM handy, but I do have a copy of the new Revised Edition Rules. Let's see: Yes, you can *try to* dodge (p.210). What you left out is that it (like almost everything) is only an attempt, and needs a Dex + Dodge skill check. Dodge is only possible when there is room to maneuver. So yes, a combatant can try to dodge. But isn't an auto-success or anything like that, like you've tried to make is seem in your quote. Also, the dodge success is compared to the attacker's roll. In other words, the better the attacker, the harder it is to dodge. Attacks made with surprise make dodging even harder (or impossible, in most cases). As to there not being "First Strike" in V:TM... no, not under that name, no. However, there are a multitude of ways of getting a first strike effect: the Ambush combat meneuver, gaining surprise, etc. In other words, First Strike does exist in V:TM, just not under that name. >> > The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. >> >> After how many pages of errata? Clearly your record shows that >> what you do and what you say are inconsistent. LSJ> That's a different argument. LSJ> Errata is issued to aid balance, restore intention of the designer LSJ> (insofar as that can be determined), or simplify the rules (cf. LSJ> ammo timing). Exactly. IMHO this would do all 3. - Helps balance in making First Strike usable. Combat avoidance is currently stronger and easier than combat, anything that helps combat get around that is a boost towards balance. - I would make the case that Garfield intended First Strike to be resolved first (as per the name). - In addition, this would simplyify the rules a bit, leaving out the artificial separate resolution step for Dodge. LSJ> I suppose if there was no possible "explanation" for Dodge beating LSJ> First Strike, then that fact would be suspect. But there is, as I LSJ> have reiterated time and again in this thread. You have not iterated anything besides these: 1) The (VTES, not Jyhad) rules say that Dodge beats FS, so it does. 2) Dodge is intrinsically faster than any attack. Both of these are ridiculous arguments. If you've stated some other reason for the current ruling, I've probably missed it. >> > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try >> > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. >> > >> > Hmm. I tell you I don't play the RPG and you ask for me to >> > give some example from the RPG. Now who's being silly? >> >> I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. You said, >> "I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of >> the card game do not match the rules of the RPG." If you're >> sure, then name one. [here I pseudo-agree with LSJ that taking the RPG into too much consideration is not exactly helpful, but...] LSJ> I can be sure without having an example in mind. That comes from LSJ> an understanding of the nature of the two/three games. LSJ> But, since you asked so nicely, here's a few: LSJ> * A vampire who finds Golconda can be controlled by another LSJ> (or the same) Methuselah later in the game. And a burned vampire suddenly reappearing in the game. Both of these are due to the nature of the CCG beast - but both *can* be explained in-game. Golconda is a fragile state, you can revert back to your vampiric nature (or so some say :), and a burned vampire... wasn't burned after all, he faked his death! *grin* LSJ> * (I've heard): A 13th generation vampire in torpor would remain LSJ> there for many years (in terms of the card game: for the rest LSJ> of the game). Nope, the other way around. A 13th gen would awaken pretty soon, but an old-generation vampire would sleep for a long time. A 6th gen might well sleep for decades. (LSJ: in case you don't know: in the RPG, generations are in reverse order of strength. That is, 13th gen is the "youngest" while the 4th and 5th gens comprise the Methuselahs. 3rd gen are the mythical Antideluvians. 2nd gen is... gone, one hopes). LSJ> * A Caitiff could not become a Prince. More or less true. LSJ> * (I've heard) Burning Wrath requires more than just Potence. Yup, it's a Brujah clan speciality, and (afaik) requires Potence and some other discipline (Celerity?). >> > > Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? >> > >> > No. In that case the attack is moving faster. That's >> > pretty obvious. But thanks for bringing it up. >> >> Superior Animalism improves the speed of the dogs?!?!? >> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >> *looks in barrel of fish* >> *takes aim with shotgun* LSJ> No. Meaning? "No, the attack is not moving faster" (contradicting yourself) "No, that's not what I meant" (that's what you quite clearly *wrote*) "No, don't shoot me" (healthy self-preservation instinct :) >> > > Last time I >> > > checked, Silence of Death was a zone of silence, not an increase >> > > of speed. >> > >> > Right, which is why that card should have used a different >> > mechanic than First Strike, since First Strike fails to >> > properly mimic that zone of silence. As I've said before. >> > Please follow the thread. So you think that Muddles has First Strike because he's supernaturally fast, not because he has the ability and the knowhow to ambush vampires (i.e. surprise attack)? Your definition of what the maker(s) of the game meant with First Strike does not hold water, sorry. >> *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read >> the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge >> makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing >> vampire any strikes whatsoever. LSJ> The LARP has no such reference that I can find. It says (to the LSJ> contrary) any strike can be dodged. Nope. As acting narrator in a big LARP chronicle, I think I know what I'm talking about. Like in the RPG, you can *attempt* to dodge any normal strike. This results in a test, it's in no way an auto-success. And many effects in the LARP give a First Strike effect, just as in the RPG (surprise, supernatural speed, etc). LSJ> Not that the rules of the LARP/RPG have anything to do with VTES - LSJ> the VTES rules are independent (and perfectly clear on this point). Yes, I agree with your first sentence. As to the second: it's the *validity* of the current rules in that regard that we're discussing here. Is that so hard to understand? And the *original* game rules (Jyhad) are anything but clear on the point of FS vs Dodge. In fact, like I've said before, according to the Jyhad rules having First Strike beat dodge is just as valid an interpretation as the current one. >> >> This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. >> >> Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back >> >> and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit >> >> a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before >> >> the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire >> >> without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. >> > >> > Not in the card game. Dodge beats First Strike. [6.4.5] >> >> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk! >> C'mon. You can do better than this. Try to put some thought into it. LSJ> I have. See the myriad of "real world" (not: LARP-based) explanations LSJ> that I have given that you keep ignoring. You have given us NADA that makes any real-world sense, either in a common sense or a basic physics viewpoint. Your claim that all attacks can be dodged by anyone is plainly ridiculous, both in the real world and in the supernatural one that this game is simulating. >> > > This is blatantly untrue. Try to dodge a pack of dogs. >> > >> > So that card made use of a mechanic that didn't quite >> > fit. It (the First Strike mechanic) still works rather >> > well for that card. >> >> It amazes me how so many of the First Strike cards don't "quite >> fit." Perhaps your understanding of First Strike isn't as good >> as you think it is. LSJ> Then we'll have to disagree. I don't think your understanding of LSJ> Dodge is as good as you think it is. LSJ, since a good part of the First Strike effects don't fit into the mold of how you think first strike works, perhaps... just perhaps, your interpretation is wrong, hmmm? It's a bit more logical than saying "oh well, Silence of Death doesn't fit and Canine Horde doesn't fit and Muddles doesn't fit but..." >> > > A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much >> > > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case >> > > here. >> > >> > Because it's in the rules. [6.4.5]. Just like it always has been. >> >> Here. Let's play a game of Where's Waldo? Can you find the >> circular logic? I sure can. LSJ> Then by all means, do so. Argh. LSJ, are you really this dense or are you just trying to avoid commenting. Once again from the choir: "quoting current rules to justify those same current rules is not valid". And no, LSJ, it hasn't "always been in the rules". Check the original game rulebook, since you're so fond of telling us how the game was originally intended to be played. LSJ> When you play the game, you do so accoring to the rules. LSJ> That is not circular. It is inherent and direct. Sigh... yes, playing a game by the rules of that game is not circular. You are quite right. Have a cookie. But that's not what we were talking about. See above for "quoting current rules..." text if you're still confused about this. >> > > ...and what makes you so sure of this? Talk to Mr. Garfield lately? >> > >> > Since Dodge beats First Strike, it follows that First Strike is >> > not well suited for use in modeling a surprise attack. Parse error, does not compute. Let me get this straight. You're saying that the current rule interpretation proves that the current rule implementation is valid? Hnh? What Noal was asking, I believe, was how do you presume to know so well what the maker of the game intended, unless you're spoken to Mr. Garfield about this? >> If First Strike _did_ beat Dodge, it would be well suited. >> In fact, all of those cards that don't "quite fit" would fit >> just fine. LSJ> In that case, why would Scorpion Sting not be a "First Strike"? ...because the original V:TES-era Rules Team had screwed up, and demolished the First Strike concept. If FS had worked the way it was supposed to in Jyhad, Scorpion Sting would have been a FS (see, I too can make sweeping presumptions about the intention of Mr.Garfield. Without facts, they're just as relevant as LSJ's presumptions). >> > No need to talk to Garfield to see this plain fact. >> >> I wonder how many people would agree at this point. Ok, another "let's get this straight": you're saying that there's no need to talk to Garfield in order to find out how he meant Dodge vs FS to work. Wow. What would be the basis of this divine knowledge, if it isn't from the designer of the game? If you're arguing that the Rules Team that made the "Dodge beats FS" ruling were knowledgable of how the game was "intended to work", why have you yourself overtuned so many of their rules and gone back to the Jyhad rules? Hmmm? LSJ> Hmm. Quite a few, since it is so obvious, I'd guess. Since the majority of people on this group think quite the opposite vis the Dodge vs FS thingy, this must be some new meaning of the word "obvious" that I haven't run into before. >> > Since Hidden Lurker's name >> > implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job >> > of modelling a surprise attack >> >> What about Fast Reactions? *grin* LSJ> What about them? *grin* LSJ> Please make a point or drop the thread. LSJ> The repeated no-content statement are merely clutter. He does have a point. How does Fast Reactions fit into your surprise attack theory? >> > You have agreed with this assertion (that First Strike, being >> > beaten by a Dodge, fails to properly model a surprise attack). >> >> Agreed. >> >> > If you have changed your mind (and now think that First Strike, >> > still as always being beaten by Dodge, adequately models a surprise >> > Attack), then we can stop arguing. >> >> However, since I haven't changed my mind that First Strike should >> beat a Dodge and then would adequately model a suprise attack, >> making First Strike both useful and consistent, I guess we'll >> continue arguing. *sips coffee* *grin* LSJ> OK. IMHO, having First Strike beat Dodge would enable FS to model a surprise attack, *in addition to other things*. Like I posted in another message, my own interpretation of FS is that it has a whole range of game-world reasons behind the effect (some surprise, some speed, some horde tactics). This would enable both some FS cards and the HL to model game-world surprise attacks. What's wrong with that? >> Of course, if First Strike beats Dodge, Silence of Death would be >> fine and happy in the Smurf Village again. LSJ> But it doesn't. Yes, that's the point. A LOT of us thinks that it should, and that this would be both a viable and a justified change. >> > I don't see the reason why you keep bringing up points that >> > I've already supplied responses to. >> >> Because your responses have been inconsistent, used circular >> logic or just plain displayed a lack of knowledge of the game >> that Jyhad is based on and why First Strike _should_ beat >> dodge. LSJ> No circular logic. <involuntary giggling> LSJ> If you ask for the rule, I'll give you the rule. LSJ> If you ask for an explanation, I'll give you an explanation. No, you quote the rules as explanations of the same rule. If that doesn't fit under the description of circular logic, nothing does. LSJ> If you ask to make the game rules match exactly the LARP, I'll LSJ> say that the two games are independent and you should play LSJ> the one whose rules you prefer (as you understand them). This one I agree with. With the caveat that *where possible*, the card game should model the RPG and "common sense", in order to make the rules more comprehendable. For instance, it would be a perfectly valid game mechanic for a card type called "First Strike" to be resolved last, after everything else. It would also be horribly confusing, and cause no end of confusion and grief. When someone asks "why does First Strike resolve last?", a mythical game rules person might well reply "Because it does [see rule 6.9.6]". One might also imagine that the vast majority of players would find such an answer highly insufficent. LSJ> If some cards don't seem to match the rules, it doesn't LSJ> necessarily mean that the rules are in error. It is easier to LSJ> correct the few wayward cards than alter the rules, but even such LSJ> correction would only be done if the result warranted the change. Here the change is simple and one that just about everyone else seems to agree on. And remember that this would fix the whole mechanic, with no need for any card errata or other such grief. If the rules seem to be broken, why is it so impossible to consider changing them? And why on earth would changing a small rule mechanic be harder than correcting a few wayward cards, as you imply in the above? I thought it was just the opposite, per-card changes are the ones that are causing people grief. This change needs ABSOLUTELY NO card-specific errata, and no card text change. Do you really think that this is the harder option? Most players hate card errata. //Petri

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 14:41:19 GMT, mboh...@shout.net said: >> > Very, very small boost. S:CE is still a bigger killer than Dodge. >> >> Depends on environment and playstyle. mbohlman> Actually, no, it doesn't. Agree with this, S:CE is the stronger effect. But we still see a lot of dodge over here, since not all clans have access to S:CE. Without S:CE or Fortitude, Dodge is your second-best option for combat defense for a non-combat clan. mbohlman> Silence of Death should have been an action modifier adding mbohlman> +1 stealth at inferior and not allowing an opposing minion mbohlman> in combat to have their first strike. Yes. But the point is that there already is a mechanic for this sort of thing in the rules (FS). FS works perfectly well if you allow it to do its thing (resolve before anything except S:CE). //Petri

Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: > LSJ> Odd that you could've missed all the various rephrasings of the > LSJ> explanation that I've given. Perhaps you should switch news > LSJ> servers. > > Hmmm... either they haven't arrived here yet (the local news server > *is* slow), or I haven't understood them to be explanations. I've seen > various "dodge is faster then a First Strike" articles with a bunch of > pseudo-physics. If that's what you mean please try again. Even with my > fairly limited martial arts skills, I know quite well that some things > you just don't dodge, whether because you don't see them coming, are > busy with other things, or are simply slower. If you require the assumption that there are some things that you cannot dodge, then naturally there will be some things you cannot dodge. No explanation that begins with that assumption can illustrate otherwise. "Assume X. Show Not-X." is a difficult proposition. In VTES, there are things you cannot dodge: the strikes in the first round of a Hidden Lurker attack, superior Scorpion Sting, and additional strikes of your opponent in excess of your own additional strike, to name a few. However, in VTES, you can Dodge a strike done with First Strike for the most part. With that assumption, my pseudo-physics (which are real physics, BTW - while the numbers and ratios chosen may not seem realistic to you, they are not unreasonable.) serve to illustrate a *possible* "real world" explanation/concept. That is all. > Most of the black belts > I've sparred with effectively have First Strike on me - they're simply > so good and so fast that they leave you no time to react... and with > Jyhad we're talking about magical cones of silence (Silence of Death), > speed-enhanced attacks (Fast Hands, Backstab), and suchlike. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "So why's it called Canine Horde?" Hmm. Apparently you missed the point of that statement (I guess the lack of inflection had something to do with it). There are no dogs because it is a card game. There are no actual dogs involved. Only cards. The only reason dogs are involved is because the card is called Canine Horde. Nothing is going faster. Having ANI makes the card do something different than if you have ani. What is actually happening? Who cares. If you would like to imagine that there is a horde of dogs eating someones flamethrower really fast, by all means, do so. However, the _why_ of any particular card is always limited to "because that is what the card and the rules say". Which brings me back to First Strike. You could invent billions and billions of reasons based on physics, RPGs, hand to hand combat theory, whatever, as to why First Strike should beat Dodge. These don't, however, give any more precidence to the idea that in Jyhad, First Strike should beat Dodge. The only rational for changing cards or rules should be "Does it improve the game?". Will changing FS to beat dodge improve the game? I would say no. I would say changing FS to beat dodge would have almost zero effect on actual game play. It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain (i.e. it isn't going to make the Assamites any better). It would open up a huge can of worms that is currently closed (if you are going to fix First Strike cards, are you going to fix Disguised Weapon? Chainsaw? Werewolf Pack? Hellhound?...) and is best left that way. Sure, it might make more "sense" when viewed through the eye of reality. That eye, however, loses any sort of weight when you start shuffling cards. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Occasionally I'm callous and strange" -Willow Rosenberg

In article <79f28j$t3d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of > > fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? > > Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. > > Please offer concrete corrections. Actually, I'll offer another item for the defense. Aikido. Aikido is truly self-defense martial art. If you follow it strictly, you can't do anything to the other guy until he tries something on you. This is because you use his own energy against him. Begin rough summary of aikido legend... The legend of aikido is that the founder knew a very good sword fighter or hand-to-hand martial artist. The other fighter talked about how good he was and how he could take down anyone. Well, the aikido master said that he could knock the fighter down without ever touching him. The fighter took his bet, and they fought. The founder never touched him even though the fighter kept attacking. Eventually, the fighter collapsed from exhaustion, making the founder the winner. End summary... Of course, most practioners of aikido never get this good. They actually have to touch the other person, but they still use little of their own energy to neutralize their attacker. As Dodge negates a strike, I look at it like aikido. Rather than getting hit with that 6 damage strike, you step aside and push the attack away from your body. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 15:21:03 GMT, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) said: LSJ> The "pat" answer is that it (Dodge) resolves before First Strike. LSJ> But in actuality (as I've said several times before), it simply LSJ> negates the opposing strike without regard to when it resolves, LSJ> since it always negates the opposing strike (just like, as I've LSJ> just learned, it does in VTM). ...and, as you'll learn once you read my previous post, it actually does not in V:TM :) IN other words, you can try to dodge, yes, and *if it succeeds* it negates the opposing strike. But in quite a few cases analogous to the Jyhad First Strike you don't get the option to dodge at all). LSJ> Or at least, that's how it worked in Jyhad. LSJ> That method was too convoluted/confusing, so in V:TES the bit LSJ> about the effect of Dodge vs. First Strike was put explicitly LSJ> into the rules, and then it didn't matter how or when or if LSJ> the Dodge actually "resolved". >> With FS, your resolve strike phase is resolved before the others. LSJ> Your strike is resolved before the other strike, yes. LSJ> Unless the other strike was a Combat Ends. LSJ> And the effect(s) of your strike's resolution is/are negated LSJ> if the opposing minion has select a Dodge. This is in your opinion less confusing than having First Strike resolve before the other normal strikes? Wow. I begin to understand why you defended the new agga damage rules as simple and easy to understand, even though they caused headaches even for expericed players. In what way is the following difficult? 1) Resolve S:CE 2) Resolve First Strikes 3) Resolve all others >> Again NO. The time to dodge depends on what to dodge. You cannot >> simply assume that a dodge is always faster than an attack! >> It may be true sometimes, but on the whole it involves the same >> effort to attack. LSJ> OK. The explanation was merely an attempt to illustrate how the LSJ> rules as they are work in concept. The explanation is not flawed. LSJ> There are other explanations that match the rules as you would LSJ> like them to be. Those explanations are also not flawed. Ummm... nope. Your description of dodges always being faster than strikes is simply false, no matter what viewpoint you look at it from. LSJ> But, since the rules as they exist are not unbalanced and are LSJ> not non-sensical and are not shown to violate the original LSJ> design, they stay as they are. 1) The FS mechanic is unbalanced, making the rules also a bit unbalanced towards combat defense. 2) The are eminently non-sensical. There is no sensible reason why something called "first strike" shold resolve after certain other strikes. 3) You have zero proof that the rules do not violate Mr. Garfield's original design for First Strike. >> > > > So pretend that every dodge actually says "with First Strike" if >> > > > that'll help the rules make sense to you. >> > > >> > > Why should I pretend that? >> > >> > So that the rules (as they have always been) regarding Dodge and >> > First Strike will make sense to your conception of First Strike. >> >> NO. Jyhad worked different. They (NOT Garfield) changed that with VTES. >> See above. LSJ> They could've worked different, based on some reading of the LSJ> rules. But the could've (and did) work the same based on a LSJ> different, equally valid, reading of the rules. As affirmed by LSJ> the Design Team on 22-DEC-1994. Exactly. And we're saying that that Design Team made a wrong call, like thay have on so many other things. "Our" interpretation of FS gives a nice meaning to all the FS cards. Your interpretation requires card text rewrites and semantic wrangling and things like "this should not have been an FS card". Which makes our interpretation of the original game intent a bit more plausible. Not to mention that this is a fix that people want for game balance reasons, not for any mythical "Mr Garfield's Vision" reasons. LSJ> This the DTR isn't a contradition of the rules, and the net LSJ> result's concet is not unreasonable, and the net result is not LSJ> unbalancing, there is no reason to overturn it (esp. since doing LSJ> so would only be possible via the addition of errata). Actually, no. It would require a small change in the online rule book and a Rules Team notice of a reversal of an old Design Team ruling. This has nothing to do with "errata", as such, since we're in no way playing by the V:TES rules anymore (the current rules are *much* closer to Jyhad). LSJ> I don't get a concept of a separate "dodge-speed", as I said. LSJ> That was merely a useful tool to illustrate my point of LSJ> normal-dodge beats even fast-aggression. But it doesn't. Not in real life, not in the RPG. >> > > If both strikes are at fast speed, one is a dodge, the other a strike, >> > > dodge is effective. >> > >> > True. Yup. If both are done as a First Strike, then the dodge should naturally beat the other strike. >> > > If only the other strike is fast, and dodge normal, then the dodge would >> > > havne no effect. >> > >> > No. The dodge (having so little to do) still resolves first. >> I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of >> fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? >> Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. LSJ> Please offer concrete corrections. We are. Repeatedly. I've practiced Jiu-Jitsu, Aikido and Taijutsu so far. I'm far from any sort of expert, but I do feel at least qualified to comment on this. My real world experience tells me that dodging something that is moving faster than you can react, or that you don't see coming, is not possible. Our suggested reversal of the old Dodge/FS ruling would IMHO bring both abilities (FS and Dodge) into line with both the real world and the RPG. Making the rules a bit easier to understand, and helping game balance a bit. >> > If the point hasn't been made clearly enough already (which is >> > hard to believe), let me break down exactly what I mean in >> > physics terms (none of this is necessary - the explanations that >> > have been given and the rules themselves are clear enough): >> > >> > D: Distance. S: Speed. >> > >> > D (for punch) = X >> > D (for dodge) = Y (Y = X/4, e.g.) >> > S (normal) = N >> > S (fast) = F (F = 2N, e.g.) >> > >> > Time to dodge = Y/N = X/4N >> > Time to punch = X/N ; Y/N = X/4N < X/N : dodge wins. >> > Time to punch with first strike = X/F = X/2N; Y/N = X/4N < X/2N : dodge wins >> >> BAH. Mr Mathematician, you are X/4 and 2N are figures chosen by you. LSJ> As I said in the section you clipped. So? >> They by no means can be real. We don't know their speed. We only >> know that FS has a faster speed than normal strikes (Which would >> include dodge, as it is yet a strike). Yup. In your formulas you have chosen values that make dodge faster, so or course the formulas say that. Insert some other values, and they say something else. Totally null arguement. (especially since your "physics" don't have anything to do with real combat). LSJ> The rules clearly indicate that FS is beaten by Dodge,so I chose LSJ> ratios to illustrate how that could be - ratios that showed dodge LSJ> moving at "normal" speed beating an aggressive strike moving at LSJ> "fast" speed. Yes. The rules say that dodge beats FS, so you chose values that match to that. Hello? Tune in to Reality FM. Circular. Argument. Which word don't you understand, or are you unclear on the concept? In academic life, a professor would shred you for trying such "proofs". LSJ> The ratios were chosen for the express purpose of illustrating LSJ> the rules. As I said. And the ratios are not unreasonable. LSJ> As you say: We don't know their speed. LSJ> We only know that Dodge beats First Strike. <frustration growing> But that's PRECISELY what we don't know, and in fact very much disagree on! >> Sigh. I know that the rules currently work the way you say. >> I would like to see that change. I merely argument for a change! LSJ> The arguments I've seen simply show how "First Strike beats Dodge" LSJ> is not unreasonable. Which I do not dispute. LSJ> They fail to show how "Dodge beats First Strike" is any of: LSJ> * contrary to (a possible) original intention A reading of the original Jyhad rules, a look at the cards, and some though about what something called "First Strike" would mean gives strong reason to doubt that the current ruling was the original intent. But no, I don't *know*. Neither do you. LSJ> * unbalancing It makes FS rairly useless, thus ruling out a combat option vs. Dodges. This adds to the rules unbalance towards combat defense combat offense. Changing the previous ruling would IMHO add to game balance, yes. LSJ> * unreasonable It is unreasonable for a variety of real-world and RPG reasons, which we're outlined above and in previous articles. LSJ> * worth the errata to change Since the change needed is a minor revision in the rule book and a Rules Team ruling reversal, I think it's well worth the change, since as a net effect it makes a whole class of cards useful. //Petri

On 5 Feb 1999 16:07:25 GMT, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) said: PDB6> Will changing FS to beat dodge improve the game? I would say no. PDB6> I would say changing FS to beat dodge would have almost zero PDB6> effect on actual game play. Very small change, agreed, but still change, *especially* in the ease of explaining the rules to new people. PDB6> It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain PDB6> (i.e. it isn't going to make the Assamites any better). Ummm... yes it would. Both Backstab and Silence of Death would give them ability to take out weenies without fear of dodges. In short, it would make them slightly better. PDB6> It would open up a huge can of worms that is currently closed PDB6> (if you are going to fix First Strike cards, are you going to PDB6> fix Disguised Weapon? Chainsaw? Werewolf Pack? Hellhound?...) Those are single cards. This is a part of the rules. Very big difference. In addition, this requires NO card errata. Zero. Zip. Nada. //Petri

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 15:35:51 GMT, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) said: >> [bleep]. Excuse me, but something is shiming through quite clearly >> here. You talk about the "do not match the intention of the game". HOW >> DO YOU KNOW? By reading the Jyhad rules and by reading the Jyhad >> cards, I stringly suspect that Garfield meant for FS to trump all >> non-s:ce strikes. Yes, including dodge. LSJ> After reading the Jyhad rules and the Jyhad cards, I strongly LSJ> suspect the designers (Garfield incl.) did not. Yes. And I strongly suspect the opposite, and have IMHO equally valid points for doing so. Which is my point: you don't *know*, I don't *know*, so can we please stop referring to "what the game was meant to be"? >> This has a very strong "I know the intention of this game" smell to LSJ> Likewise. >> it. In the past I've mostly agreed with the rulings, but this is >> starting to give credibility to the argument that the rules shouldn't >> be at the whim of a single person. You clearly don't like this >> idea. Fine. A *lot* of us clearly do. Now tell us precisely why doing >> this change would be bad for the game. LSJ> Please tell me precisely why this change is *warranted*. Because it simplifies the rules and makes them conform to "common sense", real life and the RPG in this regard. Because it balances out a combat rule mechanic, bringing it more into line with the other card types. Because the required change is extremely small and does not need card-specific errata, and does not conflict with the Jyhad rules. >> But you aren't applying a uniform guideline here. You're continually >> referring to a "guideline" of not changing single cards that don't >> break the game - yet you've done that, numerous times. On top of that, >> this is a rule mechanic, not some single card. LSJ> The guideling is: balance, intent, simplicity/reasonableness (in LSJ> that order). LSJ> Obviously the change to Kalinda was not a balance issue. Yup, I understand these guidelines and as such agree with them. In my opinion, this change would be well within those guidelines, at least if we are to judge the rulings you have issued as within those guidelines. >> Please explain why this change would be bad for the game. Or admit >> that you won't consider it because you personally don't like it. As >> other people have pointed out, this is not *your* game, even though >> you've done a lot of good things for it. LSJ> I have considered it. I haven't found/heard a suitable LSJ> justification for the change, that's all. Ok. We've tried to present you with justifications. LSJ> If you personally don't like the rule, that's fine. LSJ> But that's not a reason to issue errata. Agree with that. But, like I said, the latest articles have attempted to explain in detail why the change would be warranted, and why the current ruling is illogical and confusion-causing. //Petri

Petri Wessman wrote: > Which begs the question: who is on the current Jyhad Rules Team > (besides LSJ)? What's the protocol that they follow? Who has how many > votes? Why do we rarely see any discussion about new rule changes here > on the Net before we're handed a Rules Team Ruling on that change? > > In other words, what is the group of people responsible for changes to > this game, and where do they discuss things? The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain anonymous. The RT has members from different play groups from a total of three continents. The protocol is discussion and playtesting among the members of the playgroups and reports of findings via e-mail. The topics for discussion are suggested by the Net.Rep (me). Ideas for playtesting are culled from the newsgroup (by me) and/or suggested by the members of the RT. Members of the RT are also free to add their own topics of discussion (well, not at first since we had a full itenerary already, but once the initial fixes were out of the way). No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus. The topics come from one or more of: the newsgroup/mailinglist, private e-mail to me, or members of the RT. Mostly from the newsgroup. The solutions may be "rarely" seen on the newsgroup prior to the RT post, but the problems are almost always brought up on the newsgroup prior to being discussed by the RT. Similar, I think, to the way the RT functioned before June 1998, except that the current RT relies on e-mail for communication, has a wider base of members than the old RT, and has more members than the old RT. The whole business of the RT is not required by WotC. It's just a concept I carried over because it seems like a good idea. To WotC, there is simply an "ultimate rules authority" for VTES. They leave the details of arriving at rulings/errata to my discretion. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Dodge: The Dodge strike card deals no damage, but it negates the > effect of the opponent's strike that round. [Jyhad rules: 15.3] >And from the ruling affirming/clarifying that entry from the rulebook >issued very early in the game's life (this game, not some other): > Dodge will cancel a first strike. [Design Team: 22-DEC-1994] You know, you keep quoting the text of the rules and saying that your reason for not changing the rules is because the rules are quite clear in what it is saying. I (kind of) grant you that. You also say that the reason that FS shouldn't be considered by the RTR is because it is a negligable effect that if covered (albeit not very clearly) by the rulebook. Now, I remember that the rulebook was quite clear about the Golden Rule of Card Ownership. However, you didn't find any problem changing that rule, a change which now has a *huge* impact on the game where before it was fairly neglible. This is but one indication of the inconsistancies in what you determine to be important enough to change. What? You got tired of stealing other players locations/vamps only to have them go away after they were ousted. Is that why you changed this rule? GRoCO had such a small part to play in the overall scheme of the game. Why are you so against the suggested change to FS when you had no problem changing the Golden Rule. At least the FS change will have a much smaller impact than the Golden Rule change had. a0

In article <7x679g4...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > mbohlman> Silence of Death should have been an action modifier adding > mbohlman> +1 stealth at inferior and not allowing an opposing minion > mbohlman> in combat to have their first strike. > > Yes. But the point is that there already is a mechanic for this sort > of thing in the rules (FS). FS works perfectly well if you allow it to > do its thing (resolve before anything except S:CE). Then why not take the strict reading of First Strike? It should really beat S:CE, too, as it obviously happens first. So, one person plays S:CE, the other plays a FS. Resolve the FS and then combat ends. It's the same logic that you're using to say that Dodge should not beat first strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:08:43 GMT, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > Now, I fully understand the reluctance to change a card just to > make it useful, and if this was one card I wouldn't bother to > argue. Really? It actually seems to only be two cards. Let's look at the First Strike cards out there right now... Muddled Vampire Hunter - ally, requires Malkavian Canine Horde - Animalism, destroy equipment at range Backstab - Celerity, only usable when blocking Fast Hands - Celerity, steal weapon Shattering Blow - Potence, destroy equipment Silence of Death - Quietus, good for one round Now... let's assume First Strike DID beat Dodge. Muddles is a tiny bit more useful, but not much. His big problems are still (a) having his Rush blocked by guys with 4 or more blood and (b) S:CE. If it beat Dodge, he would certainly be quite the weeniebuster, but that's a very narrow path of utility. Canine Horde and Shattering Blow would be affected even less than Muddles would - people with equipment are probably using the equipment to protect themselves, not the Dodge. (ie. Leather Jacket as seen in someone's weenie horde deck.) Fast Hands wouldn't be affected at all. The only weapons our group -ever- sees, except in "experimental toy" decks, are guns or a Sengir Dagger maybe. If you have a gun, you're not doing "sideslip/blur", you're using the maneuver to avoid damage and trying to shoot THREE times. And you're certainly not disciplineless-dodging. As far as Sengir Daggers, we don't commonly see those attached to Celerity decks for some reason. Backstab would be affected a little, since it's actually somewhat likely that if you block someone they'll be using a Dodge to get out of the way - but if I have Celerity, I don't need First Strike to beat up on some guy who's relying on disciplineless Dodge. I just Blur and pound him. Not to mention that Backstab qualifies as one of the more worthless cards, IMO, for cost and circumstances - I can't see trying to build an intercept deck around it figuring "sure, i'll equip an ivory bow and use backstab with it to intercept my prey's actions and send them to torpor!" ... Yuck. Silence of Death would be the only card significantly affected by a change in the First Strike rulings, since you can't exactly Blur when using aggravated (taste of death) damage and may not have put very many of those in your deck - the common Celerity counter to Dodge. > But: we're talking about a class of cards, with possible new cards > being issued by WotC in the future. IMHO, the benefits of doing > this now by far outweigh the disadvantages. I think we all want to > make this into the best game it can be. IMHO this is one (small) > step in that direction. Having the rules "make sense" is important, > especially when teaching the game to newbies. The only -significant- benefit to be realized from altering the First Strike rules would require that some sort of card be added to Celerity to allow minions who AREN'T blocking to gain First Strike. Celerity is a common enough discipline that such a card would effectively make First Strike very much a part of the game again. THEN it could be examined to see if First Strike really needed to beat Dodge or S:CE, since it would actually have an impact on the game environment. (A POT/CEL deck would become even more grim to face in combat, for example.) Want to fix Silence of Death? errata the card to, as someone else said, be First Strike at inferior and "the opposing minion may select no strike for his first strike this round" at superior. That -does- make a lot more sense than altering the rules to effectively change only one and a half cards. >It seems that the majority would be in favor of this change, going by >news/email messages and the opinion of the players we have here in >Finland. Of course, judging any sort of general player opionion is >more-or-less impossible - but this is an indication of *something*. > >The reasons I've heard so far as to why NOT make the change are: > >1) Too minor to be worth changing (DISAGREE, as I've outlined above). i think i re-outlined this a little better above. agree IMO. >2) Changes shouldn't be make just to make a card useful (AGREE in > general when we're talking about single cards, DiSAGREE in this > case). it only really fixes Silence of Death - agree IMO >3) Would result in yet more errata (mostly DISAGREE, see above). Can't see this. it's one errata to the rulebook or one errata to the Silence card. disagree IMO. >4) LSJ thinks Dodges are always faster in game-world terms (DISAGREE > with LSJ's interpretation of what First Strike means, and think > making Dodges into a special case makes the rules unnecessarily > complicated). nah, this whole argument is because y'all are trying to relate it to the real world, which is completely useless in this situation. =) Throw this point out on BOTH yer parts and argue about the card game. Yeesh. =) On a side note, yes, you CAN dodge faster than a strike happens in the real world... Even if your opponent is an experienced martial artist and you're not, you can always get out of the way of the first one. You can't avoid the additional strikes he can cram into the same flow of movement, though.... which also fits the game pattern right now. =) >5) LSJ says Dodges beat First Strike because the (V:TES and current) > rules say "Dodges beat First Strike". (DISAGREE, duh. "We can't > change the rules because the rules say so". Kafka would be proud :). I'm not going here at all. =) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

In article <7xzp6s3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On 5 Feb 1999 16:07:25 GMT, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) said: > PDB6> It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain > PDB6> (i.e. it isn't going to make the Assamites any better). > > Ummm... yes it would. Both Backstab and Silence of Death would give > them ability to take out weenies without fear of dodges. In short, it > would make them slightly better. Actually, First Strike beating dodge is going to help the Assamites almost zero. Why? Additional strikes. If someone dodges, you additional strike. When things go well, you do a Blood Sweat, Blood Sweat, Taste of Death. That's 3+3+2 aggravated which will burn any vampire of 7 capacity or less provided these all land on target. Against weenies, so what if they dodge? You Blur and hit them more. First Strike would still only really do you good > PDB6> It would open up a huge can of worms that is currently closed > PDB6> (if you are going to fix First Strike cards, are you going to > PDB6> fix Disguised Weapon? Chainsaw? Werewolf Pack? Hellhound?...) > > Those are single cards. This is a part of the rules. Very big > difference. In addition, this requires NO card > errata. Zero. Zip. Nada. And it this errata would only affect exactly 7 cards. Seriously, is it really worth it? [ quoted text not captured ]

"AgentZero" <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > Now, I remember that the rulebook was quite clear about the > Golden Rule of Card Ownership. However, you didn't find any > problem changing that rule, a change which now has a *huge* > impact on the game where before it was fairly neglible. This > is but one indication of the inconsistancies in what you determine > to be important enough to change. What? You got tired of > stealing other players locations/vamps only to have them go > away after they were ousted. Is that why you changed this rule? > GRoCO had such a small part to play in the overall scheme of > the game. Why are you so against the suggested change to > FS when you had no problem changing the Golden Rule. At > least the FS change will have a much smaller impact than the > Golden Rule change had. That was an example of change for the third reason changes are made: simplicity/concept. The old version of the GRoCO violated the concept of control, resulting in in-game oddness. Similar to the oddness perceived by some members of this newsgroup caused by the interaction of Dodge and First Strike. Unlike that oddness, however, the oddness created by the old GRoCO had *no* possible in-game concept or explanation to match the rule itself. That, coupled with the fact that the new GRoCO is sligtly simpler and not unbalancing, is why that errata passed review. (Note the complete absence of any possible in-game concept as opposed to the Dodge/First Strike problem where a *possible* in-game concept exists to match the rule. Not everyone agrees that that concept, as clear and simple as it is, is possible.). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xzp6s3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On 5 Feb 1999 16:07:25 GMT, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) said: > > PDB6> Will changing FS to beat dodge improve the game? I would say no. > PDB6> I would say changing FS to beat dodge would have almost zero > PDB6> effect on actual game play. > > Very small change, agreed, but still change, *especially* in the ease > of explaining the rules to new people. > > PDB6> It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain > PDB6> (i.e. it isn't going to make the Assamites any better). > > Ummm... yes it would. Both Backstab and Silence of Death would give > them ability to take out weenies without fear of dodges. In short, it > would make them slightly better. Backstab: Requires Celerity. Costs 2 blood. Gives First Strike for one strike; at superior, you also get an additional strike. Exactly how is this better for taking out dodging weenies than using Blur: Requires Celerity, costs 1 blood, gives 1/2 additional strikes? Silence of Death: Requires Quietus. Costs 1 blood. Gives FS for remainder of round if you use hand or melee strikes. At superior you also get a maneuver. At least this one doesn't cost 2 blood. Still not better than Blur. Can provide a maneuver to help with being at close for the hand or melee action. However, being at long with Flash and using Taste of Death has the same blood cost, and at superior you do have a press if your victim Dodges. (And the Flash/Taste would send the victim to torpor if they don't Dodge or prevent damage.) > PDB6> It would open up a huge can of worms that is currently closed > PDB6> (if you are going to fix First Strike cards, are you going to > PDB6> fix Disguised Weapon? Chainsaw? Werewolf Pack? Hellhound?...) > > Those are single cards. This is a part of the rules. Very big > difference. In addition, this requires NO card > errata. Zero. Zip. Nada. No, but it *is* a change to the rules, and one for a minor improvement for all the cards involved except Muddles, who is *already* good even without First Strike beating Dodge. And again, I don't think that future First Strike cards would benefit that much from beating Dodge either, because in the world of combat, Strike: Combat Ends is the nine hundred pound gorilla, and if you can't deal with it, you just plain suck. Regarding the whole 'real world logic' thing, I'd just like to reiterate that everything in the card game really is metaphorical and should not be looked at too closely in 'real world' terms, because it will always break down. Why does having Cats' Guidance let a vamp block more than one action? Do the cats go out and get blood to keep him happy or something? Why can people without Thaumaturgy use Wake With Evening's Freshness? Why does a Saturday Night Special in the hands of some random mortal always kill another mortal on the first shot? In my view, Dodge shouldn't be looked at as physically dodging the opponent's attack in very close quarters (as when sparring). If you declare Dodge as your strike, it seems to me to reflect your vamp's efforts to not be there when the other combatant tried to beat you up. Maybe you hid around the corner. Maybe you were Behind Him! and snuck off while he wasn't looking. Maybe you ducked behind a car when he shot that .44 at you. Maybe you saw him ripping that Gate off its hinges and made for the hills. Maybe you turned into Mist when you saw that his Wrath was starting to Burn. Unless he's got you Immortally Grappled or something, these are not unreasonable possibilities. Josh root root rooting for the home team [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri wrote: "Very small change, agreed, but still change, *especially* in the ease of explaining the rules to new people." I fail to see how saying "FS beats dodge" is any easier than saying "FS doesn't beat dodge". What erroneous preconceptions people have about how something should work based on their previous, unrelated knowledge has little bearing on how a game should work. I play Titan. I used to play D+D. When I started playing Titan, I didn't imediately assume that Trolls could regenerate in Titan, just 'casue they could in D+D. Making Trolls in Titan regenerate because they do in D+D is silly. Changing FS in Jyhad to work like it does in another game is just as silly. "Ummm... yes it would. Both Backstab and Silence of Death would give them ability to take out weenies without fear of dodges. In short, it would make them slightly better." Slightly better in that they would have two extra cards that might be possibly useful at their disposal, yes. However, to make an effective Assamite deck currently, you need to be able to deal with S:CE, or your deck won't work. As anything that can currently deal with S:CE can deal with Dodge, the Assamites currently have no problem with Dodge. They can use Psyche, Additional Strikes, and Pressess, all of which A) work perfectly well against dodge and B) fit into a deck that can deal with S:CE. Removing some of these angles to include FS cards as to be able to beat Dodge occasionally will do little more than compromise the effectiveness of the Assamite deck. "Those are single cards. This is a part of the rules. Very big difference. In addition, this requires NO card errata. Zero. Zip. Nada." Granted, but the reasoning is the same, and once you fix something because it is too weak, you set a precident. If FS is changed, it would be done because it is weak, not because it is too good. As has been pointed out before, it is RT policy to only change things that are too good ("broken", "overpowered") to make them more reasonable and consequently have less effect on the game environment as a whole (cards or rules). It is not RT policy to improve things that are weak so that they have more effect on the game environment as a whole. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Actually, First Strike beating dodge is going to help the Assamites >almost zero. Why? Additional strikes. If someone dodges, you >additional strike. When things go well, you do a Blood Sweat, Blood >Sweat, Taste of Death. That's 3+3+2 aggravated which will burn any >vampire of 7 capacity or less provided these all land on target. ...all at the cost of 4 blood. 1 for the first Blood Sweat which can be dodged, 1 for the Blur and 2 more for the other Blood Sweat and the Taste of Death. And that's *if* you have all those cards in your hand. However, if FS worked the way it is proposed, you can put a dodging weenie (or any dodging minion) into torpor for 2 blood. And that means alot to a clan that already has a difficult time with blood management. >And it this errata would only affect exactly 7 cards. Seriously, is >it really worth it? 7 now with possibly more in the future. And yes, in mine and several others' opinions, it is worth it. a0

>it is weak, not because it is too good. As has been pointed out before, it is >RT policy to only change things that are too good ("broken", "overpowered") to >make them more reasonable and consequently have less effect on the game >environment as a whole (cards or rules). Ok, then please explain to me what was 'broken' or 'overpowered' about the Golden Rule of Card Ownership? It seems to me that was changed to help out a class of cards (those that stole other players cards). Whereas before they were kind of useful, now they are even moreso. a0

In article <79f831$qer$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "AgentZero" <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > Now, I remember that the rulebook was quite clear about the > Golden Rule of Card Ownership. However, you didn't find any > problem changing that rule, a change which now has a *huge* > impact on the game where before it was fairly neglible. I'm inclined to disagree that it's a negligible effect. Prior to Ancient Hearts, this was the case, but as far as I can tell, one of the biggest reasons it was changed is because the rule as it stood, had a *huge* effect on the Followers of Set. Assume you're playing a Corruption deck. You primarily want to steal your prey's vampires. When you oust your prey, he takes any vampires you've stolen with him. Net result: gain 6 pool, lose x minions, many wasted actions. In short, the Golden Rule of Card Ownership, unmodified, effectively discouraged (almost disallowed) a whole game *strategy*. Changing First Strike, while it would slightly (as I think Mike pointed out) improve combat for some clans, is seen as not quite worthwhile, because it doesn't actively hinder a specific strategy. Yes, it makes Assamites more likely to need to resort to additional strikes, but hey...they were probably going to do that anyway, right? And maybe a little more reliance on Psyche, but if you're not using that in the first place, you're *asking* for pain. In addition...(I'm not saying this is an argument in favor...I'm just curious...) outside of JOL, are there really that many people who own enough Silence of Death for it to make a difference? I have 1...I know there are probably a number of people who have more...but how many more? I suppose it's not like you're going to use Backstab in place of it, but still... Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain > anonymous. Okay then. What criteria was used to select these fine volunteers? (no sarcasm) What is the reason for anonymity? I strongly suspect its to protect them from vicious bastards like myself? *grin* > No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus. ...and if someone steadfastly disagrees with the stance of the majority? I've found that if you wait for consensus on issues, you'll be waiting until Hell, Cayman Islands freezes over. We use votes to come to quick decisions regarding issues where everone either has strong opinions preventing consensus or to determine whether debate is needed. It took about .05 seconds for consensus on playing WWEF as printed. Other than that, it looks much how our rules team operates. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

> Any time someone attacks the character, he has the option of > dodging ... simply by declaring "Dodge!" before the opponent > makes an attack roll. This is true. You always have this option. Even when your opponent in combat has more actions in a round than you. In the RPG, if you have capability of your character to perform more actions (via Celerity or dividing your attention to multiple actions), you can always have an oportunity to dodge. I have mentioned this in my other post. > >There is no reference to First Strike in that book, nor the >Player's Guide. > First strike in vampire would be equivalent to your opponent "botching" his initiative or performing last though most actions can mostly be described as simultaneous(keep in mind this is not a guidance system for the game, RPGs technically have no set rules, just what the ST or GM says.). Often the creation of surprise enables first strike. Celerity in V:TM has no bearing on the order of combat, Celerity in VTM is akin to additional actions in *this* card game, they are performed all 1st order actions are performed, then all 2nd order, and 3rd until all characters have run out of actions(just as in this system when all characters have run out of additional strikes, that round esentially over. >> > The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. >> >> After how many pages of errata? Clearly your record shows that >> what you do and what you say are inconsistent. > >That's a different argument. > >Errata is issued to aid balance, restore intention of the designer >(insofar as that can be determined), or simplify the rules (cf. >ammo timing). Is Garfield actually making these decisions? Is there at least a team of people making these decisions no matter what they are? If you aren't the only person making these decisions, then I'd really like to see a list of names of the people that are helping you to come to these conclusions. If you are the only person making these decisions then WoTC should get you some help because one person shouldn't be making the rules on his/her own. > >I suppose if there was no possible "explanation" for Dodge beating >First Strike, then that fact would be suspect. But there is, as I >have reiterated time and again in this thread. I gave it already. Read my other post somewhere in this thread of postings(Entitled First Strikes First:Incorrect use of the WW System It is the intention that even at close range or long range there are ways to avoid your opponent's attacks. >> > > > I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of >> > > > the card game do not match the rules of the RPG. There are but you can't translate the rules from one game to the next. Frankly I'm surprised how close they came to each other. >> > > Okay. Name one card game where the rules of the do not try >> > > to maintain the flavor of the RPG that it's based on. This can't be determined because the terms such as "bleed" do not exist in the WW system as they do in the card game. For instance, Conditioning in WW is a type of slow and steady mind control. In the card game, this slow and steadied control is used by the vampire in some way to cause a loss of influence down the line on another Methuselah's power. >I can be sure without having an example in mind. That comes from >an understanding of the nature of the two/three games. > >But, since you asked so nicely, here's a few: > >* A vampire who finds Golconda can be controlled by another > (or the same) Methuselah later in the game. Bad Example: Vampires that find Golconda can become "normal" again. Golconda is a state of peace. The vampire doesn't actually die nor does it mean that he > >* (I've heard): A 13th generation vampire in torpor would remain > there for many years (in terms of the card game: for the rest > of the game). Bad Example: Time spent in torpor is in relation to their humanity (or path). The more human they are the faster they awaken. There is no humanity rating in V:tES so it cannot be evaluated. > >* A Caitiff could not become a Prince. To some extent I would agree. But some caitiff consider themselves Caitiff despite their tie to a real clan. V:tES is horrible at dealing with this. Most of the older generation vampires(particularly the methuselahs) could be considered > >* (I've heard) Burning Wrath requires more than just Potence. Most of the cards you've created aren't even real named disciplines. Particularly Potence, Fortitude and Celerity, all are level based with the same name and effect(increased at each level of course Potence 2 is better than Potence 1 for example) for each level of power. As for burning wrath, I've never even heard of it but I believe from what it sounds like, that it would be more of a ritual performed in accordance to potence that produces the effect (if someone can tell me otherwise please let me know I really have never even heard that this existed in the RPG). There is no ritual rating either because it is an ability in the RPG(ability in the sence it is a knowledge, not a power like a discipline) that is combined with a discipline. > >You're the one who claims to know the rules of the RPG/LARP - why >do I have to do this work for you? - I'm the Net.Rep for VTES, >not VTM. yep. People should really stop using VtM as an excuse for rulings with VtES. They are two separate entities and cases can be found in favor of some rulings and some rulings can be found in relation against rulings. In the Case of First Strike, you lose when using V:tM > >> > > Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? Um.... no. You (or your vampire for that matter, since he's the one that's actually using it) isn't even the horde. Your kindred is summoning up a horde of Canine(dogs and the such) to attack the opponent. Most dogs are pretty fast when they're on the offensive. In Card Game terms it means that either they were fast enough to allow you to escape or catch up to your opponent (thus the press) or tear a gun or other piece of equipment away from the opponent(likely faster than he can use it on you, in all likelihood, if I were staring down a bunch of ravenous dogs coming at me, I'd be shooting at them before aiming at my opponent, in this case the gun is lost or destroyed in the middle of the attack). Now if I was running like hell and managed to find a place to hide from the horde, I may have saved my own hide and my gun as well. The problem no one sees with the game is that combat doesn't stay very close all the time, even in the case of hand to hand. Has anyone ever wondered why there are 2 manuevers on a deer rifle when they tend to make bad combat weapons? It's because you can strike from even further away causing your opponent to have to travel even further to get to you enabling you to keep combat at distance easier. Everything about this card game is simulated, and few players realize the immense stories that are built up out of a single game. >> > >> > No. In that case the attack is moving faster. That's >> > pretty obvious. But thanks for bringing it up. >> >> Superior Animalism improves the speed of the dogs?!?!? No it just means you were able to call more dogs, or better ones. >> > > Last time I >> > > checked, Silence of Death was a zone of silence, not an increase >> > > of speed. which it is. >> > Right, which is why that card should have used a different >> > mechanic than First Strike, since First Strike fails to >> > properly mimic that zone of silence. As I've said before. >> > Please follow the thread. It does when the opponent is efficiently using the silence to "surprise" his opponent. First Strike in this case relates to surprise. ***note: not all cases of First Strike are surprise as mentioned with the Canine horde above*** >> *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read >> the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge >> makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing >> vampire any strikes whatsoever. There is no First Strike in the LARP as far as I know it's a game of rock paper scissors. The LARP is even more basic in comparison to the table top RPG version. Please go somewhere else with this because LARP rules are meant only for LARPing to make it fun to play in real time. >The LARP has no such reference that I can find. It says (to the >contrary) any strike can be dodged. I don't know the exact LARP rules, but the LARP evolved from the tabletop to a game of rock paper scissors as I have said. ***Note: I really mean it is a game of rock paper scissors, I'm not using it as a metaphor in any way*** >Not that the rules of the LARP/RPG have anything to do with VTES - >the VTES rules are independent (and perfectly clear on this point). The card game was based on the effects and environment that WW created, nothing more. >> >> This is so ludicrous that its beyond me why you stick to this. >> >> Read the LARP rules. Please go do it now. Then come back >> >> and say this. If a vampire with superior celerity tries to hit >> >> a vampire, the faster vampire gets to resolve his strike before >> >> the vampire can react, much less dodge. Your average vampire >> >> without Celerity in VTM has the same reaction time as a human. Celerity has nothing to do with First Strike or ability to strike first(I'm really getting tired of saying this). Speed of attack is equated to the mental response of a character in WW. You can be the fastest vampire ever in WW and be so slow witted you're not smart enough to act fast enough and get rocked in combat. It is possible for a vamp with no Celerity to take out a vamp with 5 Celerity (6 actions per turn in 2nd Edition WW rules), providing the vampire without the Celerity won the initiative and torporized or caused the final death of that vampire in one hit that connected before the Celerity Vamp started his hurricane of attacks. It's also possible for that Celerity less vampire to dodge ALL of those strikes if he is skilled enough (something you can't do against an vampire with additional actions in the card game) >> > Not in the card game. Dodge beats First Strike. [6.4.5] yep, I'm still not sure where I stand on the position though. I still offer that many arguments people state are wrong the way things are presented. >> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk! >> C'mon. You can do better than this. Try to put some thought into it. Rude comments prove nothing. Your argument has been the weakest thus far. >I have. See the myriad of "real world" (not: LARP-based) explanations >that I have given that you keep ignoring. Most I can agree with, some I don't. Real world is difficult to model. That's why it is easier to take an already made model(the WW system) and compare. Fortunately they agree with the system as is in almost every case. >I quote the rule, someone asks for an explanation. >I give an explanation, someone complains that I'm making it up. Aren't you in some cases though?... they have to come from somewhere. Pulled Fangs for instance as well as the ammo rules which aren't modelled by the real world but as you have said make some balance to the game(I don't agree). >> > > This is blatantly untrue. Try to dodge a pack of dogs. I have. You better find a place to hide quickly. >> It amazes me how so many of the First Strike cards don't "quite >> fit." Perhaps your understanding of First Strike isn't as good >> as you think it is. I think your interpretation of First Strike is skewed more than LSJ's >Then we'll have to disagree. >I don't think your understanding of Dodge is as good as you think >it is. Disagreements happen. It's a fact of life. I think you two should kiss and make up though. heheh :) >> > > A vampire cannot dodge something that moves much >> > > faster than it in the RPG or LARP, so I don't see why its the case >> > > here. Speed, speed, speed. Would you stop that. ok here's a case where speed doesn't matter. I'm sitting right on a garbage dumpster when I spot you trying to do something (your action). We go to combat, assuming with the WW system that the acting vamp (you) chooses action and I get to see it I'd see you summoning some big dogs. REalizing my gun aint worth $#!+ when I get swarmed I dive into the dumpster and shut the lid until you're gone. Now that's assuming I didn't take the gun out and start shooting (ie use the manuever). If I had used the manuever it means I've drawn the gun at distance and decided I'll try to open fire, but you called out your dogs with take out the gun before I get a chance to start shooting at you because I just noticed I've got a bigger problem with the dogs (quick note, gun damage shouldn't be measured in the terms of one shot, I don't know of any case where I'd fire one bullet before combat was over. >> > Because it's in the rules. [6.4.5]. Just like it always has been. Rules are there because they can be. If they weren't there would you even know what first strike meant without it? What about dodge, or S:ce. What do they entitle? Without the rules there'd be no way to win the game. >> Here. Let's play a game of Where's Waldo? Can you find the >> circular logic? I sure can. Do you really want to get into circular logic, because your argument is full of it. >Then by all means, do so. > >When you play the game, you do so accoring to the rules. > >That is not circular. It is inherent and direct. > Got a point. >> > > Why not go so far as to allow multiple dodges in a round >> > > without multiple strikes? This is something I thought should exist but never worked out when I tried to come up with a system for it. >> > Because that violates the rules. (Just like it always has). >> Who are you and what did you do with the real LSJ? Are you >> his kid pretending to be him? The real LSJ is a beaten corpse in the nevada desert. This LSJ is from Mars, has three eyes, lives off of a diet of twinkies and pepsi. (Just kidding no offense LSJ) >The real LSJ didn't read/cite/quote the rules? >> > > ...and what makes you so sure of this? Talk to Mr. Garfield lately? Garfield hasn't been involved with any of *his* games for awhile. >> > Since Dodge beats First Strike, it follows that First Strike is >> > not well suited for use in modeling a surprise attack. It suits in some cases, some cases it doesn't. It's not one of those things that is etched in stone that every case is this way any not another. >> If First Strike _did_ beat Dodge, it would be well suited. >> In fact, all of those cards that don't "quite fit" would fit >> just fine. could you please elaborate. You don't say how it would be fitting? My cases seems more realistic to the cause of Dodge beating First Strike. >In that case, why would Scorpion Sting not be a "First Strike"? >> > No need to talk to Garfield to see this plain fact. Leave Garfield out of this, he's just a cat. All kidding aside Garfield has nothing to do with the game at this point and that's probably for the best. >> I wonder how many people would agree at this point. I don't. Garfield didn't create the entire game on his own. He had a lot of help and I'm sure that some of his original ideas didn't work best. > >Hmm. Quite a few, since it is so obvious, I'd guess. > >> > Since Hidden Lurker's name >> > implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job >> > of modelling a surprise attack It does nothing of the sort. It just implies that someone else was waiting to get into a fight. Not all people opt for fighting by complete surprise even if they could from a hidden spot. >> What about Fast Reactions? *grin* Fast Reactions Just doens't make any sense in the game to begin with other than it being the opposite to Hidden Lurker in most senses. >What about them? *grin* Exactly > >Please make a point or drop the thread. >The repeated no-content statement are merely clutter. >> > You have agreed with this assertion (that First Strike, being >> > beaten by a Dodge, fails to properly model a surprise attack). because not all cases of surprise are First Strike instances and vice versa. >> Agreed. ok if you want to agree with yourself that's fine. >> > If you have changed your mind (and now think that First Strike, >> > still as always being beaten by Dodge, adequately models a surprise >> > Attack), then we can stop arguing. It doesn't and it does as demonstrated. Fast Hands is a representation of speed and Canine Horde could be of surprise or even a whole new category of First Strike. >> However, since I haven't changed my mind that First Strike should >> beat a Dodge and then would adequately model a suprise attack, >> making First Strike both useful and consistent, I guess we'll >> continue arguing. *sips coffee* *grin* >OK. >> > > Say it with me, "Silence of Death." >> > >> > Silence of Death. Wrong Argument..... wait that doens't sound like Silence of Death. >> > Now, say it with me: "Dodge beats First Strike". >> > (and if you like, think "Silence of Death should've used a >> > different mechanic" while you say it). Dodge doesn't beat First Strike. >> *shakes head* >> Dodge be...bea...b..b..bea..b... >> Sorry. Can't do it. Yep you can't because it's not true >> Of course, if First Strike beats Dodge, Silence of Death would be >> fine and happy in the Smurf Village again. > >But it doesn't. > >> > I don't see the reason why you keep bringing up points that >> > I've already supplied responses to. >> >> Because your responses have been inconsistent, used circular >> logic or just plain displayed a lack of knowledge of the game >> that Jyhad is based on and why First Strike _should_ beat >> dodge. Circular logic. My Friend, pointing to a specific ruling isn't circular. >No circular logic. > >If you ask for the rule, I'll give you the rule. >If you ask for an explanation, I'll give you an explanation. >If you ask to make the game rules match exactly the LARP, I'll > say that the two games are independent and you should play > the one whose rules you prefer (as you understand them). > >If some cards don't seem to match the rules, it doesn't necessarily >mean that the rules are in error. It is easier to correct the >few wayward cards than alter the rules, but even such correction >would only be done if the result warranted the change. Ok.. that's what I got to say about that... Vince

>Ok, then please explain to me what was 'broken' or 'overpowered' about >the Golden Rule of Card Ownership? It seems to me that was changed >to help out a class of cards (those that stole other players cards). >Whereas >before they were kind of useful, now they are even moreso. I think the Golden Rule of Card ownership was changed to fit to realism. Something you now have control over has nothing to do with who the physical owner of the card is. Cards in play represent controlled cards. A vampire someone steals control over should not leave play because of an ousted methuselah. That vampire has no connection to that methuselah anymore(other than that player owns that particular card). You kind of answer yourself. It's not that it was broken or overpowered. It was because it caused confusion in the way things were. Vince

In article <ZjHu2.1239$hl1.1...@newshog.newsread.com>, "AgentZero" <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >Actually, First Strike beating dodge is going to help the Assamites > >almost zero. Why? Additional strikes. If someone dodges, you > >additional strike. When things go well, you do a Blood Sweat, Blood > >Sweat, Taste of Death. That's 3+3+2 aggravated which will burn any > >vampire of 7 capacity or less provided these all land on target. > ...all at the cost of 4 blood. 1 for the first Blood Sweat which can be > dodged, 1 for the Blur and 2 more for the other Blood Sweat and the > Taste of Death. And that's *if* you have all those cards in your hand. > However, if FS worked the way it is proposed, you can put a dodging > weenie (or any dodging minion) into torpor for 2 blood. And that means > alot to a clan that already has a difficult time with blood management. Oops, I screwed up. Silence of Death only gives you FS with hand or melee attacks. So you won't be spending blood on Blood Sweats and Tastes of Death. You'll only be taking the damage or spending the blood for Blur. And once again, who cares if a weenie dodges with its first strike. If you are playing a really useful card against a deck that has played dodges, why would you be using more when they will dodge most? Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter wrote: > It is not RT policy to improve things that are weak so that > they have more effect on the game environment as a whole. Hrm. Betcha Peter's one of the Rule Team members...*grin* Not that that would be a bad thing. He's good people. However, I do find it odd that Michigan doesn't have a Rules Team member seeing as it has the 2nd largest Jyhad presence in the U.S. And we're not all angry Irishmen like me. *grin* Anyway...that's beside the point. My concern is if balance is a primary criteria for errata, why isn't cards and effects that are too weak for their cost looked at as well? I know Concealed Weapon gets tossed in all the time, but to make it a discipline-less card may make it too powerful and that is clearly not the case in the First Strike vs. Dodge issue. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 08:39:15 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: LSJ> The whole business of the RT is not required by WotC. It's LSJ> just a concept I carried over because it seems like a good idea. LSJ> To WotC, there is simply an "ultimate rules authority" for VTES. LSJ> They leave the details of arriving at rulings/errata to my discretion. Ok, thanks for the info. Well, we'll have to live with that. As long as there is discussion, and one person doesn't determine what gets to be discussed, it sounds ok. It's also a good thing that there are people from different play groups - one single play group would be too narrow a focus group. Actually, I don't care one bit what WotC thinks, I care about this game and about game balance :) I don't want anyone's private visions become dominant for this game if the majority thinks they are a bad idea - and yes, this includes my visions. :) ... and I still think FS should be changed. I dislike broken or semi-broken rules (I like them a hell of a lot less than broken individual cards). //Petri

"Vince Johnson" wrote: > I think the Golden Rule of Card ownership was changed to fit to realism. Really? You believe that? In light of the current thread, I very seriously doubt "realism" has any bearing on RT decisions. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > With that assumption, my pseudo-physics (which > are real physics, BTW - while the numbers and ratios chosen may not > seem realistic to you, they are not unreasonable.) serve to illustrate > a *possible* "real world" explanation/concept. That is all. Just tryin' to be a pain: :) Your pseudo physics are actually cinetics, and hardly differ from basic arithmetics. Do you really believe dodging has to do with substracting my "movement time" from yours ? It's about seeing the attack come, reacting quickly enough, knowing how to deflect a blow, how to twist your body so that you absorbe a lesser impact... L~R

Vince Johnson wrote: > > > Any time someone attacks the character, he has the option of > > dodging ... simply by declaring "Dodge!" before the opponent > > makes an attack roll. > > This is true. You always have this option. Even when your opponent in > combat has more actions in a round than you. In the RPG, if you have > capability of your character to perform more actions (via Celerity or > dividing your attention to multiple actions), you can always have an > oportunity to dodge. I have mentioned this in my other post. Well, if we really are discussing the rpg mechanics (which is a bad idea imho), you ought to realise that this "I yell Dodge!" opportunity won't elp you in front of Mr Brujah. Simple example: Mr Brujah has three dots in Celerity, and attacks with a pool of 7 dice. You don't have Celerity, and your Dodge dice pool is 7 too. He can attack four times, for a total of 28 dice. If you divide your 7 dice into four dodges, you're still screwed. You always have the option to attempt a dodge. But your total dodge pool for this round is a constant. So when you're hit frequently enough you can't dodge. > LSJ >* (I've heard) Burning Wrath requires more than just Potence. > > Most of the cards you've created aren't even real named disciplines. > Particularly Potence, Fortitude and Celerity, all are level based with the > same name and effect(increased at each level of course Potence 2 is better > than Potence 1 for example) for each level of power. As for burning wrath, > I've never even heard of it but I believe from what it sounds like, that it > would be more of a ritual performed in accordance to potence that produces > the effect (if someone can tell me otherwise please let me know I really > have never even heard that this existed in the RPG). There is no ritual > rating either because it is an ability in the RPG(ability in the sence it is > a knowledge, not a power like a discipline) that is combined with a > discipline. It's one of the first three "rotes" (not sure this is the correct term) ie multi-discipline powers. It's found in CB-Brujah. The three rotes are the following: Burning Wrath (Iconoclasts) < Cel ooo + Pot ooo > = all brawling damage is aggravated Scourge of Alecto (Idealists) < Cel oo Pre oooo > = release their Beast upon opponent, causes damage and frenzy Iron Heart (Individualists) < Pot ooo Pre ooo > = resist Domonate, Presence & such, in yourself and in others L~R

for some reason I thought the inferior of Canine horde was a press... I was thinking of a completely different card altogether. Despite this it doesn't change much of what I said. It's still dogs attacking your opponent. Thanks Vince

>Really? You believe that? > In light of the current thread, I very seriously doubt "realism" has any >bearing on RT decisions. Did you read what I said? It makes much more sense. Not to mention this is the basic rule in ANY card game that cards you control are different than ones you own Your Reply was a stab at the RT and has nothing to do with the question. Vince

Noal wrote: "Hrm. Betcha Peter's one of the Rule Team members...*grin*" If only there was that much justice in the world :-) "Not that that would be a bad thing. He's good people. However, I do find it odd that Michigan doesn't have a Rules Team member seeing as it has the 2nd largest Jyhad presence in the U.S. And we're not all angry Irishmen like me. *grin*" Thanks for the kind words :-) How have you determined that you are the second largest Jyhad presence in the U.S. Who is the first? "Anyway...that's beside the point. My concern is if balance is a primary criteria for errata, why isn't cards and effects that are too weak for their cost looked at as well?" It seems likely that they have been looked at. I am farily certain that it was decided at some point, when the idea of errata was breached, that fixing weak cards was just not worth it. In the name of keeping errata to a minimum, the RT fixes cards that have a noticable negative impact on the game environment. Cards that suck have zero impact on the game environment, as no one uses them, and if they do, these cards don't compromise the balance of the game. Cards that are too good, on the other hand, tend to dominate play and have a negative effect on the game environment. Cards like ToRIII and RTI, for instance, tended to completely warp a given environement (the competetive tournament environment in particular) to the point of everyone being forced to either use these specific cards or build decks to specifically deal with these specific cards. Weak cards don't do this. They just get left out of decks. Thus, fixing cards that are too good improves the game environment as a whole. Fixing cards that suck just leads to tons and tons of extra, needless, errata. "I know Concealed Weapon gets tossed in all the time, but to make it a discipline-less card may make it too powerful and that is clearly not the case in the First Strike vs. Dodge issue." I'm iffy on the whole disciplineles CW issue. As to the FS vs Dodge issue, personally, I really wouldn't care one way or the other if FS suddenly beat dodge. I don't think it would improve the game (or be a particualr detriment, either), I don't think it would have the effect that people hope it would, and I simply don't think it is worth the effort, certainly if it means setting the precident of "fixing things that suck". [ quoted text not captured ]

Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote in message news:79fpob$dkr@simba... [ quoted text not captured ] Response to the wrong post,...ooops>

>> This is true. You always have this option. Even when your opponent in >> combat has more actions in a round than you. In the RPG, if you have >> capability of your character to perform more actions (via Celerity or >> dividing your attention to multiple actions), you can always have an >> oportunity to dodge. I have mentioned this in my other post. > > Well, if we really are discussing the rpg mechanics (which is a bad >idea imho), you ought to realise that this "I yell Dodge!" opportunity >won't elp you in front of Mr Brujah. Simple example: Mr Brujah has three >dots in Celerity, and attacks with a pool of 7 dice. You don't have >Celerity, and your Dodge dice pool is 7 too. He can attack four times, >for a total of 28 dice. If you divide your 7 dice into four dodges, >you're still screwed. > I said first off that it is possible to take him down before he attacks, which it is. It is also possible to dodge all of those attacks by dividing your dice pool. And I said it's not likely though I'm sure it happens. The point is that Celerity doesn't affect the speed at which you begin attacks. > You always have the option to attempt a dodge. But your total dodge >pool for this round is a constant. So when you're hit frequently enough >you can't dodge. Yes it is in the sense that if you have a dodge 4 and dex 3 that you can use up to 7 dice dodging for that round only. You do not get 7 dice everytime you say "Dodge" in a round. > > It's one of the first three "rotes" (not sure this is the correct term) >ie multi-discipline powers. It's found in CB-Brujah. The three rotes are >the following: > > Burning Wrath (Iconoclasts) < Cel ooo + Pot ooo > > = all brawling damage is aggravated> > Scourge of Alecto (Idealists) < Cel oo Pre oooo > > = release their Beast upon opponent, causes damage and frenzy > > Iron Heart (Individualists) < Pot ooo Pre ooo > > = resist Domonate, Presence & such, in yourself and in others > > L~R Basically rotes are predetermined abilities from combining other abilities the way WW uses them. In response to what iswritten up there for them, WW apparently doesn't have a clue because it doesn't make any sense that it should combine with Celerity. But thank you anyway. Vince ALso there was an error in my post. Canine Horde inferior is 1R which doesn't change my argument much other than you actually damage the vamp in combat instead of chasing down. All the same it doesn't affect the first strike aspect of the card in my argument

In article <79fi2i$bek@simba>, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: I'm snipping a lot, so everyone just deal. > Is Garfield actually making these decisions? Is there at least a team of > people making these decisions no matter what they are? If you aren't the > only person making these decisions, then I'd really like to see a list of > names of the people that are helping you to come to these conclusions. If > you are the only person making these decisions then WoTC should get you some > help because one person shouldn't be making the rules on his/her own. LSJ explained about the Rules Team elsewhere, and I can understand wishes to remain anonymous. Yes, other people are involved. > As for burning wrath, > I've never even heard of it but I believe from what it sounds like, that it > would be more of a ritual performed in accordance to potence that produces > the effect (if someone can tell me otherwise please let me know I really > have never even heard that this existed in the RPG). There is no ritual Brujah Clanbook. Along with 2 other powers, I believe Burning Wrath was a power that Iconoclasts could learn. Hmm...the other two were (thought I had the book, but alas, no...) Iron Will? and damn...something else. Well, I know *someone* has the Brujah Clanbook & will answer this bit... But it's basically a power you can buy if you have level X of potence. I always thought it was dumb, but... > yep. People should really stop using VtM as an excuse for rulings with > VtES. They are two separate entities and cases can be found in favor of > some rulings and some rulings can be found in relation against rulings. In > the Case of First Strike, you lose when using V:tM I agree with Vince on a number of the points he made in this post. VtM isn't really a valid rule source...it's flavor. That's it. And he correctly pointed out stuff about Celerity. > >> *shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. If you've ever read > >> the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge > >> makes more sense with this card than not allowing the opposing > >> vampire any strikes whatsoever. > > There is no First Strike in the LARP as far as I know it's a game of rock > paper scissors. The LARP is even more basic in comparison to the table top > RPG version. Please go somewhere else with this because LARP rules are > meant only for LARPing to make it fun to play in real time. Well...the first level of Celerity in the LARP is Alacrity, and it says: "If you are aware of an upcoming physical threat, you may spend a blood trait to preempt the actions with a physical action of your own. Some examples of such threats include: melee attacks, falling objects, gunfire, oncoming cars or thrown objects. Examples of preemptive actions are: drawing a gun of your own, moving out of the path of a falling object, and so on. To preempt a for using Alacrity, you must have a greater degree of Celerity." So, it's sorta first strike, but *also* in the rules of the LARP, you wouldn't really get to apply your damage either, unless you actually *won* the physical confrontation. So it's kinda a moot point. Let's drop the whole thing about bringing in other rules systems, okay? > Aren't you in some cases though?... they have to come from somewhere. > Pulled Fangs for instance as well as the ammo rules which aren't modelled by > the real world but as you have said make some balance to the game(I don't > agree). Well...I agree with the rulings, but...I dunno. Pulled Fangs either way (1 agg, only 1 in a round; no agg) works for me, but really, the ammo rules are good. I mean, what the hell is a Zip Gun IRL anyway? That just fucks me up. Again, the Rules Team makes most of the decisions. LSJ I believe, just does the 'clarifications' on his own. On the website, there's a list of what's what. [Noal wrote:] > >> Who are you and what did you do with the real LSJ? Are you > >> his kid pretending to be him? > > The real LSJ is a beaten corpse in the nevada desert. This LSJ is from > Mars, has three eyes, lives off of a diet of twinkies and pepsi. (Just > kidding no offense LSJ) Hey!!! There's something wrong with drinking Pepsi?!?!?! (Although Jolt is the superior beverage, IMNSHO...) > >> I wonder how many people would agree at this point. > > I don't. Garfield didn't create the entire game on his own. He had a lot of > help and I'm sure that some of his original ideas didn't work best. Looking at my (recently acquired for $2 from ebay) copy of the screwy and often questionable (regarding rules) _The Eternal Struggle: a Players Guide to the Jyhad_, he mentions that there were about 3 versions before it was released (named, oddly enough Alpha, Beta, and Gamma...) Initially, he didn't like the concept of unique cards...there's more, but I won't go into it... Xian, still sig-less... [ quoted text not captured ]

>> CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: >> > I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of >> > fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? >> > Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. [replying through several other posts, but I didn't see the original post] Um, are you actually trying to suggest _reality_ as the basis for the combat setup in anything even remotely related to White Wolf? I can't even think of one part of combat in the LARP, various rpgs, or the card game, that is anything like real hand to hand combat... -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <7xzp6s3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: >On 5 Feb 1999 16:07:25 GMT, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) said: >PDB6> It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain >PDB6> (i.e. it isn't going to make the Assamites any better). > >Ummm... yes it would. Both Backstab and Silence of Death would give >them ability to take out weenies without fear of dodges. In short, it >would make them slightly better. Since when can't the Assamites take out dodging weenies? (heh, what does that sound like out of context?) They have easy access to Flash, Psyche, and Extra Strikes -- all of which hose dodge. The Assamites don't really have trouble with Dodge, they have trouble with S:CE. Majesty using weenies with presence for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: >>> Again NO. The time to dodge depends on what to dodge. You cannot >>> simply assume that a dodge is always faster than an attack! >>> It may be true sometimes, but on the whole it involves the same >>> effort to attack. >LSJ> OK. The explanation was merely an attempt to illustrate how the >LSJ> rules as they are work in concept. The explanation is not flawed. >LSJ> There are other explanations that match the rules as you would >LSJ> like them to be. Those explanations are also not flawed. >Ummm... nope. Your description of dodges always being faster than >strikes is simply false, no matter what viewpoint you look at it from. LSJ was trying to point out to you that the explanation was intended to clarify how the mechanic works as it stands. To hopefully provide you with an analogy that might suit you to see what the game mechanic might represent. You are the one who is taking a mere illustration and regarding it as the heart of the debate. Other illustrations have been demonstrated, and you've rejected those, too. The problem seems that you cling to the RPG as the crown ideal for how game mechanics in V:TES *should* work. RPG style mechanics are just another illustration, and can be fit to V:TES, or not. Arguing against an analogy is fruitless, though. >LSJ> I don't get a concept of a separate "dodge-speed", as I said. >LSJ> That was merely a useful tool to illustrate my point of >LSJ> normal-dodge beats even fast-aggression. >But it doesn't. Not in real life, not in the RPG. Avast! Abandon ye all hope! Real life arguments abound in the fantasy of your card games. ;-) Correlation between games such as RPG's and CCG's aren't really viable arguments for changing the way a game mechanic functions. RPGers have a view of the CCG colored by their many exploits in that glorious fantsy world. Versatile gamers will rejoice in differences between these games, not dwell on them. The reodering requested here doesn't help FS, or it's chief beneficiary, the Assamites, nearly as much as either need. >My real world experience tells me that dodging something that is >moving faster than you can react, or that you don't see coming, is not >possible. <with the goofiness of the term "real world" in this usage firrmly in mind> I heartily dispute this point. Over 13 years in various martial arts, with _lots_ of much faster opponents, I've managed to hold my own, primarily through well structured defensive tactics. It is far and away easier to hold a speedy opponent at bay than it is to actually launch a counterattack of any magnitude. If you compare the expenditure of effort on the part of the attack to that of my own, you'll find much more economy in the defense. (See, you can tailor the real world to your fantasy CCG world in any manner you choose. Thats because one is a fictitious entity, but I'm not telling any of you which is which ;-)> >Our suggested reversal of the old Dodge/FS ruling would IMHO bring >both abilities (FS and Dodge) into line with both the real world and >the RPG. Making the rules a bit easier to understand, and helping game >balance a bit. (A "bit" of balance shouldn't be enough to change a game mechanic.) Bringing a game "into line" with the real world is a subjective thing (as alluded to in the above counter "argument". We can all imagine the counter response, and the counter-counter etc. ad infinitum. Neither side could reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. The reason for that is because the applicability of the real world on a CCG is restrained only by the two arguers imagination. That's the reason why we all sound so foolish when we try these arguments. They're word games, at best) Bringing the game "into line" with the RPG is a questionable pursuit, as it only benefits those players who find themselves playing the game as a consequence of their involvement in the RPG. I don't know what fraction of the world Jyhad population came to it from that route (I was the opposite, CCG first, then RPG), but the idea that being more like the RPG somehow makes the CCG better doesn't ring true to anyone who doesn't come from that shpere. I'm sure that a CCG that mimics a favorite RPG to a tee would be appealing to the people with that hobby, but the rest of the planet could honestly care less. From the standpoint of game design, to stick so close to the mechanics of the RPG would be either suicide, as you automatically limit your prospective customer base immensely, or competely aribrary. On this ground, mimicing the RPG, while not to be explicitly avoided, should not be a goal that drives change to the games mechanics. >>> Sigh. I know that the rules currently work the way you say. >>> I would like to see that change. I merely argument for a change! >LSJ> The arguments I've seen simply show how "First Strike beats Dodge" >LSJ> is not unreasonable. Which I do not dispute. >LSJ> * unbalancing >It makes FS rairly useless, thus ruling out a combat option >vs. Dodges. This adds to the rules unbalance towards combat defense >combat offense. Hmm. I've only seen one other case where someone tried to justify errata to raise the power of an existing card (Concealed Weapon to skill-less). As I think about it, the reason may be because it is much more difficult to determine how much to give back to a weak tactic, and know that you've done the game any good, than it is to knock down the power of an ovetly undercosted card, (to reign in it's unbalancing effect without rendering it useless). I think you won't find much support of the idea an underpowered tactic somehow makes another tactic _more_ unbalanced. Most people will agree that, if you want to solve the problem of combat defense being too powerul, you should address combat defense, not First Strike. >Changing the previous ruling would IMHO add to game balance, yes. Only slighty, if at all. First Strike combat would still have to deal with S:CE, when all this is said and done. S:CE is the only debatable unbalancing factor to combat defense. >LSJ> * unreasonable >It is unreasonable for a variety of real-world and RPG reasons, which >we're outlined above and in previous articles. You know where I'm at on this. >LSJ> * worth the errata to change >Since the change needed is a minor revision in the rule book and a >Rules Team ruling reversal, I think it's well worth the change, since >as a net effect it makes a whole class of cards useful. I seriously doubt that it will do so. Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

In article <79fm76$fig$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >However, I do find it odd that Michigan doesn't have a Rules >Team member seeing as it has the 2nd largest Jyhad presence >in the U.S. One would assume that this is because Michigan has chosen not to adopt the rules set down by the Rules Team. If they had a member out of how many people there are involved, and the same decisions were made, would they play with them? If yes, why not play with them now? If no, why would you be allocated a place? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) And definitely *not* on the Rules Team Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <79dgmb$l75$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net writes >Noal, I'm going to have to shoot you down now that I'm home. In the >LARP and table-top primary rulebooks (I don't have any supplements, so >it is possible that there might be an alternate rule that is akin to >First Strike), there is nothing like first strike. > >In tabletop, Celerity gives you extra actions. In each turn, a vampire >with Celerity may spend one blood to get as many extra actions as they >have dots, or points, in Celerity. You don't get to do things before >other people, you just get to do more things. > >In the LARP, you get abilities rather than dots. However, they also >only give you extra actions. Equal levels of Celerity cancel each >other out. Higher levels vs. lower levels adjust to the difference. Hmm.... to an extent, Initiative models a First Strike style principle - you hit first and choose last, seeing what other people have done. It's not the same thing but it's about as close as I can think of. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <7x90ec5...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> writes >LSJ> * (I've heard) Burning Wrath requires more than just Potence. > >Yup, it's a Brujah clan speciality, and (afaik) requires Potence and >some other discipline (Celerity?). Indeed. Level three of both Potence and Celerity. It's in Clanbook Brujah, I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xyamd3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > Ok, since LSJ seems to be incapable of justifying the "Dodge beats > First Strike" rule except with "the rules say so", here's my take on > what "First Strike" means: > > <tadaa> > > A First Strike is a strike that happens before the other minion can > react to this. In game-world terms, this can either be because of > superior speed (Fast Hands), horde tactics (Dog Pack) or surprise > attack (Silence of Death). > > In other words, there are multiple game-world reasons for the First > Strike effect. Celerity, surprise, etc. The effect (i.e. game > mechanic) remains the same. > > //Petri > As I think has been pointed out First Strike is not a suprise strike or fast draw, merely one which resolves first. The suprise combat entry card which renders your opponent unable to declare a strike is adequately covered by other cards. Dodge is a declaration on intent for that round, and works retroactively, cancelling the effect of a strike. Even if you do not know from whence the attack is coming you are performing, in the Star Trek parlance, evasive manouvers. The original first strikes were used merely to remove weapons from opponents hands Fast Hands et al., not to make a strike un-dogeable, and were particularly amusing when the oponent had declared a strike with that targeted weapon. The primary effect was to allow the strikes not to resolve simultaneously, however dodge is 'retroactive', and it does not matter when i resolves as long as it is during that (sub) round. All that being said; the effect many wish to see in the game is already reflected in suprise combat entry cards and as such we can suggest that the intent of first strike (what was that myterious amulet?) was different to these cards. First strike remains a useful, if not S:CE busting ability artaxerxes the monocled 4CL'er. apologies for the absence of continued 4CL'er debate, i'lll dejanews the $100 article and post forthwith [ quoted text not captured ]

>Um, are you actually trying to suggest _reality_ as the basis for >the combat setup in anything even remotely related to White Wolf? >I can't even think of one part of combat in the LARP, various rpgs, >or the card game, that is anything like real hand to hand combat... > Agreed. But at the same time then everyone should stop complaining about First Strike because V:tES is a game too and you cannot create a double standard and expect it to hold. Vince

>LSJ explained about the Rules Team elsewhere, and I can understand wishes to >remain anonymous. Yes, other people are involved. Agreed and understandable. >Well...the first level of Celerity in the LARP is Alacrity, and it says: > >"If you are aware of an upcoming physical threat, you may spend a blood trait >to preempt the actions with a physical action of your own. Some examples of >such threats include: melee attacks, falling objects, gunfire, oncoming cars >or thrown objects. Examples of preemptive actions are: drawing a gun of your >own, moving out of the path of a falling object, and so on. To preempt a for >using Alacrity, you must have a greater degree of Celerity." > >So, it's sorta first strike, but *also* in the rules of the LARP, you wouldn't >really get to apply your damage either, unless you actually *won* the physical >confrontation. So it's kinda a moot point. Let's drop the whole thing about >bringing in other rules systems, okay? > A friend of mine pointed this out to me last night. But at the same time the LARP rules were developed after the tabletop RPG first edition rules when they realized more people were playing the game in live action and the system set up sucked to play as Live Action. That's besides the point of this game other than to say that the LARP is an even worse source of information to relate to this card game than the tabletop RPG. > >Well...I agree with the rulings, but...I dunno. Pulled Fangs either way (1 >agg, only 1 in a round; no agg) works for me, but really, the ammo rules are >good. I mean, what the hell is a Zip Gun IRL anyway? That just fucks me up. >Again, the Rules Team makes most of the decisions. LSJ I believe, just does >the 'clarifications' on his own. On the website, there's a list of what's >what. > Ok. A Zip gun is a homemade gun basically and they're not the safest of weapons (hence the damage to the user). Officially a zip gun could be any fashioned firearm and could fire any type of ammo. But that really wasn't what I was referring to, I was refering to the realism in the rules they created for the ammo cards originally. I never understood how you could determine after you've started taking shots that you had a specific ammo in your gun. And as for the Tooth Pulling issue, ripping out a vampire's fangs causes a shock to it's system (basically what Aggravated Damage is). You're right though, it doesn't matter either way, but I think honestly think they could have limited this card, for one thing limit it to one per vampire or forget the damage and just send the vampire to torpor. In any case, it really doesn't matter either way as you have said. >[Noal wrote:] >> >> Who are you and what did you do with the real LSJ? Are you >> >> his kid pretending to be him? >> >> The real LSJ is a beaten corpse in the nevada desert. This LSJ is from >> Mars, has three eyes, lives off of a diet of twinkies and pepsi. (Just >> kidding no offense LSJ) > >Hey!!! There's something wrong with drinking Pepsi?!?!?! (Although Jolt is >the superior beverage, IMNSHO...) We tried Jolt, but a hyper LSJ is not a happy LSJ. >> >> I wonder how many people would agree at this point. >> >> I don't. Garfield didn't create the entire game on his own. He had a lot of >> help and I'm sure that some of his original ideas didn't work best. > >Looking at my (recently acquired for $2 from ebay) copy of the screwy and >often questionable (regarding rules) _The Eternal Struggle: a Players Guide >to the Jyhad_, he mentions that there were about 3 versions before it was >released (named, oddly enough Alpha, Beta, and Gamma...) Initially, he >didn't like the concept of unique cards...there's more, but I won't go into >it... Anyway, Thanks Vince

> >Hmm.... to an extent, Initiative models a First Strike style principle - >you hit first and choose last, seeing what other people have done. It's >not the same thing but it's about as close as I can think of. > It is as close as you're going to get. Realistically though, the fact that the acting vamp chooses his strike first and the defender getting to see it is closer to this style because in the tabletop most actions still are considered to have happened simultaneously (especially if you are entirely too into the game and use the timing issues like those presented in that accursed Combat book that ruined every game I was ever in). Vince

James Coupe skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] True. It is also a power only taught to Archons. Maybe one could design some RPG inspired houserules... Frederik

In article <79d3rb$a57$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> > However, since we are discussing _changing_ >> > the rules, using the current rules as a defense is silly. >> He asked what made me think that dodge was faster. I answered. >> What's the problem? >If you can't see the problem with using the rules to justify the rules, >I can't answer this. What I can do is gape at you for asking this >question. He's not using the rules to justify the rules. He's quoting the rules to support an assertion about what the rules say. Throughout the thread, people ask why Dodge beats First Strike. The only valid, useful response to such a question is 'because the rules say so.' >> > Since the card game _is_ based on it, you probably should at >> > least familiarize yourself with it. >> Why? Would it help me understand the rules of the card game any >> better? It would seem that that is not the case. >I doubt that there is anybody who would agree with you at this point. I would agree with him. The CCG is *based* on the RPG, and it maintains the general flavor of the RPG quite closely. Slavish adherence is neither necessary nor desirable. I don't see anyone suggesting wholesale errata to make the CCG match the substantial changes in V:rev (except for Legbiter's suggestion, which was clearly marked as a variant). >> The card game can and does stand on its own, rules and all. >After how many pages of errata? Clearly your record shows that >what you do and what you say are inconsistent. He meant without slavish reference to the RPG. >I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place. You said, >"I'm sure there are many other examples of where the rules of >the card game do not match the rules of the RPG." If you're >sure, then name one. Deadlands: Doomtown captures the flavor of the RPG, but the mechanics are quite different. Mythos CCG is quite Lovecrafty, but the mechanics there flat-out contradict mechanics in the RPG. In both cases, the RPGs are quite good, and so is Mythos CCG. >> > Really? If I use a Canine Horde, I'm moving faster? >> No. In that case the attack is moving faster. That's >> pretty obvious. But thanks for bringing it up. >Superior Animalism improves the speed of the dogs?!?!? >BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Inferior and Superior Canine Horde are separate effects. It takes dogs less time to chew through/snatch away a weapon than to bite for 1 point of damage. But it's a target attack requiring finer communication with the critter, hence superior Animalism is required. 'Real-world' explanations of CCG or RPG rules is goofy. Were I you, I wouldn't bother. >> Right, which is why that card should have used a different >> mechanic than First Strike, since First Strike fails to >> properly mimic that zone of silence. As I've said before. >> Please follow the thread. >If you've ever read >the rules of the LARP, you'd know that First Strike beating a dodge >*shakes head* Should've, could've, didn't. Okay, so first he has to be utterly familiar with the RPG, now the LARP? Should he read the entire WW WoD fiction line too? This is bullshit. >> Since Hidden Lurker's name >> implies a surprise attack and its card text does such a good job >> of modelling a surprise attack >What about Fast Reactions? *grin* What about it? It's an Auspex analogue to Hidden Lurker. Did you have a point of some sort? gomi -- you say they taught you how to read and write yeah, they taught you how to count i say they taught you how to buy and sell your own body by the pound

In article <79f28j$t3d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: (snipped) > > NO. Dodge is a strike. It has been a strike even in Jyhad. The dodge > > does not resolve until any other strike resolves, too. That is in > > the resolve strike phase. OK? > > Not exactly. Apparently the rulebook writers intended for Dodge to > negate the opponents strike without resolving. Which caused (and > continues to cause) quite a bit of confusion. Please explain how you know what the writers intended. Would it be a big problem to *ask* them? They must be alive yet. > > The "pat" answer is that it (Dodge) resolves before First Strike. > > But in actuality (as I've said several times before), it simply > negates the opposing strike without regard to when it resolves, > since it always negates the opposing strike (just like, as I've > just learned, it does in VTM). > > Or at least, that's how it worked in Jyhad. I beg to differ. IMO the designers wanted FS to beat everything less than S:CE. As they did not include the sentence "beats even strikes dealt with FS", and the way strikes resolve are clear, it is perfectly understandable that it runs like this: 1. FS strikes resolve 2. normal strikes resolve. This includes dodges. For the designers it was clear that a strike comes into effect when it resolves, so dodge negates the opp. strike *as soon as the dodge is resolved*, not at any earlier point in the round. It follows that a strike dealt with FS is effective against a dodge as it resolves FIRST! There was no additional sentence in Jyhad. Just the normal order of resolving strikes. LSJ, you have to proove that the designers wanted dodge to work like it now does. The DTR that came later do not change this fact. Please speak to Mr. Garfield, if that is possible. There must be a way to get his attention. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79n0v2$49j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at writes >I beg to differ. IMO the designers wanted FS to beat everything >less than S:CE. As they did not include the sentence "beats even strikes >dealt with FS", and the way strikes resolve are clear, it is perfectly >understandable that it runs like this: It is equally readable either way. Whenever you get into situations like this, you have to work on some things. For instance, when a card says something which is redundant (reminder text) does that mean that a card without such a prohibition doesn't suffer from that same restriction? e.g. Is the reminder text on Telepathic Counter (V:TES) necessary? Would a card without that reminder text still suffer from it, or would the requirement of it being on Telepathic Counter mean that the lack of it over-ruled the rules? (Golden Rule of Cards) Silly example, perhaps, but it happens. Basically, in cases like this, brevity causes confusion where reminders can be helpful, and that's the situation we're in now. Does the lack of "reminder text" in the rules mean that Dodge should or shouldn't have beaten First Strike since they can both be read as over-ruling the other? The original rulebook ruled that S:CE happened *now*, IIRC. First Strike always beat normal strike, but not S:CE as I understand it. The ambiguity comes in when Dodge says that it cancels the effect of the opposing minions strike on this minion (hence not cancelling S:CE), but does not reference the speed. Does that lack of reference point either way? The lack of reference *can* be taken as meaning that Dodge cancels the effects of the opposing strike regardless of speed. Equally, it can be read as meaning that First Strike gets in before it and so Dodge hasn't yet had a chance to cancel that effect. However, given the fact that S:CE didn't have to wait for resolution, it is eminently possible that Dodge didn't really have to either. Again, though, it is possible the other way If First Strike was intended to be a major part of the game, and a normal speed dodge was intended to have been beaten by it, I would have expected to see a foil such as: Supernatural Speed Celerity Normal: Dodge Superior: Dodge, with First Strike The existence of such a card would, pretty much conclusively, have indicated that a normal speed dodge was intended to be beaten by a first strike, but then the superior would have beaten even a first strike. We don't have such a card, so we don't have that guidance. BUT if First Strike was intended to be a major part of the game, is it not unreasonable to ask why, beyond S:CE, they did not include a specific foil to it for dodges? Again, though, we have only the rulesbook as "concrete" evidence, and that can be read either way. For my money, the limitedness of First Strike means that such a rules change is unnecessary, really. Only, to my knowledge, Backstab and Silence of Death allow you to activate it on your own (non-specific strikes), and both of those pre-empt everything else (ie the choosing of strikes), so you don't get the real impetus of thinking "Oh, but if I dodge now, what happens if he plays First Strike? Shall I S:CE instead, even though I would like to additional strike?" since it is in plain view. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79f24l$cv2$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <7xn22t3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > > > >What I *have* heard are rationalizations that amount to "it's too much > >of a bother and I don't personally like the idea". This is not a valid > >argument, at least to me. Anything that is beneficial to the game is > >something that should be pursued IMHO. > > Keeping Needless, effectively pointless errata to a minimum is a decent > goal, IMHO. Once you start changing the core rules to adjust the > balance between weak sets of cards, you've got a precedent to change > just about anything. > > I know if I were making rules changes, I'd be loath to touch such a change, > unless I really was sure it would signifigantly improve the game. But there is no need to issue errata. The rulebook has to be adjusted by altering a few sentences. No big deal, no errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7x679g4...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 14:41:19 GMT, mboh...@shout.net said: > > >> > Very, very small boost. S:CE is still a bigger killer than Dodge. > >> > >> Depends on environment and playstyle. > > mbohlman> Actually, no, it doesn't. > > Agree with this, S:CE is the stronger effect. But we still see a lot > of dodge over here, since not all clans have access to S:CE. Without > S:CE or Fortitude, Dodge is your second-best option for combat defense > for a non-combat clan. > > mbohlman> Silence of Death should have been an action modifier adding > mbohlman> +1 stealth at inferior and not allowing an opposing minion > mbohlman> in combat to have their first strike. > > Yes. But the point is that there already is a mechanic for this sort > of thing in the rules (FS). FS works perfectly well if you allow it to > do its thing (resolve before anything except S:CE). Yup. Listen to that man. He knows his stuff. <bows> :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19990205110725...@ng120.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Will changing FS to beat dodge improve the game? I would say no. I would say > changing FS to beat dodge would have almost zero effect on actual game play. > It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain (i.e. it isn't going > to make the Assamites any better). It would open up a huge can of worms that > is currently closed (if you are going to fix First Strike cards, are you going > to fix Disguised Weapon? Chainsaw? Werewolf Pack? Hellhound?...) and is best > left that way. Sure, it might make more "sense" when viewed through the eye of > reality. That eye, however, loses any sort of weight when you start shuffling > cards. > You are not reading the posts, are you? Look at Petri's precise points. Altering FS is not a fix! It is a change in the rulebook. A small one. There would be no other fixes of any cards, as with the correction of a few sentences in said rules-booklet, no FS cards have to be changed. They already are the way they need to be. Please stop assuming that changing FS involves altering *any* cards. That's wrong. All the FS remain as they are, only a small paragraph in the rules has to be altered slightly. I'm sure you can follow me on this one? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79f85u$2i4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <79f28j$t3d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > > I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of > > > fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? > > > Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. > > > > Please offer concrete corrections. > > Actually, I'll offer another item for the defense. Aikido. > Aikido is truly self-defense martial art. If you follow it > strictly, you can't do anything to the other guy until he tries > something on you. This is because you use his own energy against > him. > > Begin rough summary of aikido legend... > The legend of aikido is that the founder knew a very good sword > fighter or hand-to-hand martial artist. The other fighter talked > about how good he was and how he could take down anyone. Well, > the aikido master said that he could knock the fighter down > without ever touching him. The fighter took his bet, and they > fought. The founder never touched him even though the fighter > kept attacking. Eventually, the fighter collapsed from exhaustion, > making the founder the winner. > End summary... > > Of course, most practioners of aikido never get this good. They > actually have to touch the other person, but they still use > little of their own energy to neutralize their attacker. > > As Dodge negates a strike, I look at it like aikido. Rather > than getting hit with that 6 damage strike, you step aside and > push the attack away from your body. > > Mike Mike, I know a guy who has practised Aikido for a long time. I know therefore, that stepping aside by no means assures you that you can evade an attack. You cannot automatically assume that you can dodge everything, just because you learnt some sort of self defence. OK, sorry, but I don't think that this is part of the main discussion about FS. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79feab$843$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <7x679g4...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > > > mbohlman> Silence of Death should have been an action modifier adding > > mbohlman> +1 stealth at inferior and not allowing an opposing minion > > mbohlman> in combat to have their first strike. > > > > Yes. But the point is that there already is a mechanic for this sort > > of thing in the rules (FS). FS works perfectly well if you allow it to > > do its thing (resolve before anything except S:CE). > > Then why not take the strict reading of First Strike? It should really > beat S:CE, too, as it obviously happens first. So, one person plays > S:CE, the other plays a FS. Resolve the FS and then combat ends. > > It's the same logic that you're using to say that Dodge should not > beat first strike. You are not quite right here. S:CE was already clear in Jyhad. It did explicitely say that it beats even strikes with FS. S:CE represents something other then FS: it means (in RPG or LARP terms) that the opponent cannot attack you at all. K? Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79fekq$8gb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <7xzp6s3...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > > On 5 Feb 1999 16:07:25 GMT, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) said: > > > PDB6> It would not improve anyone's position in the food chain > > PDB6> (i.e. it isn't going to make the Assamites any better). > > > > Ummm... yes it would. Both Backstab and Silence of Death would give > > them ability to take out weenies without fear of dodges. In short, it > > would make them slightly better. > > Actually, First Strike beating dodge is going to help the Assamites > almost zero. Why? Additional strikes. If someone dodges, you > additional strike. When things go well, you do a Blood Sweat, Blood > Sweat, Taste of Death. That's 3+3+2 aggravated which will burn any > vampire of 7 capacity or less provided these all land on target. > > Against weenies, so what if they dodge? You Blur and hit them more. > First Strike would still only really do you good > > > PDB6> It would open up a huge can of worms that is currently closed > > PDB6> (if you are going to fix First Strike cards, are you going to > > PDB6> fix Disguised Weapon? Chainsaw? Werewolf Pack? Hellhound?...) > > > > Those are single cards. This is a part of the rules. Very big > > difference. In addition, this requires NO card > > errata. Zero. Zip. Nada. > > And it this errata would only affect exactly 7 cards. Seriously, is > it really worth it? Yes. Rules are not to be made of stone. Let them evolve. You guys always look at the game as a dead piece, trying to keep it remains in good shape. That's nonsense, I guess the game will soon get some new life. We need not to fear (small) adjustments in the rules. If *anythin*, the game will become better. Consider new FS cards in the future. As per status quo, there would be never a new FS card; for what? The actual FS concept is too weak. Look at it that way: they dropped the paralyzing rule as they changed from Jyhad to VTES. I think that was silly, as it had been devised by Garfield to mimic the RPG. But they said "it's too complicated, the players don't understand this". Huh? It was an easy enough rule, as is FS as it was in Jyhad. Perhaps we should drop FS and additional strikes altogether, because, (if we can take it for granted) S:CE will always and ever be used solely. So there is no need to dodge, to FS, and to Additional. Now what? Easier game. K, but then I can also play M:TG. Sorry, I get a bit cynic nowadays. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79fuba$nhh$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > >> CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > >> > I'm getting a bit angry now. Are you currently in any sort of > >> > fighting class? Have you ever practised combat skills? NO? > >> > Then please stop assuming things which are generally not true. > > [replying through several other posts, but I didn't see the original post] > > Um, are you actually trying to suggest _reality_ as the basis for > the combat setup in anything even remotely related to White Wolf? > I can't even think of one part of combat in the LARP, various rpgs, > or the card game, that is anything like real hand to hand combat... Nope, LSJ started this by generally saying that a dodge is always faster than an attack. He did *not* say that in connection with the CCG, but on a more general basis. I simply did not agree with him. I think he abandoned that argument of his pretty soon, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79p958$67$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > In article <79fekq$8gb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > And it this errata would only affect exactly 7 cards. Seriously, is > > it really worth it? > > Yes. Rules are not to be made of stone. Let them evolve. > You guys always look at the game as a dead piece, trying > to keep it remains in good shape. That's nonsense, I guess > the game will soon get some new life. We need not to fear > (small) adjustments in the rules. If *anythin*, the game will > become better. Consider new FS cards in the future. As per > status quo, there would be never a new FS card; for what? The > actual FS concept is too weak. What, change for the sake of change? Stone is exactly what rules are supposed to be made of. The Ten Commandments came on stone tablets for a reason. ;-) But seriously, the problem with changing FS as I see it is that it would *still* be too weak even if it did beat Dodge. Dodge is *already* a zillion times less good than Strike:Combat Ends. Making it hosed by First Strike as well as everything else that it loses to (but S:CE doesn't) serves no useful purpose. The only benefit I can see is that, in the future, the designers might print more cards with the words First Strike on them, thinking that they would be good now. But in fact, they would most likely still suck. > Look at it that way: they dropped the paralyzing rule as they > changed from Jyhad to VTES. I think that was silly, as it had > been devised by Garfield to mimic the RPG. But they said > "it's too complicated, the players don't understand this". > Huh? It was an easy enough rule, as is FS as it was in Jyhad. It was silly to drop it. But that never stopped the card designers, did it... (they printed Backstab under the FS loses to Dodge rules, hmm?) FS was just a bad idea in the first place - all it was good against under the original rules was people who tried to hit you with damaging strikes, but who would go to torpor if you hit them first. Even if it beat Dodge, it would not be that useful a part of the combat arms race, because the existing FS cards wouldn't be much improved by beating Dodge. And if they wanted to make new FS cards that would be good enough to use, they would probably have to be overpowered compared to existing non-FS cards (ie directly escalating the combat arms race, probably in favor of celerity). > Perhaps we should drop FS and additional strikes altogether, > because, (if we can take it for granted) S:CE will always > and ever be used solely. So there is no need to dodge, to FS, > and to Additional. Now what? > Easier game. K, but then I can also play M:TG. > > Sorry, I get a bit cynic nowadays. That's all right, we're all cynics here. ;-) One of the bigger problems for FS to overcome is that the obvious discipline for it (celerity) already has plenty of other cards that do what FS could do, only better. (additional strikes, presses, combat restarting.) Making FS just a little bit better (beating Dodges) simply isn't worth the paper you'd print the change on. Josh head cynic [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79p3b6$rpt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: >In article <79f24l$cv2$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: [Why I wouldn't make the changes was snipped, though not by me.] >> I know if I were making rules changes, I'd be loath to touch such a change, >> unless I really was sure it would signifigantly improve the game. > >But there is no need to issue errata. The rulebook has to be adjusted by >altering a few sentences. No big deal, no errata. I don't follow you. How is an "adjustment" of the rulebook not effectively errata? To me, errata is any change of already present components of the game. Changing First Strike most definitly falls under this. Anyway, you would definitly _still_ open up the whole can of worms of issuing changes to make weak cards better. If First Strike, what's to be changed next? This is the crux of why I wouldn't make such a change. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79p73c$ueu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: >Altering FS is not a fix! It is a change in the rulebook. A small >one. There would be no other fixes of any cards, as with the >correction of a few sentences in said rules-booklet, no FS cards have >to be changed. They already are the way they need to be. So, by the same token is it ok to change S:CE so that it's still possible to press to continue combat afterward? Wouldn't take much of a rules change at all... Furthermore, it would actually have an effect (unlike the exceedingly trivial effect of making First Strike beat dodge) -- IMHO A good effect too, since it would deversify combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > He's not using the rules to justify the rules. He's quoting the rules > to support an assertion about what the rules say. Throughout the thread, > people ask why Dodge beats First Strike. The only valid, useful response > to such a question is 'because the rules say so.' *shakes head* Quite obviously, you do not understand the whole point to the thread. Go back and read the volumes of e-mail again so that you understand why "the rules say so" is not a valid response when we are seeking to change the rules. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > But seriously, the problem with changing FS as I see it is that > it would *still* be too weak even if it did beat Dodge. Dodge > is *already* a zillion times less good than Strike:Combat Ends. I disagree with this for a couple of reasons: 1) There are cases that it is preferable to dodge than to S:CE. For example, a Tremere's first round would likely be dodge and press to the second round. There's also the dodge/additional strike/Disarm (or PF) combo. 2) All minions can use a Dodge. All of them. Even Allies. All minions are not entitled to a S:CE. Most allies cannot do a S:CE and the only S:CE that doesn't require a discipline is Mercy for the Weak which is horribly conditional and expensive for its effect. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

> rules are supposed to be made of. The Ten Commandments came > on stone tablets for a reason. ;-) No comment. > But seriously, the problem with changing FS as I see it is that > it would *still* be too weak even if it did beat Dodge. Dodge > is *already* a zillion times less good than Strike:Combat Ends. Granted. But more minions have access to Dodge than do S:CE. > Making it hosed by First Strike as well as everything else that > it loses to (but S:CE doesn't) serves no useful purpose. What else does it lose to? Nothing that I can think of. The only way you can get around a dodge right now is using: Additional Strikes, Psyche (both of which are restricted to Celerity, although there are a small handful of cards that do grant an additional strike) and a Press. The only thing that is accessable by anyone is the Press. I will grant you that if a vamp can use FS then it's pretty good odds that it can also additional strike, that's not always the case. > benefit I can see is that, in the future, the designers might print > more cards with the words First Strike on them, thinking that they > would be good now. But in fact, they would most likely still suck. Perhaps. Perhaps not. > It was silly to drop it. But that never stopped the card designers, > did it... (they printed Backstab under the FS loses to Dodge rules, > hmm?) Granted. > strikes, but who would go to torpor if you hit them first. Even if it > beat Dodge, it would not be that useful a part of the combat arms race, > because the existing FS cards wouldn't be much improved by beating > Dodge. But improved nonetheless. The whole point was that changing it wouldn't make it so overpowered as to break the game. Minor change=Minor effect on game balance. > And if they wanted to make new FS cards that would be good > enough to use, they would probably have to be overpowered compared to > existing non-FS cards (ie directly escalating the combat arms race, > probably in favor of celerity). Not true. Look at the FS cards we have now. Imagine that FS did beat dodge. Would any of those FS cards be overpowered compared to the existing non-FS cards? Nope. > That's all right, we're all cynics here. ;-) Call me mr. jade. > One of the bigger problems for FS to overcome is that the obvious > discipline for it (celerity) already has plenty of other cards > that do what FS could do, only better. (additional strikes, presses, > combat restarting.) Making FS just a little bit better (beating > Dodges) simply isn't worth the paper you'd print the change on. Everyone keeps coming back to Celerity. Not all vamps/minions who have access to FS have access to Celerity (unless you put a Cel master on of course). Why restrict those who don't just because there are some that do? a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

<CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: > But there is no need to issue errata. The rulebook has to be > adjusted by altering a few sentences. No big deal, no errata. And how, pray tell, would the rulebook be adjusted without errata? Do you know what an erratum is? It's a "corrigendum", which isn't so clear, either, so we'll continue down this path: a "corrigendum" is an "error in a printed work discovered after printing and shown with its correction on a separate sheet". And *that* is exactly what your adjustment by alteration is. Which, as has been stated ad nauseum, is not warranted in this case. Hunter

<CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: > In article <79fuba$nhh$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >> Um, are you actually trying to suggest _reality_ as the basis for >> the combat setup in anything even remotely related to White Wolf? >> I can't even think of one part of combat in the LARP, various rpgs, >> or the card game, that is anything like real hand to hand combat... > Nope, LSJ started this by generally saying that a dodge is always > faster than an attack. He did *not* say that in connection with the > CCG, but on a more general basis. I simply did not agree with him. Wow, really? I would have sworn that I only saw that *in this newsgroup*, which is directly connected to the CCG. But then, I guess if you are compelled to cling to demonstrably incorrect mechanisms, you have to take your points where you can invent them. Hunter

Noal> However, I do find it odd that Michigan doesn't have a Rules Noal> Team member seeing as it has the 2nd largest Jyhad presence Noal> in the U.S. James> One would assume that this is because Michigan has chosen not to adopt James> the rules set down by the Rules Team. If they had a member out of how James> many people there are involved, and the same decisions were made, would James> they play with them? Since the MJL isn't founded on the opinions of one person, I doubt the outcome would have changed significantly. David McCarty was arguably the most pro-LSJ rulings person in Michigan and he was one of the first people to be put on the MJL rules team for a number of reasons. I personally wanted him on there to be a balance against me. *grins at LSJ* If there was to be a WotC rules team member from Michigan, I would have expected it to be Dave. > If yes, why not play with them now? Since the answer isn't yes.... However, we don't play with them because of nearly unanimous agreement throughout the region. Quite simply, most Michigan players thought that a significant amount of the 7/7 rulings sucked. > If no, why would you be allocated a place? Well, since LSJ's appointment (and Rules Team selection) was prior to 7/7 which was the catalyst for the formation of the MJL in its current form, this is a rather irrelevant question. Prior to 7/7 all of the Michigan monthly tournaments were DCI sanctioned and we were still fairly large then. Not to mention that I assume a WotC rules team member doesn't have to be the policy setting person for his area, just that there is a large group of players with which playtesting and discussion of potential rules can take place. Since the MJL mailing list includes more than 40 players from at least 7 playgroups in the region, I would expect that we would be an ideal place to playtest proposed rules, regardless if we want to use them in our tournaments or not. It should be noted that we do use a significant percentage of LSJ's rulings (i.e., the new ToRIII) and if we can be convinced of the need for errata, it's probably a good ruling. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > How have you determined that you are the second largest Jyhad presence in the > U.S. Who is the first? The WotC "player registry" was a good inidicator. I think the top 3 largest Jyhad presence by area is: 1) California (mostly, L.A.) 2) Michigan 3) New York We've got more than 40 people on the MJL mailing list and another 20 or so players off the top of my head that aren't on the list that play regularly and show up to tournaments. I don't know of another region besides California that has at least 60 active players. > Fixing cards that suck just leads to tons and tons of extra, needless, errata. I'd be willing to say that there already exists some of that already. *grin* But I do concede the point. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > Anyway, you would definitly _still_ open up the whole can of worms of > issuing changes to make weak cards better. If First Strike, what's to > be changed next? This is the crux of why I wouldn't make such a change. The same can be said for the opposite side of the coin. If you start issuing changes to make strong cards weaker, what's to be changed next? Quite a few people have already stated that a lot of the errata of the past went too far. The "fix" to WWEF was IMO a really stupid one that made WWEF completely useless and only serves to ensure that only Forced Awakening will be used when one wants to use a wake. If this is the crux, you should seriously examine any motives for changing the text of _any_ card or rule. What I don't understand is what people are afraid of by making weak effects (FS) or cards stronger. Assuming the cure isn't worse than than the disease, I don't see the problem. Making Concealed Weapon a discipline-less card could make the card too strong, but I don't see how this is the case with the FS vs. Dodge rule. Many people have already stated that it wouldn't increase the power of FS significantly, so it's not like it's going to throw the game out of whack and make our lives wretched. It's a minor change that goes towards making the effect of FS (and therefore, the game) more balanced. If you want balance, you need to make the weak stronger, not just weaken the strong. So far, the only convincing post by LSJ on the whole matter was an early one where he stated that the game was balanced to favor defense rather than offense. And I agree with him...completely. However, I'm not entirely convinced that dodge isn't too cheap for its effect, specifically as it relates to FS. Other than that, the best post I've seen in support of keeping FS the way it is was by James Coupe. It was a quite intelligent post (article <79n0v2$49j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) that said that while the Jyhad book could be interpreted to read either way on the issue, there was no card printed with a "Dodge as First Strike" to support the "First Strike beats Dodge" ideal. Noal McDonald [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79po0n$dp5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > But seriously, the problem with changing FS as I see it is that > > it would *still* be too weak even if it did beat Dodge. Dodge > > is *already* a zillion times less good than Strike:Combat Ends. > > I disagree with this for a couple of reasons: > > 1) There are cases that it is preferable to dodge than to S:CE. > For example, a Tremere's first round would likely be dodge and > press to the second round. There's also the dodge/additional > strike/Disarm (or PF) combo. Okay, you're right. I should have said 'a zillion times less good *as combat defense* than Strike: Combat Ends'. Dodge can be used to win the combat arms race - as long as your opponent doesn't up the ante by using additional strikes or Immortal Grapple or Scorpion Sting on you. (In my opinion, that sort of thing tends to be the final word in the combat arms race, so Dodges are usually not put in combat decks as first-tier cards. My Cel/Pot rush deck has I think about 3-5 Dodges in it now (Acrobatics and Side Strike, both of which can provide additional strikes as well); the most it's had is 7-9, with Sideslips thrown in as well (for the attempt at Gangrel-beating via damage prevention). Acrobatics/Disarm is great, but Torn Signpost/Disarm is roughly as good and only takes one skill...) > 2) All minions can use a Dodge. All of them. Even Allies. > All minions are not entitled to a S:CE. Most allies cannot do a S:CE > and the only S:CE that doesn't require a discipline is Mercy for the > Weak which is horribly conditional and expensive for its effect. This is also true. But all those minions would use S:CE instead of Dodge if they could get it. People have actually used Mercy for the Weak instead of disciplineless Dodge for this very reason. Josh blatant defender of the status quo [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79ppal$f0v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: [I wrote] > > Making it hosed by First Strike as well as everything else that > > it loses to (but S:CE doesn't) serves no useful purpose. > > What else does it lose to? Nothing that I can think of. > The only way you can get around a dodge right now is using: > Additional Strikes, Psyche (both of which are restricted to > Celerity, although there are a small handful of cards that > do grant an additional strike) and a Press. The only thing > that is accessable by anyone is the Press. I will grant you > that if a vamp can use FS then it's pretty good odds that it > can also additional strike, that's not always the case. Dodge loses, as you say, to additional strikes, presses, and Scorpion Sting, none of which work against S:CE. It also loses to the same things S:CE does, eg Immortal Grapple, Psyche, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker. The thing about pressing against Dodge is that everyone *does* have access to presses already - in other words, there is no clan that can't beat Dodge by using presses. So why does Dodge need to also be beaten by First Strike? Oh yes, there is in fact one thing that S:CE loses to but Dodge doesn't: Dog Pack. > > strikes, but who would go to torpor if you hit them first. Even if it > > beat Dodge, it would not be that useful a part of the combat arms race, > > because the existing FS cards wouldn't be much improved by beating > > Dodge. > > But improved nonetheless. The whole point was that changing it wouldn't > make it so overpowered as to break the game. Minor change=Minor effect > on game balance. But the ones we have would still suck - the usual arguments I've seen are that a more powerful First Strike would make it more likely that we would see *future* cards using First Strike that would be usable. I don't think there's any real point in doing that when the designers could perfectly well just use card text to achieve whatever effect they wanted. To me, there is also a presumptive case against making any change that makes cards more powerful rather than less, because it is worse for the game to create overpowered cards than to make powerful cards less good. > > And if they wanted to make new FS cards that would be good > > enough to use, they would probably have to be overpowered compared to > > existing non-FS cards (ie directly escalating the combat arms race, > > probably in favor of celerity). > > Not true. Look at the FS cards we have now. Imagine that FS did > beat dodge. Would any of those FS cards be overpowered compared > to the existing non-FS cards? > Nope. No, that's not what I meant. The FS cards we have now, which suck, (note inflammatory opinion) would still suck if FS did beat Dodge. What I was trying to say was that, if designers tried to make future FS cards that would be worthwhile compared to existing combat cards for their disciplines, they would run a serious risk of escalating the combat arms race. > Call me mr. jade. Sure thing, Mr. Jade. (Better than Mr. Pink.) > Everyone keeps coming back to Celerity. Not all vamps/minions who > have access to FS have access to Celerity (unless you put a Cel > master on of course). Why restrict those who don't just because > there are some that do? The only non-Celerity First Strike cards I'm aware of are Muddles (no disciplines involved), Canine Horde (ani), Shattering Blow (pot), Blessing of Durga Syn (chi), Silence of Death (qui). All of these except Silence of Death and Muddles are anti-equipment strikes. The advantage of having First Strike on them is that it 'beats' the opponent trying to use the weapon on you. Having it also beat the opponent Dodging to try and protect the equipment would be gravy, but would have little impact on the overall utility of the cards. Silence of Death is in-clan only for the Assamites, who also have Celerity. Muddles is a Malkavian card, works on his own, and is a good card without First Strike being any better than it is. I would be surprised if the designers created many more First Strike cards outside of Celerity, because their card ideas do generally seem to follow the role-playing game, and as far as I know (which isn't far) First Strike is mostly a Celerity-related concept. Josh skeptical about the wisdom of designers since dark sovereigns (oh wait, since vtes actually) [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > In article <79feab$843$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > In article <7x679g4...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > > Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote: > > > > > mbohlman> Silence of Death should have been an action modifier adding > > > mbohlman> +1 stealth at inferior and not allowing an opposing minion > > > mbohlman> in combat to have their first strike. > > > > > > Yes. But the point is that there already is a mechanic for this sort > > > of thing in the rules (FS). FS works perfectly well if you allow it to > > > do its thing (resolve before anything except S:CE). > > > > Then why not take the strict reading of First Strike? It should really > > beat S:CE, too, as it obviously happens first. So, one person plays > > S:CE, the other plays a FS. Resolve the FS and then combat ends. > > > > It's the same logic that you're using to say that Dodge should not > > beat first strike. > > You are not quite right here. S:CE was already clear in Jyhad. It did > explicitely say that it beats even strikes with FS. > > S:CE represents something other then FS: it means (in RPG or LARP terms) > that the opponent cannot attack you at all. > > K? > > Carl > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own I see that everyone is talking about Assamites and either Silence of Death or Backstab. In my playing group, we adopted the first strike beats dodge rule not because of Assamites but because we didn't find normal that a dodge could avoid a Canine Horde, thus preventing weapons from being destroyed freely. -- ___ (_ _ _ _ _ / /__//)//)(//)(/(-( (E-mail : Emmanue...@supaero.fr)

On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:54:32 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >The same can be said for the opposite side of the coin. If you start issuing >changes to make strong cards weaker, what's to be changed next? Quite >a few people have already stated that a lot of the errata of the past went >too far. The "fix" to WWEF was IMO a really stupid one that made WWEF >completely useless and only serves to ensure that only Forced Awakening >will be used when one wants to use a wake. <nitpick> Wake/Deflect. Forced Awakening costs 2 blood for the same action - a VERY common action. Wake/Fast Reaction. Again, costs blood if you use Forced Awakening. Wake/any +1 permanent intercept. Decks using +1 permanents, from what I've seen, are usually doing it because they don't carry intercept cards to add to the intercept - so they can't necessarily afford to burn blood for failing. I only use Forced Awakening when I -know- i'll succeed in the block. (intercept decks) If I just want to have a guy attempt to block something while tapped, I'll use Wake. Especially if I'm going to wakey-bouncey. </nitpick> >If this is the crux, you should seriously examine any motives for changing >the text of _any_ card or rule. > >What I don't understand is what people are afraid of by making weak >effects (FS) or cards stronger. Assuming the cure isn't worse than than >the disease, I don't see the problem. Making Concealed Weapon a >discipline-less card could make the card too strong, but I don't see how >this is the case with the FS vs. Dodge rule. It's the same reason the MJL doesn't like to add errata - increasing the # of errata without making worthwhile changes increases the complexity of the game for a new player. Making FS beat Dodge would improve one card significantly - Silence of Death. Backstab is -still- a joke since additional strikes are quite effective in dealing with Dodge. Muddles is -already- good - his biggest problem is S:CE, not Dodge. And anyone with equipment (especially weapons) is not playing Dodge to begin with. [assorted snip - id like to ponder the defense over offense thing, but later maybe] >Other than that, the best post I've seen in support of keeping FS the way it >is was by James Coupe. It was a quite intelligent post (article ><79n0v2$49j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) that said that while the Jyhad book could >be interpreted to read either way on the issue, there was no card printed >with a "Dodge as First Strike" to support the "First Strike beats Dodge" >ideal. And despite the several discipline-based cards that provide Dodge (and some under Celerity, even more telling), none have that printed. This by itself mostly just shows the intent of the original designers that Dodge should beat First Strike as opposed to why it shouldn't be changed, but it's still valuable to the whole issue. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Carl wrote: "You are not reading the posts, are you?" Dude. This kind of prick-ishness gets you nowhere. "Look at Petri's precise points. Altering FS is not a fix! It is a change in the rulebook. A small one. There would be no other fixes of any cards, as with the correction of a few sentences in said rules-booklet, no FS cards have to be changed. They already are the way they need to be." I understand that. However, it is an unneeded change, and the only possible reason to impliment said change is to improve the ability that is First Strike, consequently making said change a "fix". As no one has managed to present a viable reason to make this change, I fail to see why it is good. The points I have seen presented are: 1. "It makes learning the game easier." Please explain how. "FS doesn't beat Dodge" is just as easy to say as "FS beats dodge". I am unconcerned if people who play Magic think FS works in a particular way, as that isn't how it works in Jyhad. 2. "It makes FS more useful". Not in any meaningful sense, as has been pointed out at great length, Dodge has a very minimal impact on the game as a whole, due to the power of S:CE. If this were a situation where people were arguing for FS to beat S:CE, I might be behind you. This is not the case, and making FS beat Dodge is pretty much pointless. 3. "It makes more sense". Sense leaves the arena of consideration as soon as immortal demons of the night who feast on the blood of the living enters the picture. "Please stop assuming that changing FS involves altering *any* cards. That's wrong. All the FS remain as they are, only a small paragraph in the rules has to be altered slightly." I am assuming nothing of the sort. I understand the process involved. However, my point is no less valid. Changing FS in the rules can only be justified by wanting to make FS more effective, and as such, that is "fixing" something. As I am yet to be convinced that it would be in anyway beneficial to the game as a whole, let alone even a bit worthwhile, I see no reason to think it is a good idea. "I'm sure you can follow me on this one?" Please refer to my first scentence. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Occasionally I'm callous and strange" -Willow Rosenberg

In article <79pupc$khl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >Since the MJL mailing list includes more than 40 players from at least 7 >playgroups in the region, I would expect that we would be an ideal place >to playtest proposed rules, regardless if we want to use them in our >tournaments or not. The point is, why should you set rules you do not intend to use? If a MJL player had been on board for 7/7, and, due to "consensus", they had been issued outright the same (ie 1 voice in a crowd was drowned out), would you have played with them? I would guess "No", and then I would question why on earth you should be consulted if you're not going to play what you agree to come up with anyway. If "Yes" then why not play it now? If you were to become part of the Rules Team, I would have thought it highly hypocritical of you if you were not to use it. Also, your environment would not be ideal. Since your players, by the nature of not using the "proper" rules, would not be tuned into the interplay under current rules, they would not serve as effective playtesters. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79q093$lps$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jasper Phillips wrote: >> Anyway, you would definitely _still_ open up the whole can of worms of >> issuing changes to make weak cards better. If First Strike, what's to >> be changed next? This is the crux of why I wouldn't make such a change. > >The same can be said for the opposite side of the coin. If you start issuing >changes to make strong cards weaker, what's to be changed next? Quite >a few people have already stated that a lot of the errata of the past went >too far. The "fix" to WWEF was IMO a really stupid one that made WWEF >completely useless and only serves to ensure that only Forced Awakening >will be used when one wants to use a wake. Yes, but there is a rather significant difference. Evening out the power of overpowered cards very definitely improves the game, and there are far fewer overpowered cards than under-powered cards. Under-powered cards simply have no effect upon the metagame -- it's as if they didn't exist. You can improve under-powered cards, but once you do, why wouldn't you improve all the other under-powered cards? It's frankly very easy to stop fixing overpowered cards -- I think it's pretty much been done (with the possible exception of Banishment, and RtI). The WWEF fix was fine by me, and was discussed some time ago. It's not one I would have done, but I can see the argument that cards without cost shouldn't be part of Jyhad. >If this is the crux, you should seriously examine any motives for changing >the text of _any_ card or rule. Yes, of course. >What I don't understand is what people are afraid of by making weak >effects (FS) or cards stronger. Assuming the cure isn't worse than than >the disease, I don't see the problem. Making Concealed Weapon a >discipline-less card could make the card too strong, but I don't see how >this is the case with the FS vs. Dodge rule. You'll note that I have backed a variety of changes. Fixing concealed weapon, making allies/weapons cost 1 less, having presses affect S:CE, making FS beat S:CE. Simple changes that I feel _would_ improve the game. Generally I'm a fan of more sweeping changes. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that I think they'd be a good candidates for an official rules change. >Many people have already stated that it wouldn't increase the power of FS >significantly, so it's not like it's going to throw the game out of whack and >make our lives wretched. It's a minor change that goes towards making the >effect of FS (and therefore, the game) more balanced. If you want balance, >you need to make the weak stronger, not just weaken the strong. It's a minor change, so why bother? It also doesn't make the game better balanced. It makes FS stronger, and dodge weaker. How is that better balance. In short, it has basically no effect, and I frankly can't see a reason to issue errata that does nothing. >So far, the only convincing post by LSJ on the whole matter was an early one >where he stated that the game was balanced to favor defense rather than >offense. And I agree with him...completely. However, I'm not entirely >convinced that dodge isn't too cheap for its effect, specifically as it >relates to FS. > >Other than that, the best post I've seen in support of keeping FS the way it >is was by James Coupe. It was a quite intelligent post (article ><79n0v2$49j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) that said that while the Jyhad book could >be interpreted to read either way on the issue, there was no card printed >with a "Dodge as First Strike" to support the "First Strike beats Dodge" >ideal. I suppose. Such "interpretations of scripture" really don't mean much to me. I'm simply opposed to making a fix that changes nothing but compound errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79po0n$dp5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> But seriously, the problem with changing FS as I see it is that >> it would *still* be too weak even if it did beat Dodge. Dodge >> is *already* a zillion times less good than Strike:Combat Ends. > >I disagree with this for a couple of reasons: > >1) There are cases that it is preferable to dodge than to S:CE. >For example, a Tremere's first round would likely be dodge and >press to the second round. There's also the dodge/additional >strike/Disarm (or PF) combo. A Tremere is far better of maneuvering and Theft of Vitaeing. I see little reason for the Tremere to Dodge (although with access to Thoughts Betrayed, they could effectively do it). The Dodge/additional strike combo you mention isn't helped by this fix either. If you have FS, you almost certainly (except Muddles) have extra strikes to match their extra strikes. It wouldn't be willing to put in expensive and very narrowly usefull FS strikes for such a minor gain against something you can already deal with. >2) All minions can use a Dodge. All of them. Even Allies. >All minions are not entitled to a S:CE. Most allies cannot do a S:CE >and the only S:CE that doesn't require a discipline is Mercy for the >Weak which is horribly conditional and expensive for its effect. Sure, dodges are easier to come by than S:CE. S:CE is still a zillion times better. Are you trying to imply that Dodges are so effective they deserve to be made weaker? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79ppal$f0v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >> Making it hosed by First Strike as well as everything else that >> it loses to (but S:CE doesn't) serves no useful purpose. > >What else does it lose to? Nothing that I can think of. >The only way you can get around a dodge right now is using: >Additional Strikes, Psyche (both of which are restricted to >Celerity, although there are a small handful of cards that >do grant an additional strike) and a Press. The only thing >that is accessable by anyone is the Press. I will grant you >that if a vamp can use FS then it's pretty good odds that it >can also additional strike, that's not always the case. What it comes down to is that combat decks are pretty much required to be able to deal with S:CE (and thus dodge too), and decks that can't deal with dodge don't care. In effect, against combat decks dodges are fairly useless, and against non combat decks you don't need them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79pj70$he0$1...@hiram.io.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Dear Mr. Hunter, I assume you did not understand my posting in the first place. Let me be so kind and reiterate it: In this newsgroup, LSJ stated that a dodge (in real-world terms) is *always* faster than any attack (in real-world terms) because "dodging requires so little to do". LSJ did not *refer* to the CCG. Please Mr. Hunter, I beg your pardon if I didn't choose my words in an easy enough comprehensible way. I'm really sorry. Carl (C. P.olite) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 9 Feb 1999 15:11:28 GMT, jhun...@dillinger-2.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) said: J> <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: >> In article <79fuba$nhh$1...@news.NERO.NET>, >> phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >>> Um, are you actually trying to suggest _reality_ as the basis for >>> the combat setup in anything even remotely related to White Wolf? >>> I can't even think of one part of combat in the LARP, various rpgs, >>> or the card game, that is anything like real hand to hand combat... >> Nope, LSJ started this by generally saying that a dodge is always >> faster than an attack. He did *not* say that in connection with the >> CCG, but on a more general basis. I simply did not agree with him. J> Wow, really? I would have sworn that I only saw that *in this J> newsgroup*, which is directly connected to the CCG. But then, I guess J> if you are compelled to cling to demonstrably incorrect mechanisms, J> you have to take your points where you can invent them. Whatever the newsgroup, if you make blanket statements then you have to be prepared to defend them. Don't imagine that the fact that this is a specific CCG newsgroup acts in any way as a filter. I for one understood one of LSJ's original arguments to be "you can always dodge an attack" (not in any CCG-specific context). This I disagreed with. On a martial arts / budo tangent, you can usually *block* an attack. That's different from dodging, which you can also do but which is much harder due to human reaction speed. //Petri

Noal> What I don't understand is what people are afraid of by making weak Noal> effects (FS) or cards stronger. Assuming the cure isn't worse than than Noal> the disease, I don't see the problem. Making Concealed Weapon a Noal> discipline-less card could make the card too strong, but I don't see how Noal> this is the case with the FS vs. Dodge rule. Derek> It's the same reason the MJL doesn't like to add errata - increasing Derek> the # of errata without making worthwhile changes increases the Derek> complexity of the game for a new player. Ho ho! Throwing my own ideology back in my face, eh? *grin* Well done. I don't think that making First Strike beat Dodge would make the game more complex for a new player...it may even make it more intuitive. However, the printed rule book does say that Dodge beats FS and we do tend to favor printed text whenever reasonable. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyahd League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > jhun...@dillinger-2.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) said: > > <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: > >> Nope, LSJ started this by generally saying that a dodge is always > >> faster than an attack. He did *not* say that in connection with the > >> CCG, but on a more general basis. I simply did not agree with him. I didn't start that. Indeed, I didn't even say that. Obviously, even in the CCG, there are attacks that cannot be dodged. It's just that "First Strike" isn't the thing that makes an attack not-dodgeable (cf. Scorpion Sting). Someone asked for an explanation. Their assumption was that a standard First Strike could not be dodged (despite the rules). They wanted an explanation (real-world) of how that wasn't true. I gave them one. Which I had to repeat many times in more and more belabored terms, eventually dropping into (as someone called it) "pseudo-physics", even though the concept is an extremely simple version of standard "two-trains" problems. Nonetheless, the example I gave was not that "dodge is always faster than an attack". It is that dodge, even if it has a lower speed than the speedy "First Strike" attack, executes in less time because it has less to do. > J> Wow, really? I would have sworn that I only saw that *in this > J> newsgroup*, which is directly connected to the CCG. But then, I guess > J> if you are compelled to cling to demonstrably incorrect mechanisms, > J> you have to take your points where you can invent them. > > Whatever the newsgroup, if you make blanket statements then you have > to be prepared to defend them. Don't imagine that the fact that this > is a specific CCG newsgroup acts in any way as a filter. I for one > understood one of LSJ's original arguments to be "you can always dodge > an attack" (not in any CCG-specific context). This I disagreed > with. Misunderstanding. I said that the "faster strikes" (modelled by First Strike) were still not fast enough to connect to a dodger. You can always dodge a dodgeable attack. Standard strikes, even when modified by First Strike, are dodgeable attacks. The types of attacks that cannot be dodged are modelled by Scorpion Sting, Hidden Lurker, etc. > On a martial arts / budo tangent, you can usually *block* an > attack. That's different from dodging, which you can also do but which > is much harder due to human reaction speed. # New tangent. Note to people who would later claim otherwise: # I didn't start this one, either. So maybe "Dodge" in the CCG incorporates these kinds of "real-world" concepts (block/dodge/misc. defense) into the simpler term "Dodge". The V:TES glossary simply defines "Dodge" as "A strike that cancels an opposing minion's strike." That could well include concepts like blocking and parrying. (Like "bleed" incorporates many different concepts - to be applied as "needed" to make sense.) If it does or doesn't, no matter. Even if it is just a standard english "dodge", it is still sufficient to avoid the damage of a standard First Strike. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

James Coupe wrote: > The point is, why should you set rules you do not intend to use? James, the rules team had been put in place prior to 7/7. Prior to 7/7, the MJL was using DCI rules and there's no way that anyone could have forseen the ruckus that ensued prior to that date. The question above is irrelevant. Period. You're attempting to cloud the issue with things that have no bearing. Prior to 7/7, the MJL (which was really nothing more than a mailing list at the time) had about 30-some people on the mailing list, from several play groups throughout the region. Even back then, we ran monthly DCI sanctioned tournaments. AT THAT TIME, the environment would have been ideal. So...my question remains the same. Given that when the rules team was formed, Michigan still had the 2nd largest Jyhad presence in the U.S., I find it odd that someone from Michigan wasn't asked to be on the Rules Team. It also begs the question of, "What is the criteria of being a rules team member?" > If a MJL player had been on board for 7/7, and, due to "consensus", they > had been issued outright the same (ie 1 voice in a crowd was drowned > out), would you have played with them? I would guess "No", and then I > would question why on earth you should be consulted if you're not going > to play what you agree to come up with anyway. If "Yes" then why not > play it now? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Prior to 7/7 there was no indication that the MJL in its present form was going to be formed. If David, for example, was on the WotC rules team when 7/7 was issued, would the MJL still have been formed? Quite probably since Bernie was the driving force behind the formation of the mailing list and the post-7/7 formation of MJL. There was enough ill feelings that neccessitated its formation as the alternative would have likely ended Jyhad playing in Michigan. Interestingly enough, while groups that use WotC errata have trouble keeping players, the MJL continues to grow. Would David still have been asked to be on the MJL rules team? Most definitely. Somebody had to balance out Ernie and I. *grin* However, if David had continued to need people to playtest WotC rules, I'm sure that he would not have lacked for volunteers to help him out. > If you were to become part of the Rules Team, I would have thought it > highly hypocritical of you if you were not to use it. Me or the MJL? I never sought to become a WotC rules team member, so I don't see the point of that. If you mean the group at large, you can hardly hold a group of people responsible for the decisions of one person. > Also, your environment would not be ideal. I'd argue that at the time of the formation of the current rules team, we were. > Since your players, by the nature of not using the "proper" rules, would > not be tuned into the interplay under current rules, they would not serve > as effective playtesters. Just because we don't use all the current rules in MJL tournaments doesn't mean that we aren't "tuned into the interplay" or otherwise mystically become stupid. I play and moderate games in JOL, which does use current errata. Also, much of the WotC errata is used by MJL, just not all of it. I would wager that the majority of MJL players could build a deck with WotC errata and compete just as effectively as any of the people you play with. Noal McDonald MIchigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

holy crap, you skip a few days on the NG and you're suddenly 60 messages behind on this thread... anyway, I kinda skimmed through those 60 (or however many) messages, including the "pseudo-physics" ones... and though I didn't have time to fully read them, I have to comment on this one... LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: 8< >Nonetheless, the example I gave was not that "dodge is always faster >than an attack". It is that dodge, even if it has a lower speed >than the speedy "First Strike" attack, executes in less time because >it has less to do. while the dodge, whether or not it has a lower speed than the speedy "First Strike" attack, and whether or not it executes in less time because it has less to do, still has to be able to "see" the strike coming in order to dodge it... which is where I think the first strike thing comes in... IMO (which is, I know, contrary to actual rulings) first strike should beat dodge because the whole "english language" concept of a first strike is a strike that happens first, before the opposing minion would have a chance to dodge out of the way.... speeds have nothing to do with it, it's timing... so I think that first strikes should resolve, than S:CE, then everything else.... granted, it's not a major point, first strike would still pretty much bite.. but if you went up to some random people on the street who didn't know this wonderful game of ours and asked them "if you have a regular strike, it can be dodged... if you have a 'first strike', would that be negated by the same dodge??", the obvious answer just based on the concepts presented by the english language would be "no, because it is a FIRST STRIKE"... anyway... Bill Bill Pyle (wp...@mindspring.com)

In article <79sq7g$5tl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes > James Coupe wrote: >> The point is, why should you set rules you do not intend to use? > >James, the rules team had been put in place prior to 7/7. Prior to >7/7, the MJL was using DCI rules and there's no way that anyone >could have forseen the ruckus that ensued prior to that date. The >question above is irrelevant. Period. You're attempting to cloud the >issue with things that have no bearing. No, I'm not. You have expressed a desire to have an MJL presence on the Rules Team. If you are given that presence on the rules team, by not following the errata, you damage any credibility that team were to have. Let us imagine a time in the future when another "7/7" is issued - very controversial rulings based on, say, muck-ups in the new expansion (hypothetically). If MJL had a presence in the Rules Team, would you follow those rulings? Again, if you don't, you would damage the credibility of the Rules Team. You might not agree with the individual rulings, but to maintain credibility, you would have to publicly support them. Similarly if, now, you (being the MJL rep, rather than you, Noal) were to sit on the Rules Team, not using the errata of that team would be highly disrespectful and show contempt for a body you were attempting to have influence over. And if you did change to using the rules, well, why not change now? I can't put it any simpler than that. If you wanted the place you would, as I see it, have to use the Rules else there'd be no point. You'd be creating official rules, and having a proper "say" in them, and then just saying "Well, I don't like those crappy ones over there so we're not using them, but you all have to use this one that I put forward." To do that would be a snub to all those groups out there who quite happily use 7/7 et al verbatim and who would carry on using the official rules but who aren't part of the Rules Team even though, by playing officially, they arguably have more "right" than an MJL player would. And, for the record, beyond LSJ, I know of no-one who is consulted by the Rules Team. I have, on occasion, directly e-mailed LSJ with thoughts on what appeared to be an imminent ruling (eg the reversal of Strike: <something> Equipment) but beyond that, I have no direct contact. [ quoted text not captured ]

Why not take a bold step further and simply enforce that strikes happen simultaniously (all others do). If my choice is to play Strike:Combat Ends, the opposing vamp still does it's damage and combat would end. Period. Though it would probably weaken the card too much as then it would only become an "ultimate press" to end combat. Then the lowly dodge becomes stronger, and First Strike becomes truely wicked. This is not a proposal, just something to mull over.. Bernie "Man I'm tired" >In article <79p73c$ueu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: >>Altering FS is not a fix! It is a change in the rulebook. A small >>one. There would be no other fixes of any cards, as with the >>correction of a few sentences in said rules-booklet, no FS cards have >>to be changed. They already are the way they need to be. > >So, by the same token is it ok to change S:CE so that it's still possible >to press to continue combat afterward? Wouldn't take much of a rules change >at all... > >Furthermore, it would actually have an effect (unlike the exceedingly >trivial effect of making First Strike beat dodge) -- IMHO A good effect >too, since it would deversify combat. > [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > You have expressed a desire to have an MJL presence on the Rules Team. James, stop putting words in my mouth. I said I find it odd that there wasn't a person from Michigan put on the rules team when it was formed. In no way, shape or form have I stated or implied that someone from MJL should be put on it NOW. I seriously doubt anyone from the MJL would want to. You're entire line of argument is based on a false assumption. Please start listening to what I'm saying rather than what you want me to say. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Again, if you don't, you would damage the credibility of the Rules Team. > You might not agree with the individual rulings, but to maintain > credibility, you would have to publicly support them. Coming back to your letter... What the HELL are you talking about?!? Publicly support them? Nobody knows which people and from what groups the rules team members are as it stands. The current rules team members are anonymous...they don't publicly say anything as a RT member, much less publicly support the rulings. *shakes head* Quit talking out of your ass, James. Usually you say some pretty intelligent things. This is not one of those times. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79umcg$pro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: >> You have expressed a desire to have an MJL presence on the Rules Team. > >James, stop putting words in my mouth. I said I find it odd that there >wasn't a person from Michigan put on the rules team when it was formed. >In no way, shape or form have I stated or implied that someone from >MJL should be put on it NOW. I seriously doubt anyone from the MJL >would want to. You're entire line of argument is based on a false >assumption. Please start listening to what I'm saying rather than what >you want me to say. Noal, chill out. ;-) I got the same impression from reading your posts as James -- I certainly thought you implied that you thought someone from the MJL should be on the official rules team. You weren't very clear on the subject, IMHO. One's words aren't always taken the way one intends. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > Noal, chill out. ;-) *weak smile* Sorry. Life has been very frustrating lately. I'll spare you all the details. Suffice it to say that house hunting sucks. *looks at mug* ...and I still haven't finished my morning coffee. *sips* Much better. I'm just glad my temper isn't this bad in person. My apt. manager would be dead and I'd be in jail. *wry grin* > I got the same impression from reading your posts as James -- I > certainly thought you implied that you thought someone from the MJL > should be on the official rules team. No...when I first made the comment, I said I found it odd that someone from Michigan wasn't on it considering that at the time, we were (and still are) the 2nd largest Jyhad presence in the U.S. Putting someone on there now may serve a useful function to at see how errata flies with us, but it's clearly not something that I'd expect to see happen. If one or two people from MJL were part of the process, it may or may not repair the rift in the viewpoints between LSJ & co. and the MJL, but I wouldn't count on it. We're clearly a tough audience to sell to. > You weren't very clear on the subject, IMHO. One's words aren't > always taken the way one intends. With all of my obvious references to "at that time" and so forth, I thought I was being abundantly clear. Hrm. *shrug* Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <79v5ln$7fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: Has DejaNews been acting funky for anyone else or is it just me? > Putting someone on there now may serve a useful function to at see > how errata flies with us, but it's clearly not something that I'd expect to > see happen. If one or two people from MJL were part of the process, > it may or may not repair the rift in the viewpoints between LSJ & co. > and the MJL, but I wouldn't count on it. We're clearly a tough > audience to sell to. So what would it take to bring the MJL back into playing with all the official errata and such? Obviously, people are never going to agree with all the errata. It would obviously be much more productive for the game as a whole if everyone played with the official rules in any tournament (as far as game play and cards go, not things like sealed vs. constructed). From what I can gather, the major points of contention still existing include: RTI Mind Rape Fame Pulled Fangs WwEF Any other bigs ones? I can't really imagine any of the other differences being significant enough to want to use non-official rules rather than the official rules and forego sanctioning, rankings, etc. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > So what would it take to bring the MJL back into playing with all > the official errata and such? Since we're fairly well organized, tournaments are getting new players, the mailing list is humming with activity... To be honest, I think the damage is permanent. We're doing pretty good on our own. > From what I can gather, the major points of contention still existing > include: > RTI > Mind Rape > Fame > Pulled Fangs > WwEF > > Any other bigs ones? I can't really imagine any of the other differences > being significant enough to want to use non-official rules rather than > the official rules and forego sanctioning, rankings, etc. Since we we already have MJL sanctioned tournaments and MJL player rankings (currently using the VEKN system) DCI tournaments really have lost their shine. We get to do all the same things and we get to do it our way. The players are happy because they have open access to the people who make the rules and the people who make the rules do our best to give the (truthful) impression that we listen to and care what the players think. But as to other "bones of contention," the Golden Rule, Aggravated Damage, Voting and Fame were HUGE sticking points. It was the trend of LSJ's rules team of rewriting cards and basic rules rather than any one specific card that caused the whole bruhaha. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: : > From what I can gather, the major points of contention still existing : > include: : > RTI : > Mind Rape : > Fame : > Pulled Fangs : > WwEF : > : > Any other bigs ones? I can't really imagine any of the other differences : > being significant enough to want to use non-official rules rather than : > the official rules and forego sanctioning, rankings, etc. : But as to other "bones of contention," the Golden Rule, Aggravated : Damage, Voting and Fame were HUGE sticking points. Is there really extensive opposition to the modified Golden Rule? That has always been a very popular house rule before it was made official, and always met with unanymous agreement in my neck of the woods. It makes a greater variety of strategies viable. : It was the trend : of LSJ's rules team of rewriting cards and basic rules rather than any : one specific card that caused the whole bruhaha. I have also found, in my area, that the rewritten cards tend to meet alot of opposition. People get the impression that half the set has been rewritten, and express outrage accordingly. It has really been just a handful of rewrites out of 1200 cards that work as printed. The problem stems from the fact that it was the overused, overpowered cards that were targetted, and people got upset to find that their decks, which naturally relied overmuch on these cards, no longer worked as well. -- Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <78q30g$oot$1...@amdint2.amd.com>, "Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote: > Derek S. Ray wrote in message > <2A5CC5C7CA40E766.21525868...@library-proxy.airnews.ne > t>... > >On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:36:14 GMT, artax...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > >Several layers of quotations snipped by me - a bunch of different > >people have posted in this thread. > > The comments in >>> and >>> >> are mine, by the way. > > I'd like to thank artaxerxes for trying to win my bounty. Could > you write up your arguments as a single, clean article that I can > easily post to my webpage? I'm willing to work with you on this - > like go through my own page, figure out a short list of NCL > arguments, and mail them to you. As it is, this is the right idea, > but I'm not willing to cut and snip and edit your post to make a > single coherent article. (When I did that with Robert Goudie, two > years later he comes back and tells me I took his comments out > of context. =) ). Praise be to Dejanews. Apologies for the delay. Will attempt to fill your order by the end of next week. artaxerxes the monocled 4CL'er [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Is there really extensive opposition to the modified Golden Rule? That > has always been a very popular house rule before it was made official, and > always met with unanymous agreement in my neck of the woods. It makes a > greater variety of strategies viable. It was the *only* house rule used by my playgroup. We've actually seen a few tournament viable FoS decks since the change. > > : It was the trend > : of LSJ's rules team of rewriting cards and basic rules rather than any > : one specific card that caused the whole bruhaha. [clip] > The problem > stems from the fact that it was the overused, overpowered cards that were > targetted, and people got upset to find that their decks, which naturally > relied overmuch on these cards, no longer worked as well. The biggest critic of 7/7 locally is a player who owned at least ten each of Mind Rape, Tomb, and RTI. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Lupus wrote: > Is there really extensive opposition to the modified Golden Rule? In the MJL, yes. There is a huge resistance to changing the printed rulebook, esp. in specific response to a particular strategy. We didn't want to change the rules to benefit a "steal" stategy and we didn't want to change the voting rules to prevent the WVP strategy. We're still hashing out how we can make voting balanced so that it doesn't overly benefit WVP or Presence voting decks. > That has always been a very popular house rule before it was made official, > and always met with unanymous agreement in my neck of the woods. Quite obviously, we live in different woods. > It makes a greater variety of strategies viable. No...it makes _one_ strategy more viable. > I have also found, in my area, that the rewritten cards tend to meet alot > of opposition. People get the impression that half the set has been > rewritten, and express outrage accordingly. It has really been just a > handful of rewrites out of 1200 cards that work as printed. *shrug* So where do you draw the line? We decided that certain cards did need to be fixed (such as RtI) but felt that WotC errata was too drastic. Instead, we came up with minor modifications to text that had nearly the same effect as the WotC errata. Others we weren't convinced needed to be changed, such as Mind Rape and WWEF. > The problem stems from the fact that it was the overused, overpowered > cards that were targetted, and people got upset to find that their decks, > which naturally relied overmuch on these cards, no longer worked as well. I was one of the loudest critics of the 7/7 rulings when it came out. However, very few of my decks used any of the "overpowered" cards. It was the trend towards completely changing the way the cards and rules worked that got us upset. (i.e. 7/7 ToRIII errata, Mind Rape, Fame, RtI, etc.) It was my belief that it set a bad precedent and I wanted new players to be able to buy a few starters and boosters, put together a deck based on the way the rules and cards were printed and be able to show up to a tournament and play the deck. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: > It was the *only* house rule used by my playgroup. We've actually seen > a few tournament viable FoS decks since the change. I expect that's true, but FoS-based tournament decks were viable before. I built a FoS "steal and RtI" deck when AH first came out that was _very_ vicious. I also had a FoS political deck that was very effective. > The biggest critic of 7/7 locally is a player who owned at least ten > each of Mind Rape, Tomb, and RTI. *shrug* I've got quite a few of those 3 cards, but I rarely use Mind Rape because I generally prefer Graverobbing because it's permanent and generation isn't a barrier. I'll use Tomb in decks that I need to use large vampires in, but I generally prefer Dreams of the Sphinx. The only way that I'll use RtI is in a "steal and RtI" deck...and to be honest, it's an old, boring strategy that I only use in RtI playtesting games. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7acms4$e2i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Lupus wrote: > > Is there really extensive opposition to the modified Golden Rule? > > In the MJL, yes. There is a huge resistance to changing the > printed rulebook, esp. in specific response to a particular strategy. > We didn't want to change the rules to benefit a "steal" stategy > and we didn't want to change the voting rules to prevent the > WVP strategy. We're still hashing out how we can make voting > balanced so that it doesn't overly benefit WVP or Presence > voting decks. > > > That has always been a very popular house rule before it was made official, > > and always met with unanymous agreement in my neck of the woods. > > Quite obviously, we live in different woods. In my group in Vienna, we did also use the houserule from the beginning. It seemed so unlogical to simply remove cards from ousted players. That was outright silly. We often used (and use) proxies to represent those cards if the owner has to leave. > > > It makes a greater variety of strategies viable. > > No...it makes _one_ strategy more viable. Hm, you can steal so many things, it's far more interesting to leave them in play. I always tend to view players who do not want to leave their cards in play as behaving unsportsmanlikely (can one say that?). Granted, when the player *has to* leave, then by all means he is not unsportsmanlike. But cards should stay in play (or at least proxies). > > > I have also found, in my area, that the rewritten cards tend to meet alot > > of opposition. People get the impression that half the set has been > > rewritten, and express outrage accordingly. It has really been just a > > handful of rewrites out of 1200 cards that work as printed. > > *shrug* So where do you draw the line? We decided that certain cards > did need to be fixed (such as RtI) but felt that WotC errata was too > drastic. Instead, we came up with minor modifications to text that had > nearly the same effect as the WotC errata. Others we weren't convinced > needed to be changed, such as Mind Rape and WWEF. Same here some re-writes were accepted easily, others not so easily. WWEF and Pulled Fangs were not accepted, while Fame and Tomb (the new version) seem perfectly fine around here. > > > The problem stems from the fact that it was the overused, overpowered > > cards that were targetted, and people got upset to find that their decks, > > which naturally relied overmuch on these cards, no longer worked as well. > > I was one of the loudest critics of the 7/7 rulings when it came out. > However, very few of my decks used any of the "overpowered" cards. > > It was the trend towards completely changing the way the cards and rules > worked that got us upset. (i.e. 7/7 ToRIII errata, Mind Rape, Fame, RtI, > etc.) It was my belief that it set a bad precedent and I wanted new players > to be able to buy a few starters and boosters, put together a deck based on > the way the rules and cards were printed and be able to show up to a > tournament and play the deck. You have a point here. Nevertheless I think that making over-powered cards more balanced is important. The problem is that each player rates power of cards differently, and the way to alter the cards are also highly disputable. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7acms4$e2i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >> It makes a greater variety of strategies viable. > >No...it makes _one_ strategy more viable. If the strategy is "theft" granted. Other takes on the strategy could be But a vote deck can steal locations. A combat deck can steal vampires (Graverobbing) A Setite deck can steal vampires (Corruption) A DOM deck could steal allies/retainers A CEL deck could steal equipment And so forth. Each of these could be a strategy in themselves (mostly the vampire ones), or a supporting strategy, varying from group to group. It all depends on your point of view of what the strategy is. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Lupus wrote: > > Is there really extensive opposition to the modified Golden Rule? > > In the MJL, yes. There is a huge resistance to changing the > printed rulebook, esp. in specific response to a particular strategy. > We didn't want to change the rules to benefit a "steal" stategy > and we didn't want to change the voting rules to prevent the > WVP strategy. We're still hashing out how we can make voting > balanced so that it doesn't overly benefit WVP or Presence > voting decks. Good Luck! If you wish to correct WVP, I seriously think, that accepting the "no-vote-push" rule would be an important step towards the goal you claim to strive for. This is arguably in line with the original Jyhad rulebook, which was vague enough on the point. As for Presence voting, I'm not sure how you intend to correct it. I'm not sure it needs to be corrected, since Presence *should* be better at voting than other disciplines. If you think the imbalance is too great, then perhaps you could campaign for additional non-presence vote cards being included in the soon-to-be-released mini-set. > > That has always been a very popular house rule before it was made official, > > and always met with unanymous agreement in my neck of the woods. > > Quite obviously, we live in different woods. > > > It makes a greater variety of strategies viable. > > No...it makes _one_ strategy more viable. There are an limitless number of strategies, and how you classify them into finite groupings is purely arbitrary. There are dozens of cards that become more viable as a result of the new ruling. Each can be included in an limitless variety of decks. I am wondering what is this "one strategy" you are referring to. Do you think that Settite Corruption decks are the only possible beneficiaries of this rule? Here's a list of cards, many of them previously considered marginal, that have received a boost: Lucian, Hostile Takeover, Malkavian Time Auction, Succubus Club, Temptation of Greater Power, Amaranth, Entrancement, Far Mastery, Fast Hands, Grave Robbing, Kine Dominance, Disputed Territory, ...just from the first set. > > I have also found, in my area, that the rewritten cards tend to meet alot > > of opposition. People get the impression that half the set has been > > rewritten, and express outrage accordingly. It has really been just a > > handful of rewrites out of 1200 cards that work as printed. > > *shrug* So where do you draw the line? I don't need to draw the line at all. That's LSJ's job. I don't, of course, agree 100% with his rulings on all things. But one thing he has definitely done is draw a line. Sometimes he, in my poor judgment, drawn the line a bit too far, and in some cases not far enough... but he must draw the line somewhere, and has in fact done that. It is clear that he takes seriously the importance of issuing errata to cards and rulebooks only when it is necessary (in his judgment, of course). > We decided that certain cards > did need to be fixed (such as RtI) but felt that WotC errata was too > drastic. Personally, I don't like complete rewrites either. In the case of RTI, I would have preferred that it had been banned, though certainly something had to be done about it. I doubt you'll come up with an appropriate fix. When any card wins the game as an action, the cost becomes irrelevant. An appropriate fix would have to involve preventing the card from directly ousting, so that the cost (loss of a vampire) would create some risk or disadvantage as far as gaining a victory point goes. When you sacrifice an 11-capacity vampire to knock your opponent from 25 pool down to 9, then the cost is perhaps approptiate to the effect. The problem is that the card is always used to directly oust, and you gain 6 pool and a victory point in the bargain. > Instead, we came up with minor modifications to text that had > nearly the same effect as the WotC errata. Others we weren't convinced > needed to be changed, such as Mind Rape and WWEF. It would appear that you are not opposed in principle to the idea that errata can be necessary. You merely disagree with LSJ's judgment in individual cases. These individual cases, however, are but a small handfull of cards, out of 1200 printed. You could choose not to play with these cards at all, and you would still have almost 1200 cards to choose from, and an infinite number of strategies available to you. I understand that the MJL maintains its own errata listing. Is is significantly shorter than the official listing? Even if so, is the confusion saved by having a slightly shorter list really worth the confusion added by setting up a rival alternate list? People get upset about fixes to overpowered cards mainly because they see the cards too much. Nobody complains about the rewrite to Hidden Lurker, because so few people play with the card that noone notices it has was rewritten (long ago, by the old RT). > > The problem stems from the fact that it was the overused, overpowered > > cards that were targetted, and people got upset to find that their decks, > > which naturally relied overmuch on these cards, no longer worked as well. > > I was one of the loudest critics of the 7/7 rulings when it came out. > However, very few of my decks used any of the "overpowered" cards. Whether you used them or not, I am sure others did, and to a disproportionate extent, in the games that you play. Thus, you may have an exaggerated perception of their importance to the game. Actually, almost all of these cards could be banned outright without adversely affecting the game, as you would still have almost 1200 cards to choose from in designing your decks and crypts. > It was the trend towards completely changing the way the cards and rules > worked that got us upset. (i.e. 7/7 ToRIII errata, Mind Rape, Fame, RtI, > etc.) I believe you are incorrect in percieving this as a "trend". When LSJ was given the authority, he insituted a number of changes that had probably been long considered. From all indications, it appears he intends to be quite conservative about any additional alterations. The latest errata on TORIII is less radical than the first and puts the card more in line with original text and card concept. He has resisted pressure to errata Concealed Weapon and the First Strike concept. I see no "trend", and no reason to make panicked howlings of "Where will it end!???". > It was my belief that it set a bad precedent and I wanted new players > to be able to buy a few starters and boosters, put together a deck based on > the way the rules and cards were printed and be able to show up to a > tournament and play the deck. I agree that it is important to keep errata to a minimum for the above reasons. I believe the vast majority of what is one the errata list is (sadly) necessary, and can think of only a few instances where (IMHO) some slight pruning of the list might be done. Still, I believe the most confusion will come not from new players, but from older players who know what all the "good" cards are, and put alot of them in their decks. A new player will not play with so many of these cards, and, unlike the experienced player, will not get the false impression that most cards have been altered. The vast majority of cards a Newbie plays with will work as printed (and will be more balanced in power compared to the "good" cards an experienced player uses). One example of how experience can warp ones perception is the (rather funny) reaction of experienced players when you tell them that the damage from Pulled Fangs is no longer aggravated. "That's crazy!" they howl, "If it doesn't do aggravated damage then what's the point?" For years, these players have seen this card burn vampires with ag damage every time it was played, and so naturally assumed that burning vamps with ag damage was the entire point of the card. A new player who read the text and title of the card would assume that the point to pulling the vampires fangs to to make it impossible to hunt (sending it into torpor if it must hunt and can't). Experienced players are barely aware of this function of the card, because it is completely irrelevant to a burned vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus wrote: > Good Luck! If you wish to correct WVP, I seriously think, that accepting > the "no-vote-push" rule would be an important step towards the goal you > claim to strive for. *nods* Right now, we're using the old "don't replace PA cards used to vote push until the end of the current turn" errata until we come to some sort of consensus or majority opinion. Currently, I'm marginally supporting the 7/7 errata. > As for Presence voting, I'm not sure how you intend to correct it. My biggest problem with the 7/7 errata is that it gives a _HUGE_ edge to vote decks. Previously, clans that didn't use Presence could at least make a viable deck. Our current errata makes some effort to balance between giving the edge to Presence decks and WVP decks, but finding a perfect balance is probably impossible. > If you think the imbalance is too great, > then perhaps you could campaign for additional non-presence vote cards > being included in the soon-to-be-released mini-set. Do you honestly think they'd listen to me? *grin* > > No...it makes _one_ strategy more viable. > > I am wondering what is this "one strategy" you are referring to. I meant a "steal" strategy in a general sense. Obviously, there are various supporting strategies and methods, but they all boil down to the same thing > Personally, I don't like complete rewrites either. In the case of RTI, I > would have preferred that it had been banned, though certainly something > had to be done about it. I doubt you'll come up with an appropriate fix. We already have. We came up with play as printed with the following exceptions: 1) The vampire is removed from the game rather than burned. 2) No action modifiers may be played. Mike and I already discussed why this is at least as balanced as the WotC errata earlier. You have to take additional actions or put master cards in play to increase the bleed, add stealth or make it unblockable. > An appropriate fix would have to involve preventing the card from directly > ousting, We looked at that idea and immediately saw the problem with that philosophy. I could put a Anarch Revolt into play and then use RtI to bleed them down to 1 pool. Trying to prevent RtI from directly ousting someone is too easy to get around to make it a viable errata. > It would appear that you are not opposed in principle to the idea that > errata can be necessary. You merely disagree with LSJ's judgment in > individual cases. Yes and no. I believe that errata should be only be used to correct grossly unbalanced cards or effects or clarify confusing phrasing. I do not believe that WWEF or the Golden Rule fits that bill in any way, shape or form. I also believe that errata should attempt to stay as close to card text as possible. It was LSJ's trend towards complete rewrites that I disagree with. > You could choose not to play with > these cards at all, and you would still have almost 1200 cards to choose > from, and an infinite number of strategies available to you. I certainly don't support banning cards if at all possible and just because I don't use an overpowered card doesn't keep others from using it. > I understand that the MJL maintains its own errata listing. Is is > significantly shorter than the official listing? Currently, very much so. Essentially, we go through WotC errata and decide if we want to use it, play as printed or issue or own errata. > Even if so, is the confusion saved by having a slightly shorter list really > worth the confusion added by setting up a rival alternate list? There's no confusion because we have excellent communications set up and everyone knows we don't use WotC errata. We have a web site with the errata and we post current MJL errata to the newsgroup and the MJL mailing list prior to a tournament. > People get upset about fixes to overpowered cards mainly because they > see the cards too much. No...it wasn't that overpowered cards getting fixed that's the problem, it was completely rewriting them that caused the major issues. > > It was the trend towards completely changing the way the cards and rules > > worked that got us upset. (i.e. 7/7 ToRIII errata, Mind Rape, Fame, RtI, > > etc.) > > I believe you are incorrect in percieving this as a "trend". It was a trend within the subset of 6/23 and 7/7 which, at the time, were the only rulings made. > The latest errata on > TORIII is less radical than the first and puts the card more in line with > original text and card concept. ...and was prolly only reworked after a multitude of complaints. The first errata was completely in line with the rest of 7/7. > I see no "trend", and no reason to make panicked howlings of "Where will > it end!???". Panicked howlings??? *smirk* Okay.... I don't remember making any "panicked howlings" of any kind. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > My biggest problem with the 7/7 errata is that it gives a _HUGE_ edge > to vote decks. Sorry...I meant, "edge to vote decks that use Oresence vs. ones that don't." Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ajsmh$khm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Lupus wrote: > My biggest problem with the 7/7 errata is that it gives a _HUGE_ edge > to vote decks. Previously, clans that didn't use Presence could at least > make a viable deck. Our current errata makes some effort to balance > between giving the edge to Presence decks and WVP decks, but finding > a perfect balance is probably impossible. The vote push ban _gives_ vote decks an edge? I've got to assume that you mean Presence vote decks here because that would pretty much be the opposite of what people have said of 7/7. Vote decks are still a pretty difficult deck to have win often, varying with the metagame. Any deck that packs enough transient or permanent intercept will hose a vote deck. They are also still extremely susceptible to dedicated rush. Now if you compare Presence based vote decks vs. non-Presence based vote decks, the Presence decks are much easier to construct and be effective. Presence is the only discipline that can reliable pass votes once the action has been succesfful without a supporting strategy. Contrary to common belief, it is quite possible to make a vote deck that is successful and does not use Presence. The two main ones are weenies using Praxis Seizures and some form of combat to kill rival voters. I've used both of these quite effectively. Of course, they aren't as easy to make as a Presence vote deck, but I wouldn't expect them to be. > Do you honestly think they'd listen to me? *grin* What did you say? I didn't hear you over here. :) > I meant a "steal" strategy in a general sense. Obviously, there are > various supporting strategies and methods, but they all boil down to > the same thing You've argued largely that in a real world sense, First Strike should be dodge. In a real world sense, why would the vampire that I've stolen from the control of another Methuselah suddenly burn because her former controller had died (or whatever)? Or why would the Rack suddenly burn down after I had wrested control of it from another Methuselah who was then destroyed? This is not the only reason I like the new Golden Rule, but I'm just using your own arguments to defeat you. :) > Mike and I already discussed why this is at least as balanced as the > WotC errata earlier. You have to take additional actions or put > master cards in play to increase the bleed, add stealth or make it > unblockable. Repeat after me. "No matter how you might try to fix RtI, it's still just bad, bad, bad." > We looked at that idea and immediately saw the problem with that philosophy. > I could put a Anarch Revolt into play and then use RtI to bleed them down > to 1 pool. Trying to prevent RtI from directly ousting someone is too easy > to get around to make it a viable errata. Yeah, 1 would be impossible. I proposed a really complex fix at one point that involved reducing to no less than 3 or 4. > It was LSJ's trend towards complete rewrites that I disagree with. Please stop using the word trend. There is no trend when it happens twice, 6/23 and 7/7. A trend would be changing First Strike to beat Dodge. ;) Hmmm, I'm in some sort of flame-bait mode today. Please ignore it. :) > There's no confusion because we have excellent communications set up > and everyone knows we don't use WotC errata. We have a web site with > the errata and we post current MJL errata to the newsgroup and the MJL > mailing list prior to a tournament. Ok, let's say we put MJL tournaments in the V:EKN newsletter. Some of those people don't have Internet access. How are they going to find out these errata of yours? > It was a trend within the subset of 6/23 and 7/7 which, at the time, were the > only rulings made. The trend for me today is that I will drink lots of beer this evening. Does that make it a trend in the generic sense of the word? No. > > I see no "trend", and no reason to make panicked howlings of "Where will > > it end!???". > > Panicked howlings??? *smirk* Okay.... I don't remember making any > "panicked howlings" of any kind. Calling it a trend would seem to indicate a panicked howling as there has been no trend outside of those two dates. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> The vote push ban _gives_ vote decks an edge? I've got to assume that > you mean Presence vote decks here because that would pretty much be the > opposite of what people have said of 7/7. Correct. Vote decks that don't use Presence are pretty much hosed. In a perfect world, a Nosferatu voting deck would be viable. *wry grin* > Vote decks are still a pretty difficult deck to have win often, varying with > the metagame. That depends on whether you're able to get vote dominance or not. > Any deck that packs enough transient or permanent intercept will hose > a vote deck. Depends on the vote deck. First off, your opponents have to know what to intercept. I generally plan for some intercept and compensate by having several minions that toss a couple of votes to draw intercept before passing the important ones or I play a stealth voted deck. The Setites are great for that, since not only do they have Obfuscate and Presence, but they can use Form of Corruption and Temptation to steal the vampires with votes. > They are also still extremely susceptible to dedicated rush. Depends. If the vote deck is built around Banishment, the combat monsters will find themselves in the uncontrolled region more often than not. Otherwise, Secure Haven and Arboretum are good defenses. I found that Assault Rifles are great if you have the pool gain to afford them. If you're going to depend on S:CE, you should have a fair amount of maneuvers in your deck. Obviously, a DotB/IG combo screws that up, but you can't defend against everything. > Now if you compare Presence based vote decks vs. non-Presence > based vote decks, the Presence decks are much easier to construct > and be effective. Agreed. I believe the disparity to be much larger than it should be. It's almost to the point that if you're going to play a vote deck, you have to use Presence. I toyed with the Anarch Revolt/Malk Rider Clause combo for a bit, but found that it was a one-shot wonder. After the first time, nobody called votes to burn the Revolts or they would only pass them if there was no Malk Rider Clause played. Ask Lupus about jol94. He ended up getting ousted by his own Revolts. > Presence is the only discipline that can reliable pass votes once > the action has been succesfful without a supporting strategy. Agreed. > Contrary to common belief, it is quite possible to make a vote deck that is > successful and does not use Presence. The two main ones are weenies > using Praxis Seizures and some form of combat to kill rival voters. *nods* However, weenie prince decks have a really rough time of it after the first 3 turns. I've done bruise and vote decks, mostly with Brujah, but I've done it with a Giovanni/Lasombra deck as well. > You've argued largely that in a real world sense, First Strike should > be dodge. Actually, I didn't really argue that as hard as others. I used some LARP and RPG examples, but my argument was based mostly on cost vs. effect. > This is not the only reason I like the new Golden Rule, but I'm just > using your own arguments to defeat you. :) No...you used someone else's arguments...*grin* Personally, I think the new Golden Rule may make the cost too cheap for the effect. > Repeat after me. "No matter how you might try to fix RtI, it's still > just bad, bad, bad." I agree with you. However, in this case, one fix is pretty much as good the other for various reasons. The MJL one is just less complex. > Yeah, 1 would be impossible. I proposed a really complex fix at one > point that involved reducing to no less than 3 or 4. That might get closer, but implementation of that rule gets really fuzzy. In this case, I favor the "KISS" rule. Even reducing a pool to 4, could still lead to an instant oust. Anarch Revolt decks are becoming fairly popular again and I don't see any reason to give them more teeth. > > It was LSJ's trend towards complete rewrites that I disagree with. > > Please stop using the word trend. trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend *grin* I can be such a bastard at times. >There is no trend when it happens twice, 6/23 and 7/7. A trend is a sequence of occurences. There were several occurences of complete rewrites in 6/23 and 7/7. They also happenend again on January 5th although not nearly as drastic. (New ToRIII, White Phos Grenade,Wooden Stake, and "Start of Untap Phase") > Hmmm, I'm in some sort of flame-bait mode today. Please > ignore it. :) *sips coffee* Don't worry, I'm taking my medication. *grin* > Ok, let's say we put MJL tournaments in the V:EKN newsletter. Some > of those people don't have Internet access. How are they going to find > out these errata of yours? That's a straw man, Mike. The same is true of WotC errata. Besides, as you know, MJL errata tries to stay as close to printed text as possible, so there's not likely to be any surprises. > The trend for me today is that I will drink lots of beer this evening. > Does that make it a trend in the generic sense of the word? No. *shrug* Ask a cop. *grin* > Calling it a trend would seem to indicate a panicked howling as there > has been no trend outside of those two dates. One, January 5th rulings also had rewrites. Number two, do you honestly think that there is _anything_ to do with Jyhad that's going to make me panic? After all, I do have a real life. *grin* Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ak72c$ukq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Correct. Vote decks that don't use Presence are pretty much hosed. > In a perfect world, a Nosferatu voting deck would be viable. *wry grin* And it still is. I'd really like to see these decks of old that are now absolutely hosed by not being able to push. The only decks that I can see being absolutely hosed are those that depend on being able to push with 3 or more vote cards. And the only a way deck will have 4 or more (vote cards to push and call the vote) ready is if they have handjammed or have almost 50% of their deck containing votes. I don't have pity for the deck that has handjammed. Otherwise, with 50% of your deck being vote, surely you have some room in there for helping you pass your votes. The most independent way, of course, is with some form of combat. The second being stealing. Me > Any deck that packs enough transient or permanent intercept will hose Me > a vote deck. > > Depends on the vote deck. First off, your opponents have to know > what to intercept. I generally plan for some intercept and compensate > by having several minions that toss a couple of votes to draw intercept > before passing the important ones or I play a stealth voted deck. In my group, the metagame is interesting. If you are a deck's prey, anything that only benefits that deck (pool gain, Embrace, intercept retainer, etc.) is basically up to the predator to deal with. So if your call a Consaguinous Boon, 9 times of 10, your prey won't block, but your predator will try. If you try a KRC, your prey will try to block while your predator probably will not. As your prey, I know what kinds of votes I want to intercept - those that hurt me, my minions, or any others of my cards. Anything else, I almost definitely won't block. How many of these actions to distract are you taking? > The Setites are great for that, since not only do they have Obfuscate and > Presence, but they can use Form of Corruption and Temptation to steal > the vampires with votes. If you can get an early FoS-are-Camarilla vote through, they could probably go without Presence. Me > They are also still extremely susceptible to dedicated rush. > Depends. If the vote deck is built around Banishment, the combat > monsters will find themselves in the uncontrolled region more often > than not. And with what vampires are you going to be doing this? For a rush deck, the first targets are titled vampires. You're never going to get a Banishment through. Plus, Banishment isn't easy to come by. I've got one, and I think there might be 4 more in my group. So for most people, I think you can toss Banishment as combat defense out the window. > Otherwise, Secure Haven and Arboretum are good defenses. Arson or Rampage work quite well. And you can't play the Secure Haven until after a rush deck has had a chance to kill the vampire. > I found that Assault Rifles are great if you have the pool gain to afford > them. If you're going to depend on S:CE, you should have a fair amount > of maneuvers in your deck. Obviously, a DotB/IG combo screws that > up, but you can't defend against everything. Most rush decks have at least one of the following: Animalism (meaning no AR after DotB), Potence (IG, Sewer Lids), Celerity (Dodges, additional strikes, Psyche), Fortitude (Your stinking Rifle don't hurt me!). > Agreed. I believe the disparity to be much larger than it should be. It's I don't have a problem with the disparity, and I probably don't feel it is as large as you do. > almost to the point that if you're going to play a vote deck, you have to > use Presence. *sigh* Why doesn't hard proof deter you from this statement? The ban on vote pushing has been used by many groups for a long time before 7/7. The Golden Tenents were out before Dark Sovereigns if I remember right. Note that vote decks haven't disappeared from the list of archetypes. > *nods* However, weenie prince decks have a really rough time of it after > the first 3 turns. The weenies are more dependent on seating. If enough titled vampires come out, they can get in serious trouble. But that's really their only major weakness. > > This is not the only reason I like the new Golden Rule, but I'm just > > using your own arguments to defeat you. :) > > No...you used someone else's arguments...*grin* Personally, I think the > new Golden Rule may make the cost too cheap for the effect. Generally, the effect isn't great. You remove a vampire from an opponent. Chances are they don't use the same disciplines. And if they are something you like, they took several actions or a long time to acquire. Me > Please stop using the word trend. > > trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend trend > *grin* I can be such a bastard at times. Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt! I can't hear you, can't hear you. Me >There is no trend when it happens twice, 6/23 and 7/7. > > A trend is a sequence of occurences. There were several occurences > of complete rewrites in 6/23 and 7/7. They also happenend again on > January 5th although not nearly as drastic. (New ToRIII, White Phos > Grenade,Wooden Stake, and "Start of Untap Phase") Yeah, I didn't catch the Wooden Stake. And I have no idea why it was changed. I'll grant you that it was a start of a trend. :) > *sips coffee* > Don't worry, I'm taking my medication. > *grin* Good, so you didn't notice the arsenic. :) > > Ok, let's say we put MJL tournaments in the V:EKN newsletter. Some > > of those people don't have Internet access. How are they going to find > > out these errata of yours? > > That's a straw man, Mike. The same is true of WotC errata. That's one of the purposes of the newsletter. Sure, we won't reach everyone, but we'll reach many that had almost no chance of knowing before. > Besides, as you know, MJL errata tries to stay as close to printed > text as possible, so there's not likely to be any surprises. So when Johnny comes to an MJL tournament with his Mind Rape, unblockable RtI deck using DayOps/Daring the Dawn, what is he going to do? I'd say that's a highly likely candidate for surprise if someone doesn't have access. > > The trend for me today is that I will drink lots of beer this evening. > > Does that make it a trend in the generic sense of the word? No. > > *shrug* Ask a cop. *grin* Why would a cop know or care? Unless he's been following me every week, he'll never know it's a trend. And btw, I don't always drink lots of beer because it gets expensive drinking Black & Tans, Snakebites, and other imports. > One, January 5th rulings also had rewrites. Number two, do you > honestly think that there is _anything_ to do with Jyhad that's going > to make me panic? After all, I do have a real life. *grin* Or so you claim? But are you really who you say you are? Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > As your prey, I know what kinds of votes I want to intercept - those > that hurt me, my minions, or any others of my cards. Anything else, > I almost definitely won't block. How many of these actions to distract > are you taking? *shrug* Depends on the circumstances...one or two. > And with what vampires are you going to be doing this? For a rush > deck, the first targets are titled vampires. You're never going > to get a Banishment through. *suppresses a laugh* All it takes is Presence. Banishment doesn't require a title. One turn one, I bring out the smallest vampire with Presence (usually a 2 cap). On my second turn, I put a Presence discipline card on the new vampire, call Banishment and back it up with Bewtitching Oration and Awe and then I bring out a couple more vampires with Presence. If I bring out Lazar, I keep your vampires down longer. This is the basis of the Grind deck as Droz found out in jol100. Poor guy brought out an 8 cap with a ToRIII and had it go right back to the uncontrolled region...and it had a title. > Plus, Banishment isn't easy to come by. Depends on the amount of your disposable income. >I've got one, and I think there might be 4 more in my group. I've got at least 7. Maybe more. > So for most people, I think you can toss Banishment as combat defense > out the window. Most people, maybe. Me, no. > > almost to the point that if you're going to play a vote deck, you have to > > use Presence. > > *sigh* Why doesn't hard proof deter you from this statement? Because there is none. Quite simply, if you want to consistently win with a vote deck, you need vote dominance. The only consistent method to acheiving vote dominance is by using Presence. > The ban > on vote pushing has been used by many groups for a long time before 7/7. > The Golden Tenents were out before Dark Sovereigns if I remember right. > Note that vote decks haven't disappeared from the list of archetypes. However, GT wasn't enforced in any DCI sanctioned tournament and really only saw consistent use in JOL. The GT are nothing more than common house rules. > Generally, the effect isn't great. You remove a vampire from an > opponent. Which robs them of the ability to act against you or defend against you. I'd say the effect is great. > Chances are they don't use the same disciplines. And if > they are something you like, they took several actions or a long > time to acquire. Depends...but generally true. If you depend on the stolen vampire to have similar disciplines, you need to pack extra discipline cards to play on them. It's pretty much a given that a strategy based on stealing vampires will prolly not be a speed deck. > > Besides, as you know, MJL errata tries to stay as close to printed > > text as possible, so there's not likely to be any surprises. > > So when Johnny comes to an MJL tournament with his Mind Rape, unblockable > RtI deck using DayOps/Daring the Dawn, what is he going to do? I'd > say that's a highly likely candidate for surprise if someone doesn't > have access. I'm sure I'll shed as many tears as you would. *grin* However, since most people who attend MJL tournaments have net access or has a friend that does, I don't think the issue is as serious as you might believe. > Or so you claim? But are you really who you say you are? I'm Batman. *grin* Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Ok, let's say we put MJL tournaments in the V:EKN newsletter. Some > of those people don't have Internet access. How are they going to find > out these errata of yours? > That's a straw man, Mike. The same is true of WotC errata. > >That's one of the purposes of the newsletter. Sure, we won't reach >everyone, but we'll reach many that had almost no chance of knowing >before. > > Besides, as you know, MJL errata tries to stay as close to printed > text as possible, so there's not likely to be any surprises. > >So when Johnny comes to an MJL tournament with his Mind Rape, unblockable >RtI deck using DayOps/Daring the Dawn, what is he going to do? I'd >say that's a highly likely candidate for surprise if someone doesn't >have access. I will add my opinion here. The big difference is when the uninformed arrive at either a WoTC or MJL tourney, the player at the WoTC tourney will have to take 40 hors of remedial training just to Figure out what the new game is. With our current view this information is able to be given verbally in about 10 minutes. And Yes you can even remember it all. Raille.

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > A trend is a sequence of occurences. There were several occurences > of complete rewrites in 6/23 and 7/7. They also happenend again on > January 5th although not nearly as drastic. (New ToRIII, White Phos > Grenade,Wooden Stake, and "Start of Untap Phase") When people have proposed alternate, trimmed-down errata lists before, they've chosen sections of the rulings or errata that they think are just clutter. They are usually just not knowledgable enough to identify the reason behind the errata. LSJ understands the rulings and rules better than anyone I've ever encountered. He finds inconsistencies or paradoxes and has attempted to fix some of them. Using "Start of Untap Phase" as an example, you might remember that LSJ commented that the first and only thing that can happen at the start of the untap phase is the untapping of your cards. If any card were to say to do something "at the start of your untap phase" it would be problematic. This was fixed. By attempting to make alternate errata lists shorter and/or simpler, they will likely become shorter and simpler but at the cost of being inconsistent and inaccurate. Eventually, players will ask all of the same questions LSJ has already answered and the alternate list will have to add rulings or errata to fill-in the gaps. [clip] > One, January 5th rulings also had rewrites. Wooden Stake seems to have been rewritten to keep its intended effect and to eliminate the problems associated with damage becoming aggravated during/after damage is resolved. I don't think there are any other cards that do that. Also, if I remember correctly, Ammo was moved to "before" resolution. Now Dragon's Breath Rounds are consistent with the timing of effects like "Claws". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > My biggest problem with the 7/7 errata is that it gives a _HUGE_ edge > to vote decks. Previously, clans that didn't use Presence could at least > make a viable deck. I think this is a good example of how experience playing with unbalanced effects sharply limits ones awareness of available play options. There are actually a whole host of cards and effects designed to assist with voting. Most are ignored and dismissed as wallpaper. But wallpaper does not exist in a vacuum. It is considered wallpaper because other cards that achieve the same end are considered so much superior. The problem is that the old PA cards were "broken" in the sense that they turned almost all other vote modifiers and vote reactions into wallpaper. Not only could they be used as action cards to call votes, but also as vote modifiers to push votes and vote reactions to influence other people's votes. Unlike regular vote reactions, you could play them even if you had no untapped minions, and you could play multiples on a single vote. They were so good that they *almost* succeeded in eliminating from competitive play two whole classes of cards: vote modifiers and vote reactions. But not quite. The very best modifiers, such as the Presence modifiers, were good enough that they were still considered worth putting in a deck in place of yet more extra PAs, even though this usually meant you were required to invest in somewhat higher capacity vampires. A person playing in this environment would see only two tactics used: 1) PA vote gain alone, which would tend to use weenies for greater efficiency, since PA vote push needs no discipline, and 2) PA vote gain combined with Presence vote modifiers, and using slightly larger vampires. He might conclude that there are "basically" two types of vote decks, "Vote Push" decks and "Presence Vote" decks (though actually the Presence vote decks were also enhanced by Vote Push). He might also conclude, based on simple Math, that if you take one of these strategies away, then only one will remain, thus damaging game variety. This perception, however, is false. When it comes to unbalancing effects, 2 minus 1 could very well equal 20. A whole host of vote modifiers and creative vote tactics will come creeping out of the woodwork, which formerly never saw play since they just were not as effective as a hand full of PAs. To give one small example, I have definitely noticed, in the post 7/7 environment, the increased importance of the edge for getting votes passed. Gaining the edge before calling a vote can make up to 2 votes worth of difference in the count (one more for and one less against). Night Moves (or some other stealth card) in a Nos Vote deck can be a useful addition. In the Pre 7/7 environment, it usually made more sense to replace the Night Moves with an extra PA or two. Same goes for other tricky tactics like Cryptic Rider, or compromise politics, etc. Since "no vote push" makes it harder even for "Presence" decks to push votes through, all sorts of alternate tactics will be increasingly relied upon. In particular large vampires with permanent votes will be have a larger relative importance. Since large vampires typically have lots of disciplines, this means that auspex and dominate vote cards are now more likely to see play. > Our current errata makes some effort to balance between giving the edge > to Presence decks and WVP decks, but finding a perfect balance is > probably impossible. Before you try to correct the imbalance in favor of Presence voting, I strongly suggest you try the current no-vote-push ruling on its own. You may well find that no imbalance problem exists beyond what is approptiate. A certain imbalance *is* appropriate since Presence was concieved as the primary vote discipline. It is a fairly common discipline, posessed by 3 or the original 7 Camarilla clans, and by 6 of the 21 total clans. The idea that you might need charm to succeed in politics is not so inappropriate, though the Nosferatu still do pretty damn well. Lupus Australis

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > The vote push ban _gives_ vote decks an edge? I've got to assume that > > you mean Presence vote decks here because that would pretty much be the > > opposite of what people have said of 7/7. > > Correct. Vote decks that don't use Presence are pretty much hosed. > In a perfect world, a Nosferatu voting deck would be viable. *wry grin* Nossie voting decks *are* viable, and one of my favorite types. I am currently using one in JOL 91. It currently has 2 victory points, despite the fact that I was never able to get vote dominance and had to rely on cross-table dealing.

In article <7ajsmh$khm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >Previously, clans that didn't use Presence could at least >make a viable deck. Assamites can and have. Nosferatu can and have. Pander can and have. All at Portsmouth since 7/7. Most of them within the last couple of months. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <7ak72c$ukq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >In a perfect world, a Nosferatu voting deck would be viable. *wry grin* May I introduce you to the perfectly viable Nosferatu voting deck that is doing quite well on the Portsmouth Tournament scene right now? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7akhmk$c93$1...@east42.supernews.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >I will add my opinion here. The big difference is when the uninformed >arrive at either a WoTC or MJL tourney, the player at the WoTC tourney will >have to take 40 hors of remedial training just to Figure out what the new >game is. With our current view this information is able to be given >verbally in about 10 minutes. And Yes you can even remember it all. From everything Noal had said, it seemed very much like you played with all WotC errata except a few little bits, which he posted. Why is there so much difference in the time? [ quoted text not captured ]

>From everything Noal had said, it seemed very much like you played with >all WotC errata except a few little bits, which he posted. > >Why is there so much difference in the time? > >-- >James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) > A misleading statement on my part, I'm afraid. The MJL uses about 90-95% of the WoTc rules. I should have refined the statement to say our changes take 10 minutes and can be committed to memory, or something to that effect. Dave M.

In article <7aq3ur$k3r$1...@east43.supernews.com>, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > A misleading statement on my part, I'm afraid. The MJL uses about 90-95% of > the WoTc rules. I should have refined the statement to say our changes take > 10 minutes and can be committed to memory, or something to that effect. So it takes just as long to explain all the errata, but 10 minutes specifically to explain where your changes differ from the official rules? From what I can tell from Noal's last posting of the MJL errata, these are the changes: Betrayer - is only slightly different, and no simpler than the WotC rulings No mention if it totally replaces WotC errata or just what it directly contradicts. Ritual of the Bitter Rose - only diablerie Aggravated Damage Golden Rule of Card Ownership - States that cards are taken when the owner is ousted. "Most alternatives riddled with holes ready for abuse." What kind of abuse? Beast - as written Immortal Grapple - played as written on the V:tES version Living Manse - States "Play as printed." Is this referring to the ruling on 971204 that it must be burned before range? Reform Body - Can be played by a vampire in Torpor Return to Innocence - No action modifiers Rutor's Hand - Played as printed, can have only one. This means that the only way for the damage to be prevented at superior is with Blood Tears, right? Darius Styx - As printed (ie can target his controller?) Fame - As printed, V:tES version Mind Rape - As printed Pulled Fangs - As printed but can only play one per round WwEF - As printed Zip Gun - As printed Wooden Stake - As printed Voting - DNR during vote. DNR PA's until end of turn Sleeping Mind - "As printed" with the interpretation that Wake'd vampires are still tapped even though they are acting as if untapped And that's it. There are 11 cards or rules that are specifically played as written, one that still often draws questions from players as to what they do (Rutor's Hand - so how do I prevent the damage at superior?), and one that has debatable interpretation (Sleeping Mind - Tapped vampires can not block anyway, so how do the Wakes get around the rule and not get around Sleeping Mind?). Doesn't sound like the MJL minimizes errata at all when you consider there are 106 errata and "corrections" when searching LSJ's web site. From the official way, you can explain the 12 or 13 differences as follows. Pulled Fangs damage is not aggravated. Immortal Grapple only lasts for the round that it is played. Do not replace WwEF until your next untap phase. Fame affects the vampire's controller. Ammo cards cannot be used with Zip Gun. Beast cannot have or use equipment or retainers at all. You can only use one political action card to gain a vote during a political action, including any card that might have been used to call the vote. Cards owned by a player that is ousted but are controlled by someone else stay in play. Rutor's Hand does 3 unpreventable normal damage rather than 1 aggravated damage at superior Thaumaturgy. That leaves me 9 minutes to explain the other 5 or 6, some of which could be left out of explanation or just noted as being different than as written as they most likely won't be encountered (like Darius Styx and Wooden Stake). I do not see any "Great Simplification" like what David claims, because otherwise, there is just as much errata as in the official rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike wrote: > From what I can tell from Noal's last posting of the MJL errata, these > are the changes: > > Betrayer - is only slightly different, and no simpler than the WotC rulings > No mention if it totally replaces WotC errata or just what it directly > contradicts. Our errata on Betrayer is more of a clarification. Should be largely compatible with WotC errata. > Golden Rule of Card Ownership - States that cards are taken when the owner > is ousted. "Most alternatives riddled with holes ready for abuse." > What kind of abuse? *shrug* My take on it was that I wasn't convinced that it needed to be chagned. I'm not sure how I feel about the "abuse" possiblity, namely that I get to keep stolen permanents indefinitely. > Immortal Grapple - played as written on the V:tES version ...and Sabbat. Of the three versions, two state explicitly that hand strikes last all combat and the Jyhad version doesn't directly contradict this. > Living Manse - States "Play as printed." Is this referring to the ruling > on 971204 that it must be burned before range? Yes. > Reform Body - Can be played by a vampire in Torpor ...we are using WotC current errata. > Rutor's Hand - Played as printed, can have only one. This means that the > only way for the damage to be prevented at superior is with Blood Tears, > right? Correct. If the option to prevent the damage with Tears was still open, I may have voted to go with WotC errata. But since it wasn't, I didn't. > Darius Styx - As printed (ie can target his controller?) No...we're sticking to the original definition of (D) actions and thusly, there was no need to change the text. A (D) action can only target someone else. > Voting - DNR during vote. DNR PA's until end of turn ...this is a temporary errata. It's still subject to change since we haven't come to a majority opinion, much less consensus. > Sleeping Mind - "As printed" with the interpretation that Wake'd vampires > are still tapped even though they are acting as if untapped Correct. WWEF and Forced Awakening states that they can "play reaction cards as though untapped." Since they are still tapped, they may not block, but they are free to play other reaction cards like Deflection and so forth. > Doesn't sound like the MJL minimizes errata at all when you consider there > are 106 errata and "corrections" when searching LSJ's web site. A lot of the stuff on LSJ's site is there for clarification. Keep in mind that we really haven't gone through everything on LSJ's site. Since most of us have really busy lives, our RT discussions tend to go i spurts of extreme activity and complete inactivity. > I do not see any "Great Simplification" like what David claims, because > otherwise, there is just as much errata as in the official rules. The trend towards "play as printed" makes things easier. I think that down the road as things get done by both MJL and WotC rules teams, you may see a wider gap emerge. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7as2ea$ai7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: Me > Sleeping Mind - "As printed" with the interpretation that Wake'd vampires Me > are still tapped even though they are acting as if untapped > > Correct. WWEF and Forced Awakening states that they can "play reaction > cards as though untapped." More correctly, Wake says: : This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though : untapped until the current action is conlcuded. Forced Awakening says: : This reacting vampire can attempt to block the acting minion and : play reaction cards as though untapped. You left off the blocking part that they specifically mention. > Since they are still tapped, they may not block, > but they are free to play other reaction cards like Deflection and so forth. If the bits about blocking were not there, the only cards you would be able to play would be Deflection and such and the penalty on Forced Awakening would be meaningless. Me > Doesn't sound like the MJL minimizes errata at all when you consider there Me > are 106 errata and "corrections" when searching LSJ's web site. > > A lot of the stuff on LSJ's site is there for clarification. Keep in mind > that we really haven't gone through everything on LSJ's site. Since most of > us have really busy lives, our RT discussions tend to go i spurts of extreme > activity and complete inactivity. No, those 106 errata and "corrections" are specifically that. I left out clarifications and rulings. Feel free to do the same search. > The trend towards "play as printed" makes things easier. I think that down > the road as things get done by both MJL and WotC rules teams, you may > see a wider gap emerge. It's now 8 months down the road and the gap is the same; that is now in agreement on ToRIII and now disagreeing on Wooden Stake. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > If the bits about blocking were not there, the only cards you would be > able to play would be Deflection and such and the penalty on Forced > Awakening would be meaningless. *nods* I agree, but whether they can play reaction cards and block "as if untapped", they are still, in reality, tapped. When two cards have contradicting effects it is my opinion that the acting minion's effects take precedence...and that was my personal basis for the interpretaion that we are using. After all, since "tapped minions may not block" anyway, allowing vampires to use wakes and block makes the statement redundant. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ase8t$m4n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > After all, since "tapped minions may not block" anyway, > allowing vampires to use wakes and block makes the statement redundant. True. But the Wakes state that they may block "as if untapped" so for the purpose of the reaction, they are untapped. Hence, they break Sleeping Minds restriction. Yes, the whole thing is circular for either side. However, I think the Misdirection/Sleeping Mind combo is waaaaaay too powerful in the hands of the already powerful weenie Dominate bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

I definitely agree with lupus' overall message here... there're loads and loads of fun new vote and anti-vote combos that previously weren't commonly used simply due to vote-pusing... a fun one, for a ventrue deck anyway, is the elder kindred network/kindred coercion/ pulling strings set of cards.... great fun... actually, one question on EKN.... it says 'if the vote is successful, there is no effect.' I assume this means that this card (EKN) has no effect, but I could be wrong, so if someone could just clear that up for me... by the way, nice eloquent post there, lupus... Bill Bill Pyle (wp...@mindspring.com)

In article <7arsb3$4lk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > So it takes just as long to explain all the errata, but 10 minutes > specifically to explain where your changes differ from the official rules? > > From what I can tell from Noal's last posting of the MJL errata, these > are the changes: > > Betrayer - is only slightly different, and no simpler than the WotC rulings > No mention if it totally replaces WotC errata or just what it directly > contradicts. > Ritual of the Bitter Rose - only diablerie What's that supposed to mean? > Aggravated Damage > Golden Rule of Card Ownership - States that cards are taken when the owner > is ousted. "Most alternatives riddled with holes ready for abuse." > What kind of abuse? > Beast - as written Clearly not as it was intended! > Immortal Grapple - played as written on the V:tES version > Living Manse - States "Play as printed." Is this referring to the ruling > on 971204 that it must be burned before range? Why not burnning before range? > Reform Body - Can be played by a vampire in Torpor Makes sense!!! > Return to Innocence - No action modifiers I'm convinced that that way it works ok. > Rutor's Hand - Played as printed, can have only one. This means that the > only way for the damage to be prevented at superior is with Blood Tears, > right? > Darius Styx - As printed (ie can target his controller?) > Fame - As printed, V:tES version > Mind Rape - As printed I don't like it the printed way, it's tooooooo powerful. ;) > Pulled Fangs - As printed but can only play one per round That makes sense, especially when played in conjunction with the new aggro damage ruling. The biggest concern has always been that vamps could have been burned easily with PF. Playing only one each round and new aggro fixes that problem well enough!!!! > WwEF - As printed To me, that sounds ok. > Zip Gun - As printed Why not simply saying that Zip Gun is only a "Weapon", not a "Gun"? Fixes the problem easy enough. > Wooden Stake - As printed I don't have all the errata by heart, what's the deal? > Voting - DNR during vote. DNR PA's until end of turn > Sleeping Mind - "As printed" with the interpretation that Wake'd vampires > are still tapped even though they are acting as if untapped > Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36d1f441...@news.mindspring.com>, wp...@mindspring.com wrote: > I definitely agree with lupus' overall message here... > > there're loads and loads of fun new vote and anti-vote > combos that previously weren't commonly used simply > due to vote-pusing... a fun one, for a ventrue deck > anyway, is the elder kindred network/kindred coercion/ > pulling strings set of cards.... great fun... > > actually, one question on EKN.... it says 'if the vote > is successful, there is no effect.' I assume this means > that this card (EKN) has no effect, but I could > be wrong, so if someone could just clear that up > for me... If I may... If the vote is successful, EKN has no effect. Otherwise the card would be overly powerful, wouldn't it? :) Oh, and btw, I fully agree with the golden rule of card ownership. It makes perfect sense and is a lot of fun. We played it that way since 1994. :) Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

Carl wrote: > > Ritual of the Bitter Rose - only diablerie > > What's that supposed to mean? Current errata allows RotB to be used with Decapitation. MJL has ruled that the card may only be used when a vampire has been diablerized, not just burned. > > Pulled Fangs - As printed but can only play one per round > > That makes sense, especially when played in conjunction with the new > aggro damage ruling. The biggest concern has always been that vamps could > have been burned easily with PF. Playing only one each round and new > aggro fixes that problem well enough!!!! ...however, we do not use the WotC aggro rules either. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > If the bits about blocking were not there, the only cards you would be > > able to play would be Deflection and such and the penalty on Forced > > Awakening would be meaningless. > > *nods* I agree, but whether they can play reaction cards and block > "as if untapped", they are still, in reality, tapped. When two cards > have contradicting effects it is my opinion that the acting minion's > effects take precedence... ? I've never heard that one before. The official position is that the last card played takes precedence. Your position would mean that if Dragos's opponent plays Terror Frenzy at superior then it would depend on whether or not Dragos was the acting vampire as to whether he would pay one blood or no blood for his combat cards. (The official position is that he would pay one blood for his combat cards whether acting or not.) And "Acting minion" / "Acting player" isn't always applicable - take, for example, a Derange played on a Nosferatu who is Clan Impersonating a Lasombra. Is he a Lasombra when he takes an action, but a Malkavian Antitribu when the vampire who played Derange is acting? -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7atjln$lml$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: Me > Pulled Fangs - As printed but can only play one per round > That makes sense, especially when played in conjunction with the new > aggro damage ruling. The biggest concern has always been that vamps could > have been burned easily with PF. Playing only one each round and new > aggro fixes that problem well enough!!!! Actually, no, it doesn't. A vampire that is already going to torpor (perhaps from a Blur'd, IG'd, Torn Signpost), a Pulled Fangs will burn it because it is already wounded and cannot burn a blood to prevent destruction. Me > Wooden Stake - As printed > > I don't have all the errata by heart, what's the deal? This was new as of Jan 19, I think. It gets rid of the complexity with the as-written wooden stake (damage inflicted above 1 is aggravated) and makes it function almost exactly as the original Stake. [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > wp...@mindspring.com wrote: > > actually, one question on [Elder Kindred Network].... it says 'if the vote > > is successful, there is no effect.' I assume this means > > that this card (EKN) has no effect, but I could > > be wrong, so if someone could just clear that up > > for me... > > If I may... > > If the vote is successful, EKN has no effect. Correct. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal> When two cards Noal> have contradicting effects it is my opinion that the acting minion's Noal> effects take precedence... LSJ> I've never heard that one before. LSJ> The official position is that the last card played takes precedence. Generally, I would agree with you. LSJ> Your position would mean that if Dragos's opponent plays Terror LSJ> Frenzy at superior then it would depend on whether or not Dragos was LSJ> the acting vampire as to whether he would pay one blood or no blood LSJ> for his combat cards. (The official position is that he would pay one LSJ> blood for his combat cards whether acting or not.) No...Terror Frenzy has a cumulative effect, not a contradicting one since Terror Frenzy says the opposing minion pays an "additional blood" for combat cards. So...Dragos pays a base cost of zero blood, plus one blood for each Terror Frenzy played. No contradicting effects that I can see. > And "Acting minion" / "Acting player" isn't always applicable - take, > for example, a Derange played on a Nosferatu who is Clan Impersonating > a Lasombra. Is he a Lasombra when he takes an action, but a Malkavian > Antitribu when the vampire who played Derange is acting? Again this is an example of effects that are either cumulative or replace previous ones. If Nosferatu plays a Clan Impersonation after being hit with a Derange, he still changes clan, but the rest of the effects of Derange remain in effect. If, in your example, the Nosferatu moves the Derange to another vampire, I would expect that he returns to being a Lasombra. Again...no direct contradictions there. What it boils down to that the clause, "tapped minions may not blocK" was obviously intended to prevent vampires from using WWEF and Forced Awakening to block, otherwise the statement would be completely redundant and extraneous. Note that it doesn't prevent vampries from playing other reaction cards like Deflection and Foul Blood. I may be inclined to believe that the effect _may_ be too powerful for its cost, but the intent of the card is quite clear and I'd have to see that it has a severe game unbalancing effect before being convinced that current WotC errata is best for the game. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7au9hn$849$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Carl wrote: >> > Ritual of the Bitter Rose - only diablerie >> >> What's that supposed to mean? > >Current errata allows RotB to be used with Decapitation. MJL has >ruled that the card may only be used when a vampire has been >diablerized, not just burned. I thought you valued minimizing errata? -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Noal>Current errata allows RotB to be used with Decapitation. MJL has Noal>ruled that the card may only be used when a vampire has been Noal>diablerized, not just burned. Jasper> I thought you valued minimizing errata? We do. We also felt that the intention of the card wasn't to allow it to be used in conjunction with burning vampires in combat by means other than diablerie. Just because we value minimizing errata doesn't mean we have to agree with LSJ or issue no errata at all. I've already said before that we've made our own errata in cases where we felt the need to do so...RtI, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7av4oc$14p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Noal>Current errata allows RotB to be used with Decapitation. MJL has >Noal>ruled that the card may only be used when a vampire has been >Noal>diablerized, not just burned. > >Jasper> I thought you valued minimizing errata? > >We do. We also felt that the intention of the card wasn't to allow >it to be used in conjunction with burning vampires in combat by >means other than diablerie. Just because we value minimizing >errata doesn't mean we have to agree with LSJ or issue no >errata at all. I've already said before that we've made our >own errata in cases where we felt the need to do so...RtI, for >example. Fair enough, however it does seem odd to lambast others for errata that you feel is unworthy, while issuing errata with even less justification. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Fair enough, however it does seem odd to lambast others for errata > that you feel is unworthy, while issuing errata with even less > justification. Well...I don't know if I would use the word "lambast"...maybe "give a hard time" would be more accurate. *grin* After all, I make an effort to have my coffee before replying in the morning these days. Either way, the RotBR errata that we came up with was a merging of the Jyhad and VTES versions like what we did with 2nd Tradition to make both version more consistent. In the case of RotBR, our errata only really disallowed its use with Decaptitate, an already very powerful card in its own right. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7b007j$pgk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Fair enough, however it does seem odd to lambast others for errata >> that you feel is unworthy, while issuing errata with even less >> justification. > >Well...I don't know if I would use the word "lambast"...maybe >"give a hard time" would be more accurate. *grin* After all, >I make an effort to have my coffee before replying in the >morning these days. > >Either way, the RotBR errata that we came up with was a merging >of the Jyhad and VTES versions like what we did with 2nd Tradition >to make both version more consistent. In the case of RotBR, our >errata only really disallowed its use with Decaptitate, an already >very powerful card in its own right. True, although it seems weird to me to make a ruling for such a small, and not really overbalanced case. Especially when you don't fix a card like Mind Rape. It certainly makes more sense theme-wise, but I don't think that's a good argument for making card fixes. On a side note, I do prefer a few of your fixes to the official ones, most notably RtI. Most of the differences you have IMHO are either pointless, or fail to fix broken things (notably weenie vote push, Mind Rape, and to be honest Pulled Fangs). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7au9hn$849$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Carl wrote: > > > Ritual of the Bitter Rose - only diablerie > > > > What's that supposed to mean? > > Current errata allows RotB to be used with Decapitation. MJL has > ruled that the card may only be used when a vampire has been > diablerized, not just burned. RotB with Decapitation is silly. Why?? > > > > Pulled Fangs - As printed but can only play one per round > > > > That makes sense, especially when played in conjunction with the new > > aggro damage ruling. The biggest concern has always been that vamps could > > have been burned easily with PF. Playing only one each round and new > > aggro fixes that problem well enough!!!! > > ...however, we do not use the WotC aggro rules either. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7b007j$pgk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Either way, the RotBR errata that we came up with was a merging > of the Jyhad and VTES versions like what we did with 2nd Tradition > to make both version more consistent. So are they different than either the Jyhad or the V:tES versions? Wouldn't that make it so no one can know exactly what they are supposed to do without knowing your special text? > In the case of RotBR, our > errata only really disallowed its use with Decaptitate, an already > very powerful card in its own right. But yet, you kept Pulled Fangs as written which is much easier to use to burn vampires using Potence than with Decapitate. With Decapitate, I have to somehow send the opposing vampire to torpor while still having 2 blood leftover as well as have superior Potence. Pulled Fangs usually takes 3 prep cards - Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, and Blur. Most vampires are on their way to Torpor or at 0 blood and poof for a disciplineless, free card. Your system for when to errata and when not to seems kind of inconsistent. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Immortal Grapple - played as written on the V:tES version > > ...and Sabbat. Of the three versions, two state explicitly that hand strikes > last all combat and the Jyhad version doesn't directly contradict this. I'm curious to know if you are aware of the reasons for the official errata on this card. LSJ will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was fixed more for reasons of "correctness" than balance. The Jyhad version was clearly intended to work for one round only. The superior version keeps the combat at short range for the second round, creating an opportunity to continue the effect by playing another immortal grapple. The V:tES version has the odd effect of allowing situations where, if combat lasts to a second or third round, the participants can maneuver to long range and still only be able to do hand strikes due to the Grapple. Boy, that's some strange grapple! > > Rutor's Hand - Played as printed, can have only one. This means that the > > only way for the damage to be prevented at superior is with Blood Tears, > > right? > Correct. If the option to prevent the damage with Tears was still open, > I may have voted to go with WotC errata. But since it wasn't, I didn't. I actually have a bit of sympathy for this one. If the RT were to remove the errata on Rutors Hand and simply add a clarification that only Blood Tears can currently prevent the damage, I would prefer it to the current rewrite. > > Darius Styx - As printed (ie can target his controller?) > > No...we're sticking to the original definition of (D) actions and thusly, > there was no need to change the text. A (D) action can only target someone > else. The current approach is the original approach. The purpose of the (D) symbol is clearly explained in the rulebook. It does not have anything to do with who can or cannot be targetted. The rulebook makes it fairly clear that the purpose of the (D) symbol is as a sort of reminder text. The "Rampage" text makes it clear that the symbol was not intended to restrict actions to opposing Methuselahs only, and the definition of "directed action" makes it crystal clear that an action which targets oneself is not directed. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Noal> Either way, the RotBR errata that we came up with was a merging Noal> of the Jyhad and VTES versions like what we did with 2nd Tradition Noal> to make both version more consistent. Mike> So are they different than either the Jyhad or the V:tES versions? Mike> Wouldn't that make it so no one can know exactly what they are Mike> supposed to do without knowing your special text? By strict interpretaion of the Jyhad text, one can easily make a case that it is to be used with diablerie only. The case is even more obvious with the VTES version. Besides, your protest about "special text" is even more true of WotC errata than ours. > But yet, you kept Pulled Fangs as written which is much easier to > use to burn vampires using Potence than with Decapitate. <snip> > Your system for when to errata and when not to seems kind of inconsistent. No...we go by card text whenever possible. We felt that allowing only one Pulled Fangs a turn kept the card from being extremely unbalanced and therefore didn't need to see the need to rewrite the card. To be honest, my feelings about keeping close to card text is stronger than my feelings for game balance. After all, I'm not Mr. Miagi. *smile* Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > On a side note, I do prefer a few of your fixes to the official > ones, most notably RtI. Most of the differences you have IMHO > are either pointless, or fail to fix broken things (notably > weenie vote push, Mind Rape, and to be honest Pulled Fangs). Keep in mind that there are five different people on our rules team with differing and often opposing views on how errata should be issued. Obviously, there will be some inconsistencies. In many cases, we differ from WotC's errata because we haven't been convinced that there was a need to change it in the first place. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]