Can this deck play in tournament ?

Hi, The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, has the head judge, reject a deck that lack of diversity and that is to much foreseeable. He never rejected a deck in a tournament, but i would like your opinion on that subject because i will be head judge on a tournament in july. I know, i know, i must learn more about the rule very fast to be able to do a good job... ;-) First. Can he really reject a deck because that deck have to many of a type of card ? And when a deck can be rejected ? Where is the limit ? For me, it seem that is very subjective... Example : Someone sent to the Quebec VTES mailling list this deck : 30 majesty 15 intercept from different card of auspex 10 eagle sight 10 wake 10 Smiling Jack 10 ascendance hunting ground barrens book of nod the rack KRCG news The vampire clan is not named but can be anyone with Auxpex. The player seem to think that he can win in 4 turn after having 3 vampire in controled region. Is this deck lack of diversity an must be rejected ? And if not, do you think it's a winner deck ? What to do to kill this deck befor he win ? Thank's a lot for your help, mighty meth ;-) Khaleph Alendis, High Priest of Maizerets VEKN Setite Prince of Beauport http://cdd.citeweb.net/khaleph/

kha...@oricom.ca (Khaleph Alendis, Prince of Beauport) wrote: > Hi, > > The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, [as] the > head judge, reject a deck that [lacks] diversity and that is too much > foreseeable. > > He never rejected a deck in a tournament, but i would like your > opinion on that subject because i will be head judge on a tournament > in july. I know, i know, i must learn more about the rule very fast > to be able to do a good job... ;-) > > First. Can he really reject a deck because that deck have to many of > a type of card ? Not if it is a V:EKN Tournament. The judge can only reject a deck that contains an illegal (banned) card, or that contains an illegal number of cards (fewer than 60 or more than 90). She could also reject a deck if it had mixed backs (Jyhad/Vampire) if she felt that the card backs corresponded too closely to the card fronts (all Jyhad backs were master cards, for example). See the VEKN tournament rules and penalty guidelines for more information. > Example : > Someone sent to the Quebec VTES mailling list this deck : > 30 majesty > 15 intercept from different card of auspex > 10 eagle sight > 10 wake > 10 Smiling Jack > 10 ascendance > hunting ground > barrens > book of nod > the rack > KRCG news > > Is this deck lack of diversity an must be rejected ? No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:01:19 GMT, kha...@oricom.ca (Khaleph Alendis, Prince of Beauport) wrote: >Hi, > >The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, has the >head judge, reject a deck that lack of diversity and that is to much >foreseeable. Balls to THAT. Sounds like... well, we won't go into that. That's just bullshit though. =/ >And when a deck can be rejected ? Where is the limit ? For me, it >seem that is very subjective... It is, which is why it's bullshit. =) A judge must be OBJECTIVE. >Someone sent to the Quebec VTES mailling list this deck : > >30 majesty >15 intercept from different card of auspex >10 eagle sight >10 wake >10 Smiling Jack >10 ascendance >hunting ground >barrens >book of nod >the rack >KRCG news > >The vampire clan is not named but can be anyone with Auxpex. Majesty requires Presence, therefore this crypt is Toreador - and there is no vampire with PRE/AUS below a 6-cap. He either will have insufficient intercept from inferior Auspex, or won't be able to untap with Majesty. This does not bode well. >The player seem to think that he can win in 4 turn after having 3 >vampire in controled region. He's welcome to bring this deck down here to Atlanta. He'll get creamed. Why? Well, first, the entire table will gang up and nuke Smiling Jack, and he won't have the vampires out to defend it. With 30 Majesty, he's guaranteed to end up with a handful of Majesties and no intercept or Wake eventually, and his deck will die. Not to mention what the first Immortal Grapple deck will do to his poor vamps, or really any combat deck. Not to mention that paying to untap from Majesty all the time will run his vamps out of blood -very- fast. With 10 Ascendance, he's got 10 dead slots - he'll never be playing them because he'll always have to be re-playing Smiling Jack. Guaranteed hand jam after awhile. Smiling Jack doesn't keep his counters after he gets burned and takes one turn to even start doing damage, so it just doesn't oust people very fast at all by itself, especially when people keep nuking him. With all this hand jam, he's only got 2 cards in 90 that will help cycle his hand for him, and one (the Fragment) is a steal-me-please action. I just can't see how this deck in this form would ever "go". >And if not, do you think it's a winner deck ? > >What to do to kill this deck befor he win ? It really ought to just fall over under its own weight with minimal help. Convince the Methuselahs at the table that Smiling Jack has to go, and that should keep Jack's controller busy. In the meantime, if you're its predator, bleed the shit out of it, vote the hell out of it, or play Immortal Grapple and pound it senseless. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

In article < 85840A82103AAF85.0ACE51B5...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] For it confirms my darkest fears. While i did not allow myself to believe the ancient legends, i cannot AAAAAArgh! [from Diablo 3, where you CAN use fireballs in the village]. > > >The player seem to think that he can win in 4 turn after having 3 > >vampire in controled region. > > He's welcome to bring this deck down here to Atlanta. He'll get > creamed. S/he wants to replace the majesties with dodges and fake outs and zip guns, and all the auspex cards should be Sports Bikes or Mr Winthrop. Go for disciplineless low-cap vamps, in short. i still don't fancy his/her chances. With an all-sabbat crypt maybe a couple of Sermons of Caine instead of the Hunting Ground. [ quoted text not captured ] There was a guy who turned up at a Portsmouth tournament with a version of this deck. He got creamed, essentially by the mechanism Derek describes. However, this guy's deck was at least nominally functional - he protected his Jacks with Caitiff hordes and it was effectively disciplineless. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] >There was a guy who turned up at a Portsmouth tournament with a version >of this deck. He got creamed, essentially by the mechanism Derek >describes. However, this guy's deck was at least nominally functional - >he protected his Jacks with Caitiff hordes and it was effectively >disciplineless. *nod* I keep looking at all my Jacks, thinking "You know. I'm sure I can make a deck that can defend against the whole table coming and getting it. Really." Then, usually, I wake up. Maybe one of the Huge-Ass Gangrel like Ingrid could defend it successfully, using 2nd Trad for intercept and Obedience and/or Earth Meld to untap as need be. And Minion Tap/5th to keep herself alive while fetching Jack. Did you know there's no vampire with AUS/PRO? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > *nod* I keep looking at all my Jacks, thinking "You know. I'm sure I > can make a deck that can defend against the whole table coming and > getting it. Really." Hrm. I only managed to acquire one copy of Jack. (Which means, I should dump a couple hundred bucks on buying about 5-6 boxes.) I could see putting it in my (mostly) Gangrel Seven Raptors deck to see if it might survive a round or two. > Did you know there's no vampire with AUS/PRO? Interesting. Never really gave it a lot of thought, though. A couple of Toreador have Protean instead of Presence and you only really need to have basic Protean to pop claws. Took a look at building an aus/cel/pro deck a while back and gave it up because the vampires were too big and pool management would have been horrible. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:52:34 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Hrm. I only managed to acquire one copy of Jack. (Which means, I should >dump a couple hundred bucks on buying about 5-6 boxes.) I could see >putting it in my (mostly) Gangrel Seven Raptors deck to see if it might >survive a round or two. Heh. Amusing. I've got like four or five Jacks, and I really didn't buy that many boxes in the first place. Must be where all my Immortal Grapple rare slots went. >> Did you know there's no vampire with AUS/PRO? > >Interesting. Never really gave it a lot of thought, though. A couple of >Toreador have Protean instead of Presence and you only really need to >have basic Protean to pop claws. Took a look at building an aus/cel/pro AUS/pro is functional, yeah. But if you don't want to pop claws... say, if you wanted to create an intercept wall with Earth Meld... there is no natural vampire with AUS/PRO. There's a native vamp with almost every OTHER combo of disciplines - sometimes up at 10 or 11, but they're THERE. But AUS/PRO doesn't exist, so you can't have a guy sit, play Enhanced Senses, and Earth Meld to survive combat, untap and do it again. Quick Meld makes a great "run away" card, so the grabby decks won't catch you. That's probably not such a bad thing. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8jg9dq$ql9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > *nod* I keep looking at all my Jacks, thinking "You know. I'm sure I > > can make a deck that can defend against the whole table coming and > > getting it. Really." > > Hrm. I only managed to acquire one copy of Jack. (Which means, I should > dump a couple hundred bucks on buying about 5-6 boxes.) I could see > putting it in my (mostly) Gangrel Seven Raptors deck to see if it might > survive a round or two. > This guy who tried to build the deck for portsmouth actually had a mixture of Smiling Jacks and Anarch Revolts - probably troublemakers too, i don't recall any though. With a few Surprise influences, Delaying Tactics and Political backlashes [just a few, to create fear] this can be a fairly reasonable deck concept. However, the BIG problem with this deck is that it annoys EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. This is not good politics, and if it isn't good politically then quite honestly you don't have a functional deck IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > This guy who tried to build the deck for portsmouth actually had a > mixture of Smiling Jacks and Anarch Revolts - probably troublemakers too, > i don't recall any though. With a few Surprise influences, Delaying > Tactics and Political backlashes [just a few, to create fear] this can be > a fairly reasonable deck concept. The funnier concept, however, is to add Malkavian Rider Clause. It becomes win-win. They don't burn the card, they still take damage They burn the card, they take damage from my (now passed) KRC. > However, the BIG problem with this deck > is that it annoys EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. This is not good politics, and > if it isn't good politically then quite honestly you don't have a > functional deck IMO. Indeed. BEcause of it's universal directability, it has a tendency to get the entire table acting aagainst you. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin with him and the way he makes me feel?"

In article < 08F7DE0C5894C4AD.FF41E600...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:35:56 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >In article < > >85840A82103AAF85.0ACE51B5...@lp.airnews.net>, > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> It really ought to just fall over under its own weight with minimal > >> help. Convince the Methuselahs at the table that Smiling Jack has to > >> go, and that should keep Jack's controller busy. In the meantime, if > >> you're its predator, bleed the shit out of it, vote the hell out of > >> it, or play Immortal Grapple and pound it senseless. > >> > >There was a guy who turned up at a Portsmouth tournament with a version > >of this deck. He got creamed, essentially by the mechanism Derek > >describes. However, this guy's deck was at least nominally functional - > >he protected his Jacks with Caitiff hordes and it was effectively > >disciplineless. > > *nod* I keep looking at all my Jacks, thinking "You know. I'm sure I > can make a deck that can defend against the whole table coming and > getting it. Really." > > Then, usually, I wake up. Maybe one of the Huge-Ass Gangrel like > Ingrid could defend it successfully, using 2nd Trad for intercept and > Obedience and/or Earth Meld to untap as need be. And Minion Tap/5th > to keep herself alive while fetching Jack. Maybe you could contrive something around the Succubus club and Jack - eg once he has a couple of counters on him, sell him to your grand-prey in exchange for something desirable. This would finesse the problem of how to arrange for his long-term defense, spread trouble around the table in a very satisfying way, stop you from being a total target and generally make you a pretty power-brokery sort of gal or guy since you'd be the person most likely to be able to squash his anarch butt by contesting. > > Did you know there's no vampire with AUS/PRO? > > -- Derek > No i didn't. i'm guessing no NEC/VIS or CHI/OBT either ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Only just read this post. This deck is dire. Rob T (Who could do with some more time to write a better reply) Khaleph Alendis, Prince of Beauport <kha...@oricom.ca> wrote in message news:395a8dca...@news.oricom.ca... > Hi, > > The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, has the > head judge, reject a deck that lack of diversity and that is to much > foreseeable. > > He never rejected a deck in a tournament, but i would like your > opinion on that subject because i will be head judge on a tournament > in july. I know, i know, i must learn more about the rule very fast > to be able to do a good job... ;-) > > First. Can he really reject a deck because that deck have to many of > a type of card ? > > And when a deck can be rejected ? Where is the limit ? For me, it > seem that is very subjective... > > Example : > > Someone sent to the Quebec VTES mailling list this deck : > > 30 majesty > 15 intercept from different card of auspex > 10 eagle sight > 10 wake > 10 Smiling Jack > 10 ascendance > hunting ground > barrens > book of nod > the rack > KRCG news > > The vampire clan is not named but can be anyone with Auxpex. > > The player seem to think that he can win in 4 turn after having 3 > vampire in controled region. > > Is this deck lack of diversity an must be rejected ? > > And if not, do you think it's a winner deck ? > > What to do to kill this deck befor he win ? > [ quoted text not captured ]

>>The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, has the >>head judge, reject a deck that lack of diversity and that is to much >>foreseeable. > >Balls to THAT. Sounds like... well, we won't go into that. That's >just bullshit though. =/ >>And when a deck can be rejected ? Where is the limit ? For me, it >>seem that is very subjective... > >It is, which is why it's bullshit. =) A judge must be OBJECTIVE. Actually, I knew that was all bullshit. But that was my only way to make sure we`ll have an interesting tournament. Because here, in Quebec, many, many players of VTES have home rules about cards limit. They sent me a lot of e-mails with fears of being bled by a stealth-bleed-malk-cheesy deck. So, to convince them there will not be such a deck in the tournament, and to make sure there will not be such a deck in the tournament, I`ve made a threat about rejecting decks in my announcement. And then we`ve had 26 methuselahs with good, original decks, and everybody enjoyed the tournament. That`s what I call diplomacy. Sure I could have tell everybody : "No card limits and that`s all" But I`m not sure it would`ve worth shit to attract people at that tournament. Sometimes Princes have to play the politician... Remy Auclair, Prince of Quebec ra...@mediom.qc.ca www.mediom.qc.ca/~rafid/

ra...@mediom.qc.ca (Rafid Armani) writes: >>>The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, has the >>>head judge, reject a deck that lack of diversity and that is to much >>>foreseeable. >> >>Balls to THAT. Sounds like... well, we won't go into that. That's >>just bullshit though. =/ > >>>And when a deck can be rejected ? Where is the limit ? For me, it >>>seem that is very subjective... >> >>It is, which is why it's bullshit. =) A judge must be OBJECTIVE. > >Actually, I knew that was all bullshit. But that was my only way to >make sure we`ll have an interesting tournament. No it wasn't. Just let it be. Tournaments are always interesting (as long as they're large enough) with just the real rules. >Because here, in Quebec, many, many players of VTES have home rules about >cards limit. They sent me a lot of e-mails with fears of being bled >by a stealth-bleed-malk-cheesy deck. Tell them to try it first, then come to you with complaints. >So, to convince them there will not be such a deck in the tournament, >and to make sure there will not be such a deck in the tournament, I`ve made >a threat about rejecting decks in my announcement. In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. If this was a VEKN sanctioned tournament, I hope the VEKN pulls your sanction in the future, or at least makes it clear in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable behavior. >And then we`ve had 26 methuselahs with good, original decks, and everybody >enjoyed the tournament. That`s what I call diplomacy. No. As far as you know, you would have had 26 methuselahs with "good, original decks" in any event but you're claiming this as the reason to provide some justification. That's what I call stupidity. >Sometimes Princes have to play the politician... Play politician all you like - but stick to the rules. That's what princes are for. Fred

On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 04:47:39 GMT, ra...@mediom.qc.ca (Rafid Armani) wrote: >Actually, I knew that was all bullshit. But that was my only way to >make sure we`ll have an interesting tournament. Because here, in >Quebec, many, many players of VTES have home rules about >cards limit. They sent me a lot of e-mails with fears of being bled >by a stealth-bleed-malk-cheesy deck. So, to convince them >there will not be such a deck in the tournament, and to make >sure there will not be such a deck in the tournament, I`ve made >a threat about rejecting decks in my announcement. And then >we`ve had 26 methuselahs with good, original decks, and everybody >enjoyed the tournament. That`s what I call diplomacy. OK, so the classic "malk bleed" deck is rearing its ugly head again. There are quite a few strategies to deal with Malkavian bleed if you're worried about finding it at a tournament, and next time you can pass these on to your players... because I don't know if you noticed, but Malk decks weren't really in evidence for the constructed tournament down here. That's because there are a few tricks: First, don't block it. Ever. Usually almost instantly, it jams up on stealth cards and can't bleed for more than 1 anymore - and often it gets ousted by its predator when that happens. Second, play a combat deck. They're lots of fun to play, and Malkavians go kaboom when confronted with combat in any serious form. Third, play table politics. Get the guy with the vote deck to toss KRC's your way. Get the bleed-bouncers to drop their bounces onto the Malk deck. A lot of times, someone ELSE'S combat deck will happily Rush cross-table and beat the thing up - I've successfully convinced my prey to spend actions beating up my predator before because "look, if you don't, he'll oust me, and you don't want THAT behind you, do you?" (but really, that qualifies as 'jedi mind trick', i think.) Fourth, include bleed bounce of your own! Malk comes, you attempt to block, he adds stealth, you fail, he adds Conditioning, you bounce to your prey. Vicious if you're the prey in question, but the Malk deck usually doesn't get anywhere if it's faced with bounce. As a sideline to that strategy, if the Malk deck bounces bleeds to you, bounce them back onto it to make it dead faster. =) >Sometimes Princes have to play the politician... Absolutely. But possibly in a different manner. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8jt2jt$12s$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > ra...@mediom.qc.ca (Rafid Armani) writes: > >And then we`ve had 26 methuselahs with good, original decks, and everybody > >enjoyed the tournament. That`s what I call diplomacy. > > No. As far as you know, you would have had 26 methuselahs with "good, > original decks" in any event but you're claiming this as the reason to > provide some justification. That's what I call stupidity. In fact, many players dont show to the tournament in general because of the NCL rule. (I know at leat 7 of them) I dont know if, without the «lie» of Rafid, the first Praxis Quebec had lose many players but i understand his point. I dont agree with him and i will make sure that it will never happen again, but i can not call him stupid has you have done. :-/ Rafid was the first prince in Canada. He have put great effort in VTES and in the VEKN. But he can make mistake, has anybody. It's not a reason to call him stupid. If he continu to do it, maybe... :-) and you must understand that the VEKN just started to put influence in the Quebec province. We do all that is possible to convert players, but it take effort and time to explain them the true path of NCL... ;-) -- Khaleph Alendis, High Priest of Maizerets VEKN Setite Prince of Beauport http://cdd.citeweb.net/khaleph/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"Khaleph Alendis, Prince of Beauport" wrote: > > Hi, > > The head judge at our tournament explained to me that he can, has the > head judge, reject a deck that lack of diversity and that is to much > foreseeable. As many others have said, I think this is really stupid, and very unnecessary. > He never rejected a deck in a tournament, but i would like your > opinion on that subject because i will be head judge on a tournament > in july. I know, i know, i must learn more about the rule very fast > to be able to do a good job... ;-) > > First. Can he really reject a deck because that deck have to many of > a type of card ? If you're running an independent tournament, you can do whatever you want, but you definitely risk alienating people if you start rejecting decks. Just because you don't like their deck doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to play with it. > Example : > > Someone sent to the Quebec VTES mailling list this deck : > > 30 majesty > 15 intercept from different card of auspex > 10 eagle sight > 10 wake > 10 Smiling Jack > 10 ascendance > hunting ground > barrens > book of nod > the rack > KRCG news > > The vampire clan is not named but can be anyone with Auxpex. > > The player seem to think that he can win in 4 turn after having 3 > vampire in controled region. This deck is pretty easy to beat. A potence combat deck will prevent you from being able to play Majesty. Plus, at some point everyone at the table will be taking actions to burn the Smiling Jack, your vampires will start running out of blood. Dedicated stealth decks can probably beat through the intercept, as well. > Is this deck lack of diversity an must be rejected ? Yes, the deck is certainly a One-Trick Pony. But if someone wants to play it, more power to them. They're betting that no one at the table (or the tournament, for that matter) is playing the kind of deck that can beat it. If they're right, they deserve to win the tournament. However, the deck itself is not so powerful as to be unstoppable. I assume that the person who posted this deck is either trying to justify not using card limits, or trying to break the no card limit system. In either case you might want to take a look at the vast CL/NCL discussions from years past. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >>Actually, I knew that was all bullshit. But that was my only way to >>make sure we`ll have an interesting tournament. > >No it wasn't. Just let it be. Tournaments are always interesting (as >long as they're large enough) with just the real rules. I think that tournament are interesting as long as people who play find it interesting. >>Because here, in Quebec, many, many players of VTES have home rules about >>cards limit. They sent me a lot of e-mails with fears of being bled >>by a stealth-bleed-malk-cheesy deck. > >Tell them to try it first, then come to you with complaints. No ! Really ? Sure I didn`t tried this because I`m stupid. Thanks for the hint. >>So, to convince them there will not be such a deck in the tournament, >>and to make sure there will not be such a deck in the tournament, I`ve made >>a threat about rejecting decks in my announcement. > >In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. If this was >a VEKN sanctioned tournament, I hope the VEKN pulls your sanction in the >future, or at least makes it clear in no uncertain terms that this is >unacceptable behavior. I don`t think this was a lie, because I would not have accepted a deck made of 90 Information Highway. The players here in Quebec are good players, and I think they like some quality in their games. If I can`t provide them with it in tournament, I think the next tournament won`t have enough players, and it will be the end of VTES in Quebec. You think what you think, but you don`t know how it works here and how the people are thinking. Maybe, if you want, you could come here and participate in a tournament. I would be interesting to hear you talk with the other players. If to have a tournament with 26 players, to have fun, and to enjoy every round of play is not what we, the princes, seek... than I don`t know what it is. >>And then we`ve had 26 methuselahs with good, original decks, and everybody >>enjoyed the tournament. That`s what I call diplomacy. > >No. As far as you know, you would have had 26 methuselahs with "good, >original decks" in any event but you're claiming this as the reason to >provide some justification. That's what I call stupidity. Thank you very much, you`ve just proved my point. >>Sometimes Princes have to play the politician... > >Play politician all you like - but stick to the rules. That's what >princes are for. That`s why we made the Princes-only-mailing-list. To have smart people who can talk of that kind of thing without insulting each other. I`ll try to keep this kind of topic on the Conclave in the futur. Fred, thanks anyway for trying to keep me in the right way... Rémy Auclair, Prince of Québec city

Khaleph Alendis <kha...@hotmail.com> writes: >In fact, many players dont show to the tournament in general because of >the NCL rule. (I know at leat 7 of them) That's unfortunate. No one says that VEKN rules are perfect, nor the NJL, nor any set of house rules for that matter. But if you advertise a VEKN sanctioned tournament, that's what you give - period. >I dont know if, without the «lie» of Rafid, the first Praxis Quebec had >lose many players but i understand his point. > >I dont agree with him and i will make sure that it will never happen >again, but i can not call him stupid has you have done. :-/ > >Rafid was the first prince in Canada. He have put great effort in VTES >and in the VEKN. But he can make mistake, has anybody. It's not a >reason to call him stupid. If he continu to do it, maybe... :-) I'm sorry, I just think there's a pretty serious problem in such a move. Guys like Rafid have got to understand that if they're going to run a sanctioned tournment, that do _not_ be little autocrats. Their job is to see that the tournament gets run correctly. I'll give a guy a break if he's trying to do his best and just forgets a rule or something. This is not such a case. This is a case where an adjustment of attitude is required. IMHO. Fred

ra...@mediom.qc.ca (Rafid Armani) writes: >>>So, to convince them there will not be such a deck in the tournament, >>>and to make sure there will not be such a deck in the tournament, I`ve made >>>a threat about rejecting decks in my announcement. >> >>In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >>thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. If this was >>a VEKN sanctioned tournament, I hope the VEKN pulls your sanction in the >>future, or at least makes it clear in no uncertain terms that this is >>unacceptable behavior. > >I don`t think this was a lie, because I would not have accepted a deck >made of 90 Information Highway. And who told you you would have the right to do such a thing?!? You just run the tournament _by rules_, you do not _make rules_. If you want to do that, forget VEKN and just run your own tournament. I think we have a vast difference of opinion about your role here. I could be wrong. I haven't double checked the rules here so help me anyone. Is there _anything_ in the VEKN rules that allows the tournament judge or director to make up his own rules about deck building? If I understood LSJ correctly, they do not give you this lattitude. >If I can`t provide them with it in tournament, I think the next tournament >won`t have enough players, and it will be the end of VTES in Quebec. Fine. So run a non-sanctioned tournament if you don't like the VEKN rules (or you don't think your players will). Just don't call it what it isn't. Fred

On 5 Jul 2000 02:37:17 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >>I don`t think this was a lie, because I would not have accepted a deck >>made of 90 Information Highway. > >And who told you you would have the right to do such a thing?!? You >just run the tournament _by rules_, you do not _make rules_. If you >want to do that, forget VEKN and just run your own tournament. I think >we have a vast difference of opinion about your role here. I understand you clearly. But I think you must have a little lattitude in this case. I explain : I think my role as prince of Quebec city is to : First, promote VTES second, promote VEKN Because if you don't have players of VTES, you don't have VEKN. So, with this tournament, I've succeeded in my first role of making VTES return from the tomb in Quebec. Some people were still playing, but they were playing with a lot of home rules. So I had to make some concessions to make the reunion of all these players possible. That's what I've made. And let me tell you that having all these players playing with no card limits an with the official rules of VEKN was a giant step in the expansion of VEKN in Quebec. ( I have to say that all that was wrong with the VEKN rules, was in the announcement, not in the tournament. There was nothing that was not respected about the VEKN tournament rules in the tournament. ) There are still some discussions about the NCL rule here on our mailing list, but we are in the right way to make VEKN-tournament-rules the only reference in tournament. The next tournament here in Quebec is announced straight with all the VEKN rules, and without any kind of misunderstanding. I don't think that everybody agree with that, but we're working on it. That reveal all the masterplan I had to make VTES lives again in Quebec, and live by the rules of VEKN. Now that I've said all that to my people -with your help- , I apologize, not to the people who think that I have not made my job of prince, but to my players here in Quebec. If someone was unhappy with the way I've treated you, let me know. I think that all the people with some strategy can understand that ( if they knew what's all that was about ). And if some of you still don't understand, I don't know... maybe you should stick with your day job. : > End of discussion. Remy Auclair, Prince of Quebec city ra...@mediom.qc.ca

ra...@mediom.qc.ca (Rafid Armani) writes: (Explaining why he felt the need to alter VEKN rules in a VEKN tournament at his own discretion.) >I understand you clearly. But I think you must have a little lattitude >in this case. I explain : > >I think my role as prince of Quebec city is to : > >First, promote VTES >second, promote VEKN > >Because if you don't have players of VTES, you don't have VEKN. >So, with this tournament, I've succeeded in my first role of making >VTES return from the tomb in Quebec. Some people were still playing, >but they were playing with a lot of home rules. So I had to make some >concessions to make the reunion of all these players possible. That's >what I've made. And let me tell you that having all these players >playing with no card limits an with the official rules of VEKN was a >giant step in the expansion of VEKN in Quebec. I don't care. And I hope the VEKN doesn't care. If you want to be VEKN prince, you promote the VEKN, which does not involve individual tournament director discretion about tournament rules. If you can't do it or don't want to do it, let someone else do it. As for whether the real rules for tournaments will fly in Quebec, that is not for you to deal with in this way. If you believe you need to modify the rules to promote the VEKN, please ask for these modifications and give your reasons in this forum or on that princes' mailing list you're so hot about. If they agree with you, they will add the discretion for you to reject decks as you please. If they do not, it is your job to enforce the rules the VEKN specifies. Otherwise there is _no_ VEKN - just a bunch of princes making things up as they go along. The value of the organization is that it is a "known quanity". The same tournament that gets run in San Fransisco is the one that is run in Quebec and in Paris and in Atlanta. >(I have to say that all that was wrong with the VEKN rules, was in the >announcement, not n the tournament. There was nothing that was not >respected about the VEKN tournament rules in the tournament.) I disagree. Part of running a tournament correctly is communicating accurately what rules will be used. *ANY* tournament, VEKN or not, should use the same rules in the tournament room as were advertised in the flyers, over the net, and in the convention programs. If your's did not, the confusion you caused was very unfair. Some players may believe you and modify their decks to their personal detrement. Others may disbelieve you because they are connected to the Internet and know the real rules, and thus know you could not reject decks. (At least, you could not and still keep your sanction over the long haul.) This is not fair. (And I will tell you, this goes beyond VEKN tournament sanctioning. As a player in many, many Magic tournaments back when MtG started, I used to tear out my hair and stomp my little feet every time some idiot tourament director would change the rules at the last minute - long after the decks were built and the players were used to them - or I found out the rules printed were inaccurate descriptions of the rules intended to be used. You must print *accurate* *complete* rules in all advertising of a tournament out of simple respect for your players and the work they've done to get ready for your tournament. I never understood why that isn't obvious to everybody involved.) >I think that all the people with some strategy can understand that ( >if they knew what's all that was about ). And if some of you still >don't understand, I don't know... maybe you should stick with your day >job. : > I understand perfectly. I just don't agree and I hope few others will either. Fred

Can't we all just get along?? So he screwed up! No need to light the fires and torch him like Joan of Arc!! Let the powers that be deal with it, not us. Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1. Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:8jufim$84v$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3962b039....@news.mediom.qc.ca>, Rafid Armani <ra...@mediom.qc.ca> writes >I think my role as prince of Quebec city is to : > >First, promote VTES >second, promote VEKN Your role as a tournament official, however, is to enforce the rules to the best of your ability. Your role as a tournament official is separate to that of a Prince. Lying about the rules and your authority is not part of the rules. I have *never* heard of any tournament official acting in such a slap- dash manner, when they are well aware of what the rules actually say. If your first goal is to promote V:TES, do you want it to get a reputation in Quebec of either incompetent judging, or liars? Neither of those help promote V:TES. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.zephyr.org.uk

Ok, so be it. I guess my last tournament was not a VEKN tournament, even if everybody played with the rules. So I will ask Todd to forget the ratings changes of all the players who was there. For the prizes support from White Wolf, I don`t think they care, because, VEKN or not, we had a bunch of new players of VTES. I will ask them. I can announce now that my next tournament won`t be a VEKN tournament. Maybe it will be a card limit tournament, I don`t know for now. All I can say is that I was trying to make Quebec a stronghold for VEKN ( with near 60 players, we were on the way ), but if a simple one-time- gap in the announcement ( a gap that had satisfied the players here ) is too much a pain in the ass for everybody outside, we`ll continue to play but we`ll make our own ratings. When you do something you open the door for critics. When you do nothing, all you have to do is critic what other people do. I guess everyone of you are perfect citizens with a " I-respect-the-law-or-die philosophy ", good for you. I hope that someday everybody on this planet will be just like you, so we`ll live in a perfect world... Remy Auclair, VTES player of Quebec city ra...@mediom.qc.ca P.S. By the way, for those who have an access to the prince list, I still remember a discussion about multi-juge system in the time of DCI. If you don`t remember, ask Scott what he thought of it at the time.

In article <3964ce9e....@news.mediom.qc.ca>, Rafid Armani <ra...@mediom.qc.ca> writes >I guess my last tournament was not a VEKN tournament, even if >everybody played with the rules. That's the point. At least one person did not play by the rules - you. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:33:11 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <3964ce9e....@news.mediom.qc.ca>, Rafid Armani ><ra...@mediom.qc.ca> writes >>I guess my last tournament was not a VEKN tournament, even if >>everybody played with the rules. > >That's the point. At least one person did not play by the rules - you. Is my english that bad or it just makes you feel good to repeat what you`ve already said ? Maybe if I kill myself you will be happy ? ... maybe it won`t be enough. Remy Auclair, tired of this strom-in-a-glass-of-water discussion ra...@mediom.qc.ca

In article <3964f6ab....@news.mediom.qc.ca>, Rafid Armani <ra...@mediom.qc.ca> writes >Is my english that bad or it just makes you feel good to repeat what >you`ve already said ? Thus far in this thread we've had: "Actually, I knew that was all bullshit." "I don`t think this was a lie," "Sometimes Princes have to play the politician..." "For the prizes support from White Wolf, I don`t think they care, because, VEKN or not, we had a bunch of new players of VTES." All as though this justifies your gross violations of the rules. You are a tournament official. If *you* cannot play by the rules, why on earth should anyone else choose to? What *would* you have done if someone *had* turned up with a Stealth and Bleed deck? I've not seen an apology so far, just I don't care, it was in the interests of V:TES, I got players playing and other half-arsed attempts at you justifying yourself for grossly violating the rules when you *knew* exactly what the situation was. If you're posted an apology, perhaps you'd care to provide a message ID. [ quoted text not captured ]

ra...@mediom.qc.ca (Rafid Armani) writes: >Is my english that bad or it just makes you feel good to repeat what >you`ve already said ? > >Maybe if I kill myself you will be happy ? ... maybe it won`t be >enough. Look, this mondo "self-pity-I-quit" routine isn't necessary. You want do the right thing, just admit it was a mistake (at least to yourself) and make the determination that it will be done correctly next time around. Assuming your observations about Quebec are accurate, it sounds as though this place is a bastion of card-limit Jyhad inhabited by many, many players who are not very comfortable with NCL. If so, I don't think trying to appease that element is the way to go. Just use the prize support and the official tournament sanction to attract who you will and let those who refuse to play stay on the sidelines. Either the latter element will come around eventually when they discover NCL is actually fun or else they never would anyway, in which case who cares? Fred

On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. No he didn't and you're out of order to libel him in this way. From what's been said here, he made it clear in his announcement(s) that this would be his policy. I don't approve of such subjectivity myself but would firmly support Rafid's decision to run the tournament in the way that he thought best. If it attracted 26 players who had a good time then I judge that he did a good job. Well done. As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing with a an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike behaviour - it certainly would be if such decks had been explicitly warned off. This is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is such matters is final, right? This sort of rule is generally used as a catch-all in all sorts of sports and games. It's always highly subjective but that doesn't stop it being legal. The root of the problem is the card limit issue which is clearly a Holy War. The VEKN rules only admit of the One True Way and heretics must be burnt! In this respect they are unlike most other mature CCG which have a variety of formats - Extended, Strict, Double-Barrel, etc. Giving TOs some choice so that they can fit the format to their play group would be more sensible. I suspect the reason that this is not done is the fear that a CL format would soon drive out the NCL format, as happened in Magic. For the future, I agree that Rafid should announce an explicit card limit so that the players know where they stand. If you want to wean them onto full NCL then set it high (8?) and try increasing it in subsequent events if there is no trouble. If the VEKN can't stand to see this done in their name then that's their loss. What is the other league's position on this issue? Andrew

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:33:17 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >>thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. > >No he didn't and you're out of order to libel him in this way. From >what's been said here, he made it clear in his announcement(s) that >this would be his policy. I don't approve of such subjectivity myself >but would firmly support Rafid's decision to run the tournament in the >way that he thought best. If it attracted 26 players who had a good >time then I judge that he did a good job. Well done. At least, one personne outside of Quebec said something positiv about the praxis montreal tournament. Thank's ! >As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing with a >an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike behaviour - it >certainly would be if such decks had been explicitly warned off. This >is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is such matters is >final, right? This sort of rule is generally used as a catch-all in >all sorts of sports and games. It's always highly subjective but that >doesn't stop it being legal. I'am not sure that the VEKN see the rules that way... >The root of the problem is the card limit issue which is clearly a >Holy War. The VEKN rules only admit of the One True Way and heretics >must be burnt! In this respect they are unlike most other mature CCG >which have a variety of formats - Extended, Strict, Double-Barrel, >etc. Giving TOs some choice so that they can fit the format to their >play group would be more sensible. I suspect the reason that this is >not done is the fear that a CL format would soon drive out the NCL >format, as happened in Magic. The NCL is best, i think, that any CL. But it's a fact that the Quebec player communauty is composed almost of CL fanatics. For my next tournament that will be the july 22, the first questions that the player that want to register ask is : «Did you use the same policy that the one of Rafid ?» And the second question is : «Can it be a CL ?» And that's, because they fear to see an abusive deck at the tournament. (Abusiv is very subjectiv, but think about something like a weeni with obfuscat that just do Nigth Move or the like...) All those who play VTES in the Quebec provinces that we know about are in the side of Rafid, or if they dont, it's because they are totaly against the VEKN and the NCL rule anyway and will so never play at tournament. >For the future, I agree that Rafid should announce an explicit card >limit so that the players know where they stand. If you want to wean >them onto full NCL then set it high (8?) and try increasing it in >subsequent events if there is no trouble. If the VEKN can't stand to >see this done in their name then that's their loss. What is the other >league's position on this issue? It's maybe an idea, but for my part, i hope that Rafid will change is mind : -That the next tournaments he will organise use the VEKN rule. Because the VEKN rule are ok i think. -Dont cancel the result of the last tournament. Because almost all the rule were used, the one that was not dont changed much the tournament play and certainly because i want to stay that high in the VEKN rating... ;-) If we continu to use the VEKN rule, in the long run, we, in the Quebec provinces, will surely win about those who think a CL is better than a NCL. But for that, Rafid must stay with VEKN. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <976AABB135596C2C.29E40B19...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >>thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. > >No he didn't and you're out of order to libel him in this way. From >what's been said here, he made it clear in his announcement(s) that >this would be his policy. The rules of a sanctioned tournament do not permit him to announce what he did. Thus he lied about the tournament. No libel has been committed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3965a3f...@news.oricom.ca>, Khaleph Alendis, Prince of Beauport <kha...@oricom.ca> writes >>As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing with a >>an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike behaviour - it >>certainly would be if such decks had been explicitly warned off. This >>is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is such matters is >>final, right? This sort of rule is generally used as a catch-all in >>all sorts of sports and games. It's always highly subjective but that >>doesn't stop it being legal. > >I'am not sure that the VEKN see the rules that way... So far as I can tell, there is no element of judgement call in this. If someone turns up with a deck, which has sufficiently mixed backs or card sleeves, there is no reason to eject them from the tournament, based on the deck they are playing. If Andrew can find a clause in the rules which allows such a judgement call, then it is allowed. My understanding of them does not support such a position. It seems likely, given that Andrew is a new player, that he has never had to read the tournament rules from the perspective of a judge, working out exactly what you are and aren't allowed to do. [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com wrote: > As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing > with an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike > behaviour - it certainly would be if such decks had been > explicitly warned off. I have a question, oh great experienced one. What constitutes an "abusive deck"? This is a strategy game wherein you are expected to play to win...esp. at tournaments. If I employ an effective strategy that others do not have sufficient defense against...and _everything_ in Jyhad has a counter...than that's just too bloody bad. I am deeply troubled that _anyone_ would use subjective standards and judgement calls to tell a person that they cannot play a deck. To be honest, it offends me in the worst way. Not to mention that it runs counter to the idealogies of both the VEKN and the NJL. And I can guaran-damn-tee that if the two organizations can agree on something, it's for good reason. > This is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is > such matters is final, right? In this case, no. The tournament rules are very specific about what criteria a deck must fito. These rules are not to modified in anyway. Tournament judges have leeway only in matters that are not specifically codified. > The root of the problem is the card limit issue which is clearly a > Holy War. No, it's usually only an issue with new players that come from Magic: The Crack Habit or playgroups that think there's a problem with allowing 30 Majesties in a deck. Never mind that if all they can do is S:CE, they'll never do anything else and a Potence IG deck will eat them for lunch. Never mind that card limits also make it easier to put more S:CE cards in a deck than to put in effective counters against it. Never mind that because of card redundancy, card limits also benefits stealth bleed decks, which clearly need no help at all. > The VEKN rules only admit of the One True Way and heretics > must be burnt! Uh-huh. > I suspect the reason that this is not done is the fear that a CL > format would soon drive out the NCL format, as happened in Magic. Uh...no. Jyhad was not designed with card limits in mind. M:TCH was. > What is the other league's position on this issue? The NJL does not support card limits, either. While some of our playgroups used to use a 6CL, our tournaments have always been NCL. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League Rules Team Member -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com writes: >On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >>thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. > >No he didn't and you're out of order to libel him in this way. From >what's been said here, he made it clear in his announcement(s) that >this would be his policy. From what's been said here, this point isn't even in dispute: "Actually, I knew that was all bullshit." is a direct quote from Rafid. >I don't approve of such subjectivity myself but would firmly support >Rafid's decision to run the tournament in the way that he thought best. >If it attracted 26 players who had a good time then I judge that he >did a good job. Well done. I don't care for what he did, myself. But that's opinion. What's fact is that he announced he had discretion about something he does not have. >As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. It seems obvious that there is no case for this. But if you have qualms, see LSJ's post on the matter which also rejects such discretion. How much proof do you need? >Playing with a an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike >behaviour Hey, picking your nose _could_ be deemed unsportsmanlike behavior. But it would be complete abuse of such rules and I utterly reject such absurd rationale. There is no definition of an "abusive deck" anywhere in tournament rules. The only subjective determination a judge has concerning the legality of decks is in reference to cardback issues and marked decks. >For the future, I agree that Rafid should announce an explicit card >limit so that the players know where they stand. If this is a VEKN tournament, he does not have that discretion either. Fred

Andrew wrote: >>As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing with a an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike behaviour - it certainly would be if such decks had been explicitly warned off.>> And there lies the crux of the issue--what exactly is an "abusive" deck, and does the judge have the right to arbitrarily decide what is or is not an "abusive" deck? The answer clearly is *no*--the judge's (any judge) job is to run the tournament in a fair an impartial manner and to follow and enforce the rules. There is no way to arbitrarily excise "abusive" decks in a fair and impartial manner. Even if you have a vague idea in your head of what makes an "abusive" deck, what makes one deck "abusive" and another similar deck not abusive? What special power does the judge have to make this arbitrary determination? Whim? Is a Malk S+B deck "abusive", but a Dom/Pro/For/Obf deck that has Form of Mist, Stealth, and Conditioning *not* abusive? Are they both abusive? Neither? The lines are too thin seperating what is or is not arbitrarily "abusive", and there is no way to quantify what is "abusive". Some folks like playing with blanket card limits, as that is a way, in their eyes, to quantifiably limit "abusive" decks. The problem is that these are also the folks who are most concerned about "abusive" Malk S+B decks, simply because a blanket CL does not in any way hinder a Malk S+B deck (due to the inherrent redundancy in stealth cards and bleed modifiers) and does quite a bit to help them (due to the lack of redundancy in the cards necessary to combat Malk S+B, like Immortal Grapple). Thus, folks who play blanket Card Limit games are inadvertently creating a problem where none existed before, in hopes of stoping the very problem that they are creating. >>This is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is such matters is final, right? This sort of rule is generally used as a catch-all in all sorts of sports and games. It's always highly subjective but that doesn't stop it being legal.>> In a Major League baseball game, the umpire cannot eject a pitcher for using "unimaginitve" pitches--only for using illegal ones, which are (if any exist) clearly defined in the rules. The is no clear defenition in the rules of Jyhad for what makes up an "abusive" or "unimaginitve" deck. >>I suspect the reason that this is not done is the fear that a CL format would soon drive out the NCL format, as happened in Magic.>> Again, Jyhad was *specifically* designed and ballanced with no card limit in mind (Magic originally wasn't given thought one way or the other, and now it is specifically designed and ballanced with wit a 4CL in mind), and the game simply does not work as intended with a card limit. If the official support organization were to promote and support a CL game, it would be supporting a game that does not work and is *heavily* skewed towards certain strategies while making other strategies almost completely unplayable. How is this a good idea? How does this promote the game and make for a good play environment? >>If the VEKN can't stand to see this done in their name then that's their loss.>> One can run one's tournaments however one would like, but if one is going to be advertising an offical tournament and claiming to be running an official tournament, one needs to run an official tournament. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "I wanted out of the huge Jackson Pollock canvas that is the U.S.A., vast, murky, splotched, and slapped together by a drunk." -Sarah Vowell

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:33:17 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>In other words, you lied about what the rules of the tournament were, >>thus illegally affecting peoples' deckbuilding behavior. > >No he didn't and you're out of order to libel him in this way. From >what's been said here, he made it clear in his announcement(s) that >this would be his policy. I don't approve of such subjectivity myself >but would firmly support Rafid's decision to run the tournament in the >way that he thought best. If it attracted 26 players who had a good >time then I judge that he did a good job. Well done. Actually, as much as I tend to be a bit of a crusader on some things, I agree here. Getting people playing is the most important thing. If that means *one* tournament with strange or peculiar rules beforehand, then that's OK, although I don't think doing it in the VEKN name was a good idea. But next time round it will be easier to get everyone actually playing by the normal rules since they've played once already - and you can spend the time by circulating explanations in the meantime. Was it a no-no to claim you'd reject decks? Yes. But to get a bunch of players "hooked" on the fun of the game again? ...well, I don't approve of the means, but the results occasionally DO justify them, and 26 players is a good thing. >As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing with a >an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike behaviour - it >certainly would be if such decks had been explicitly warned off. This >is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is such matters is >final, right? This sort of rule is generally used as a catch-all in >all sorts of sports and games. It's always highly subjective but that >doesn't stop it being legal. The root of the problem is that inherent in the NCL position is that there are no *abusive* decks. There are very strong decks, of which weenie bleed is one and the Legacy of Pander monster is another. But both of these decks have counters available in several forms, and don't require you to go extensively out of your way in deckbuilding to deal with them. So it's disturbing to EVER declare that decks are abusive. >The root of the problem is the card limit issue which is clearly a >Holy War. The VEKN rules only admit of the One True Way and heretics >must be burnt! In this respect they are unlike most other mature CCG >which have a variety of formats - Extended, Strict, Double-Barrel, >etc. Giving TOs some choice so that they can fit the format to their >play group would be more sensible. I suspect the reason that this is >not done is the fear that a CL format would soon drive out the NCL >format, as happened in Magic. You are absolutely incorrect, and you are again stepping into the middle of a Holy War which you do not understand at all. The game was specifically NOT designed for card limits, and the 'problem' deck that was mentioned (malkavian stealth/bleed) is not at ALL hindered by card limits, as has been demonstrated numerous times in the records on DejaNews. In fact, it is actually helped out since the counters to it are no longer easily available. THIS is why I do not want any CL format - because abusive decks suddenly begin to exist where under NCL there were none, the counters to them (combat) no longer are viable, and some entertaining theme decks (cryptic mission) are no longer possible at all. The card limits were added to the game by Magic players who didn't fully understand how the game worked - they just assumed it would require a CL. There are really no cards that you can stick 20 of in a deck and "automatically" win - no single card is that powerful. And once you start building in combos, you DEFINITELY can't stick in 20 of one card and 20 of another - you're likely to end up with 7 of the first card in hand and none of the other. >For the future, I agree that Rafid should announce an explicit card >limit so that the players know where they stand. If you want to wean >them onto full NCL then set it high (8?) and try increasing it in >subsequent events if there is no trouble. If the VEKN can't stand to >see this done in their name then that's their loss. What is the other >league's position on this issue? It's much easier to just explain up front why the official rules are NCL, and give some brief examples of what card limits do and don't do for the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 4 Jul 2000 16:15:57 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > No he didn't and you're out of order to libel him in this way. From > what's been said here, he made it clear in his announcement(s) that > this would be his policy. I don't approve of such subjectivity myself > but would firmly support Rafid's decision to run the tournament in the > way that he thought best. If it attracted 26 players who had a good > time then I judge that he did a good job. Well done. > > As for legality, it is easy to make a case for this. Playing with a > an abusive deck could be deemed to be unsportsmanlike behaviour - it > certainly would be if such decks had been explicitly warned off. The problem is, what do you mean by abusive? One person's abusive is another person's perfectly reasonable. By allowing the judge to make this sort of judgement call by themselves, you're risking alienating a lot of people. In the old days of the newsgroup, people would post decks they thought were "abusive", and there would be debate. If one person says "I don't like that deck, so I won't allow it at my tournament", that's just unfair. This seems to all be stemming out of the (perfectly natural) fear that CL players have about NCL. "Oh, no! What will I do against the guy who has 30 Majesties? What about the guy with 40 Govern the Unaligned and 40 Lost in Crowds?" As somebody who converted from 4CL to NCL (eons ago), I totally understand. If you check out the DejaNews archives, you may even find that I made posts like that. But under NCL there is much more balance to the game than with CL. A shining example of this is that Stealth/Bleed is supremely powerful under CL. Most CL players are well aware of this, but instead of changing to a more balanced environment, they outlaw "cheezy" or "abusive" decks, and somehow enforce that everyone play (as we used to call them in Ithaca) "good-person decks". And the people who like playing Stealth/Bleed are left out in the cold. But when this policy gets _officially_ enforced at a _sanctioned_ tournament, that's when I get mad. > This > is a judgement call and the head judge's decision is such matters is > final, right? This sort of rule is generally used as a catch-all in > all sorts of sports and games. It's always highly subjective but that > doesn't stop it being legal. As a former official Magic judge, I can tell you that this is completely illegal. The DCI (the official body, akin to V:EKN) may decide to ban certain cards, but these are made public well in advance of the tournament, and are not left up to the individual tournament judges. > The root of the problem is the card limit issue which is clearly a > Holy War. The VEKN rules only admit of the One True Way and heretics > must be burnt! Most people have either agreed that NCL is the superior format, or stopped playing in official tournaments. The CL environment is _so_ broken that I don't think it's reasonable to allow it to exist as an official format. No one would want to play it anyway; Stealth/Bleed would always win. > In this respect they are unlike most other mature CCG > which have a variety of formats - Extended, Strict, Double-Barrel, > etc. I'm assuing these are Doomtown terms? I know that in Magic the differences in the environments are only which sets you are allowed to draw cards from. I certainly would not be opposed to an all-Jyhad or all-Sabbat environment. > Giving TOs some choice so that they can fit the format to their > play group would be more sensible. I suspect the reason that this is > not done is the fear that a CL format would soon drive out the NCL > format, as happened in Magic. Well, in Magic, it's the NCL format that's clearly broken. Why shouldn't the more balanced environment win in V:tES, as well? Let me say this now, lest I forget to include this point. If you and your group want to play with card limits, more power to you! I will certainly never stop thumping the NCL bible, and I encourage you to at least try NCL to assuage your 30 Majesties fears. But play however you want in your group. I'm sure there are Magic groups who have wacky, non-official rules. But when they come to tournaments, I expect them to know what the official rules are, and to abide by them. In my year of Magic judging experience, I _never_ saw anyone who showed up expecting the tournament to be using his house rules. And I never heard of a judge who tried to run an official tournament using unofficial rules. > For the future, I agree that Rafid should announce an explicit card > limit so that the players know where they stand. It was my understanding that his tournament was (nominally) NCL, but that he reserved the right to disqualify any deck he deemed to be abusing that rule. > If you want to wean > them onto full NCL then set it high (8?) and try increasing it in > subsequent events if there is no trouble. If the VEKN can't stand to > see this done in their name then that's their loss. How about this: run an unofficial card-limits tournament. Tell the players that, as a V:EKN representative, you would support running official tournaments, but that they would have to be NCL. If they agree, great! If not, keep running unofficial tournaments. Try to get as many people as you can to try NCL. Read up on the standard arguments for and against card limits. This, to me, seems much more reasonable than imposing your will on the tournament environment. James

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:23:51 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Actually, as much as I tend to be a bit of a crusader on some things, >I agree here. Getting people playing is the most important thing. If >that means *one* tournament with strange or peculiar rules beforehand, >then that's OK, although I don't think doing it in the VEKN name was a >good idea. But next time round it will be easier to get everyone >actually playing by the normal rules since they've played once already >- and you can spend the time by circulating explanations in the >meantime. Was it a no-no to claim you'd reject decks? Yes. But to >get a bunch of players "hooked" on the fun of the game again? >...well, I don't approve of the means, but the results occasionally DO >justify them, and 26 players is a good thing. Like I said before, I recognize that my error was to made it VEKN sanctionned. I thought it would be a good publicity for VEKN, as it was totally unknown here, but some people don`t think I`d play by the rules and think it`s a bad publicity for VEKN. I understand their point of view. Next time, if the players here ask me again, I will not do the same error and it will not be VEKN sanctionned. There are actually 3 princes in Quebec and we are trying hard to make people understand that the NCL games are better than the CL games. We are on the right way. But sometimes, I`m not sure about what I do. When I went to Dragon*Con, in the first round of the constructed tournament, someone at my table played a weenie-presence deck. He cleaned the table. When I became his prey, he had 12 vampires with presence, and a hand full of presence-bleed-actions. He cleaned the table in the second round too. And I think in the third. In the final he was ousted by a more agressive presence-bleed deck (with misdirection). My point is, it was not fun for me beeing bled by a predator like this ; no combos, no tricks, no nothing, just tap and bleed. I hear you say : "try to have a combat deck next time" , but this is my problem with the NCL rule : it seems like you have only two kinds of REALLY EFFECTIVE decks : the tap-and-bleed decks, and the whatever-combo-you-use-to-make-it-anti-tap-and-bleed-decks. Maybe that`s why I understand the people here who are tired of making their decks in function of a only-5-different-cards-deck. I think WW will have a lot of work to make the game a balanced one, with all the clans having the same chances to win in NCL games. And then we`ll have original decks and original games. ( Dragon*Con : 3 presence-bleed decks in the final of the constructed, 4 decks with Ventrue clan in the final of the Jyhad draft... it`s not what I call a balanced game. Or maybe it`s just coincidences... ) I enjoy VTES very much, especially it`s social side (when you make deals with other players, and all that stuff ), but I don`t like very much the single-minded decks where you don`t have to talk with other people because all you have to do is play the same cards over and over again like a robot ; it`s kind of boring and, IMO, it`s more a M:TG way of playing. VTES have a unique side compared to other CCG ; just use it. I know, it was a little bit off-topic. Remy Auclair, VTES player, Quebec ra...@mediom.qc.ca

I started playing this game when it first came out, and I played locally at a store that sold Magic primarily. Everyone just assumed that a 4-card cap was the norm and I played that way until I learned of the "official" rules, which I had no hesitation of adopting, as I wanted to assure that my knowledge of the game was full and not restricted in any way, considering that tournaments would be run this way. It took ALOT of persuading to get my playgroup to adopt this theory of NCL, them being Magic players, but once they did, they saw that NCL was actually more fun than CL games. Who would have thought of Cryptic Mission as a good card if you could only have 4 of them! Needless to say, I think we have taken this thread a bit too far. The guilty parties know what they did was wrong. The consequences should be dealt with accordingly, and handed out by the powers that be, not the lynching mob of a newsgroup. Unless of course, this is everybody's way of saying "Don't ever let this happen again!". In which case, I whole-heartedly agree, as this thread should never have occurred in the first place. NCL is the law. If you don't like it... Make your tourney non-sanctioned, and expect some pretty boring decks. NCL allows more deck construction freedom, and if you can't see that... that is your loss and our gain. When you come to an NCL tourney with limited NCL playtesting, you have already lost. S:CE has its foil, as does Stealth/Bleed, and you have to take that in to consideration because some players out there won't try anything else. There are other options in a NCL format. The possibilities are endless. You just have to find them. Remember that this game isn't always about winning. Some Meth's love a lingering tragic loss over a boring cut and paste victory. I for one enjoy losing occasionally, as it reminds me that it is a game, and it also reminds me that fresh new ideas are always out there. Not every combo has been uncovered, not every broken card has been abused. It just takes a little ingenuity, and a NCL environment to find these things out. [ quoted text not captured ]

Rafid Armani, the evil Methuselah also known as Remy Auclair, wrote in message <3965f483....@news.mediom.qc.ca>... snip Thread reset here... Some insights into this from a reader who has yet to submit input. 1. Remy has a situation that is unique, in that he has a very large number of CL players whom he is trying to get involved in V:EKN. We should keep in mind that very few of us are in a similar state. 2. His "deck rejection clause"(DRC) may have influenced deck construction, HOWEVER, if he is trying to get CL players to attend a V:EKN tournament, the likelihood that this altered what _these_ players chose to bring is lower than if the same was attempted in an NCL region. His gambit was meant to assuage CL players (misplaced) fear that there were going to be "broken" NCL decks at this tournament. In that respect, it succeeded. It succeeded extremely well (26 new players, people... can you top it?) The presumed damaging effect (on deck construction) that seems to be outraging so many is, in all liklihood, very small to non-existant if there were no NCL players in this tournament... Remy, can you comment as to whether any players were upset about the DRC or mentioned changing their deck's contents as a result of it? 3. Given that there are CL players in non-net active communities, the arguments anti-CL are not as simple as some on this thread are given to believe. What's more, a region that is non-English will have even greater difficulty following such arguments. While Remy's actions might seem unacceptable, I'm not about to say anything nearly as condemning as some, due to the unique situation he is in. For the most part, I feel I cannot do such a thing without offering a better alternative to getting 26 CL players involved in VEKN. I haven't come up with one yet... Those of you who have been saying "screw them, etc" aren't being exactly fair if you don't provide Remy with a different means for their incorporation/transition into VEKN. Offering alternatives would be much more productive, especially if someone else runs into this same problem in the future. Faulting Remy for establishing his own solution, though, isn't a just thing, considering the circumstances. 4. Personal attacks on Remy (or anyone esle) as a result of his action are unacceptable. Our game is too close to the edge of oblivion to be pissing off any faction or player, VTES-CL fans, or otherwise. At worst, tell him it was a bad thing done for good ends, and (as I am doing now) ask him to kindly not make such statements (publicly) in the future when sanctioning VEKN tournaments. Thank him for working hard to get players in his area involved with the official players organization. Ask him to present our arguments against CL and in favor of NCL on the behalf of VEKN to his tournament attendees. (We should print a brochure, and have it translated into French...) Finally, 5. Lets all get this discussion back to a more civil, and thus productive, level. Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <8k4ktq$kr2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >> I suspect the reason that this is not done is the fear that a CL >> format would soon drive out the NCL format, as happened in Magic. > >Uh...no. Jyhad was not designed with card limits in mind. M:TCH was. Technically, the very early versions of Magic were designed with no card limit in mind, beyond the fact that surely no-one would buy more than a couple of hundred cards.... They introduced it for the Mountain/Bolt (and similar) deck. From then on, Magic was designed around that principle. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:23:51 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >once you start building in combos, you DEFINITELY can't stick in 20 of >one card and 20 of another - you're likely to end up with 7 of the >first card in hand and none of the other. If you're talking about the simple probabilities then you're mistaken - a mix is more likely than an extreme result. Is there more to it? Andrew

a...@csi.com writes: >On 07 Jul 2000 14:20:44 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > >>There is no way to arbitrarily excise "abusive" decks in a fair and >>impartial manner. > >Decks wouldn't be excised arbitrarily - they'd be excised because they >were abusive. The VEKN tournament rules excise abusive cards from the >game. Are they not fair and impartial? Although subjective, the VEKN tournament rules are determined beforehand and enforced in an objective manner which applies to all players in a way they were aware of before the tournament. This is a completely different thing, a judge making a subjective determination on the spot, after all the players have shown up with their decks. Surely you can see the difference? I hope... And there is nothing in the tournament rules about it so a tournament director is not empowered to do such a thing. >I was a qualified plate umpire for a while - the role demands quite a >bit of discretion and judgement. Perhaps. Perhaps you can make an argument that judges _could_ be given this power and that the benefit outweighs the downside. I disagree, but I concede it's at least arguable. This is a digression from the issues that gave rise to this thread, however. Fred

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:59:59 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:23:51 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the most obvious "combo" that could be easily broken (ie result in a deck that swept tables repeatedly) is to plug 20 Govern the Unaligned cards and 20 Lost in Crowds cards into your deck. Bring out vampires with dom/OBF, play as necessary. It looks perfectly logical. The card-limit advocates normally shriek in horror when you discuss a deck like this (or sometimes use this deck as an example). The first problem is that you can't play Lost in Crowds unless you need it. So you play your first Govern, your prey tries to block, you slap stealth down. Your prey probably, at this point, never tries to block one of your actions again unless he has +2 intercept handy and is sure to catch you. Rapidly you'll find that you run out of Govern cards and end up with 7 Lost in Crowds in your hand, rendering your deck ineffective at best. So you mix it up a bit and put only 10 LiC in your deck, along with 30 Governs - but then what do you do against a deck that packs lots of 2nd Tradition? (+2 intercept, enough to beat LiC, very commonly seen). You get no actions through, and your deck is ineffective again. Not to mention that with 30/10, odds are that at some point you won't have a stealth card in hand - meaning you either take no actions that turn, or get clobbered if someone blocks. You may get your first prey, but you don't really have a LOT of stealth in your deck, and if someone starts blocking you'll have trouble. If you consistently don't hand-jam on stealth, people will deduce that you don't have much to begin with, and start blocking to run you out of it. OK, so now you stack it with 15 Governs, 15 LiC, and 10 Faceless Night. You've increased your combo to 3 cards, making it more difficult, and you've actually got more stealth than the first example, so you get nailed AGAIN by the person who doesn't block. And worse, if your predator is ANY sort of combat deck, your vampires will explode with alarming regularity, meaning you won't have a vamp left to play the combo. This usually means that one's deck is, you guessed it, ineffective. This is why just sticking a ton of cards of one type in a deck won't do any good - you'll almost always end up having the wrong thing when you need it. Perhaps my example was a touch simplified, since in actuality I can't offhand think of any 2-card "combos" that I could just pile dozens of into a deck and have a prayer of winning with. The game is much more complex than that, and this is why NCL (which it was designed for) suits it so well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > >No, it's usually only an issue with new players that come from Magic: > >The Crack Habit or playgroups that think there's a problem with allowing > >30 Majesties in a deck. > > There is more than one problem. The one that puts me off is that NCL > makes this a money game. I'm used to playing Doomtown which has a > card limit of 4, strong uniqueness rules and a game mechanic which > punishes duplication of the same card in a deck - the cheatin' cards. > One good effect of this is that you don't need to worry about > collecting more than one copy of each card. Most of the cards you'd want to have more than 4 of are common, anyway. That's another great design feature of this game: the super-useful cards that everyone wants are common, and the rare cards are usually more specialized, limited-use cards. One major exception is Immortal Grapple, which was made uncommon in Sabbat. > >Uh...no. Jyhad was not designed with card limits in mind. M:TCH was. > > Magic and Jyhad were designed by the same person using the same card > limit rules, i.e. none. The difference being (as someone pointed out), Magic was designed under the (false) assumption that no one would have more than a few hundred cards. Jyhad was designed after Magic. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 07 Jul 2000 14:20:44 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > >There is no way to arbitrarily excise "abusive" decks in a fair and > >impartial manner. > > Decks wouldn't be excised arbitrarily - they'd be excised because they > were abusive. The VEKN tournament rules excise abusive cards from the > game. Are they not fair and impartial? Be that as it may, I'm still > puzzling over why Return to Innocence is banned as well as given > errata. Bizarre. The problem is, too often "abusive" and "effective" get confused, especially when card limits are involved. NCL makes many decks much more effective, and this troubles CL players. They would view a Potence combat deck with 13 Immortal Grapples as "abusive", when it is well know that these kind of decks need that many IG's to be effective. > That seems to be very much a function of the current card mix in > which, as I understand it, the disciplines are not balanced. This > reminds me of the long-standing weakness of the Jammers in Shadowfist, > for example. A better solution than NCL is to print some more cards > which will redress the balance. This is about to happen in Shadowfist > and, one hopes, VTES too. Unfortunately, you are not in charge of what kinds of cards get printed and which don't. I also disagree that the disciplines are unbalanced. What is unbalanced in CL is the strategies. Some strategies have multiple cards that do the same thing, like stealth and bleed bonuses. My 4CL deck can have 12-20 bleed bonus cards and 12-20 stealth bonus cards (using just original Jyhad cards), while you're limited in the number of bleed bounce or reduction cards simply because there aren't duplicates of those. One other point not addressed by your solution: there are a great many decks which are perfectly reasonable, but require NCL to be built. For example, the Cryptic Mission deck. It's not "abusive" by any standard, but why shouldn't it be allowed to exist? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 07 Jul 2000 14:20:44 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >There is no way to arbitrarily excise "abusive" decks in a fair and >impartial manner. Decks wouldn't be excised arbitrarily - they'd be excised because they were abusive. The VEKN tournament rules excise abusive cards from the game. Are they not fair and impartial? Be that as it may, I'm still puzzling over why Return to Innocence is banned as well as given errata. Bizarre. >In a Major League baseball game, the umpire cannot eject a pitcher for using >"unimaginitve" pitches--only for using illegal ones, which are (if any exist) >clearly defined in the rules. I was a qualified plate umpire for a while - the role demands quite a bit of discretion and judgement. The MLB rules are online - take a look. The pitching rules require at certain times that the umpire determine the pitcher's "intent" - you can't get much more subjective than that. The equipment rules are an even better analogue. Amongst other things, there is a requirement that the equipment be in "good taste". I suppose that's a rule that VTES will have to do without <grin>. >Again, Jyhad was *specifically* designed and ballanced with no card limit in >mind (Magic originally wasn't given thought one way or the other, and now it is >specifically designed and ballanced with wit a 4CL in mind), and the game >simply does not work as intended with a card limit. If the official support >organization were to promote and support a CL game, it would be supporting a >game that does not work and is *heavily* skewed towards certain strategies >while making other strategies almost completely unplayable. That seems to be very much a function of the current card mix in which, as I understand it, the disciplines are not balanced. This reminds me of the long-standing weakness of the Jammers in Shadowfist, for example. A better solution than NCL is to print some more cards which will redress the balance. This is about to happen in Shadowfist and, one hopes, VTES too. Andrew

On 7 Jul 2000 13:27:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >From what's been said here, this point isn't even in dispute: "Actually, >I knew that was all bullshit." is a direct quote from Rafid. "I don`t think this was a lie" is another. The correct terms for the sin of which you accuse him are "exceeding his authority" or "acting ultra vires" (as the game might call it). Andrew

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:11:29 GMT, Noal McDonald wrote: >I have a question, oh great experienced one. What constitutes an >"abusive deck"? This would be a judgement call - Rashid's judgement in this case. This method is not to my taste either but it is certainly workable as evidenced by the fact that it worked. It's not unique either - I've seen exactly the same system in the event description for INWO at a past Gencon. >No, it's usually only an issue with new players that come from Magic: >The Crack Habit or playgroups that think there's a problem with allowing >30 Majesties in a deck. There is more than one problem. The one that puts me off is that NCL makes this a money game. I'm used to playing Doomtown which has a card limit of 4, strong uniqueness rules and a game mechanic which punishes duplication of the same card in a deck - the cheatin' cards. One good effect of this is that you don't need to worry about collecting more than one copy of each card. >Uh...no. Jyhad was not designed with card limits in mind. M:TCH was. Magic and Jyhad were designed by the same person using the same card limit rules, i.e. none. Andrew

On 7 Jul 2000 23:12:16 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Although subjective, the VEKN tournament rules are determined beforehand >and enforced in an objective manner which applies to all players in a way >they were aware of before the tournament. This is a completely different >thing, a judge making a subjective determination on the spot, after all >the players have shown up with their decks. Surely you can see the >difference? I hope... Of course. But the problem isn't that the procedure is not fair and impartial. It's that the procedure is not predictable. Players like me will always want to push to the edge of any restrictions and this would become difficult. But Rashid wasn't running the event for you or me. He was running it for a known group of players who all wanted something like this to be done. >Perhaps. Perhaps you can make an argument that judges _could_ be given >this power and that the benefit outweighs the downside. I disagree, but >I concede it's at least arguable. Judges will always have to use some discretion and judgement. If the tournament rules were totally mechanical then you wouldn't need a judge at all. They are not. The rules about collusion are highly subjective and rulings are likely to vary from judge to judge. The same goes for stalling. I don't like this power being given to a judge but some deterrent is required. Andrew

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:38:50 -0500, James Hamblin wrote: >The problem is, too often "abusive" and "effective" get confused, >especially when card limits are involved. NCL makes many decks much >more effective, and this troubles CL players. They would view a Potence >combat deck with 13 Immortal Grapples as "abusive", when it is well know >that these kind of decks need that many IG's to be effective. Tom, Dave and I played again at the club on Thursday. The game took 3 hours but we did just manage to finish. Dave's deck used lots of potence and celerity and I was much amused by him throwing gates and sewer lids at other minions. If you're telling me that a deck of this kind requires lots of Immortal Grapple to be effective - a card which is a Sabbat uncommon at best - then this seems to be a serious problem. How do I get my 13 Immortal Grapples? Andrew

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:51:01 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >The first problem is that you can't play Lost in Crowds unless you >need it. So you play your first Govern, your prey tries to block, you >slap stealth down. Your prey probably, at this point, never tries to >block one of your actions again unless he has +2 intercept handy and >is sure to catch you. I'm not sure I follow this logic. If someone plays a stealth card when I block then I'm more likely to block him if he tries this again because he's clearly less likely to have a stealth card now. Your thinking seems to be based on a metagame where players always use large numbers of the same card - if you see one then there's bound to be another. I can see that hand-jamming tactics are appropriate there but is this metagame result universal? I'd rather mix things up and keep the other players guessing. Andrew

On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 10:41:51 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:38:50 -0500, James Hamblin wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Two main kinds of Potence combat deck. One is the type Dave played, which is commonly called the "Flung Junk" deck. It is generally highly effective EXCEPT when faced with minions who play Strike:Combat Ends. Using Celerity, it has access to Psyche! to get around it, but it's not a perfect solution. The other type is the more "classic" style, which involves using Torn Signpost/Fists of Death, staying at close range, playing Immortal Grapple so the opposing minion can't Dodge or play S:CE, and then either playing Undead Strength or a Blur to deliver big piles of hand damage to the opposing minion. This has the advantage of often requiring smaller vampires (you can do it all with just POT) and hence moving a lot quicker while being more effective. This is important if you play in a tournament, since there are often a number of fast-moving decks around, and Potence combat isn't known for its heavy bleed modifiers. In fact, to do well in a tournament, a POT combat deck needs to make sure that every single combat it gets into results in a dead vampire. The best way to ensure this is with IG. The S:CE problem has been debated endlessly on the newsgroup. Majesty and Earth Meld being common cards while the primary effective counters (Psyche and IG) were rares in the original set was a major boo-boo on the designers' part, and tipped the initial game sharply away from combat. Combat decks currently know they must have SOME way to deal with S:CE, or they will die miserably. (There are other ways besides Psyche and IG, but none especially common.) Tremere combat is currently in the ditch, as it requires multiple cards to set up while your opponent must only play one card (S:CE) to hose it all. We're all hoping Sabbat War will include -something- to tip the balance a little bit more towards combat. (Since the S:CE problem is pretty much universally agreed upon, we feel fairly confident that SOMETHING will happen.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 10:41:52 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:51:01 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>The first problem is that you can't play Lost in Crowds unless you >>need it. So you play your first Govern, your prey tries to block, you >>slap stealth down. Your prey probably, at this point, never tries to >>block one of your actions again unless he has +2 intercept handy and >>is sure to catch you. > >I'm not sure I follow this logic. If someone plays a stealth card It sounds dumb, I know. But it works - especially against decks that are "one trick ponies". Combat decks often jam up horribly and die when they don't end up with a Rush action in hand - they're forced to bleed for 1 over and over, hoping someone will block and let them fight. (Which nobody ever does.) >when I block then I'm more likely to block him if he tries this again >because he's clearly less likely to have a stealth card now. Your If I have 20 bleed and 20 stealth, and I play one of each, my odds of having one of each card in hand at any given time remain the same (and actually increase a little bit due to fewer cards in the deck). This game relies on card flow a lot, so playing into someone's hand by letting them drop stealth more or less at will is just exercising their deck - something that can't be bad for them. In general, it's safe to assume that if a deck pulls off an effective trick once, it can probably do it multiple times. Maybe not 20 out of 20, but i wouldn't be surprised to see 8 Governs and 6 Lost in Crowds in such a deck. >thinking seems to be based on a metagame where players always use >large numbers of the same card - if you see one then there's bound to >be another. I can see that hand-jamming tactics are appropriate there >but is this metagame result universal? I'd rather mix things up and >keep the other players guessing. Well... now you see why NCL isn't actually a problem. You're correct in your assessment - it's a better play to mix things up a lot and keep other people guessing, instead of just throwing 20 of a certain card into your deck. This is what all of us in the NCL camp try endlessly to explain to card-limit players - that if you try to rely on one trick, there are always plenty of ways to hose your one trick, -and- one of them is likely to be present at your table. The restrictions on what cards can be played and when generally do well at preventing abusive decks, and a little smart play tends to handle the others. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>Decks wouldn't be excised arbitrarily - they'd be excised because they were abusive.>> But what is "abusive"? How do you differentiate between "abusive" and "effective"? For instance, my favorite deck to play is a Nosferatu Rush Combat deck ("The Nosferatu Hate You"--go check out my Newsletter website for the deck). It is the epitome of a One Trick Pony--it has no stealth, no bleed modifiers, no voting, no untaps, no intercept, no reaction cards, nothing. Just lots and lots of combat. And it is surprisingly effective (it wins tournaments). It has 12 Immortal Grapples, 10 Undead Strengths, and 8 of lots and lots of cards. It isn't "exciting", in terms of tricks or goofy combos. It is just effective. Would this be deemed "abusive" If so, why? If not, why not? The deck is very effective, but certainly doesn't win more than its fair share of games. People complain about this deck design all the time ("Its boring! It only does one thing!"), and it seems likely that someone who was coming out of a CL environment would say "But it's broken! It's abusive!". How do you determine what is or is not "abusive"? >>The VEKN tournament rules excise abusive cards from the game. Are they not fair and impartial?>> Yes that are, because the banning happens *before* the tournament--you don't show up to a tournament with your deck, only to discover that three or four important cards have been banned--this information is available *before* you build your deck and *before* you decide to go. The arbitrary "abuisve" deck removal happens *after* you have built a deck and taken time off to go to a tournament. Are you honestly defending the concept that I could go to a tournament and a judge (who in all likelyhood understands less of the game than than I do) should have the lattitude to arbitrarily decide that my deck (any deck) is "abusive" and cannot be used in the tournament, based on some incredibly sketchy, arcane rubric that only the Judge is privy to? That is simply insane. >>Be that as it may, I'm still puzzling over why Return to Innocence is banned as well as given errata. Bizarre.>> RTI is banned from tournament games. It is given errata in case someone wants to play it in a non tournament environment, and have it not so incredibly broken as it was when originally printed. >>That seems to be very much a function of the current card mix in which, as I understand it, the disciplines are not balanced.>> But the game as a whole is. Not all disciplines are as good as others, but as a whole, the game stands up very well--the expansion clans (the antitribu and the AH/DS clans) don't have enough to really have many options, but the basic set clans are perfectly viable as a whole. >>A better solution than NCL is to print some more cards which will redress the balance. >> This is just wrong. Jyhad was, again, specifically designed with the foibles of Magic in mind, and was designed to be ballanced from the get go with no card limit. The designers knew full well that people would buy lots of cards, and have 15 of each common, so they made a game where it is useful to have 15 of each common. NCL is not a "solution", it is the very basis of the game design. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <BB79FA0D8378A38C.ABF1C50E...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>I have a question, oh great experienced one. What constitutes an >>"abusive deck"? > >This would be a judgement call - Rashid's judgement in this case. Rashid does not have the authority to do that, under V:EKN rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <0FC0CD724CA3F1DA.78EB812F...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I'm not sure I follow this logic. If someone plays a stealth card >when I block then I'm more likely to block him if he tries this again >because he's clearly less likely to have a stealth card now. It seems weird but.... One of the best defences against stealth and bleed is *don't block*. Quite seriously. Once you know they're playing stealth and bleed, if you don't block, they won't have stealth in their hand. If you *do* block, they just play a stealth card and draw another card - maybe another stealth card, maybe a bleed modifier (say, Conditioning), whatever. As they play and draw more cards, of whatever type, you become more and more screwed - since they start being able to generate 'killer' combos. So not blocking, and preventing them from cycling their deck, and then you going and killing them with votes, combat or bleed (or whatever) yourself, really is one of the most effective ways to go about it. In this game, seeing more of your deck is, most often, a Good Thing. That's why using the discard phase, The Barrens and Fragment of the Book of Nod is often recommended (alter to taste). Also, the card Dreams of the Sphinx, from Ancient Hearts, is an excellent card - tap to increase your hand size by two until the end of the current turn (errata from card text, which says "your" turn). Seeing more cards is always good. Stopping people doing that will often really screw up their deck - and stealth and bleed is the one deck type where you *really* have that option. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7FC11FAE9F2164EF.A7662608...@lp.airnews.net... > Well... now you see why NCL isn't actually a problem. You're correct > in your assessment - it's a better play to mix things up a lot and > keep other people guessing, instead of just throwing 20 of a certain > card into your deck. This is what all of us in the NCL camp try > endlessly to explain to card-limit players - that if you try to rely > on one trick, there are always plenty of ways to hose your one trick, > -and- one of them is likely to be present at your table. The > restrictions on what cards can be played and when generally do well at > preventing abusive decks, and a little smart play tends to handle the > others. > This seems an appropriate place to mention that if you take Lasombra's listing of tournament winning decks http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/twd.htm ) and look at what actually WON tournaments over the last year, the "NCL means everybody plays boring decks" argument falls flat on its face. Out of 30 decks listed since last years Dragon*Con, a total of 5 are variants on the Tap Bleed or Stealth Bleed archetype. The vast majority are toolbox decks that do several things a little bit or do something totally unexpected really well. Big vampires can win, non-PRE politics can win, _intercept_ can even win. If anyone seems to be screwed, it's combat decks, but we knew that already. Yes, when you play in a tournament (especially a big one with lots of casual players) you will see a number of people playing one-trick sleaze decks. They're EASY TO BUILD and look like winners if you don't understand the strategies of game. They die horribly when faced with skilled opponents. Usually one or two will sweep an early table and manage to squeak into the final, but they rarely win. The solution to people who think sleaze decks are the bane of VTES and that CL or 'no cheese' rules are the answer is experience. Play some VTES with NCL against serious competitors, and watch how decks evolve. Sleaze leads to anti-sleaze leads to combat leads to tricky decks leads to toolboxes leads back to focus. Each deck has its nemesis. (well, combat still sucks at winning games, but That Will Change) The anti-cheese, pro CL folks aren't looking at the evidence -- they're whining about not being able to take the easy road to building killer decks with 2-card combos. A 'killer deck' in VTES is a work of art, honed over long hours... and just waiting to get demolished once your playgroup figures out how it works. I Love This Game. Mark Shanewood Ancilla of Minneapolis

Mark & Kathy ShaneWood wrote: > > Each deck has its nemesis. (well, combat still sucks > at winning games, but That Will Change) Hmm... curious. Is this an allusion to the upcoming expansion? Why the capitals? Does anyone know anything concrete about what the new cards are going to be? I would like to play constructed Jyhad more than once a year (Origins)... I hope the expansion stirs up some interest in these parts. James

In article <3967E8EA...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >Mark & Kathy ShaneWood wrote: >> >> Each deck has its nemesis. (well, combat still sucks >> at winning games, but That Will Change) > >Hmm... curious. Is this an allusion to the upcoming expansion? Why the >capitals? Does anyone know anything concrete about what the new cards >are going to be? Usenet has a history of putting slightly euphemistic ideas with capital letters in them. One software company will be releasing a patch Real Soon Now. No-one (well, none of us) knows for certain what will go in the expansion. However, since the entire "S:CE is too powerful" thread took up a *huge* amount of time, and mostly revolved around how to combat it, and with what, rather than a "Yes it's too powerful" "No it's not" type affair, it is generally agreed that things need to be done about S:CE. LSJ has seen all of this. LSJ is a canny player. LSJ can clearly recognise the need for what needs expanding. LSJ is also chief designer. It therefore stands to reason that *something* will end up in the "new cards" section of Sabbat War which will upgrade combat. If nothing else, the Tzimisce need to receive new cards to be viable, and one way of making them viable is to make them shit hot in combat - but with the downside that their cards cost a lot of blood. If you've read any of the recent Clan Novels (Lasombra, with Lucita, is excellent, btw) you can see some of the damage the Tzimisce can do - Vykos is very cute indeed. In V:TES, they just lie down and die next to a solid Majesty (or whatever) deck. Following on from this, it is clear that White Wolf have an interest (though they will obviously recognise that, due to the current card set, it has to be tempered) in following on in story terms and so forth. Trying to match the decks possible to the stories and ideas of players would be a good way to do that. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:y15PlvA8...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > No-one (well, none of us) knows for certain what will go in the > expansion. Well, none of us who are not under NDAs... how big a bribe will it take, LSJ? :-P > However, since the entire "S:CE is too powerful" thread took > up a *huge* amount of time, and mostly revolved around how to combat it, > and with what, rather than a "Yes it's too powerful" "No it's not" type > affair, it is generally agreed that things need to be done about S:CE. > > LSJ has seen all of this. LSJ is a canny player. LSJ can clearly > recognise the need for what needs expanding. LSJ is also chief > designer. It therefore stands to reason that *something* will end up in > the "new cards" section of Sabbat War which will upgrade combat. S:CE, while the _chief_ problem for combat, isn't the only one. I realize that with the limited number of new cards in Sabbat War this probably won't happen, and I'd be thrilled enough to see S:CE countered, but we combat-lovers probably also need a way to hurt our prey more directly by burning/torporizing their minions. Fame by itself isn't really efficient or reliable. I'd like to see some cards that reward successful combat in ways that contribute to getting VPs. > If > nothing else, the Tzimisce need to receive new cards to be viable, and > one way of making them viable is to make them shit hot in combat - but > with the downside that their cards cost a lot of blood. If you've read > any of the recent Clan Novels (Lasombra, with Lucita, is excellent, btw) > you can see some of the damage the Tzimisce can do - Vykos is very cute > indeed. In V:TES, they just lie down and die next to a solid Majesty > (or whatever) deck. > I'd almost rather see the Tzimisce go off in several directions (assuming we get enough Vampires eventually). Smaller combatty Tzimisce, mid-size political Tzimisce with weird specials, and big Tzimisce with Thaumaturgy. Tha/ANI is big-time scary. Making them a combat-focused clan loses a lot of their creepy wonderfulness. > Following on from this, it is clear that White Wolf have an interest > (though they will obviously recognise that, due to the current card set, > it has to be tempered) in following on in story terms and so forth. > Trying to match the decks possible to the stories and ideas of players > would be a good way to do that. > Anybody want to see the Nosferatu get some new cards??? Right now, they're definitely _my_ nominee for "Clan that plays least like their RPG counterparts". At least the Assamites are recognizable, if ineffectual. Mark Shanewood Ancilla of Minneapolis (and way more frequent poster lately for some strange reason)

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > This would be a judgement call - Rashid's judgement in this case. > This method is not to my taste either but it is certainly workable as > evidenced by the fact that it worked. It's not unique either - I've > seen exactly the same system in the event description for INWO at a > past Gencon. INWO != Jyhad. In INWO, it's possible to build a deck that will win on the second turn. Not much fun, but very effective. That's why they had to introduce rules against "degenerate" decks in INWO. I don't know of any deck in Jyhad that I'd consider abusive. The infamous Malkavian stealth-bleeder? Weenie Presence hordes (which I personally hate)? 30 Majesties? There are ways to counter all of those, and all of them do get countered regularly. Even the weenie Presence hordes...though they do seem to win a lot of tournaments, they're not unstoppable. -David

In article <3968b05d$0$8302$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>, Mark & Kathy ShaneWood <shan...@tcinternet.net> writes >Well, none of us who are not under NDAs... how big a bribe will it take, >LSJ? >:-P I contribute a Mars Bar to the fund. :) >S:CE, while the _chief_ problem for combat, isn't the only one. I realize >that with the limited number of new cards in Sabbat War this probably won't >happen, and I'd be thrilled enough to see S:CE countered, but we >combat-lovers probably also need a way to hurt our prey more directly by >burning/torporizing their minions. Certainly. But unless you can get their vampires hurt, anything following on from that is rendered null and void. >I'd almost rather see the Tzimisce go off in several directions (assuming we >get enough Vampires eventually). Smaller combatty Tzimisce, mid-size >political Tzimisce with weird specials, and big Tzimisce with Thaumaturgy. >Tha/ANI is big-time scary. Making them a combat-focused clan loses a lot of >their creepy wonderfulness. Oh, my apologies. I had no intention of suggesting that was the only way they could be beefed up, or the only way they should be. Simply, that's one area that could be beefed up by throwing a few cards at it. Vicissitude already has some nice cards - but it needs a way to use them. One or two cards would help focus that potential. I didn't mean to suggest that we should exclude anything else, or only beef up the combat. >> Following on from this, it is clear that White Wolf have an interest >> (though they will obviously recognise that, due to the current card set, >> it has to be tempered) in following on in story terms and so forth. >> Trying to match the decks possible to the stories and ideas of players >> would be a good way to do that. >> > >Anybody want to see the Nosferatu get some new cards??? Right now, they're >definitely _my_ nominee for "Clan that plays least like their RPG >counterparts". At least the Assamites are recognizable, if ineffectual. Certainly. There needs to be something they can do with their sneakiness. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 17:21:29 GMT, David Edelstein wrote: >INWO != Jyhad. In INWO, it's possible to build a deck that will win on >the second turn. Not much fun, but very effective. That's why they had >to introduce rules against "degenerate" decks in INWO. I've heard talk of Paul Geradi reliably winning INWO on the first turn. It's a very funny story. I'm not sure how their system works in practise now. I didn't want to play after I read the event description. >I don't know of any deck in Jyhad that I'd consider abusive. The >infamous Malkavian stealth-bleeder? Weenie Presence hordes (which I >personally hate)? What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck that you find abusive? Andrew

a...@csi.com wrote: >>I don't know of any deck in Jyhad that I'd consider abusive. > > What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck > that you find abusive? Repeat after me: There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. Repeat it until you get it through your bleedin' thick skull. There is no such thing as an "unbeatable" deck in Jyhad. It can't be done because every strategy has a weakness. Now stop making a fool of yourself by attempting to defend false assumptions and try to learn something from the people that have been playing the game for several years. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <7F5C793C2E5CD15E.5D63AA8D...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 17:21:29 GMT, David Edelstein wrote: > >>INWO != Jyhad. In INWO, it's possible to build a deck that will win on >>the second turn. Not much fun, but very effective. That's why they had >>to introduce rules against "degenerate" decks in INWO. > >I've heard talk of Paul Geradi reliably winning INWO on the first >turn. It's a very funny story. I'm not sure how their system works >in practise now. I didn't want to play after I read the event >description. It's easy to make an INWO deck that can win on the first turn -- before other players may have even gotten a chance to play. The only thing that stops this is the explicit rule "you can't win on the first turn"! >>I don't know of any deck in Jyhad that I'd consider abusive. The >>infamous Malkavian stealth-bleeder? Weenie Presence hordes (which I >>personally hate)? > >What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck that you >find abusive? An abusive deck is unbalanced. It's pretty easy to find a deck type you don't like, which isn't actually unbalanced.

a...@csi.com writes: >On 7 Jul 2000 23:12:16 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>Although subjective, the VEKN tournament rules are determined beforehand >>and enforced in an objective manner which applies to all players in a way >>they were aware of before the tournament. This is a completely different >>thing, a judge making a subjective determination on the spot, after all >>the players have shown up with their decks. Surely you can see the >>difference? I hope... > >Of course. But the problem isn't that the procedure is not fair and >impartial. It's that the procedure is not predictable. Well, it's not likely to be fair or impartial in many situations, IMHO. But you're precisely correct - the _real_ problem is that it isn't predictable. >Players like me will always want to push to the edge of any restrictions >and this would become difficult. But Rashid wasn't running the event for >you or me. He was running it for a known group of players who all wanted >something like this to be done. That I disagree with. Rashid was running the event for whoever would show up, which is not a "known group of players". There's a lot of variables none of us can pin down. The most important is how well Rashid actually knows his local players. But besides that, what effect does his advertising have on who shows up and what types of decks they'd try to bring? Anyway, I think most of us (including Rashid?) are at concensus: if he wants to run tournaments without the VEKN label, he can do anything he likes. If he can increase the player base by these means, good for him. But with the stamp, the tournament organizer should not improvise like this. Fred

a...@csi.com writes: >If you're telling me that a deck of this kind requires lots of Immortal >Grapple to be effective - a card which is a Sabbat uncommon at best - then >this seems to be a serious problem. How do I get my 13 Immortal Grapples? This is an imperfection in CCGs, period. It would be cool if the manufacturer of a CCG could omniscently know how many of each type of card were needed to play the game with all possible decks being represented in about each one's average incidence and would be willing and able to print up cards to that number. But that's fantasy. In the real world, IG is just one of those cards that's been underprinted, even as a Sabbat uncommon. None the less, card limits are just not the answer. Immortal Grapple isn't even all that bad a case of what you're talking about. Fred

David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote in message news:39692CEA...@amadan.org... > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck that you > > find abusive? > > > I hate weenie Presence hordes because they're annoying, unimaginative, > and overused. > > OTOH, they are not abusive because it's quite possible to build decks > that will eat a weenie Presence horde for breakfast. They're effective, > yes, but they can be stopped, and often are. The only deck I'd consider > "abusive" is one that is supremely effective against every other deck > type, and if such a deck type existed in Jyhad, we'd see it winning > tournaments all the time. That says it all. End of discussion as far as I am concerned...

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck that you > find abusive? I hate weenie Presence hordes because they're annoying, unimaginative, and overused. OTOH, they are not abusive because it's quite possible to build decks that will eat a weenie Presence horde for breakfast. They're effective, yes, but they can be stopped, and often are. The only deck I'd consider "abusive" is one that is supremely effective against every other deck type, and if such a deck type existed in Jyhad, we'd see it winning tournaments all the time. -David

On 9 Jul 2000 23:23:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >None the less, card limits are just not the answer. Immortal Grapple isn't >even all that bad a case of what you're talking about. Which cases are worse? Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote in message ... >On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:11:29 GMT, Noal McDonald wrote: > >>I have a question, oh great experienced one. What constitutes an >>"abusive deck"? > >This would be a judgement call - Rashid's judgement in this case. >This method is not to my taste either but it is certainly workable as >evidenced by the fact that it worked. How can you support that statement when Remy never exercised said "judgement"? >It's not unique either - I've >seen exactly the same system in the event description for INWO at a >past Gencon. Oh great, INWO. Heh. There's a game I want to model _my_ next TCG after. (here goes the sarcasm, drip, drip, drip...) Balanced, and equitable... > >>No, it's usually only an issue with new players that come from Magic: >>The Crack Habit or playgroups that think there's a problem with allowing >>30 Majesties in a deck. > >There is more than one problem. The one that puts me off is that NCL >makes this a money game. I'm used to playing Doomtown which has a >card limit of 4, strong uniqueness rules and a game mechanic which >punishes duplication of the same card in a deck - the cheatin' cards. >One good effect of this is that you don't need to worry about >collecting more than one copy of each card. > V:TES a Money game?!?!? That's funny. Especially after Dragon Con wherein I saw several people playing their Jyhad Draft decks afterwards against constructed tournament decks, and gaining VP while they're at it... Any game is only a money game in as much as you allow it to be... If you don't want to spend dollars, trade. >>Uh...no. Jyhad was not designed with card limits in mind. M:TCH was. > >Magic and Jyhad were designed by the same person using the same card >limit rules, i.e. none. > Ah, but even the estimable Mr. Garfield has said that he never thought that individuals would own more than 200 or so cards in their M:TG collection when he originally designed it. Effectively, he thought that rarity would act as a limit to available cards. He has _explicitly_ said (I believe it was in a Duelist interview/article) that he was under no such delusions when designing Jyhad, and wanted to design a game wherein any number of a single card might be put in a deck... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

> I've not seen an apology so far, just I don't care, it was in the > interests of V:TES, I got players playing and other half-arsed attempts > at you justifying yourself for grossly violating the rules when you > *knew* exactly what the situation was. If you're posted an apology, > perhaps you'd care to provide a message ID. Hey!! There is no need for you to take the moral high ground and then trumpet you own holier-than-thou attitude on this newsgroup. On top of that you smear this thread with your own bragging about your accomplishments. You made your point three posts ago. Does it make him a better prince for you to go rubbing his face in it? NO Does it make him want to participate with the rest of us on this side of the Atlantic? NO Does it make you look like a pompous, English ass and give everyone from North American a bad impression of players from England? YES If you want to be a good example of your country and the players therein, then perhaps you should be a little more respectful of others. Especially when you don't know the problems that they are dealing with. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> > There is more than one problem. The one that puts me off is that NCL > makes this a money game. I'm used to playing Doomtown which has a > card limit of 4, strong uniqueness rules and a game mechanic which > punishes duplication of the same card in a deck - the cheatin' cards. > One good effect of this is that you don't need to worry about > collecting more than one copy of each card. > >Uh...no. Jyhad was not designed with card limits in mind. M:TCH was. > > Magic and Jyhad were designed by the same person using the same card > limit rules, i.e. none. Jyhad was made after the Magic the Gathering 4 cl had been around for some time. It was specifically designed so that the game mechanics themselves counterbalanced any multiplicity of cards used. Comments Welcome [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <qvUG2KCW...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <BB79FA0D8378A38C.ABF1C50E...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes > >>I have a question, oh great experienced one. What constitutes an > >>"abusive deck"? > > > >This would be a judgement call - Rashid's judgement in this case. > > Rashid does not have the authority to do that, under V:EKN rules. Reality Break... Remy was doing the right thing by trying to get all the players together. Once he gets them together he can begin to introduce the changes to the rules that VKEN requires. But he first must get them all together. Why must he get them all together? I am glad you asked, because a prince who has 3 or 4 different playgroups in his area will have a very difficult time meeting with all of them and conveying the changes in tournament ettiquette. So let him first gather his players, and then begin to change things. Leadership requires compromise; it is easy to criticise when you do nothing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:22:05 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >Hey!! There is no need for you to take the moral high ground and then Norm didn't have his coffee this morning!! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:08:35 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 9 Jul 2000 23:23:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Tier of Souls, provides a permanent +1 bleed for Animalism along with a "come get some" action so you can use all the Animalism untaps and intercept. No longer must you be content to bleed for two with Computer Hacking, and put the Army of Rats in play. Problem: it appears to be one of the "gotcha!" rares, since I have a whopping total of one. To make a decent deck, you need about 8 of them - sure, you can only have one on a vamp at a time, but it's a (D) action to make it go away, so you'll have to put it back on them a few times. Is it a game-breaker card? Nope. But it would be useful for the poor Gangrel and Nossies, who can't bleed very high to begin with - and then nobody wants to get in a fight with them. (yes, i know, Spying Mission for the Nossies, but that's slow.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7F5C793C2E5CD15E.5D63AA8D...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck that you >find abusive? One is a deck you hate. The other is a deck that is abusive. If you have any concrete examples of the latter, I'm sure many people would be interested, as it is likely that such would result in a campaign and anti-campaign to the Rules Team, regarding what needs errata-ing, or if it needs it at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6EB013102F989787.8CB56D8C...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On 9 Jul 2000 23:23:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>None the less, card limits are just not the answer. Immortal Grapple isn't >>even all that bad a case of what you're talking about. > >Which cases are worse? Derange, for the extra funny Sacrifice/Derange deck. Derange is absurdly rare, in the final distribution. However, as we know, it seems that *somewhere* in the process from deciding rarity to printing, something went wrong with the Sabbat. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8kcm5q$m1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes >Hey!! There is no need for you to take the moral high ground and then >trumpet you own holier-than-thou attitude on this newsgroup. There is a difference between "holier than thou" and someone grossly intentionally violating the rules and then not even having the dignity to apologise for it, and my getting pissed off at that. [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com writes: >On 9 Jul 2000 23:23:56 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>None the less, card limits are just not the answer. Immortal Grapple isn't >>even all that bad a case of what you're talking about. > >Which cases are worse? IMO, some of the useful Sabbat-only (that is, not reprints from V:tES) rares: Disarm, Body Flare, Hungary Coyote, Direct Intervention, things like that. Granted, none of these cards touches IG in terms of general utility. But all are useful in multiple deck archetypes and often in multiples in such decks. And the rarity is so much more extreme: IG is an R2 in the huge, readily available Jyhad printing, an R in the V:tES printing, as well as being a U in Sabbat vs. these others which are just rares in Sabbat. Protected Resources is even worse. Being a rare that's in V:tES but not Jyhad is probably makes it the hardest single to find in the game (though it is a somewhat more specialized card and wouldn't usually appear in multiples, so is not needed as much). Fred

On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:08:07 GMT, Noal McDonald wrote: >There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. Cards are banned. >There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. Cards are subject to errata. >There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. House rules such as Golden Tenets and card limits are commonplace. Now I would prefer not to use any of this stuff but folk here say that it is essential. Why? To curb abusive decks, of course. The issue then is how this is best done. You, of all people, should appreciate that there is more than one way to approach this. Andrew

In article <RyJ3kvA+...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8kcm5q$m1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes > >Hey!! There is no need for you to take the moral high ground and then > >trumpet you own holier-than-thou attitude on this newsgroup. > > There is a difference between "holier than thou" and someone grossly > intentionally violating the rules and then not even having the dignity > to apologise for it, and my getting pissed off at that. Certainly there is, as you have completely made an ass out of yourself by pointing it out and then rubbing his nose in it. Your getting pissed off is irrelavent to the issue at hand. You will gain no sympathy from me for losing your temper while you add insult to injury. Remy's violation of VEKN Dogma was a well-intentioned mistake at the very worst and probably created a larger tournament than he would have normally received. It is, in no uncertain terms, no reason for the summoning of the Spanish Inquisition of which this thread has taken the form. Are you just trying to justify the phrase," no good deed goes unpunished"? What is your major malfunction? He did what he thought was right and used his free time as a unpaid organiser to create what he believed to be a healthy environment for a VTES tournament. What crime is there in that? I commend Remy for his forethought in foreseeing a problem that would affect the number of players which he would be attracting to his tournament. It is only after you have convened a forum that a discussion can take place about such things as abusive decks and card limits. Those people who would have refused to come to the tournament without his disclaimer are those who he would never get a chance to change their minds. Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd, [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Hey!! There is no need for you to take the moral high ground > > Norm didn't have his coffee this morning!! =) > -- Derek Norm??? Usually, I'm the righteous bastard if I didn't get my coffee. This time it was James. I swear between the two of us, we account for at least 1/3 of the angry retorts and sarcastic comments in this newsgroup. *ponders* I need a new sig. Regards, Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8kdh2u$be5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes >Certainly there is, as you have completely made an ass out of yourself >by pointing it out and then rubbing his nose in it. *shrug* He chose to make an ass out of himself. I've still not seen the word "sorry" used, or any form of apology. When I see a spade, I call it a spade. The man wilfully lied about a situation he clearly knew he did not have the authority to, and then continued to compound his error, and cannot even be bothered to say "sorry". If I look like an ass to you for pointing out the man's complete and utter bullshit-filled ways, so be it. He disgraces both VTES and VEKN with his lying. I disgrace only myself, to you. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:06:44 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > > >You assert something about a game you clearly are still learning. > > I'm mostly just echoing back stuff that I'm reading here. > > As an example of the either/or nature of this issue, consider Wake. I > read here that its errata is required because otherwise people would > put 30 Wakes in their deck at little cost and this is thought to be > abusive. Personally, I guess I'm on the fence as to whether this would be _abusive_ or not. But it is clear that Wake has no cost, unlike virtually every other card in this game. I never really had a problem with the card, but I understand people's arguments, and I'm willing to abide by the errata in a tournament setting. > If a Magic-style card limit of 4 were in place then this > abuse would not be possible. ...but _much_ worse abuse would be possible, since the game environment would be much less balanced. I know you don't want to take our word for this, and I really do understand. The Ithaca playgroup I used to be in originally played with 4CL. We argued vehemently that card limits were necessary to prevent what we perceived as abusive decks. We tried NCL, and never went back. Before, we had to shame people out of playing with Stealth/Bleed. Shame was the only tool we had to beat those decks, because as a card-limit game, Jyhad is unbalanced. Under NCL, people could play whatever decks they wanted. There were still problems, notably repeat actions and vote pushing, but prohibiting those maintains the basic balance of the NCL game, while (mostly) removing the abuses. > Claiming that NCL never results in abuse > is an empty boast if errata is used to outlaw such abuse instead. You > could make any CCG work with NCL by doing this. When people say NCL, they almost without exception mean no card limits plus Golden Tenets. It is difficult to have a perfectly balanced game with no card limits. But NCL + GT comes very close. No game is perfect. How many cards would you have to errata to make Magic a workable NCL game? I contend it would be nearly impossible. In Jyhad, a tiny fraction of cards have non-rulings errata and yet the tournament environment is well-balanced, evinced by the fact that no one deck type dominates the tournaments. If, in the current tournament environment, there were an abusive deck type, it would be winning all the tournaments. That isn't happening. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

Easy there, James. You _are_ crabbier than usual today -- which for you, is frightening. Let it go. Yes, Remy should have either used V:EKN rules or run the tournament unsanctioned. No, it's not the end of the world that he didn't. We really don't need another league schism at this point in the game's career, and vicious infighting between people of good will who are all trying in their own ways to promote the game isn't doing anyone any good. Mark Shanewood Ancilla of Minneapolis (and usually likely to be as crabby as James, albeit quieter about it) James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:4ezSKvAE...@obeah.demon.co.uk... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <803A2E88BC022AB5.75B09D74...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:06:44 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > >>You assert something about a game you clearly are still learning. > >I'm mostly just echoing back stuff that I'm reading here. Some of the stuff posted here really isn't worth echoing. ;-) >As an example of the either/or nature of this issue, consider Wake. I >read here that its errata is required because otherwise people would >put 30 Wakes in their deck at little cost and this is thought to be >abusive. If a Magic-style card limit of 4 were in place then this >abuse would not be possible. Claiming that NCL never results in abuse >is an empty boast if errata is used to outlaw such abuse instead. You >could make any CCG work with NCL by doing this. Except that playing with a CL introduces a number of profound problems, while fixing one minor one, and that's without considering the restriction in variety of playable decks! Comparing the WakewEF's errata to CL Jyhad is a poor analogy. As far as broken cards go, simply limiting their number doesn't lessen their effect, it just makes it more random when it will show up, and games tend to reduce to who gets lucky and draws the power card. The deck with more of them will still win unfairly, it'll just be unpredictable Also, you're partially missing the point about the Wake Errata. It's not that someone could put in 30 wakes, it's that what ever wakes you do add have no cost, contrary to the design of Jyhad. Limiting it to 4 or 6 simply doesn't address the problem. CL just is not a good fix for problems that show up in Jyhad.

In article <6322DDD6BBE10A2E.FD575B76...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:08:07 GMT, Noal McDonald wrote: > >>There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. > >Cards are banned. Monocle of Clarity required such a huge mountain of rulings to it, along with the "Truth Value" question (look it up) that it became unplayable. Three "ante" cards are banned from tournaments, because ante is not played for. Return to Innocence is banned (below) Rowan Ring is banned, because the Paralyse rules were taken out. Stake reads as Wooden Stake. > >>There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. > >Cards are subject to errata. Hence leading to no abusive decks, because the game wasn't perfect first time round. Would you advocate that any game is perfect 1st time round, and that you wouldn't make *any* changes from the printed rules? Also note that many of the cards which were errata-ed were to preserve card function, and errata-ing cards was because of the cards, not because the decks they were in were "abusive". A card may be broken - that does not make its deck abusive. And the ones that there were were not many. Essentially: The vote pushing rules stop the 90 KRC deck. The no repeat actions rules stop the Gangrel loop deck RtoI being banned stops itself, because it allowed a huge pool shift for very little cost. That's pretty much it. Tomb decks were necessarily abusive - but they could be very fast and cheap, and in the view of those making the errata, too cheap. (Note that the current errata comes not only from LSJ and the Rules Team, but from a group effort from a *lot* of the newsgroup.) >>There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. > >House rules such as Golden Tenets and card limits are commonplace. And no card limits are played by tournaments, and a very large number of people. No-one has ever shown a no card limits game to be more "abusive" than any other. Indeed, by some values of abusive, card limits are far more so. stealth and bleed is greatly powered up, and its foils reduced. >Now I would prefer not to use any of this stuff but folk here say that >it is essential. Why? To curb abusive decks, of course. You assert something about a game you clearly are still learning. It is an invalid assertion. Not all cards that are treated in any way are to curb abusive decks, merely themselves. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'm not sure I follow this logic. If someone plays a stealth card > when I block then I'm more likely to block him if he tries this again > because he's clearly less likely to have a stealth card now. Your > thinking seems to be based on a metagame where players always use > large numbers of the same card - if you see one then there's bound to > be another. I can see that hand-jamming tactics are appropriate there > but is this metagame result universal? I'd rather mix things up and > keep the other players guessing. > > Andrew Do this is works. Ummm.... you want more? Ok, this is how you beat a Stealth/Bleed deck, why do you think that a malk deck will run out of stealth? They wont, so you kill their cycling. Like a combat deck that can't play combat cards. Cycling is key, to the point where someone blew four potence cards, knowing I had a majesty, just to cycle. He knew, as the Stealth player [if they made a S+B deck) that there is always more potence [read: stealth] in his deck. You kill that by making sure he has all of it in his hand and then doing your own thing. Sure he discards into things, but at one card a turn, he's toast. Keep them guessing with a trick deck, but if you win with bleed, there isn't a big reason to do much of anything else. IMHO (that did get preachy, sorry.). Cameron PS, I have nothing against keeping people guessing, it makes S+B or OOT combat with the malks so sinister. -CD [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:06:44 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >You assert something about a game you clearly are still learning. I'm mostly just echoing back stuff that I'm reading here. As an example of the either/or nature of this issue, consider Wake. I read here that its errata is required because otherwise people would put 30 Wakes in their deck at little cost and this is thought to be abusive. If a Magic-style card limit of 4 were in place then this abuse would not be possible. Claiming that NCL never results in abuse is an empty boast if errata is used to outlaw such abuse instead. You could make any CCG work with NCL by doing this. Andrew

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:58:12 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >He chose to make an ass out of himself. I've still not seen the word >"sorry" used, or any form of apology. >When I see a spade, I call it a spade. The man wilfully lied about a >situation he clearly knew he did not have the authority to, and then >continued to compound his error, and cannot even be bothered to say >"sorry". Hi James, here are my last words on this topic : I`ve settled this with my people here in Quebec, and I don`t care what you think. Respond this if you like to have the last word, but I won't argue with you anymore on this ; the proportion of this thread are ridiculous and I will employ my free time in promoting the game the best I can. Just hunt another witch. Remy Auclair, Prince de Quebec ra...@mediom.qc.ca www.mediom.qc.ca/~rafid/

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:17:09 -0500, James Hamblin wrote concerning no card limit (NCL) in Vampire/Jyhad. >How many cards would you have to errata to make Magic a workable NCL >game? Given what has to be done already to make the game workable, I'm not sure that you'd really notice the difference. But I recall an account of a NCL tournament which sounded fun. I think the format was to see how many times you could win on the first turn without faltering. The winning deck used lots of Wheel of Fortune, Black Lotus and that artifact that lets you refill your deck from your graveyard. Cute. Other games I know better: * Doomtown: has a CL of 4. I reckon you could take this away and you'd scarcely be able to spot the difference. I can't think of any card that you'd want more than 4 copies of. * Shadowfist: has a CL of 5. The designer opined that a CL probably wasn't necessary but that he put one in just to be sure. It probably would make a difference there as big decks of over 100 cards are already quite viable and, with NCL, you could have decks of infinite size. I don't think it would break the game though and might be good fun. Hmm - maybe I should try this at our next tournament. We already have a player who uses a Really Big Deck of ~500 cards. Just how far would he go ...? Hey guys, what do you think? Now that Throne Wars won't be with us in time for the July event, how about a No Holds Barred event? Andrew

> From: Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:17:09 -0500, James Hamblin wrote concerning > no card limit (NCL) in Vampire/Jyhad. > >> How many cards would you have to errata to make Magic a workable NCL >> game? > > Given what has to be done already to make the game workable, I'm not > sure that you'd really notice the difference. But I recall an account > of a NCL tournament which sounded fun. I think the format was to see > how many times you could win on the first turn without faltering. The > winning deck used lots of Wheel of Fortune, Black Lotus and that > artifact that lets you refill your deck from your graveyard. Cute. I ran such a tournament, and the winning deck was exactly as you describe. It frequently won (even without the opponent getting a turn) by running his opponent out of cards. I think there were one or two more cards in the combo, but it was a real sight to see. Amusingly, he would generate so much mana that he had sidekick keep track of it for him. The mana burn was a bitch. It almost lost to a deck that was almost entirely Scryb Sprites and Giant Growths, though. Fastbond was in there too, I think. I'm curious as to where you heard of this deck/tournament, as it may be the same one I ran back in my dinky comic store; must have been some time in '95, if not earlier. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right." -- Henry David Thoreau

In article <7AB41FF22E7AD3B2.F26C1508...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > * Shadowfist: has a CL of 5. The designer opined that a CL probably > wasn't necessary but that he put one in just to be sure. It probably > would make a difference there as big decks of over 100 cards are > already quite viable and, with NCL, you could have decks of infinite > size. I don't think it would break the game though and might be good > fun. Hmm - maybe I should try this at our next tournament. We > already have a player who uses a Really Big Deck of ~500 cards. Just > how far would he go ...? Hey guys, what do you think? Now that > Throne Wars won't be with us in time for the July event, how about a > No Holds Barred event? That's one answer to those swine trying to Necromantic Conspiracy my Golden Comebacks away. Make me a yes vote. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com wrote: > >There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. > Cards are banned. That's a case of the cards being abusable, not decks. Don't confuse the two. Besides which, most cards are not banned for being abusable. Only Return to Innocence was...and that was not banned by the NJL. >>There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. > Cards are subject to errata. Same as above. Note that most errata is not due to cards being abusable, but rather because of poor wording (i.e., Hawg) or bizarre corner cases (i.e., Banishment) >> There is no such thing as an "abusive" deck in Jyhad. > House rules such as Golden Tenets and card limits are commonplace. Golden Tenets are no longer house rules. They have become part of the official rules. Card limits do not prevent abusive decks. They are more likely to cause them. > Now I would prefer not to use any of this stuff but folk here say that > it is essential. Why? To curb abusive decks, of course. As you usual, your assertion is not only false, it shows that you neither fully understand the game nor its history. This is made clear by the following statement. > You, of all people, should appreciate that there is more than > one way to approach this. Here, you try to get a pagan to preach the word of god. The NJL was founded because, among other reasons, there were some basic philosophical differences between us and LSJ. One of them was the belief that the game was balanced just fine as it was and that some of the errata was unnecessary. I'd go into that more, but I just deleted two paragraphs of rambling and I clearly need more coffee. Regards, Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <803A2E88BC022AB5.75B09D74...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:06:44 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > >>You assert something about a game you clearly are still learning. > >I'm mostly just echoing back stuff that I'm reading here. Echoing something without understanding it is never useful. :( >As an example of the either/or nature of this issue, consider Wake. I >read here that its errata is required because otherwise people would >put 30 Wakes in their deck at little cost and this is thought to be >abusive. The use of Wake, yes. The deck is a different matter. >If a Magic-style card limit of 4 were in place then this >abuse would not be possible. This particular abuse, no. But you then just ignore the fact that the game was designed to be played with an infinitely large collection of cards, and as many of each as will fit in the deck. >Claiming that NCL never results in abuse >is an empty boast if errata is used to outlaw such abuse instead. You need such errata in xCL. The blind advocation of playing with the cards as they are printed, come what may, is a pointless one. If you *really* want to drag up all the Card Limits debates, the Judith and Mark Jyhad page is that way ---> and when DejaNews gets its archive back on-line, reading that is a good way to go. >You >could make any CCG work with NCL by doing this. Actually, no. The number of cards which have had their function majorly change in V:TES is less than 1%. [ quoted text not captured ]

(It is generally best to point out explicitly that you have cross-posted something.) In article <7AB41FF22E7AD3B2.F26C1508...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >* Doomtown: has a CL of 4. I reckon you could take this away and >you'd scarcely be able to spot the difference. I can't think of any >card that you'd want more than 4 copies of. And herein lies the problem. In Jyhad, there are many cards you would want more than 4 of, in the right deck. New games with card limits were designed for them. Jyhad was designed *specifically* without one. [ quoted text not captured ]

Long, long ago, in a newsgroup far, far away, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> said: >>How many cards would you have to errata to make Magic a workable NCL >>game? > >Given what has to be done already to make the game workable, I'm not >sure that you'd really notice the difference. But I recall an account >of a NCL tournament which sounded fun. I think the format was to see >how many times you could win on the first turn without faltering. The >winning deck used lots of Wheel of Fortune, Black Lotus and that >artifact that lets you refill your deck from your graveyard. Cute. >Other games I know better: > The reason they're there in the first place (besides balancing cards like Black Lotus) is that decks with 30 Lightning Bolts and 10 Mountains gets real boring real fast. Many cards have essentially had their card limits removed because exact duplicates with different names have been produced. >* Doomtown: has a CL of 4. I reckon you could take this away and >you'd scarcely be able to spot the difference. I can't think of any >card that you'd want more than 4 copies of. > Especially with Cheatin' cards. >* Shadowfist: has a CL of 5. The designer opined that a CL probably >wasn't necessary but that he put one in just to be sure. It probably >would make a difference there as big decks of over 100 cards are >already quite viable and, with NCL, you could have decks of infinite >size. I don't think it would break the game though and might be good >fun. Hmm - maybe I should try this at our next tournament. We >already have a player who uses a Really Big Deck of ~500 cards. Just >how far would he go ...? Hey guys, what do you think? Now that >Throne Wars won't be with us in time for the July event, how about a >No Holds Barred event? > I don't think game balance would suffer too much, but there's something completely dull about playing against a deck with 10 Nerve Gasses in it. Some other games: L5R: Definitely needs card limits. Not only would decks become amazingly homogenized, but several decks would be quite overpowered. Middle-earth: Again, decks would tend to get boring (Look! Another Slayer!) but I don't think many cards would have to be tweaked for game balance, since most of the potential problem cards are Unique. Often, when a game is designed with card limits in mind, the design and playtest process tends to use the fact that the card will be limited in number as a balancing factor. =-=-=-=-= Trevor Stone =-=-= a.k.a. Flwyd =-=-= tstone @ nyx . net =-=-=-=-= Computer science, eclectic philosophy, games, wits, esotericism, weird hats. http://www.flwyd.dhs.org/ Thou bootless rough-hewn clotpole! I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere.

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:dlOERqBi...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes > >* Doomtown: has a CL of 4. I reckon you could take this away and > >you'd scarcely be able to spot the difference. I can't think of any > >card that you'd want more than 4 copies of. > > And herein lies the problem. > > In Jyhad, there are many cards you would want more than 4 of, in the > right deck. New games with card limits were designed for them. Jyhad > was designed *specifically* without one. As I have said before and I'll say it again... Cryptic Mission, 4 copies only? I don't think so.... CL = BAD NCL = GOOD If someone wants to play 24 Majesty, let em. That's what Doggies and Grapples and H. Lurkers and F. Reactions and etc.... (ad nauseum) were made for. Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.

I'm not a big fan of replying to myself, but... I got in touch with the guy who made the Lotus-Wheel-Feldon's deck, and it turns out he lost to the Scryb Sprite deck after all in that tournament! Curiouser and curiouser... -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "I figured if I couldn't pick it up, I gotta have it!" -- Tasty Taste, hefting a bazooka; _Fear of a Black Hat_ > From: Scott DiBerardino <sdib...@student.umass.edu> > Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst > Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad,rec.games.trading-cards.misc > Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:18:38 -0400 > Cc: Greg Schwartz <zap...@the-spa.com> > Subject: Re: Card Limits > >> From: Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:17:09 -0500, James Hamblin wrote concerning >> no card limit (NCL) in Vampire/Jyhad. >> >>> How many cards would you have to errata to make Magic a workable NCL >>> game? >> >> Given what has to be done already to make the game workable, I'm not >> sure that you'd really notice the difference. But I recall an account >> of a NCL tournament which sounded fun. I think the format was to see >> how many times you could win on the first turn without faltering. The >> winning deck used lots of Wheel of Fortune, Black Lotus and that >> artifact that lets you refill your deck from your graveyard. Cute. > > I ran such a tournament, and the winning deck was exactly as you describe. > It frequently won (even without the opponent getting a turn) by running his > opponent out of cards. I think there were one or two more cards in the > combo, but it was a real sight to see. Amusingly, he would generate so much > mana that he had sidekick keep track of it for him. The mana burn was a > bitch. > > It almost lost to a deck that was almost entirely Scryb Sprites and Giant > Growths, though. Fastbond was in there too, I think. > > I'm curious as to where you heard of this deck/tournament, as it may be the > same one I ran back in my dinky comic store; must have been some time in > '95, if not earlier. > > -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu > "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time > what I think is right." > -- Henry David Thoreau >

In article <7AB41FF22E7AD3B2.F26C1508...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:17:09 -0500, James Hamblin wrote concerning >no card limit (NCL) in Vampire/Jyhad. > >>How many cards would you have to errata to make Magic a workable NCL >>game? > >Given what has to be done already to make the game workable, I'm not >sure that you'd really notice the difference. But I recall an account >of a NCL tournament which sounded fun. I think the format was to see >how many times you could win on the first turn without faltering. The >winning deck used lots of Wheel of Fortune, Black Lotus and that >artifact that lets you refill your deck from your graveyard. Cute. Always wanted to see what would happen if you brought a deck consisting entirely of Force of Will (free counterspell) and Psychic Purges (If somebody makes you discard it, they take five.) to a tournament like that. It probably couldn't win, but it'd probably be funny to watch the super-degenerate decks come crashing down. >* Shadowfist: has a CL of 5. The designer opined that a CL probably >wasn't necessary but that he put one in just to be sure. It probably >would make a difference there as big decks of over 100 cards are >already quite viable and, with NCL, you could have decks of infinite >size. I don't think it would break the game though and might be good >fun. Hmm - maybe I should try this at our next tournament. We >already have a player who uses a Really Big Deck of ~500 cards. Just >how far would he go ...? Hey guys, what do you think? Now that >Throne Wars won't be with us in time for the July event, how about a >No Holds Barred event? I've played in something like that. (I think it was part of one season of the proving ground where Daedelus were experimenting with interesting formats.) Fist has too many cheap global effects for it to work. Consider the Killing Rain-Dark Traveller decks, or what could be done with twenty Final Brawls. -- Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com "Nobody will ever let you know / When you ask the reasons why They just tell you that you're on your own / Fill your head all full of lies" -- Black Sabbath

In article <39692CEA...@amadan.org>, David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote: > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > What's the difference between a deck that you hate and a deck that > > you find abusive? [What is the sound of one hand clapping?] > I hate weenie Presence hordes because they're annoying, unimaginative, > and overused. Fair enough. > OTOH, they are not abusive because it's quite possible to build decks > that will eat a weenie Presence horde for breakfast. They're > effective, yes, but they can be stopped, and often are. This isn't a good working definition for "abusive". >The only deck I'd consider > "abusive" is one that is supremely effective against every other deck > type, and if such a deck type existed in Jyhad, we'd see it winning > tournaments all the time. The problem with this theory is that a reasonable metagame shift will never allow the deck you are talking about to exist. When one deck begins to perform quite well, in any game where there is a large enough player pool, a number of players will respond with answers to the deck. To say that an abusive deck will be supremely effective vs. every other deck isn't useful. A better rule is this: A deck is "abusive" or "broken" if the deck NECESSITATES such a large strategic response in every other deck that those decks cannot adequately respond to other typically used strategies. Example 1: In Magic, pretend a theoretical combo deck requires such a response that most decks that would normally use creature removal stop using creature removal because they cannot afford to draw that removal vs. the combo deck if they hope to win. (High Tide during Combo Winter 1998) Example 2: In pre-Golden Tenets Jyhad, Weenie Vote Push decks were supreme. While they generally could be beaten by a Justine with a Sport Bike, they caused numerous responses from "gentlemanly" bannings of the playing of such decks, to heavy intercept in Rush decks, heavy Vote Cards and use of Delaying Tactics in other decks, above and beyond the typical anti-Vote defenses that other decks might typically use (often at the cost of sufficient Bleed/Combat defense). Even these measures proved inadequate as WVP decks modified themselves to win over these countermeasures. In the end, the Golden Tenets were adopted to stop it. With this model, no Weenie Presence Bleed is not overpowered. It doesn't require above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty defenses. While quite efficient and effective Presence Bleed's card use intensity and weaknesses against common strategies (such as Immortal Grapple or Bleed Bounce) more than keep it from being broken. If every deck had to pack Bleed Bounce, then an argument might be made that the deck is broken. Alas, poor Weenie Presence Bleed is merely a very good deck. -- offNet: Adrian Sullivan @#$ Web Consultant - Game Theorist $#@ EFNet: Corrupter @#$ Writer - Eccentric - Hedonist $#@ USENET: The Corrupter @#$ Geek - Coffee Addict - HSTHSTS $#@ e-mail: thecor...@yahoo.com TaLeNa FOREVER! ;) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <C66314CD7A5C8101.579D33FA...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > We're all hoping Sabbat War will include -something- to tip the > balance a little bit more towards combat. (Since the S:CE problem is > pretty much universally agreed upon, we feel fairly confident that > SOMETHING will happen.) Well, I wouldn't be too confident. We, as a newsgroup, were all quite pleased with the initial release of Jyhad over 5 years ago. There were all manner of debates and intense discussion about what was good and bad, what went well, and the like. The inner cadre of those discussino was perhaps responsible for the best newsgroup discussions (or public forum discussions, for that matter) that I've ever been apart of, in terms of signal-to-noise and problem-solving. There was a lot of excitement on this newsgroup preceding each expansion. We were a bit disappointed by Dark Sovereigns, miffed by a bit of the decisions in Ancient Hearts, and for the most part driven crazy by the Sabbat. While there might be a large number of people _here_ who understand the game, that doesn't mean the game company does. I do a lot of freelance writing on Magic, and Wizards flew me into Orlando to cover this years National Championship. I talked a bit to Skaff Elias and a few others about Jyhad, mostly in passing. "Jyhad wasn't balanced. We had a bunch of broken decks around the office," said Skaff. A brief inquiry showed that the development team wasn't even trying to make competitive decks, nor were they even using the official rules of the game. While this might be something that lies solely with WotC, I've learned to distrust most people involved in an official capacity with Jyhad. They don't understand the game as well as those of us who've played seriously. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8kqkv2$p9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thecor...@yahoo.com writes >A deck is "abusive" or "broken" if the deck NECESSITATES such a large >strategic response in every other deck that those decks cannot >adequately respond to other typically used strategies. And about the only deck I've ever seen that needed that was the RtoI based decks, with a number of players defending it with "But you can play bounce!" wiping out a large number of clans with no access to bounce. -- James Coupe

In article <8kqlom$pod$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thecor...@yahoo.com writes >While there might be a large number of people _here_ who understand the >game, that doesn't mean the game company does. LSJ is lead designer. I know of *no* Jyhad player (myself included *grin*) who has anywhere near as good an understanding of the game as LSJ. LSJ has run more tournaments than I've had hot dinners, and has made more rulings than anyone ever (it seems) so that he has seen more of the game than virtually anyone else. And he cannot have failed to have seen the complaints of the newsgroup over time, even before he was appointed lead designer. Everyone knows there are certain facets people would like improved. Assamite combat (which, theoretically, could be done with a card for Celerity, Obfuscate or a general card in the Sabbat War), allies/retainers, big vampires, the under-represented clans, the ability to at least be equal with S:CE (no-one I know wants to see it *killed*, just allow other decks to be effective) etc. All these complaints have been around for a couple of years, at least. LSJ cannot have failed to have seen them. White Wolf clearly know that they haven't followed the game for a long time. They have been working their socks off to get players like LSJ on board. Presumably, there are other members of the Design Team and Rules Team who have been appointed from the prominent player base (I wouldn't know) but, to prevent us trying to unduly 'influence' them, have been kept secret. -- James Coupe

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:40:40 GMT, thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: >In article ><C66314CD7A5C8101.579D33FA...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> We're all hoping Sabbat War will include -something- to tip the >> balance a little bit more towards combat. (Since the S:CE problem is >> pretty much universally agreed upon, we feel fairly confident that >> SOMETHING will happen.) > >Well, I wouldn't be too confident. Knowing that LSJ is the lead designer, I would. >While there might be a large number of people _here_ who understand the >game, that doesn't mean the game company does. Fortunately, it is now White Wolf and not WotC who is producing the Sabbat War expansion - leading one to believe that yes, there will be a slightly different approach taken. >While this might be something that lies solely with WotC, I've learned >to distrust most people involved in an official capacity with Jyhad. >They don't understand the game as well as those of us who've played >seriously. Good thing LSJ plays seriously then. =) -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

Jyhad is not the only game that suffers/suffered from this problem. I know at least one other: Babylon 5. It's very unfortunate situation but true. Tomi thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: > A brief inquiry showed that the development team wasn't even trying to > make competitive decks, nor were they even using the official rules of > the game. > [ quoted text not captured ]