4 Card Limit Thoughts

I don't know how many people or groups play with a self imposed 4 card limit, but about half the people I met at the Origins 95 Jyhad game did. If this is indicative, then many people do. I do not belive that a 4 card limit is the answer to the tournament rules, as it alienates the people who play no limits more than the people who play with them. If someone shows up to a tourney with a 4 limit deck, they can just play it as it is, or beef it up some. No limit decks have to be entirely rebuilt. Regardless, we use the 4 card limit because: 1) It makes you be more clever. You can still play just about any deck concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people. 2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher " decks. Granted, the " Malkavian Chainsaw " is a very powerful design in the limit game, but as they use up 5-6 cards a turn, they run out of steam rather quickly with more than 4 players, as they only have 16-20 stealth cards. Also, we all play multiple Malkavian Dementias, just to punish the fools. ( What? You mean Ozmo has accidentally diablerized Muriel? I'm OUTRAGED! Call a bloodhunt! Heh Heh. ). And who wants to play those silly Malkavians anyway. 3) New players won't be heard saying " Urk. Where the heck did you get the 27 Deflections from? " 4) The decks are not as predictable, as in " Oh, Hey. You Majesty and untap, again? No way. Who would have thought." I would never claim that every one should play this way, but I would like to hear who does and why. Just curious I guess. KoKo. Justicar in 96 -Peter D Bakija

>Ah yes, the "database search" concept of cleverness. Can your database >cough up 3 or more similar cards so you can avoid the cards limits and >actually play something approaching Jyhad? Come on now Curt No limits is the same when it comes to Your "Database Search" Except your "Database" is a hell of alot smaller. >Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you >must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their >hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I >won't give it up to shut down my predator. Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under 4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced. >Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will >cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you >can't block. Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your hand is full of rush combat cards. >>2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things >>like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher " >>decks. > >Freaky bleed is almost academic - to my knowledge, nobody but me has made >one. It's just not worth the trouble of collecting 30 or so Freak Drives. I have made one to altough the freak drive deck is..I mean was a neat one I got bored half way through the game, though I have played this deck with 4CR and it worked well,you have to add other concepts obviously. > Vote pushing is a rules problem, and card limits don't fix it. I have had no Problem with vote pushing and have yet to see a logical problem with it. >The more fundamental problem with tight card limits is that there is much >less variety in deck designs - basically every deck is S&B or dreary, >slow, permanent-driven intercept combat. There is much less variety in deck design period Curt, 4CR and NL not because of either of these but because a lack of expansions has sent the game to limbo. To coin a phrase "All the great themes have been used" both 4CR and NL. Lets face it this game needs an expansion bad. I agree with what you both said here NL the game breaks down 4CR the game breaks down again. 2 CR the game doesn't breakdown but you do end up with a little bit of "luck of the draw" But deck creation is at its finest and is only for those with a little patience. Errol

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >1) It makes you be more clever. You can still play just about any deck >concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum >Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of >the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote >decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards >that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people. Peace Peter, Please, post an example of an effective Brujah rush combat deck under four card limit. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

A rush Brujah deck, huh?, The other night we played multiple 5 player games under the 4 card limit, and the decks were: Nosferatu/Gangrel "I Bleed you, or I kill you " (S+B and Rush ) All Gangrel " Wake up, time to die! " ( Rush and aggro ) Tremere/ Toreador " Press and mash " ( Intercept and Thamu ) All Brujah " I vote you dead " ( nasty votes, guns, Rake ) Brujah/Toreador " Intercept combat " ( Guns, Guns, Guns ) Malkavian " non efective bleeding loonies " (all those goofy masters) All Ventrue " Walking Bleeders " ( no stealth DOM bleeds ) Ventrue/Toreador/Tremere " Voting kill" (KRC and others) The "Malkavian Chainsaw" ( Traditional S+B ) So we had plenty of deck variation on a 4 card limit. The Nos/Gang tied for points with the all Ventrue in one game, the all Gangrel won another, the Guns deck won yet another, and the Brujah/Ventrue voter won the last. There was plenty of variation, and the Malkavians did not win. As for an all Brujah rush deck, you got me, but I'm sure it would involve Rush, Haven uncovered and Blood hunt (Hey, Rake is a prince...). And hey, Curt, lighten up. It's only a game, and it's not as if I was saying YOU ( or anyone else for that matter ) had to play this way. :-) Peter D Bakija

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >I don't know how many people or groups play with a self imposed 4 card >limit [stuff deleted] >Regardless, we use the 4 card limit because: > >1) It makes you be more clever. You can still play just about any deck >concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum >Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of >the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote >decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards >that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people. Well, the point is not to be or not to be clever, but the fact that Jyhad is *not* M:tG and you can not think to it on this basis. I think we all agree that Jyhad is more than 60 KRC decks, but it is *much* more than destroying clan strategies with 4-card limits!! >2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things >like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher " >decks. Granted, the " Malkavian Chainsaw " is a very powerful design in >the limit game, but as they use up 5-6 cards a turn, they run out of steam >rather quickly with more than 4 players, as they only have 16-20 stealth >cards. Also, we all play multiple Malkavian Dementias, just to punish the >fools. ( What? You mean Ozmo has accidentally diablerized Muriel? I'm >OUTRAGED! Call a bloodhunt! Heh Heh. ). And who wants to play those silly >Malkavians anyway. Also about this I would like to say that Malks are no doubt a very good clan but they are no way unbeatable. BTW I like to play Malks and it would not be fair to use rules which prevent one clan to be competitive ( e.g., tourney rules do prevent any clan but S&B Malks from being playable...) [deleted] >4) The decks are not as predictable, as in " Oh, Hey. You Majesty and >untap, again? No way. Who would have thought." Since you wrote about cleverness it should be obvious that when people meet not in tornament the explicit purpose is to have fun and so cleverness should be applied by everyone on not playing boring decks (boring also for the one who plays them). Besides *everyone* here IMHO is convinced that Majesty is a problem but many other solutions were proposed and they were almost all better in my opinion than limiting *all* cards to 4 per type. >I would never claim that every one should play this way, but I would like >to hear who does and why. Just curious I guess. > >KoKo. Justicar in 96 >-Peter D Bakija -- Luca "Democritus" Consoli Web page: http://imoax1.unimo.it/~consoli/ |-------------------------------------------| |" S'i fossi foco arderei lo mondo..." | |{ Were I Fire, I would burn the world..." |------------| | (Cecco Angiolieri, Italian poet)| |--------------------------------------------------------|

In article <46h240$k...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca> Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: > >>Ah yes, the "database search" concept of cleverness. Can your database >>cough up 3 or more similar cards so you can avoid the cards limits and >>actually play something approaching Jyhad? > >Come on now Curt No limits is the same when it comes to Your "Database >Search" Except your "Database" is a hell of alot smaller. I don't get it. Please clarify. >>Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you >>must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their >>hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I >>won't give it up to shut down my predator. > >Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent >properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under >4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced. Do you have any specific actions you can name which your Malk predator /must/ block? Even if you KRC, you'll be ousted by your Malk predator before you can hold him down, and you have little to no chance of winning if all you're doing is KRC on your predator. >>Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will >>cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you >>can't block. > >Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more >people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while >everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the >hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders >for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your >hand is full of rush combat cards. If everybody's vampires are torporized by Rush, although the game may go on for a number of turns, they're very fast turns in terms of real time ("Okay, my turn, I play a master, nobody has blood to get out of torpor, no transfers, and next person's turn while I'm discarding.") :-) -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: >>Ah yes, the "database search" concept of cleverness. Can your database >>cough up 3 or more similar cards so you can avoid the cards limits and >>actually play something approaching Jyhad? >Come on now Curt No limits is the same when it comes to Your "Database >Search" Except your "Database" is a hell of alot smaller. No. In no limits design the questions are how many dodges you put in your deck - not whether you can contort the deck enough to find 3 Dodge cards and thus have an adequate number. Without limits everybody can dodge, everybody can maneuver, everybody can press, everybody can bleed (lots of different ways), everybody can fight, etc. Every deck faces a huge plethora of complex design decisions. With card limits, most of these decisions are made for you with any given deck - the cards just aren't there. >>Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you >>must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their >>hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I >>won't give it up to shut down my predator. >Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent >properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under >4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced. A lot of people are surprised when I refuse to block their actions. But it works very well against the right decks. Combat decks that rely on somebody else's blocks to use their combat cards turn into a giant hand jam if you don't block them - they don't even get to draw any actions to take. Really, there are very few actions which *have* to be blocked. Sticking your predator with a neverending hand jam is worth almost anything. >>Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will >>cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you >>can't block. >Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more >people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while >everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the >hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders >for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your >hand is full of rush combat cards. Actually I find rush works best with weenies or laptops, so once they face no opposition they can deal a lot of bleed. Combat decks, of any type, tend to lengthen games and to benefit from longer games. >> Vote pushing is a rules problem, and card limits don't fix it. >I have had no Problem with vote pushing and have yet to see a logical >problem with it. This has been hashed over before. Take 20 KRC, 20 Conservative Agitation, 20 assorted Praxis Siezures and Justicars, 10 Effective Management and go to town. >>The more fundamental problem with tight card limits is that there is much >>less variety in deck designs - basically every deck is S&B or dreary, >>slow, permanent-driven intercept combat. >There is much less variety in deck design period Curt, 4CR and NL not >because of either of these but because a lack of expansions has sent the >game to limbo. To coin a phrase "All the great themes have been used" >both 4CR and NL. Lets face it this game needs an expansion bad. An expansion would be great, assuming it didn't unbalance the game (the three Inner Circle vampires listed in Duelist 7 really worry me, if they are any indication of what is to come). However, no limits, there are already many more themes than have been tried in my circle - I stand by my previous estimate of 100 fundamentally different decks. (With an expansion, I'd estimate about 150). >I agree with what you both said here NL the game breaks down 4CR the game >breaks down again. >2 CR the game doesn't breakdown but you do end up with a little bit of >"luck of the draw" But deck creation is at its finest and is only for >those with a little patience. 2-card Jyhad isn't even Jyhad - it's a permanent-driven game like Magic with an extremely limited card set. And as to deck construction - well, choosing the disciplines with which to salt the weenie gun hordes isn't much variety. If you usually play tight limits, I can see why you think of an Arson as a must-block catastrophe. With tight limits, permanents are essential, so you have to get things like the News Radio and hunting grounds. Without limits, those destructable locations can be done without - they are nice, not essential. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

What does S+B have to do with a chainsaw? Well, those Malkavian decks rip through you at high speed and make a RRRRRRR noise as they go. Ok, its more like a " I bleed you for 5 at +4 stealth " noise, but after a while it begins to sound like RRRRRRRRRR. :-) And no, I don't really have anything against Maklkavians, and CERTANLY would never attempt to say " Remove them from tournament play " as someone above implied. And again, yes, a good Malk deck could beat all of the decks I described above, but the last time we played with one, everyone said " That Malkavian deck is going to kill us all. Lets get it! " It didn't last very long. So does anyone out there like playing with a 4 card limit? Any card limit? Anyone? Or am I just a bad person. These limits were not imposed upon anyone around here. We just all play that way, and we have a fine time. I'd hate to have to go out and round up all those extra cards. I'd be pissed too if anyone said " You must play this way! " We always ask new players very nicely how their deck is set up. Peter D Bakija

PDB6 (pd...@aol.com) wrote: : And again, yes, a good Malk deck could beat all of the : decks I described above, but the last time we played with one, everyone : said " That Malkavian deck is going to kill us all. Lets get it! " It : didn't last very long. So you are effectively admitting that under 4-card, nobody can play an _effective_ Malkavian deck, or else all normal predator/prey relationships take a holiday until they are ousted. (Sure we're cripples, but the four of us can beat you to death with our crutches!) : So does anyone out there like playing with a 4 card limit? Any card limit? Some people play with it because they have never tried no-limit. Some people play because they don't _like_ having to think hard and make subtle design decisions, like 'Which do I want more of: Threats, Bonding or Conditioning?' This decision is already made by the restrictions you place on yourselves; just throw in four of each. I have yet to hear of someone who was playing 4-card go to no-limits and hate it so much they went back to four-card... : These limits were not imposed upon : anyone around here. We just all play that way, and we have a fine time. <bobbitt> : We always ask new : players very nicely how their deck is set up. So what do you do if their deck is set up under no-limits then? Let them play anyway because they're new, and never make them play 4-card? Let them play it this time, but they have to rebuild for next time? Or simply say, "Sorry... we play with limits so you can't use that deck." Saying 'You can't play on our team unless you play by our rules' is still imposing restrictions on people - they just have a choice as to whether or not they want to stay in the situation. (The choice is often moot - if this is your regular gaming group and/or the only group in town that plays Jyhad, where else are you gonna go?) Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant

>Every deck faces a huge plethora of complex design decisions. With card limits, most of these decisions are made for you with any = given deck - the cards just aren't there. Yes you do have a plethora of deck designs some are fun,some are themes and unfortunatly not all are winners. >A lot of people are surprised when I refuse to block their actions. But >it works very well against the right decks. Combat decks that rely on >somebody else's blocks to use their combat cards turn into a giant hand >jam if you don't block them - they don't even get to draw any actions to >take. Really, there are very few actions which *have* to be blocked. >Sticking your predator with a neverending hand jam is worth almost >anything. Actually not blocking is very common in our group, like you said go ahead and bleed me for one big deal! Burn my location,so what. >Actually I find rush works best with weenies or laptops, so once they face >no opposition they can deal a lot of bleed. > >Combat decks, of any type, tend to lengthen games and to benefit from >longer games. The Gangrel combat is to weak to S:CE,and the lack of any real intercept the infamous hand jam deck,also Combat decks do lengthen games which I like. Rush is a good stradegy to S&B but I have seen the Elysium,and Lady Thunder,and S:CE bloat my Rush hand rather quickly letting the bleeder run rampant. NL with Malk Dem is the best stradegy against S&B. >An expansion would be great, assuming it didn't unbalance the game (the >three Inner Circle vampires listed in Duelist 7 really worry me, if they >are any indication of what is to come). However, no limits, there are >already many more themes than have been tried in my circle - I stand by my >previous estimate of 100 fundamentally different decks. (With an >expansion, I'd estimate about 150). > Yeah thats all we would need is to have them screw up the expansions, I have read the Inner circle Vamps also I can Immediatly see these being very popular, though I see they have taken away the Clan\Disciplines. >If you usually play tight limits, I can see why you think of an Arson as a >must-block catastrophe. With tight limits, permanents are essential, so >you have to get things like the News Radio and hunting grounds. Without >limits, those destructable locations can be done without - they are nice, >not essential. Yes 2CL can be a permanents driven game if you play that way,it doesn't have to be though. Actually I could care less if some own arsons me its only set backs not game enders. I have found burning Vamps in 2CL are game enders. Errol

> >If everybody's vampires are torporized by Rush, although the game may >go on for a number of turns, they're very fast turns in terms of >real time ("Okay, my turn, I play a master, nobody has blood to get out >of torpor, no transfers, and next person's turn while I'm discarding.") > :-) > >-- >"Live Life with Heart." > >Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu Heres where I disagree with you alan if all I'm doing for a few rounds is gathering up speed so that I can go one whole round of combat with Bianca then wait another however many rounds....Boring. Errol

In article k...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: [Stuff deleted] > > >Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you > >must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their > >hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I > >won't give it up to shut down my predator. > > Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent > properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under > 4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced. What action can a combat deck take that any other deck is going to want to block? Bleed? Why block a one point bleed and risk that minion going to torpor. No bleeder deck I have ever played would bother blocking a one point bleed (except maybe a minion deck but even then I am going to block the smallest weekest vamps you have and unless all your combat cards are discplineless your hand is going to jam) > > >Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will > >cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you > >can't block. > > Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more > people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while > everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the > hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders > for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your > hand is full of rush combat cards. > What is your defenition of slow? Sure a game with lots of comabt is going to take alot longer than a game with nothing but bleeding(it don't see how it matters if the combat is interecpt or rush driven) If the game had nothing but fast bleed decks it would be very linear and uninteresting. > >>2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things > >>like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher " > >>decks. > > > > Vote pushing is a rules problem, and card limits don't fix it. > > I have had no Problem with vote pushing and have yet to see a logical > problem with it. > Vote push is a problem because of the weenie vote deck. A deck with nothing but one and two blood vamps and a library of all votes. Vote push gives the deck 8 votes per round which is almost always enough to get any vote passed. Under a four card limit I would imangine a weenie vote deck would be even more of a problem. There are enough offensive votes that the four card limit would only slow him down slightly. While it's main weeknesses interecpt and rushes would be much more limited. > >The more fundamental problem with tight card limits is that there is much > >less variety in deck designs - basically every deck is S&B or dreary, > >slow, permanent-driven intercept combat. > > There is much less variety in deck design period Curt, 4CR and NL not > because of either of these but because a lack of expansions has sent the > game to limbo. To coin a phrase "All the great themes have been used" > both 4CR and NL. Lets face it this game needs an expansion bad. > I totally agree the game needs an expansion. > I agree with what you both said here NL the game breaks down 4CR the game > breaks down again. > > 2 CR the game doesn't breakdown but you do end up with a little bit of > "luck of the draw" But deck creation is at its finest and is only for > those with a little patience. > > Errol I don't like the 4 card limit because it favors certain deck types that have lots of cards that do basically the same thing while crippling the deck types that relly on card effects only found on one card. The problems with no card limits games are (as I see it) Untapping, I think most the untapping cards are to cheap an decks built around these cards are very hard to stop. The 2 CR does fix this problem, but it is not the best solution in my opnion. Steven

>So does anyone out there like playing with a 4 card limit? Any card limit? > Anyone? Or am I just a bad person. These limits were not imposed upon >anyone around here. We just all play that way, and we have a fine time. >I'd hate to have to go out and round up all those extra cards. I'd be >pissed too if anyone said " You must play this way! " We always ask new >players very nicely how their deck is set up. > >Peter D Bakija > > I think you said it all just play the game the way you enjoy playing it. Errol

Steven Bauer (sba...@cso.geg.mot.com) wrote: : In article k...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: : What action can a combat deck take that any other deck is going to want to : block? Well, a Brujah/Toreador deck has Presence-increased bleeds. But you're right, the Gangrels do need to rush. - Neil -- nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu, lentus in umbra | nudus ara, sere nudus... in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro

ew...@chattanooga.net (J. Andrew Lipscomb) writes: >In article <46jtsg$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com >(CurtAdams) wrote: >> If different limits were >> proposed for each game, the whole business wouldn't be so preposterous - >> although it would still be a lousy way to fix things. >Around here at least, they are. Jyhad is played anything-goes, Rage uses >the tournament limits of 3 sept and 2 combat, and Shadowfist uses the >book's 5. You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible. I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Ok, so maybe that whole 4CL wasnt such a good idea after all... While trying to avoid the lamest of decks, I guess we inadvertenly wiped out many perfectly reasonable design strategies. Kind of like cutting off your hand to cure a wart. It certanly gets rid of the wart, but it kinda hurts. So has anyone come up with some sort of card limit on the game that is a good compromise between strict and none? Sort of a built in way to avoid the all KRC decks or S:CE decks? Some sort of a reasonable percentage based system perhaps. I'm primarily interested in balancing the game for players who have 3 starters and some boosters vs. Mr. I've got 52 torn signposts, and avoiding the real ringer decks. I'd like to rely on the inteligence and good will of my fellow gamers, but its always good to have something to fall back on ( maybe for our local tourneys. ) Any other " reasonable home brewed " card fixes that I seemed to have missed might also help, like what fixes S:CE and vote pushing. Thanks for the help. Peter D Bakija

Before I could do anything to stop it, CurtAdams wrote: > You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible. > I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly > both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing. I also wonder if they didn't build in the card limits just to avoid this particular controversy in their games. It certainly came up in Magic, and it's an oft-beaten horse in Jyhad. Even if they had done "more design and testing," doubtless the same issue would have arisen the minute somebody found some wicked KRC-type combo with a bunch of dupe cards. They probably saved themselves a lot of heartache by throwing the card limits in early. -- "It's at the end of his arm," thought Frito, nervously | Brian shaking it, "it's got to be a hand." | Wilson

Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: >Alan Kwan said: >>If everybody's vampires are torporized by Rush, although the game may >>go on for a number of turns, they're very fast turns in terms of >>real time ("Okay, my turn, I play a master, nobody has blood to get out >>of torpor, no transfers, and next person's turn while I'm discarding.") Peace Errol, >Heres where I disagree with you alan if all I'm doing for a few rounds is >gathering up speed so that I can go one whole round of combat with Bianca >then wait another however many rounds....Boring. No more boring than being the prey of a Malk S&B when you don't have much intercept or rush. No more boring than being the target of a vote deck when you don't have votes/titles yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >Regardless of what anyone says though, no possible argument can be made >that a deck of 30 bum rush and 30 claws-o-dead is clever. Effective, yes, >but definitely not clever. ( Heh, Heh. That oughta make someone mad... Peace Peter, Such a deck would not be as effective as one might believe. Against another combat deck, it would be crushed. Against a wienie deck, it might do OK. Against an anti-combat deck (S:CE, the Dom card that slips my mind, etc.), it will also do poorly. It can't eliminate players very fast (no enhanced bleed). If someone wanted to play this deck against me, I wouldn't mind. BR & CoD are not part of the problem card set (a very small group, I might add), so having lots of them does not present a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <46pdil$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >ew...@chattanooga.net (J. Andrew Lipscomb) writes: >>Around here at least, they are. Jyhad is played anything-goes, Rage uses >>the tournament limits of 3 sept and 2 combat, and Shadowfist uses the >>book's 5. > >You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible. >I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly >both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing. I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it was intentional. Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better to design to no limits? Basically, Curt, I agree that FIST fails no-limit, but I'm not sure that extra design and testing would've gotten you any closer to passing a no-limit test. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

Before I could do anything to stop it, Joseph Cochran wrote: > I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist > was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had > plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I > don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it > was intentional. Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid > to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better > to design to no limits? I think it's better to design with limits in mind these days. I would wager that any game will include cards that can be abused in quantity, and that the card limit controversy is a natural offshoot of that. Building the limit in stops the controversy cold. There's not a single message in the .misc newsgroup that asks, "Why does Shadowfist have card limits?," while there are plenty of posts here asking, "Why doesn't Jyhad (VTES) have card limits?" [ quoted text not captured ]

>What is your defenition of slow? Sure a game with lots of comabt is going to >take alot longer than a game with nothing but bleeding(it don't see how it matters >if the combat is interecpt or rush driven) If the game had nothing but fast bleed decks it >would be very linear and uninteresting. > My Definition of slow is sitting round after round building back up after one serious offence. You must have mistaken me for someone who likes heavy bleed decks. > >Vote push is a problem because of the weenie vote deck. A deck with nothing but >one and two blood vamps and a library of all votes. Vote push gives the deck >8 votes per round which is almost always enough to get any vote passed. > Mabe if it is the only wennie vote deck at the table, What if there is 3 or two and one of them happens to be the prey\predater I no for a fact that he\she is not going to get all the votes through, so again I say that the vote push is not a problem. >Under a four card limit I would imangine a weenie vote deck would be even more >of a problem. There are enough offensive votes that the four card limit would >only slow him down slightly. While it's main weeknesses interecpt and rushes would >be much more limited. Here is where you are totally wrong I have played many a 4CL vote deck they were not a problem, 2\3 players you can win a few games 4+ you don't have the the endurance, trust me I know, and if your playing 4CL then if theres a Malk a the table and he happens to be your pred,your dead,4CL sucks. Errol > > > > > >

Gangrel Rush decks are hand jammers if there against other rush or S:CE. Errol

Tell me Curt why does every card game have to have NL, Rage\Shadowfist are both great games with CR, Why do they NEED to be NL. Errol

Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: >>Vote push is a problem because of the weenie vote deck. A deck with nothing but >>one and two blood vamps and a library of all votes. Vote push gives the deck >>8 votes per round which is almost always enough to get any vote passed. >> >Mabe if it is the only wennie vote deck at the table, What if there is 3 >or two and one of them happens to be the prey\predater I no for a fact >that he\she is not going to get all the votes through, so again I say >that the vote push is not a problem. Speaking from exprience of 4CL, the problem I have with vote pushing is that unless you are also a vote deck, there is no way to deal with it. When a good vote deck sits down at the table, its just a tiny step below S/B in nastyness. We have one player in our group who plays vote decks fairly often, and he is one of the 2 players I don't want being my predator, no matter what. (The other likes S/B.) >>Under a four card limit I would imangine a weenie vote deck would be even more >>of a problem. There are enough offensive votes that the four card limit would >>only slow him down slightly. While it's main weeknesses interecpt and rushes would >>be much more limited. >Here is where you are totally wrong I have played many a 4CL vote deck >they were not a problem, 2\3 players you can win a few games 4+ you don't >have the the endurance, trust me I know, and if your playing 4CL then if >theres a Malk a the table and he happens to be your pred,your dead,4CL >sucks. Case in point, I ran a tight as hell S/B deck this week. (@ 50 cards in it) There was (IMHO) no way I was not going to oust my 1st prey. I always had 3 stealth cards in my hand plus one or more bleed boosters. Granted, I ran out of steam fast, but the main reason was I had a version of S/B as my predator. Also, after putting it together and playing it once, I know I can make it a lot nastier, b/c I had some cards that I quickly realized I wasn't going to use. One thing I definately don't like about 4CL is that I'm starting to make MtG style decisions on deck size. I doubt that I will ever run a deck with more than @60 in it in a 4CL enviro, just so I have the consistency I want. -CT -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible. : I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly : both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing. Normally I agree with most things you write, Curt, but here I've just got to speak up (even if we're a bit off topic). Rage, okay, fair cop. I hate Rage anyway :>. In Shadowfist, though, card limits have been in the game since the first release, and it certainly looks to me as if it was always designed to be played with a 5 card limit. This isn't my _ideal_ way of setting up a CCG (Jyhad is much closer to that, at the moment), but it's certainly a valid one. As posters to the recurring chess thread have pointed out, built-in limits can make a great game. Unlike Jyhad, Shadowfist has "something-for-nothing" cards, with no play cost and big effects. If it wasn't for card limits, you would see decks bulging with the things. This is the flip side of your own argument (I believe) against card limits in Jyhad. In Jyhad, most things are worth what you pay for them, in terms of effect and deck space, so there is no reason for card limits. I agree with that position, so I find it a little odd you found fault with Shadowfist. (returning to his lurking) Kevin Lowe (Brisbane, Australia).

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist >was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had >plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I >don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it >was intentional. Quite possibly. >Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid >to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better >to design to no limits? Is it "valid"? Well, yes, a game designed with card limits can still be a good game. But a game designed for no-limits will inherently be deeper, more varied, and more robust. It is a significantly more difficult task, although clearly not impossible. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >In article <46mr2a$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >>Regardless of what anyone says though, no possible argument can be made >>that a deck of 30 bum rush and 30 claws-o-dead is clever. Effective, yes, >>but definitely not clever. ( Heh, Heh. That oughta make someone mad... >>;-) >Of course it isn't clever. Effective? Neither. I can just think >of a dozen ways to stop such a deck ... >(any damage prevention, manuevers, weenies, ...) I got an email from someone a while back mentioning that a 25-rush deck had served the purpose of toasting the sneak deck which had previously been dominating his group. In an environment of completely combat-innocent sneak decks, it might well be the right thing to do. As people started playing more combat decks (i.e., the variety increased) he was forced to drop down to about 15. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

ml32...@student.uq.edu.au (Kevin Lowe) writes: >In Shadowfist, though, card limits have been in the game since the first >release, and it certainly looks to me as if it was always designed to be >played with a 5 card limit. This isn't my _ideal_ way of setting up a >CCG (Jyhad is much closer to that, at the moment), but it's certainly a >valid one. As posters to the recurring chess thread have pointed out, >built-in limits can make a great game. >Unlike Jyhad, Shadowfist has "something-for-nothing" cards, with no play >cost and big effects. If it wasn't for card limits, you would see decks >bulging with the things. Caveat: I've only played a little Shadowfist. When I looked at my Shadowfist, I immediately spotted those cards. For those not familiar with the system, there are certain cards whose only cost is that at any point in the game you played a character from the faction the card comes from. You redraw your hand to full early each turn. So I built a deck based on those cards. It does indeed bulge with them. Lo and behold, it obliterated one deck, played by an experience Fist-playing friend of mine. Against another deck, which contained a hoser for mine, it just barely lost. It shouldn't be so easy to build good decks. Further, cards like that make the system very fragile - it's very close to being a spoiler strategy. Even with limits, someone may well be able to make a genuine spoiler with those cards. If someone finds a clever combination, or they add the wrong card - there will be a big problem. The value of these cards is such that few decks don't benefit from the limit maximum of all usable 0-cost cards. Hence you can only build about 5 top-flight decks from 2 booster boxes (assuming monofaction decks; half that for duofaction decks). This means you can only use 75-150 cards per box, leaving the rest of the 432 unused. This is similar to the Wake problem with Jyhad, although markedly less severe. (Does anybody remember that problem now? Back in the old days when Jyhad was list price?) >This is the flip side of your own argument (I >believe) against card limits in Jyhad. In Jyhad, most things are worth >what you pay for them, in terms of effect and deck space, so there is no >reason for card limits. I agree with that position, so I find it a >little odd you found fault with Shadowfist . I'm not claiming SF would be better without limits, I'm saying it would be better if it had been designed without limits. Incidentally, (I don't know whether the SF designers did this or not) even if you're planning for limits, it's a good idea to test with no limits or with more relaxed limits. This is basic quality control - you need to make sure that a small playtesting error won't leave you with a broken game. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist >was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had >plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I >don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it >was intentional. Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid >to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better >to design to no limits? IMHO, built-in card limits are a bad thing. About the last thing you want to do is to say to someone "Sorry, but you can't legally play with the cards you just bought." If you design a game and its cards properly, there's no need for it to have card limits at all as a means of imposing game balance. Implementing card limits to get rid of boring decks is reasonable; imposing card limits for game balance reasons is pointless, since that encourages you to be lazy about eliminating the abusive combinations that crop up in a game, especially after the third or fourth expansion, and especially if you're allowing people to dig through their deck in any way, shape, or form. Type I Magic, sadly, will always require card limits. However, we can ideally get Type II Magic down to where they're not necessary for reasons of balance, and will probably be able to at least get standalones to that point. VTES is not too far off from being able to dodge card limits entirely, and hopefully Netrunner won't require any. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >>Regardless of what anyone says though, no possible argument can be made >>that a deck of 30 bum rush and 30 claws-o-dead is clever. Effective, yes, >>but definitely not clever. ( Heh, Heh. That oughta make someone mad... > >Peace Peter, > >Such a deck would not be as effective as one might believe. Against >another combat deck, it would be crushed. Against a wienie deck, it might >do OK. Against an anti-combat deck (S:CE, the Dom card that slips my mind, >etc.), it will also do poorly. It can't eliminate players very fast (no >enhanced bleed). If someone wanted to play this deck against me, I wouldn't >mind. [card problem stuff skipped]. Well, I could go mad about this.. :) There are other ways to crush this deck, and the simplest one is to use a damage prevention deck. I, for instance, am playtesting these days with a Ventrue political/damage prevention deck which is by no means tournament-legal (eh eh.. :))) but which would not be affected by your aggravated damage, doing at the same time very nasty things to your vampires with my votes (which are _not_ only KRC and CA, but include also Consanguineous Condemn., Consang. Boon, Disputed territory, Ancient Infl, ecc.). An other way to give your deck more than an headache (and to you too :)) could be a Tremere intercept/combat deck relying on Drain essence, Theft of vitae and Walk of Flame, together with some Pulled Fangs, since it is highly probable that my vampire would do more damage than you do. As for cleverness I have already expressed mi opinion, so suffice it to say that when you are not in tournament the goal should be IMO to have fun _and_ win the game, not to win the game and nothing more. -- Luca "Democritus" Consoli Web page: http://imoax1.unimo.it/~consoli/ |-------------------------------------------| |" S'i fossi foco arderei lo mondo..." | |{ Were I Fire, I would burn the world..." |------------| | (Cecco Angiolieri, Italian poet)| |--------------------------------------------------------|

Before I could do anything to stop it, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > IMHO, built-in card limits are a bad thing. About the last thing you > want to do is to say to someone "Sorry, but you can't legally play with > the cards you just bought." Like all of these cards I have that say "Jyhad" on them. > If you design a game and its cards properly, > there's no need for it to have card limits at all as a means of imposing > game balance. Nothing says that a game with built-in card limits is poorly designed. I think a designer who employs a card limit is learning from WotC's mistakes and covering their asses up front. Once again I point out that, while this group is rife with statements that VTES needs card limits, the .misc group hasn't a single post complaining about Shadowfist limits. If it's in the rules, it's in the rules. WotC does too many things like saying in the Magic rule book that 40 cards is the smallest deck, then the Convocation comes along and says 60 is minimum, plus all these limits. Limits in themselves may be good or bad, but they should either be announced in the rules right at the start, or never imposed as an afterthought. > Implementing card limits to get rid of boring decks is > reasonable; imposing card limits for game balance reasons is pointless, > since that encourages you to be lazy about eliminating the abusive combinations > that crop up in a game, especially after the third or fourth expansion, and > especially if you're allowing people to dig through their deck in any way, > shape, or form. Magic continues to be broken after all this time, limits are still it's band-aid. I would guess this to be the result of the same laziness you're mentioning. Is it because they know about the convocation limits? > Type I Magic, sadly, will always require card limits. However, we can ideally > get Type II Magic down to where they're not necessary for reasons of balance, > and will probably be able to at least get standalones to that point. VTES > is not too far off from being able to dodge card limits entirely, and hopefully > Netrunner won't require any. I'm dying to see Netrunner, then. I would still lay odds that some card combination will show up one day (maybe during an expansion) that allows abusive play, and the controversy will begin again. However, on this score I would be thrilled to be proven wrong. Let Netrunner be the one. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: HERE WE GO AGAIN >I don't know how many people or groups play with a self imposed 4 card >limit, but about half the people I met at the Origins 95 Jyhad game did. >If this is indicative, then many people do. I do not belive that a 4 card >limit is the answer to the tournament rules, as it alienates the people >who play no limits more than the people who play with them. If someone >shows up to a tourney with a 4 limit deck, they can just play it as it is, >or beef it up some. No limit decks have to be entirely rebuilt. I aggree with the no limit needs to be rebuilt and 4cl needs beefing so no limit is better for tournemants planning. I disaggree that anyone should play a Four Card Limit nowhere in the rules outlines or WotC rulings is there even a suggestion to play with a four card limit MAGIC people brought this over from narrow minded thinking. This game does not require the limiting effect of card LIMITS. called that because that's what they are. >Regardless, we use the 4 card limit because: >1) It makes you be more clever. You can still play just about any deck >concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum >Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of >the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote >decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards >that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people. I suggest that no limit allows you to play any deck that four card limit does and more.<FACT> I believe that four card limit restricts you from being clever in that it decides that you will you four of all the good cards. You do not have the freedom to agonize over the inclusion of six or seven bum's rushes. If I want fifteen directed attacks on a vamp do I use all Bum's rush or do I need to increase my Master percentage and use the added stealth of Haven Uncovered. These are difficult design desicions. Using an action that MUST BE BLOCKED IMHO is not a good argument. This requires that they be able to do so and want to do so. Tele Misd and Deflection can not block and disable any bleed, as well as Tele Counter. Votes and or Elder Kindred and others can disble any vote. Possesing a location that is SO vital to the survival of myself in the game means I've lost already. No location should ever be more important than a vampire that I can block with. In short the only action which must be blocked is an action that would oust me. And if you'd rather be in combat than oust, then you've got a serious deck design problem. >2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things >like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher " >decks. Granted, the " Malkavian Chainsaw " is a very powerful design in >the limit game, but as they use up 5-6 cards a turn, they run out of steam >rather quickly with more than 4 players, as they only have 16-20 stealth >cards. Also, we all play multiple Malkavian Dementias, just to punish the >fools. ( What? You mean Ozmo has accidentally diablerized Muriel? I'm >OUTRAGED! Call a bloodhunt! Heh Heh. ). And who wants to play those silly >Malkavians anyway. I would like to see you explain how it can be self balancing. with 20 stealth cards I can et by the slower permanent driven intercept and accumulate 2 VP's before being ousted with a four card limit S&B deck. I've done it and I've yet to see anything that can stop it. >3) New players won't be heard saying " Urk. Where the heck did you get the >27 Deflections from? " And this is such a bad thing? Deflection I believe is a common and can probably be purchased individually for a nickel a piece. I also happen to believe that a four card limit is an excellent CRUTCH for new player to see a game that isn't very interesting and is easy to play. Then when they are ready, they can move into the no limit enviromnent and explore the plethora of choices that will face them. Like is 27 Deflections going to make me COMPLETELY FUBAR when my predator shows up with a vote deck and doesn't bleed me? These are the hard decisions. >4) The decks are not as predictable, as in " Oh, Hey. You Majesty and >untap, again? No way. Who would have thought." And pay a blood. and have the card in hand. I think the great problems that some have with the excellent deck DESIGNS are in how they flow majestically in situations they force to occur. If a deck works well then they have forced you into the situations that they intended to created. That is the true beauty of these decks. They make you think that you want to or can block them and then *bait and switch* you to accomplish their means And if it's a block S:CE untap. Stealth by them or Imm Grappl when in combat. or Psche or Fast Reaction or Hidden Lurker (in block mode). It's not like there are more S:CE cards than ANTI-S:CE cards you just have to be planning on them doing it like bleeding to bleed bounce or any anti clan stategy So plan ahead or get toasted. And it is not like Imm.Grappl.,Psche, or Hiddenlurker/Fast Reaction are useless if your opponent doesn't plan on S:CE I find that Imm Grappl is so much fun to play on a gun guy. His Assault rifle doesn't do much but drain his pool when he can't use it. Psyche is the ultamate press. and HL and FR make the hidden weapon go all around I equiped 3 vamps with .44's thanks to a n unsuspecting bleeder. (and 3 HL/FR 3 Concealed Weapons and 3 guns) >I would never claim that every one should play this way, but I would like >to hear who does and why. Just curious I guess. Hopefully this is why. In a game where I have played four majesties YOU KNOW that I CANNOT play any more of them That knowledge is POWER especially in the realm of Conditioning/Threats/Bonding If I've used them all up there is nothing which can add to the bleed after you don't block. In a no limit situatuion you don't have that added information. After I've used stealth cards I may have to add on a Threats (I Think) to add another stealth. but do I have one in my hand. Not how many have I played and guess from there, but how many may I be playing with? 5,10,none? educated guessing from what I've already played is the only tool you have to go by, so playing cards becomes an information leak. Can I affford to show my majesty this early in the game or should I try and keep that S:CE aspect of my deck hidden until later when I will reap a larger benefit? The game just gets more and more interesting the fewer limits you place on it. And by fixing the problem CARDS and not breaking a balanced GAME RULE SET we can eliminate the FEW problems i.e. (KRC s not the problem VOTE PUSHING is) (Freak untap is not the problem, being able to bleed again is) (5th tradition isn't a problem SELF FILLING is) Others? there are fixes on record as house rules. >KoKo. Justicar in 96 >-Peter D Bakija In conclusion. Try it. adopt the few house rules to fix the problem cards/rulings and see the wonderfully frightful world of deciding on each and every quantity of card you choose to use. no longer will your decisions be made for you and no longer will you fear using one of a card that you only have four of. or if you do, you only have yourself to blame for not putting more in. Mail me if you want the list of House rules we use. not all are universally accepted but that's coming about rapidly. Thanks for wading through this. Stu Rulemongerer in training And avid proponent of NO LIMIT Jyhad -- Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html GE/T/S d++(--) H(-) s++:- g+(-) p2 au++ a- w+++(--) v++ C++ U N++ W---() M+ V-- po+++(---) t--- 5+++ G+++ B--- e++ u++ f+ r++ n--- y*

nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu (Neil Bernstein) writes: >Steven Bauer (sba...@cso.geg.mot.com) wrote: >: What action can a combat deck take that any other deck is going to want to >: block? >Well, a Brujah/Toreador deck has Presence-increased bleeds. But you're right, >the Gangrels do need to rush. But a three bleed is fine by me instead of losing a vamp that can call a CA/KRC and/or Bleed for 6. I do not block Brujah. like ever. my own failing. but I've found I can toast my prey faster than Brujah can toast me. and that's what it's all about isn't it? Stu >- Neil >-- >nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu, lentus in umbra | nudus ara, sere nudus... >in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro [ quoted text not captured ]

Can we all agree that it is not a KRC problem but a vote puching problem that needs to be fixed I mean that having abunch of KRC's is only devastating if you can pass them all and that requires clout the burning kind of clout probably needs to go away and the Presence/Title clout is acceptable then Trying to stress that this is not a card problem but a burning problem Stu [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <471ugl$7...@sirio.cineca.it>, Consoli Luca <con...@c220.unimo.it> writes: >An other way to give your deck more than an headache (and to you too :)) >could be a Tremere intercept/combat deck relying on Drain essence, Theft of >vitae and Walk of Flame, together with some Pulled Fangs, since it is highly >probable that my vampire would do more damage than you do. Just make sure you are doing "damage" when you play that pulled fangs and not counting blood lost from stealing! Since stolen blood cannot be prevented (because it is not damage), it also cannot be used to trigger a pulled fangs. In fact I've had a vampire play pulled fangs on someone who stole 2 blood (no damage) while my vampire only dealt normal hand damage. Prevented damage also doen't count so using it in that "Ventrue political/damage prevention deck" could also be a nice twist!

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>.... Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid to design a >>game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better to design to >>no limits? > >IMHO, built-in card limits are a bad thing. About the last thing you >want to do is to say to someone "Sorry, but you can't legally play with >the cards you just bought." If you design a game and its cards properly, >there's no need for it to have card limits at all as a means of imposing >game balance. Implementing card limits to get rid of boring decks is >reasonable; imposing card limits for game balance reasons is pointless, >since that encourages you to be lazy about eliminating the abusive >combinations that crop up in a game, especially after the third or fourth >expansion, and especially if you're allowing people to dig through their >deck in any way, shape, or form. I don't think you're using enough imagination. One can envision other purposes for card limits besides limiting abusive cards or even overly powerful card combos. For instance, the play of a long game (defined as a game likely to or required to last until one's entire deck is depleted) might change drastically upon the draw of some "foo" event card. A board game parallel might the start of the coup in The Plot To Assassinate Hitler or the turn war starts in Nuclear Destruction. You can design your deck to play better before the "foo" event card turns up or after, but you can only include (and are required to include) the one "foo" event card. Fred

Stuart J. Pieloch (dsa...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote: : nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu (Neil Bernstein) writes: : >Steven Bauer (sba...@cso.geg.mot.com) wrote: : >:What action can a combat deck take that any other deck is going to want to : >: block? : >Well, a Brujah/Toreador deck has Presence-increased bleeds. But you're : right, : >the Gangrels do need to rush. : But a three bleed is fine by me instead of losing a vamp that can call a : CA/KRC and/or Bleed for 6. : I do not block Brujah. : like ever. : my own failing. : but I've found I can toast my prey faster than Brujah can toast me. : and that's what it's all about isn't it? Well, you're unusual in that respect; most people do block a Legal Manipulations heading their way. But the Gangrel can't do much in the bleeding department except for Army of Rats, which has been ruled non- cumulative and therefore not very scary compared to Presence-increased bleeding. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree there is nothing wrong with a game designed with card limits. I think the argument that you will not be able to play with the card you just bought is, well, silly. If you play under a say 4 card limit, then you must have many more cards than you need to make a deck before you have four of any one card. No one made you buy so many cards, and of course you can't play with all the card you own at once. I don't think you need to make rules to make "boring" decks illegal. If there really so boring then why play them? If the game was designed for a four card limit or a four card limit fixes all the problems then what is wrong with a four card limit? However Jyhad was diffently not designed for card limits and I fell card limits are bad for Jyhad. Steve

Brian Wilson <bwi...@news.gate.net> wrote: >> IMHO, built-in card limits are a bad thing. About the last thing you >> want to do is to say to someone "Sorry, but you can't legally play with >> the cards you just bought." >Like all of these cards I have that say "Jyhad" on them. Which you can legally play with. >Once again I point out that, >while this group is rife with statements that VTES needs card limits, the >.misc group hasn't a single post complaining about Shadowfist limits... Probably because the people who hate card limits aren't even bothering to try the game. >Magic continues to be broken after all this time, limits are still it's >band-aid. I would guess this to be the result of the same laziness you're >mentioning. Is it because they know about the convocation limits? No, it's because we can't recall the old, broken cards that require card limits and restricted list. We can never get rid of those, so we will always have to limit and restrict cards in Type I environments. In other environments, we are hampered by not wanting to put out cards that are strictly worse than old cards; a Lightning Bolt that does 2 damage might be balanced, but it's strictly worse than the current Lightning Bolt, so we're not going to be putting one out. So while we can probably avoid the restricted list in standalones and Type II and such, I doubt we'll be able to get rid of the 4-per-card limit. [ quoted text not captured ]

-> strictly worse than old cards; a Lightning Bolt that does 2 damage -> might be balanced, but it's strictly worse than the current Lightning -> Bolt, so we're not going to be putting one out. So while we can -> probably avoid the restricted list in standalones and Type II and -> such, I doubt we'll be able to get rid of the 4-per-card limit. When Legends came out, the Red Blast players jumped for joy over Chain Lightning. The only situation I can think of where CL is better than Lightning Bolt is when you have a Ruhk Egg, but people were exclaiming, "now I can have 8 'bolts' in my deck!" I said that if the next expansion had a card called 'Static Shock', which cost 1R and did 2 damage, Red players would wet themselves with glee. The point (and I apologize for the extended MtG metaphor, I know that give some people on this newsgroup cold sweats) is that card limits inspire bizzare contortions to get around them. This can be seen as a vehicle for creative deck building, but the end result is a creativly built Red Blast or Malk S&B deck, which amount to the same thing (effective, but boring to play with and against).

[ quoted text not captured ] If you are playing a stealth and bleed deck, with nothing but stealth and bleed in your hand you would be stupid to block a 3 bleed from a brujah. If combat happens you can do one damage and nothing more. If you live you should be able to bleed for at least 3. Now if the game goes on your pred keeps bleeding you for 3 you may need to through away a few of your smaller vamps to slow him down but if a brujah is keeping up with a malk in bleeding he proable can't do anything to you in combat anyway, otherwise he would have had a serious hand jam proable already. Now for a pure vote deck you may through away a few small minion to slow down your prey, but again I would wait a few rounds and see if your pred can maintain his bleed rate. I real can't see these decks blocking a brujah. can you explain why you would block when you know you have no chance of hurting your pred and he has a good chance of killing you? Steve

In article <1995Nov1.1...@schbbs.mot.com> sba...@cso.geg.mot.com writes: >In article 1...@amhux3.amherst.edu, nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu (Neil Bernstein) writes: >> Well, you're unusual in that respect; most people do block a Legal >> Manipulations heading their way. But the Gangrel can't do much in the >> bleeding department except for Army of Rats, which has been ruled non- >> cumulative and therefore not very scary compared to Presence-increased >> bleeding. >If you are playing a stealth and bleed deck, with nothing but stealth and bleed >in your hand you would be stupid to block a 3 bleed from a brujah. Yes, Steve. And I have to clarify the point that was vaguely implied in your post: not blocking Legal Manipulations /causes/ a Brujah hand jam. If Malk blocks a Legal Manipulations, the Brujah gets to burn a few combat cards to toast the Malk, and in the process he draws some cards, one of which may be a Legal Mani. or a Bum's Rush. If Malk doesn't block, the Brujah is stuck with the combat cards in his hand, and soon he won't be able to do a thing, except discarding a combat card every turn and hoping to draw something playable. Let's say a 80-card Brujah deck has 4 Social Charms, 4 Legal Manipulations, 4 Bum's Rush and 4 Havens. That means about an average wait of 5 turns since a hand jam. What can a Malk S&B deck do in 5 turns? And, of course, Legal Manipulations can be bounced. In a 4-card environment where Malk decks dominate, Malk decks will have lots of bounces as their `necessary' defense against another Malk deck. They'll have as many bounces as you have Presence Bleeds! -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <477p9s$k...@vishnu.jussieu.fr>, guilleme@marsouin (Herve Guillemet) wrote: > Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: > > It's obvious than you avoid "strictly worse" cards, and I thank you for that. > However, there are some exceptions I can't explain: > > Bird Maiden is stricly worse than Granite Gargoyle > New dual lands are stictly worse than old dual lands Not so. Ice Age duals are not vulnerable to landwalkers (so if I want to play W/G with Bolts, I might prefer a Timberline Ridge to a Taiga). > Implements of sacrifice is stricly worse than Black Lotus True, but that's because Black Lotus is hopelessly broken. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : No, it's because we can't recall the old, broken cards that require card : limits and restricted list. We can never get rid of those, so we will : always have to limit and restrict cards in Type I environments. In other : environments, we are hampered by not wanting to put out cards that are : strictly worse than old cards; a Lightning Bolt that does 2 damage might be : balanced, but it's strictly worse than the current Lightning Bolt, so we're : not going to be putting one out. So while we can probably avoid the restricted : list in standalones and Type II and such, I doubt we'll be able to get rid : of the 4-per-card limit. It's obvious than you avoid "strictly worse" cards, and I thank you for that. However, there are some exceptions I can't explain: Bird Maiden is stricly worse than Granite Gargoyle New dual lands are stictly worse than old dual lands Implements of sacrifice is stricly worse than Black Lotus Life Chisel is strictly worse than Diamond Valley (well, not strictly as they are not of the same type of card) And maybe some other I don't remember. == Herve Guillemet guil...@enst.fr

In <ewwa-01119...@portb27.chattanooga.net> ew...@chattanooga.net (J. Andrew Lipscomb) writes: >> Implements of sacrifice is stricly worse than Black Lotus >True, but that's because Black Lotus is hopelessly broken. Well, so is Lightning Bolt ;-) -- Richard Braakman It is easier to fight for your principles than to follow them.

Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote: : Let's say a 80-card Brujah deck has 4 Social Charms, 4 Legal Manipulations, : 4 Bum's Rush and 4 Havens. That means about an average wait of 5 turns : since a hand jam. What can a Malk S&B deck do in 5 turns? : And, of course, Legal Manipulations can be bounced. In a 4-card : environment where Malk decks dominate, Malk decks will have : lots of bounces as their `necessary' defense against another : Malk deck. They'll have as many bounces as you have Presence : Bleeds! But the original point of my post was to compare actions which a Brujah can take (a 3 bleed) to ones which Gangrels can take. What can a Gangrel do that you'll REALLY want to block? Thus Gangrel need to be all rush, Brujah can be mostly rush, with some Presence bleeds. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <47aku6$c...@amhux3.amherst.edu> nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu (Neil Bernstein) writes: >But the original point of my post was to compare actions which a Brujah >can take (a 3 bleed) to ones which Gangrels can take. What can a Gangrel >do that you'll REALLY want to block? Thus Gangrel need to be all rush, Brujah >can be mostly rush, with some Presence bleeds. Try equipping with an Ivory Bow, Flame Thrower, or Sengir Dagger. That will almost always get blocked, 'cause they're not gonna want to get Rushed by a vamp with a flame thrower later. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

Dave Andrews thoughtfully stated: : Try equipping with an Ivory Bow, Flame Thrower, or Sengir Dagger. That will : almost always get blocked, 'cause they're not gonna want to get Rushed by a : vamp with a flame thrower later. In my group we generally play that the action of equipping is done by placing the equipping card upside down, and then stating "My minion is searching for equipment". Then, if the minion succeeds, it gains the equipment, and costs are paid. I'm not sure which way is correct, but I do think both ways have advantages and disadvantages. Does anyone have an official ruling on this? Ewok -- //\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\ / Ewok Juan Burwell \ \ jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu jmbu...@amherst.edu / \\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\//

Hi Ewok, I asked that question a while back, and recieved an official answer stating that the equipment, retainers, etc. must be shown before methuselahs make decissions on blocking the action. Algustas *****The value the world sets on motives is often grossly unjust and inaccurate.***** H. L. Mencken [ quoted text not captured ]

Ewok (jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote: : Dave Andrews thoughtfully stated: ::Try equipping with an Ivory Bow, Flame Thrower, or Sengir Dagger. That will ::almost always get blocked, 'cause they're not gonna want to get Rushed by a ::vamp with a flame thrower later. : In my group we generally play that the action of equipping is done by placing : the equipping card upside down, and then stating "My minion is searching : for equipment". Then, if the minion succeeds, it gains the equipment, and : costs are paid. I'm not sure which way is correct, but I do think both ways : have advantages and disadvantages. Does anyone have an official ruling on : this? No, I think you've got to let the table see what's being equipped, so they know how important it is to block. (If you're just equipping a Flak Jacket, I might hold back that Eagle's Sight; if you're grabbing a Flame Thrower, it might be time to play it.) If you play equip actions "hidden," then why not play bleeds hidden too? Sorry, you didn't see that Legal Manipulations until you decided to accept it... Methuselahs shall know all! [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <47jciq$k...@amhux3.amherst.edu>, Neil Bernstein said: > No, I think you've got to let the table see what's being equipped, so they > know how important it is to block. (If you're just equipping a Flak Jacket, > I might hold back that Eagle's Sight; if you're grabbing a Flame Thrower, > it might be time to play it.) If you play equip actions "hidden," then > why not play bleeds hidden too? Sorry, you didn't see that Legal Manipulations > until you decided to accept it... Methuselahs shall know all! However, a 'conditioning' or 'threats' or whatever doesn't come in until after the bleed passes--by the same token, an acting minion doesn't get to see whether or not that blocking gangrel is going to use wolf claws before choosing whether or not to dodge. Our group (Juan's group) does the "card-face-down" rule on calls for votes ("Democritus is calling a vote--anyone block? No? Whoops, it was Kine resources contested. Pity that."), searches for equipment, getting retainers, allies, and I think that's it. We've actually found it pretty nifty, I think. I don't remember where we got the impression that this was the rule (Juan: was it Greg?). Anyone else play this way, or is our group just being contrary? -- Colin Bunnell cjbu...@unix.amherst.edu http://www.amherst.edu/~cjbunnel/ "Running over the same old ground, what have we found? The same old fears. Wish you were here." -PF, newest inductees into the R&R Hall of fame

Colin Bunnell (cjbu...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote: : However, a 'conditioning' or 'threats' or whatever doesn't come in : until after the bleed passes--by the same token, an acting minion doesn't : get to see whether or not that blocking gangrel is going to use wolf : claws before choosing whether or not to dodge. Right, but I can decide to Deflect after you play that Conditioning, can't I? : Our group (Juan's group) does the "card-face-down" rule on : calls for votes ("Democritus is calling a vote--anyone block? : No? Whoops, it was Kine resources contested. Pity that."), : searches for equipment, getting retainers, allies, and I think : that's it. We've actually found it pretty nifty, I think. : I don't remember where we got the impression that this was the : rule (Juan: was it Greg?). Anyone else play this way, or is our : group just being contrary? It's not a bad way to play; it just affects deck design, and if I were to play with your group I'd like to know about it before I built my deck. How many Jyhad players at Amherst? I'm part of a group of about ten here... [ quoted text not captured ]

>On 5 Nov 1995, Ewok wrote: > In my group we generally play that the action of equipping is done by placing > the equipping card upside down, and then stating "My minion is searching > for equipment". Then, if the minion succeeds, it gains the equipment, and > costs are paid. I'm not sure which way is correct, but I do think both ways > have advantages and disadvantages. Does anyone have an official ruling on > this? > > Ewok Ewok: That's an interesting idea and a wonderful game change for house play but Official rulings show that you must attempt to equip with an "ITEM". That action is either blocked or allowed based on the item. it is at stealth, but the item need to be announced. The only Item as such that are not announced are VAST WEALTH and Magic of the Smith as far as I know. Neat Idea though. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article 9...@amhux3.amherst.edu, jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu (Ewok) writes: > Dave Andrews thoughtfully stated: > : Try equipping with an Ivory Bow, Flame Thrower, or Sengir Dagger. That will > : almost always get blocked, 'cause they're not gonna want to get Rushed by a > : vamp with a flame thrower later. > > In my group we generally play that the action of equipping is done by placing > the equipping card upside down, and then stating "My minion is searching > for equipment". Then, if the minion succeeds, it gains the equipment, and > costs are paid. I'm not sure which way is correct, but I do think both ways > have advantages and disadvantages. Does anyone have an official ruling on > this? > > Ewok > > -- > //\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\\//\\ > / Ewok Juan Burwell \ > \ jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu jmbu...@amherst.edu / > \\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\///\\// As per section 16 of the VtES rules equipping is an action. It follows the following resolution(taken from section 16.4) "Equip (equipment card required): You may give your minions equipment to aid and protect them. There is no limit to the number of equipment cards a minion can have. To equip a minion: 1) Tap the minion and announce that you are equipping him. This is a +1 stealth action: It cannot be blocked in the Basic Game. 2) Take the equipment card you have chosen from your hand and put it on the minion." The question is what does an announce involve (state that he is equiping, or state that he is equiping with a .44 mag) Under the original Jyhad rules equiping was a specialized action card. (section 12.3 of the revised rules) "Equipment cards are action cards that give minions special abilities" They therefore follow the rules for equipment given in section 14: " 1) The player's action is declared, and an action card is played if necessary. The acting minion is tapped." I believe it was latter ruled that equipment cards are not action cards but I always assumed they still followed the same order of play as any other action: (from section 14) Ewok has brought up a very good question the VtES rules imply that the acting vamp does not have to announce what he is equiping with and there are no Jyhad rules on how to resolve equiping actions.(or at least I am unaware of any) I think an official response would be very helpful. Also if anyone has the post were it was declared that equipment cards are not action cards could they please post it. Steve

In article h...@acmey.gatech.edu, dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: > >On 5 Nov 1995, Ewok wrote: > > In my group we generally play that the action of equipping is done by placing > > the equipping card upside down, and then stating "My minion is searching > > for equipment". Then, if the minion succeeds, it gains the equipment, and > > costs are paid. I'm not sure which way is correct, but I do think both ways > > have advantages and disadvantages. Does anyone have an official ruling on > > this? > > > > Ewok > > Ewok: > That's an interesting idea and a wonderful game change > for house play but Official rulings show that you must attempt to equip with > an "ITEM". > That action is either blocked or allowed based on the item. > it is at stealth, but the item need to be announced. > The only Item as such that are not announced are > VAST WEALTH and Magic of the Smith > as far as I know. > > Neat Idea though. > Stu > -- > Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe > DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html > GE/T/S d++(--) H(-) s++:- g+(-) p2 au++ a- w+++(--) v++ C++ U N++ W---() M+ V-- > po+++(---) t--- 5+++ G+++ B--- e++ u++ f+ r++ n--- y* Are there official ruling that you can't decide to block once the piece of equipment has been chosen? If you do block is the equipment never selected? The group I played with you picked a piece and then the block was selected and if blocked the equipment was burned. Also I would like to here an official explination as to why Ewok is wrong. The Jyhad rules are clear( I think so anyway) but the VtES rules that I have are not so clear. Steven

Steven Bauer <sba...@cso.geg.mot.com> wrote: >> That's an interesting idea and a wonderful game change >> for house play but Official rulings show that you must attempt to equip with >> an "ITEM". >> That action is either blocked or allowed based on the item. >> it is at stealth, but the item need to be announced. That is how the rules work, actually; playing equipment as hidden would be the house rule. >> The only Item as such that are not announced are >> VAST WEALTH and Magic of the Smith >> as far as I know. >Are there official ruling that you can't decide to block once the piece of >equipment has been chosen? If you do block is the equipment never selected? >The group I played with you picked a piece and then the block was selected and >if blocked the equipment was burned. For actions like Vast Wealth and Magic of the Smith, you are not even searching the library unless the action is successful, so by the time they figure out what the equipment is, it's too late to block. If you block a normal equip action, they have already played the equipment card, which is burned if the action is unsuccessful. [ quoted text not captured ]