Question about rule on deck limit

Why's there a rule that puts a cap on the maximum amount of cards you can have in your library? I really don't see the point of this rule. The more cards you have, the less chance you'll draw the cards you only have one or two of, so it evens out the fact that you have a(very small) advantage by not risking to run out of cards if you have say 130 cards in your deck. I also think that many times you can't include some cards you'd like to, because of the deck limit. Cards that doesn't have the highest priority but which you'd include more for fun (but would be too "expensive" to include in a 90 slot deck) which makes more cards wallpapered (if not completely than at least more than before). Also combat decks have a disdvantage with the max cap rule since you generaly brun cards much faster if you play a combat deck, so they're likely to run out of cards sooner than others. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <90jhlj$l1c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > Why's there a rule that puts a cap on the maximum amount of cards you > can have in your library? I really don't see the point of this rule. V:TES is a game of resource management. I'd suspect that the player who has the larger collection would benefit from unlimited deck size. Since you replace a card once its played, an ultimate deck size is needed to keep the playing field a bit more level between players. This (along with the fact that many good V:TES strategies are rooted in good, readily available common cards) is part of what keeps veteran players with large collections from running away with the game. Also, there is a certain appealing thematic air to having to rely on what you've got in play when you've run out of cards. It's a testimony to a player's deck building ability if they can gain VP after running out of cards... > The more cards you have, the less chance you'll draw the cards you only > have one or two of, so it evens out the fact that you have a(very > small) advantage by not risking to run out of cards if you have say 130 > cards in your deck. Again, this would only hold for those who didn't have ample cards available. >I also think that many times you can't include some > cards you'd like to, because of the deck limit. Cards that doesn't have > the highest priority but which you'd include more for fun (but would be > too "expensive" to include in a 90 slot deck) which makes more cards > wallpapered (if not completely than at least more than before). Also > combat decks have a disdvantage with the max cap rule since you > generaly brun cards much faster if you play a combat deck, so they're > likely to run out of cards sooner than others. > > Many groups use some means of limitation to deckbuilding in their groups, so that esoteric ideas can be explored. The idea of unlimited deck size could be one of those. Others simply rate decks in a manner so that everyone knows what level of play intensity to expect. (eg. some arbitrary scale like Tournament, Well-tuned, Rough, Experimental, Goof-ball ;-) You may find that using a system like this will go farther in allowing you to play those less used cards than an unlimited deck size would. Using the above allowed me to build a Violet Tremain Depravity plus Setite Corruption deck that had a chance to get off the ground (but only in an Expeimental level game :-) As for combat decks, yes, they do need to be very aware of how they consume their resources. But how much worse would it be when thier prey no longer have to worry aobut running out of S:CE (or maneuvers, or whatever defense they choose)? Combat decks are more concerned with getting the right mix of cards in their hand at a given time, than they are with raw number of cards. That's why I'm so happy with Storage Annex and WMO. Resources like that go much further in helping Combat out, don't you think? Regards, R. David Zopf [ quoted text not captured ]

Large "Snip" I would definitly back up davids point on all of these this has come up in our group before with unlimited cards you have unlimited resources I played in a game I would have won except I ran out of library cards and he still had 200 cards our so in his library. It works for 1 trick ponies too. bigsugar69

>Why's there a rule that puts a cap on the maximum amount of cards you >can have in your library? Several reasons. First of all, library cards are a resource. Just like vampires and permanents, library cards should be treated as a resource. One of the neatest things about Jyhad is you often have to carefully consider whether to discard and then what to discard (like that post on the best choice in a particular game). If you do decide to discard (to get a card you want), you have to sacrifice a resource (1 card). If there was no limit to deck size, then they'd essentially be no penalty for discarding. Cards like The Barrens and Fragment would be insanely useful since cycling is then the key to winning. Also, it would throw off some of the balance in meta-game. There are some decks that rely on speed (i.e. some rush decks, etc.) -- using lots of cards to hit hard. They might take out an opponent or two but then run out of steam (cards). It is only the library card limit that prevents them from being able to easily overwhelm the entire table. Finally, one of favorite things about Jyhad is card balance. Unlike in Magic, where usually one card is definitely better than another, just about all of the Jyhad cards are balanced. Take Short Term Investment from Protracted Investment (got it right this time! No more "Long Term" mistakes!). Protracted may seem bad because it costs 3 pool and it takes 6 master phases to get all the pool from it, but you can get 3 pool from one card. With Short Term, there's only a net of 2 pool. With no card limit, there's no reason why you'd play with Protracted (we're forgetting about Secret Horde right now BTW), but with a 90 card limit, you have to weigh your options carefully. Halcyan 2

cantila wrote: > > Why's there a rule that puts a cap on the maximum amount of cards you > can have in your library? I really don't see the point of this rule. (Again, my original reply didn't make it far, so here it is again) You'd have to ask the designer, Richard Garfield, that one. But here's a reasonable guess: Since VTES uses the draw-as-you-play rule, the deck size rule was implemented to promote a player's desire to get more use out of each card (and thus reduce the "benefit" of cycling cards for little or no useful effect). The replacement mechanism for the uncontrolled region (as opposed to the hand) is not a convenient, and therefore could be used to explain why there's not an upper limit on the size of your crypt. > The more cards you have, the less chance you'll draw the cards you > only have one or two of, Which isn't a concern to some decks (having more than two copies of every card). But even so, the cards you have only one copy of tend to be the cards you don't rely on, so it's no drawback to reduce your chance of drawing them. > so it evens out the fact that you have a(very > small) advantage by not risking to run out of cards if you have say > 130 cards in your deck. I also think that many times you can't include > some cards you'd like to, because of the deck limit. Cards that > doesn't have the highest priority but which you'd include more for fun > (but would be too "expensive" to include in a 90 slot deck) which > makes more cards wallpapered (if not completely than at least more > than before). Also combat decks have a disdvantage with the max cap > rule since you generaly brun cards much faster if you play a combat > deck, so they're likely to run out of cards sooner than others. A deck that plays more cards per turn will run out of cards sooner, emphasizing the need to make every card count. And other ("slower") deck archetypes have disadvantages of their own. -- 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/ [ quoted text not captured ]