Playing with a 4 card limit.

Hello I'm a VteS Player from Holland. We play with a 4 card limit in our decks. And it works fine. The question is more why not a 4 card limit for tournaments or fun play. It's easy to get 4xample 8 bum's rush or ambush cards. But cards like tribute to the master(even not when you buy 4 boxes) , or some older rares from "sabbat" are NOT easy to get. My other question is: Is there a trading site for VteS CCG. I'm sill looking for some Sabbat Vampires of the Sabbat set. Grtx From Holland

Samsman wrote: > > Hello > > I'm a VteS Player from Holland. > > We play with a 4 card limit in our decks. And it works fine. Excellent. Glad you're enjoying the game - that's what it's all about. Incidentally, we play with no card limit, and it works fine as well. > The question is more why not a 4 card limit for tournaments or fun > play. The main answer is: because the cards were designed to be used in a no-card-limit environemnt. Also many groups feel that card limits unfairly give Stealth-Bleed decks a great advantage (since the counters to such decks are hampered more than the S&B deck itself is). Many groups that use a 4CL (or 3CL or 5CL or 6CL or "1CL on uniques and XCL on others") house rule also impose a (usually unspoken) "no cheese" rule - a rule that only "fun" decks (not Malkavian Stealth-Bleed monsters). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Samsman wrote: > Hello > > I'm a VteS Player from Holland. > > We play with a 4 card limit in our decks. And it works fine. > > The question is more why not a 4 card limit for tournaments or fun > play. > > It's easy to get 4xample 8 bum's rush or ambush cards. > But cards like tribute to the master(even not when you buy 4 boxes) , > or some older rares from "sabbat" are NOT easy to get. > > Grtx From Holland You're stirring up an eternal wasps nest :) Anyway, it's a long debated issue that basically revolves around card-rarity versus game-mechanics. VTES in itself is not constructed for card-limits, which of course should be no hindrance for your playgroup to have whatever house-rules you feel happy with. I for one was introduced to this game in a group who did have a card-limit house-rule. However, after a while certain parts of the game started to seem very strange, so we looked up the actual rules and learned that there wasn't supposed to be any card-limits. One very often used argument against card-limit rules is based on the example of a stealth-bleed deck hunting for example a dominate/presence vote-deck. I think you can find the numerous bleed-modifiers you could place four each of in the bleed-deck. For the voter the limit would be eight cards in total. Another example is your generic potence combat-deck that would be limited to four Immortal Grapple and four Psyche to counter Majesty, Catatonic Fear and Staredown. There are certain strategies which simply become impossible with a card-limit. Just try playing some of the cards meant for the Setites and you'll see what happens. With a card-limit you'll change the balance of the game. It may work out fine for you, but I feel that it's not only a card-limit but also a game-limit. When you encounter a deck with a sick amount of the same card it'll usually be a rather common card, and what's more important, the deck will probably don't function very well. Another problem with card-limits within the scope of card-rarity is that strictly mathematically you'll get more of some unusual cards and less of some. Let's assume you own five Majesty and three Catatonic Fear and you feel that you really need exactly eight combat-ends cards - well there you are. Sten During -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

"Samsman" <jon...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:d3320f72.0110...@posting.google.com... > Hello > > I'm a VteS Player from Holland. > > We play with a 4 card limit in our decks. And it works fine. > > The question is more why not a 4 card limit for tournaments or fun > play. > > It's easy to get 4xample 8 bum's rush or ambush cards. > But cards like tribute to the master(even not when you buy 4 boxes) , > or some older rares from "sabbat" are NOT easy to get. > > My other question is: Is there a trading site for VteS CCG. I will happily refer you to two trading sites: Communal Haven trading site is: http://www.melancholy.org/vtes/communal_haven/ Succubus Club trading site is: http://vampire.tne.net.au/trades

Samsman <jon...@zonnet.nl> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: d3320f72.0110...@posting.google.com... > Hello > > I'm a VteS Player from Holland. > > We play with a 4 card limit in our decks. And it works fine. In our playgroup we have a 4-card limit as well. The initial reason for that was that we thought it was part of the rules (which it wasn't of course), probably because some of us had played Magic before. After we've found out that we were actually wrong about the card limit rule, we still kept it, because it worked fine for our games. Recently I've been thinking about maybe trying to play without card limit, but I'm still a bit sceptical. I've played NCL tournaments in the past and the decks that were most successfull in that environment were all kind of boring. Many people for instance played weenie vote decks with tons of KRC or weenie combat decks with 15 Zip Guns/Dragon Breath Rounds combos in there (the later is now no longer legal I think). Many decks seemed to focus on just a few cards that were played repeatedly again and again. Now I would be interested to hear from people who played with and without CL, if this observation is actually correct or if it was just coinsidence. Does playing without CL result in less creative deck building or in oder words: do decks that are build around many copies of just a few cards get the advantage? Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time obtaining in higher quantity. So my second question would be: Aren't there quite some rare cards that when used without CL can give a deck a great advantage? Michael

mostly harmless wrote: > Now I would be interested to hear from people who played with and without > CL, if this observation is actually correct or if it was just coinsidence. > Does playing without CL result in less creative deck building or in oder > words: do decks that are build around many copies of just a few cards get > the advantage? Those two ideas are not the same. Many copies of the same few cards != less creative. The NL (no limit) side would argue that 4CL forces a homogenized environment (every combat deck packs 4 Bum's Rushes, 4 Ambushes, etc.), which they (the NL side) would consider "less creative". Finding the proper ratios of cards vs. simply putting 4 copies of each useful (or nearly useful) card. But no matter - whatever your group enjoys. > Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives > players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of > good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun > Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time > obtaining in higher quantity. The NL side would say that 4CL gives players with more cards an unfair advantage. The cards are designed so that the commons are the most widely useful - the player with few cards who has 12 Majesties but only 1 Catatonic Fear can only play 5 of those, as opposed to Mr. Suitcase who can play with 4 of each. Many more examples of this exist (where a rare can be substituted for a closely-related common). > So my second question would be: Aren't there quite some rare cards that when > used without CL can give a deck a great advantage? A well-built NL deck will have some advantages over a CL deck, sure: it can use the "best" cards for its plan in the "best" ratios (without having to dilute them with close-but-no-cigar variations on the cards). The cards are designed to be balanced in this NL environment - adding an additional restriction to the deck (CL) will naturally add a disadvantage to the deck - that's the nature of restrictions. A deck can be built around many copies of a card (rare or not), yes. This doesn't give that deck a "great advantage" over all other decks (unless all other decks are somehow restricted to 4CL). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <HDDx7.27596$Pg3.8...@news.chello.at>, mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes >Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives >players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of >good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun >Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time >obtaining in higher quantity. They don't need to - that's the point. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

>Recently I've been thinking about maybe trying to play without card limit, >but I'm still a bit sceptical. I've played NCL tournaments in the past and >the decks that were most successfull in that environment were all kind of >boring. Many people for instance played weenie vote decks with tons of KRC >or weenie combat decks with 15 Zip Guns/Dragon Breath Rounds combos in there >(the later is now no longer legal I think). Many decks seemed to focus on >just a few cards that were played repeatedly again and again. > >Now I would be interested to hear from people who played with and without >CL, if this observation is actually correct or if it was just coinsidence. >Does playing without CL result in less creative deck building or in oder >words: do decks that are build around many copies of just a few cards get >the advantage? My take on the desirability of NCL is that NCL enables greater deck creativity. However, while the decks created may be interesting, often the particular plays they make aren't. In other words, they can be tedious to play against as they do one thing over and over causing interactions between decks to be predictable. I'd never design a CCG with NCL, but I wouldn't impose them on V:TES either. >Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives >players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of >good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun >Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time >obtaining in higher quantity. > >So my second question would be: Aren't there quite some rare cards that when >used without CL can give a deck a great advantage? Too many commons are too good, IMO, for this to be possible.

On 12 Oct 2001 05:34:09 -0700, jon...@zonnet.nl (Samsman) wrote: >Hello > >I'm a VteS Player from Holland. > >We play with a 4 card limit in our decks. And it works fine. > We used to play with something like that too. Sure, it 'works fine' but it voids many deck strategies out there. Corruption decks for instance. Besides, why should my potence combat deck be limited to 4 undead strengths? Makes no sense to me that my vampires should be limited to using a very basic pot combat card 4 times in a game. We have converted to purely deck limits and scrapped card limits, and it works fine once you get used to it. It gives you more options as well. Try it. T

In message <20011012133513...@mb-mq.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.com> writes >>So my second question would be: Aren't there quite some rare cards that when >>used without CL can give a deck a great advantage? > >Too many commons are too good, IMO, for this to be possible. This is also true. What also needs to be understood is that, as far as is possible, all cards have a roughly equivalent "cost:effect" ratio. That is, some of the rare cards can do powerful things, but they have a significant cost. Just loading your deck up with them isn't going to do anything. [ quoted text not captured ]

mostly harmless wrote: > Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives > players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of > good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun > Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time > obtaining in higher quantity. I've been in a position at times to obtain whatever rare cards I may need and you know, it doesn't help beyond a certain point. If you have any great ideas for what "powerful rare cards" I can just go get and make some killer NCL deck with them, please let me know. I really need the help! :) By the way, I think a lot of people will dispute that Shotgun Ritual is that good of a card. If you look at the aggregate cost you pay for the SR plus any kind of first round Thaumaturgy strikes that would normally be limited to the second round, I think you'll find that comparable first round strikes that do the same amount and type of damage in a single card wind up being easier to use. I haven't rigorously analyzed this but my cursory examination seemed to show this. As for Freak Drive, much though I like them, I have trouble using very many of them in any Fortitude deck I've ever invented. One question: are you are of the No-Repeat-Action rule for constructed deck tournaments? Without this rule, it's possible to use a large number of Freak Drives (combined with say, 5th Traditions to replenish blood levels) to execute various kinds of unbalanced strategies. > So my second question would be: Aren't there quite some rare cards that when > used without CL can give a deck a great advantage? Most of us think not. If you have some specific suggestions, I think lots of people here would happily discuss them with you. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Could do. The only thing is even after buying lots of boosters (and the store runs out of it of cource), and get new ones after a month, because they are sold out :). That I don't have enough simple cards (like acrobatics,tribute to the master) So that I can build one deck but I don't have the cards for an other deck, and I have about 3 diff. celerity decks themes. So if I needed lets say 10 cards acrobatics x 3 I need 30 and that's the problem, i don't have them even when I ask all my friends for it. Not to say some sabbat rares, if I want more then 4x in a deck (if I already can get 1). That's a little my problem getting those 4 sabbat rares. Grtx Samsman Thnx For reply. to Every one

> So if I needed lets say 10 cards acrobatics x 3 I need 30 and that's > the problem, i don't have them > even when I ask all my friends for it. > Not to say some sabbat rares, if I want more then 4x in a deck (if I > already can get 1). That's a little my problem getting those 4 sabbat > rares. If you need them in 3 different decks then just modularize them and switch them between the decks between play. Commments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Curevei <cur...@aol.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 20011012133513...@mb-mq.aol.com... > > My take on the desirability of NCL is that NCL enables greater deck creativity. > However, while the decks created may be interesting, often the particular > plays they make aren't. In other words, they can be tedious to play against as > they do one thing over and over causing interactions between decks to be > predictable. That's what I meant. I didn't want to imply that constructing NCL decks is less of a challenge or less creative. But it seemed to me that it partly leads to decks that are pretty boring to play against. Is this an observation other people can confirm? Does NCL result in more predictable games? .

> > So if I needed lets say 10 cards acrobatics x 3 I need 30 and that's > > the problem, i don't have them > > even when I ask all my friends for it. > > Not to say some sabbat rares, if I want more then 4x in a deck (if I > > already can get 1). That's a little my problem getting those 4 sabbat > > rares. > > If you need them in 3 different decks then just modularize them and switch > them between the decks between play. Even better, you can just substitute by similar cards. Instead of 10 Acrobatics, why not use 5 Acrobatics, 3 Stutter-Step and 2 Side Strike (or some such variation, depending on what you need). I don't have that many cards myself (I doubt I have more than 3 copies of any non-Starter rare, I don't trade much), but I still manage to have quite a few decks built by using whatever cards I do have. Flux

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3BC709B3...@white-wolf.com... > mostly harmless wrote: > > Now I would be interested to hear from people who played with and without > > CL, if this observation is actually correct or if it was just coinsidence. > > Does playing without CL result in less creative deck building or in oder > > words: do decks that are build around many copies of just a few cards get > > the advantage? > > Those two ideas are not the same. > > Many copies of the same few cards != less creative. > > The NL (no limit) side would argue that 4CL forces a homogenized environment > (every combat deck packs 4 Bum's Rushes, 4 Ambushes, etc.), which they (the > NL side) would consider "less creative". Finding the proper ratios of cards > vs. simply putting 4 copies of each useful (or nearly useful) card. I think I might have expressed myself rather poorly. I didn't actually mean that the deck construction process itself would be less creative or challenging. My concern was that it could easily lead to decks that aren't very interesting to play (against) because they just do whatver they do with the same cars over and over again. And those decks would probably be quite successful. > > Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives > > players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of > > good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun > > Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time > > obtaining in higher quantity. > > The NL side would say that 4CL gives players with more cards an unfair > advantage. The cards are designed so that the commons are the most widely > useful - the player with few cards who has 12 Majesties but only 1 Catatonic > Fear can only play 5 of those, as opposed to Mr. Suitcase who can play > with 4 of each. Many more examples of this exist (where a rare can be > substituted for a closely-related common). You've got a point there. But since you mentioned Majesty, this is one of the cards that I would think can work to great advantage in a NCL environment as it enables one to just act, end combat and untap until there aren't any blockers left. Especially since the NRA rule isn't part of the standard rulebook. Thinking about other similar cars (someone mentioned Freak Drive, Form of Mist would be another example) that I think can easily become unbalanced under the standard rules, I wonder why the NRA rule isn't included in the normal rules? Michael

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3BC74C38...@netcom.com... > mostly harmless wrote: > > Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL gives > > players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot of > > good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. Shotgun > > Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time > > obtaining in higher quantity. > > I've been in a position at times to obtain whatever rare cards I may need and > you know, it doesn't help beyond a certain point. If you have any great ideas > for what "powerful rare cards" I can just go get and make some killer NCL deck > with them, please let me know. I really need the help! :) Well Freak drive under normal rules (without NRA) is definitely one of them. I can think of some other (uncommon) cards that could give players a great advantage, without ever having played such decks before I should add (because we play 4CL). For example, a deck full of Form of Mist (used at superior) enables you to just circumvent combat until noone is able to block anymore (and NRA doesn't prevent this, since you only need to take one action to do it). Or a stealth deck with a large amount of Minion Taps and 5th Traditions for supreme blood support. It makes me wonder if not at least *some* cards should be limited. > By the way, I think a lot of people will dispute that Shotgun Ritual is that > good of a card. If you look at the aggregate cost you pay for the SR plus any > kind of first round Thaumaturgy strikes that would normally be limited to the > second round, I think you'll find that comparable first round strikes that do > the same amount and type of damage in a single card wind up being easier to use. > I haven't rigorously analyzed this but my cursory examination seemed to show > this. Could be. Since I only have one Shotgun Ritual in my collection I never actually tried to build a deck around it, but I've seen it used and even in a 4CL environment it resulted in quite devastating effects. Of course it could be that part of that was due to luck or coincidence. > As for Freak Drive, much though I like them, I have trouble using very many of > them in any Fortitude deck I've ever invented. One question: are you are of the > No-Repeat-Action rule for constructed deck tournaments? Without this rule, it's > possible to use a large number of Freak Drives (combined with say, 5th Traditions > to replenish blood levels) to execute various kinds of unbalanced strategies. Which makes me wonder why NRA isn't part of the rulebook. I think in the the normal NCL environment it probably should be. Michael

mostly harmless wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: > 3BC74C38...@netcom.com... > > I've been in a position at times to obtain whatever rare cards I may need > > and you know, it doesn't help beyond a certain point. If you have any > > great ideas for what "powerful rare cards" I can just go get and make > > some killer NCL deck with them, please let me know. I really need the > > help! :) > > Well Freak drive under normal rules (without NRA) is definitely one of them. Well, I'm not going to count that since NRA is a rule specifically created to maintain necessary game balance. Bickering about whether it ought to be in the game rules instead of being just a constructed tournament rule aside, there's no point in arguing about whether the rules are balanced if you ignore the set of rules that were created with that end in mind. > I can think of some other (uncommon) cards that could give players a great > advantage, without ever having played such decks before I should add > (because we play 4CL). > > For example, a deck full of Form of Mist (used at superior) enables you to > just circumvent combat until noone is able to block anymore (and NRA doesn't > prevent this, since you only need to take one action to do it). True, but a single WwEF or Forced Awakening works fine. If the initial block was taken by a minion that was made available by such a play, then the blocker need only increase his intercept to match the new stealth and block again. And there's also all the usual prevention for S:CE. Form of Mist is a good card but hardly a guarantee of victory. And protean is a discipline which is seldom found in minions which can benefit greatly from the stealth and combat- avoidance. > Or a stealth deck with a large amount of Minion Taps and 5th Traditions for > supreme blood support. Minion Taps are commons. Fifth Traditions are nasty, albeit limited to Princes. > It makes me wonder if not at least *some* cards should be limited. Limiting, as with restricted cards in Magic, is basically an admission that you have a problem with a card. To the extent that it reduces one's ability to rely on powerful combos, it may be a reasonable concept. To limit a card which is overpowered in and of itself, it's a self-contradiction which reduces the game to luck of the draw of "good cards". Not that luck of the draw isn't a factor anyway, I'd prefer not to make the situation any worse. Unless the game is truly being dominated by the effects of a card (and I suppose Fifth Tradition is probably as close a card as any in the game, for what it's worth), I think it's better to allow all players to use the card as much as they want. And if they get handjammed with the card, they have only themselves to blame. > > By the way, I think a lot of people will dispute that Shotgun Ritual is > > that good of a card. If you look at the aggregate cost you pay for the SR > > plus any kind of first round Thaumaturgy strikes that would normally be > > limited to the second round, I think you'll find that comparable first > > round strikes that do the same amount and type of damage in a single card > > wind up being easier to use. I haven't rigorously analyzed this but my > > cursory examination seemed to show this. > > Could be. Since I only have one Shotgun Ritual in my collection I never > actually tried to build a deck around it, but I've seen it used and even in > a 4CL environment it resulted in quite devastating effects. Of course it > could be that part of that was due to luck or coincidence. Frequently in CCGs, you'll run into a less-experienced player who believes some rather mediocre card or another is insanely powerful. Usually, it's just a question of his not having the experience or the careful analysis of the downside of such a card. (I'll never forget seeing someone on a Magic newsgroup rave and rave about Diamond Valley in a post in one of the early years.) I think that's what we're dealing with in the original poster, particularly WRT lack of experience in playing in an NCL environment. > > As for Freak Drive, much though I like them, I have trouble using very > > many of them in any Fortitude deck I've ever invented. One question: are > > you are of the No-Repeat-Action rule for constructed deck tournaments? > > Without this rule, it's possible to use a large number of Freak Drives > > (combined with say, 5th Traditions to replenish blood levels) to execute > > various kinds of unbalanced strategies. > > Which makes me wonder why NRA isn't part of the rulebook. I think in the the > normal NCL environment it probably should be. I agree. From Scott's responses to this point in a different thread, it sounds as if there's some concern about the complexity it would cause to the rulebook, which is also the document from which newer players have to learn the game. Fred

In message <9Rdy7.70632$Pg3.1...@news.chello.at>, mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes >That's what I meant. I didn't want to imply that constructing NCL decks is >less of a challenge or less creative. But it seemed to me that it partly >leads to decks that are pretty boring to play against. Is this an >observation other people can confirm? Does NCL result in more predictable >games? That depends. NCL with toolbox results in some very non-predictable games. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3BC9A3B1...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >Unless the >game is truly being dominated by the effects of a card (and I suppose Fifth >Tradition is probably as close a card as any in the game, for what it's >worth), I think it's better to allow all players to use the card as much as they >want. And if they get handjammed with the card, they have only themselves to >blame. Personally, I think I'd rather see some sect neutral ways of rewarding big vampire players than a cut to Fifth Tradition, either in Bloodlines or in the Camarilla base set. IMO, Fifth isn't *that* powerful - it's just the next obvious candidate once previous obvious cards have been fixed. What is powerful about fifth is that it's unique to the Camarilla. Possibly even a reverse tradition - cannot be used by a vampire who is Prince or Justicar, with a capacity requirement. Freedom from Bureaucracy Action +1 stealth 2 blood Requires a vampire who is above 6 capacity who is not a Prince or Justicar. Put this card on the acting vampire. At the start of its controller's next minion phase (before mandatory actions are taken), burn this card; this vampire then gains enough blood from the blood bank to take it up to capacity. The vampire with this card cannot cast votes during referenda. (Out of turn Malkavian decks. Oh, the horror.... *fades to black*) [ quoted text not captured ]

Mostly Harmless wrote: >>That's what I meant. I didn't want to imply that constructing NCL decks is less of a challenge or less creative. But it seemed to me that it partly leads to decks that are pretty boring to play against.>> Boring to play against is a completely subjective statement--what is boring to you is probably a good game to me. Thus, you can't really look as "boring" as an objective result of playing the game by the rules. I play in a pretty solid playgroup that really likes to push the game, and makes lots of different decks all the time. When I make my decks, they are generally pretty focused--my most obvious example is my Rush deck that does nothing but Bum's Rush and kill opposing vampires. Every action. It doesn't block. It has no intercept. No votes. No untap. Limited pool gain. Just lots and lots of killing. Every action I take is generally a Bum's Rush followed by the torporization of some vampire, until it becomes a good idea to bleed someone. Might this be considered "boring" by someone? Probably, but so what? It wins sometimes, it looses sometimes. Where the interest comes for me is in the strategic interaction between decks. I don't play VTES to see lots of different cards (I've seen them all already) or funny card combos (while I certainly appreciate them, they are generally too tenuous to actually play around). I play to see how deck strategy "A" does against deck strategy "B". How does my Rush deck do against a Stealth and Bleed deck? How about a weenie Presence bleed deck? Or a Ventrue Vote deck? The individual actions of my opponent's vampires aren't the focus of the games I play--it is about the large picture. The tactics are just tactics. If every action my prey takes is a 5th Tradition (after being Minion Tapped), I am completely unconcerned with whether or not this is "boring". I am concerned with how the strategic aspect (a vast pool gain deck) will affect whatever deck I am playing. I build decks to be consistient and fairly focused. Other than my Rush deck, I am curently playing a Minion Tap/FOR/Freak Drive/Bleed deck and a Toreador Tap and Bleed deck. They both are fairly focused and generally take the same actions over and over again. There are few, if any, surprises in these decks. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose. Just like any other deck. >>Is this an observation other people can confirm? Does NCL result in more predictable games?>> More predictable games? Possibly, in that if I am playing a deck with a focused strategy and my prey is also playing a focused strategy, I generally know if my deck will do well or not against my prey's deck, but there are still countless other interactions to affect the outcome--luck, my predator, his prey, table talk, politics, whatever. Nothing is ever certain, even with hyper focused decks. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Finnerty

In message <N6ey7.70846$Pg3.1...@news.chello.at>, mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes >I think I might have expressed myself rather poorly. I didn't actually mean >that the deck construction process itself would be less creative or >challenging. My concern was that it could easily lead to decks that aren't >very interesting to play (against) because they just do whatver they do with >the same cars over and over again. And those decks would probably be quite >successful. A deck with focus will, by default, leave itself with many ways of being attacked by a creative, innovative player with a strong deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Thats why I made this topic we manage to do every game with 4 cards limit, even with this limit we have not enough of some cards. and after buying so many booster boxes and having every starter, I find it very fustrating. that I still only have 3 catonic fears. but its the same with flux we manage to have quite good decks and even fun decks who can compete (even if they are stealth decks who may not bleed at stealth untill 2 players remain.) Grtx Samsman

"mostly harmless" <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> wrote in message news:N6ey7.70846$Pg3.1...@news.chello.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Why not try to play NCL for a few weeks (or show up at a sanctioned tournament to watch the decks play out) and see what happens? In theory -- and since you haven't tried NCL, you are talking about theory here -- NCL decks aren't very interesting to play or play against, but in reality that doesn't wash. With NCL, you will be able to make an infinite amount of decks, rather than a finite amount of decks, and I've never understood why players would choose to cripple themselves rather than being able to run free. <sigh> > > > Another reason for us keeping the CL is that it would seem that NCL > gives > > > players with more cards an unfair advantage. Sure there are quite a lot > of > > > good common cars, but there are some powerful rare cards (like e.g. > Shotgun > > > Ritual or Freak Drive) that players with a lower budget have a hard time > > > obtaining in higher quantity. > > > > The NL side would say that 4CL gives players with more cards an unfair > > advantage. The cards are designed so that the commons are the most widely > > useful - the player with few cards who has 12 Majesties but only 1 > Catatonic > > Fear can only play 5 of those, as opposed to Mr. Suitcase who can play > > with 4 of each. Many more examples of this exist (where a rare can be > > substituted for a closely-related common). > > You've got a point there. But since you mentioned Majesty, this is one of > the cards that I would think can work to great advantage in a NCL > environment as it enables one to just act, end combat and untap until there > aren't any blockers left. Especially since the NRA rule isn't part of the > standard rulebook. It doesn't work this way in reality, ESPECIALLY against IG combat decks, which you should have 1 or 2 of in your group so that people don't get too cocky with S:CE. Also, there must be a dozen cards that restart combat, which "get around" S:CE. Either the S:CE player always has a S:CE, which means his deck will never oust its prey -- which means that the deck stinks and should be modified -- or the deck runs the proper amount of S:CE (or too few) and you will eventually be able to run him out, and then kick his butt. > Thinking about other similar cars (someone mentioned > Freak Drive, Form of Mist would be another example) that I think can easily > become unbalanced under the standard rules, I wonder why the NRA rule isn't > included in the normal rules? Let's talk about your definition of "can easily become unbalanced" before you start assuming that these cards can become unbalanced. > > Michael > Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_ "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Frederick Scott wrote: > mostly harmless wrote: [snip] > > > > For example, a deck full of Form of Mist (used at superior) enables you to > > just circumvent combat until noone is able to block anymore (and NRA doesn't > > prevent this, since you only need to take one action to do it). > > True, but a single WwEF or Forced Awakening works fine. If the initial block > was taken by a minion that was made available by such a play, then the blocker > need only increase his intercept to match the new stealth and block again. ...and let's not forget that superior Form Of Mist counts as an action modifier, and thus is restricted to being played once per action per minion. hmm....per minion.... city gangrel, FoM, Mask 1000 Faces....hmmm.... if i hadn't just traded all my masks to a guy who was making a Command of the Beast deck, i might give it a try....oh yeah, and i only have a few FoM. oh yeah, and i'd just be better off with no FoM and just lots of Masks. oh well... salem.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 14:35:44 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >> Well Freak drive under normal rules (without NRA) is definitely one of them. > >Well, I'm not going to count that since NRA is a rule specifically created to >maintain necessary game balance. And so is xCL. It's just a matter of choosing which house rule to use. Andrew

In message <3F1CCAD86FCC35BC.A27D52F0...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 14:35:44 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>> Well Freak drive under normal rules (without NRA) is definitely one of them. >> >>Well, I'm not going to count that since NRA is a rule specifically created to >>maintain necessary game balance. > >And so is xCL. xCL seriously empowers sneak and bleed decks, relative to the other main deck archetypes. How is this creating game balance? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, the difference would that NRA succeeds and xCL fails. This is because NRA was created to directly address a specific problem and does exactly that where as xCL is this wide-ranging shotgun approach that does far more than it needs to to deal with the problem it's aimed at and it deals with it in the wrong way (restriction). Actually, when I think about it, I can't say enough about what a lousy way of solving balance problems it makes to think up something like card limits. Not that this has a thing to do with the point I was making when I wrote the above, nor to any of the points to which I was responding. But since you interjected that particular thought... Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > mostly harmless wrote: > > > It makes me wonder if not at least *some* cards should be limited. > > Limiting, as with restricted cards in Magic, is basically an admission that you > have a problem with a card. To the extent that it reduces one's ability to > rely on powerful combos, it may be a reasonable concept. To limit a card which > is overpowered in and of itself, it's a self-contradiction which reduces the > game to luck of the draw of "good cards". Don't get too high and mighty about Jyhad over Magic. Jyhad does have restricted cards, they are just restricted by their play rules instead of their deck-inclusion rules. Does Jyhad admit that it has problem cards when it restricts Giant's Blood, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold? Magic has no such restrictions on how many times a card can be played in a game by title, as far as I can recall. Magic's restricted list is actually more fair than the "only one may be played per game," since Magic does not have the luck of the draw factor, where only the player who plays the card first has a chance to play a card (it is very likely that I won my last game of Jyhad because I found my Giant's Blood first). I also doubt Jyhad would have had to invent the No Repeat Action floor rule if Jyhad had a card limit (I'm not advocating card limits, but I am becoming weary of the ridicule being heaped on Magic by those arguing against XCL). - Jason Bell

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:15:46 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >Don't get too high and mighty about Jyhad over Magic. > >Jyhad does have restricted cards, they are just restricted >by their play rules instead of their deck-inclusion rules. Restricted by the cards' DESIGN, as opposed to bolt-ons. >Does Jyhad admit that it has problem cards when it restricts >Giant's Blood, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold? Absolutely not. None of the three are problem cards; they operate exactly as designed, which is that one may be played each game. A "problem" is generally defined as "not working as designed", or "broken as designed". All three of these cards work as designed, and are definitely not broken. Problem cards are when you need to create a rule (or errata) AFTER printing to specifically deal with the card. RtI was a problem card. NRA dealt with a large class of what could be defined as 'problem cards', but was more realistically just 'mechanic design flaw'. >Magic has no such restrictions on how many times a card can >be played in a game by title, as far as I can recall. There's no need. Magic's designers know that a 4CL is standard for their game, so they can easily design their effects to be viable under a 4CL. >Magic's restricted list is actually more fair than the >"only one may be played per game," since Magic does >not have the luck of the draw factor, where only the >player who plays the card first has a chance to play >a card (it is very likely that I won my last game of >Jyhad because I found my Giant's Blood first). Contrariwise: not all decks benefit from inclusion of a Giant's Blood, Ancient Influence, or Political Stranglehold. And not all decks will be able to benefit from the card even if they draw it first; they may need to hang onto it for some time until they CAN benefit. -- Derek PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:6Nqy7.8695$7W.36...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You ARE joking, right? If you believe that Magic has no "luck of the draw factor", I'll play you Magic for $50 a game. Seriously, though, all CCGs are going to have "luck of the draw factor" to some degree. I had played Magic since it came out practically, and there have been about a dozen 1st-turn-kill decks, where "luck of the draw factor" was absolutely critical. I've played some of these decks, in tournaments, and they are repetitive and abusive to the extreme. > I also doubt Jyhad would have had to invent the > No Repeat Action floor rule if Jyhad had a card > limit (I'm not advocating card limits, but I am > becoming weary of the ridicule being heaped on > Magic by those arguing against XCL). Anyone who has been doing that has been doing it in error, IMHO. It is important to remember that Magic was designed with a 4CL, while Jyhad was designed -- by the same guy -- with NCL. > > - Jason Bell [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > mostly harmless wrote: > > > > > It makes me wonder if not at least *some* cards should be limited. > > > > Limiting, as with restricted cards in Magic, is basically an admission > > that you have a problem with a card. To the extent that it reduces > > one's ability to rely on powerful combos, it may be a reasonable > > concept. To limit a card which is overpowered in and of itself, > > it's a self-contradiction which reduces the game to luck of the draw > > of "good cards". > > Don't get too high and mighty about Jyhad over Magic. It's not about Jyhad vs. Magic. It's about restriction being a stupid way to deal with cards being overpowered, which is true no matter what game it's being used with. > Jyhad does have restricted cards, they are just restricted > by their play rules instead of their deck-inclusion rules. > Does Jyhad admit that it has problem cards when it restricts > Giant's Blood, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold? Clearly - when I'm complaining about restriction affecting luck-of-the- draw influences on the game - I'm not talking about and don't care how many times a card can be _used_. If you want to throw multiple copies of a card in your deck which can only be _used_ once or for which you can keep only a single copy on the table, go to town. The implications of that are yours to determine whether they're worthwhile or not. I agree that uniqueness or the one-time-play rules do tend to encourage only keeping a small number of copies of a card in your deck and if you're influenced by such considerations then luck-of-the-draw is going to make a difference. But you wouldn't be influenced by it if it made that _much_ of a difference. For instance, I have a number of different clan decks with stealth locations where I feel like drawing the location is pretty important. So I throw 3-5 copies of the location in the deck rather than only one. As a result, I usually draw the card by the time it's important. The extra copies are easy enough to discard if I don't need them. > Magic has no such restrictions on how many times a card can > be played in a game by title, as far as I can recall. > > Magic's restricted list is actually more fair than the > "only one may be played per game," since Magic does > not have the luck of the draw factor, where only the > player who plays the card first has a chance to play > a card (it is very likely that I won my last game of > Jyhad because I found my Giant's Blood first). I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Uniqueness is completely fair about who draws the card first vs. second. Agreed, if you draw a Giant's Blood after your opponent does, you're screwed. But again, if that Giant's Blood were all that important to you, you'd play with multiple copies. It's a minor thing. Not so Magic! Not at all. Most of those things on the restricted list are much more important than managing to be the guy who played the Giant's Blood first. That's how they wound up on the restricted list in the first place! And I don't care that both players _CAN_ play a Time Walk in the same game. The fact is, you usually don't most of your cards in most games. It's unusual for either player to draw the card and a huge luck swing if they do. It's far more unusual for both players to do so. So the "fair" thing you're talking about is highly unusual. > I also doubt Jyhad would have had to invent the > No Repeat Action floor rule if Jyhad had a card > limit (I'm not advocating card limits, but I am > becoming weary of the ridicule being heaped on > Magic by those arguing against XCL). Don't get me wrong. For the game being the first of it's kind, Magic was an incredible invention and it's still a damn good game. What I'm heaping ridicule on is the concept of restriction, not the game of Magic. It was a bad idea when it was invented, somebody's half-assed compromise to keep from having to face the music when players couldn't use cards they'd paid a ton of money for on the open market. And nothing's changed. It's still a bad idea. Case closed. Fred

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:15:46 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > wrote: > > >Don't get too high and mighty about Jyhad over Magic. > > > >Jyhad does have restricted cards, they are just restricted > >by their play rules instead of their deck-inclusion rules. > > Restricted by the cards' DESIGN, as opposed to bolt-ons. > > >Does Jyhad admit that it has problem cards when it restricts > >Giant's Blood, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold? > > Absolutely not. None of the three are problem cards; Well then, if you take this tack, I suppose you'll have to accept Freak Drive as a "problem card," since it required the "bolt on" of the NRA floor rule. I suppose nearly all the same-turn untap cards would be under this umbrella. And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own banned list. Again, it is just annoying to me the abuse that Magic takes from this newsgroup about its 4 card limit (a mechanism that works very well for Magic), its restricted list (which is duplicated in a more restrictive way by several Jyhad cards), and any number of other reasons. - Jason Bell

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote > > > Magic's restricted list is actually more fair than the > > "only one may be played per game," since Magic does > > not have the luck of the draw factor, where only the > > player who plays the card first has a chance to play > > a card (it is very likely that I won my last game of > > Jyhad because I found my Giant's Blood first). > > You ARE joking, right? If you believe that Magic has no "luck of the draw > factor", I'll play you Magic for $50 a game. Seriously, though, all CCGs are > going to have "luck of the draw factor" to some degree. Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. The luck of the draw factor I was referring to was one where one player's luck of finding his restricted card prevents the other player from ever playing the same card. All card games that I know of have varying degrees of "luck of the draw." Hey, while we're here, I'd like to heap some abuse on the uniqueness of vampires. I understand why the same player shouldn't be able to play with 2 of the same vampire, but that two players can randomly be caught in a contesting situation across the table, next to one another, but in all cases completely randomly is one of this game's more irritating features. > > I also doubt Jyhad would have had to invent the > > No Repeat Action floor rule if Jyhad had a card > > limit (I'm not advocating card limits, but I am > > becoming weary of the ridicule being heaped on > > Magic by those arguing against XCL). > > Anyone who has been doing that has been doing it in error, IMHO. It is > important to remember that Magic was designed with a 4CL, while Jyhad was > designed -- by the same guy -- with NCL. Not exactly (though I agree with the sentiment). Alpha and Beta Magic were not designed with a 4CL, and perhaps even Arabian Nights were available before the 4CL rule was installed. They were, however, designed with a rarity limit, the mistaken notion that the rare cards would be less available and therefore less used in each deck. But otherwise you are correct, the vast majority of Magic cards were designed with the understanding that only 4 copies would be available for any deck. - Jason Bell

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > > mostly harmless wrote: > > > > > > > It makes me wonder if not at least *some* cards should be limited. > > > > > > Limiting, as with restricted cards in Magic, is basically an admission > > > that you have a problem with a card. To the extent that it reduces > > > one's ability to rely on powerful combos, it may be a reasonable > > > concept. To limit a card which is overpowered in and of itself, > > > it's a self-contradiction which reduces the game to luck of the draw > > > of "good cards". > > > > Don't get too high and mighty about Jyhad over Magic. > > It's not about Jyhad vs. Magic. It's about restriction being a stupid > way to deal with cards being overpowered, which is true no matter what > game it's being used with. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. - Jason Bell

In message <ogIy7.368$jq6.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> It's not about Jyhad vs. Magic. It's about restriction being a stupid >> way to deal with cards being overpowered, which is true no matter what >> game it's being used with. > >I strongly disagree with this sentiment. If card is over-powered to an abusive level, making it completely luck of the draw (rather than careful deck crafting) as to whether you get it or not does not fix it - it simply makes it less common that the abusive situation will occur. When it occurs, it will still be entirely abusive. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:44:13 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:15:46 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> >> wrote: >> >Does Jyhad admit that it has problem cards when it restricts >> >Giant's Blood, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold? >> >> Absolutely not. None of the three are problem cards; > >Well then, if you take this tack, I suppose you'll have to >accept Freak Drive as a "problem card," since it required >the "bolt on" of the NRA floor rule. I suppose nearly all >the same-turn untap cards would be under this umbrella. Correct. Freak Drive, Majesty, and Earth Meld were the three 'problem cards'. The restriction on Giant's Blood, however, is a design decision; it allows a huge effect to take place for free during one's Master phase without being susceptible to just putting 4 or X of Giant's Blood in your deck and reloading your vamps constantly. (Note that a card limit wouldn't restrict the effect enough.) >And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's >DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" >that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering >number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own >banned list. What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 permanently-fucked cards. Several of which were only for ante anyway, and the current Mind Rape is still pretty damn good, just a lot different. As opposed to how many on the restricted lists? I don't claim that Jyhad was any better designed than Magic; they both had some major flaws straight up. But I do think that card limits and a huge-ass restricted list is a VERY poor way to fix problems. Errata is painful, but nothing will ever be perfect the first time. >Again, it is just annoying to me the abuse that Magic takes >from this newsgroup about its 4 card limit (a mechanism >that works very well for Magic), its restricted list >(which is duplicated in a more restrictive way by several >Jyhad cards), and any number of other reasons. It's NOTICEABLY different to print a card with an inherent restriction, as opposed to coming along and slapping it on a 'restricted' list later. No duplication has taken place. Actually, I generally give Magic abuse where it deserves: the composition of its overall playerbase and the severe wallet-hoovering approach that WotC takes towards that same playerbase. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's >>DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" >>that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering >>number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own >>banned list. > >What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards >that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. >*ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there >that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 >permanently-fucked cards. Several of which were only for ante anyway, >and the current Mind Rape is still pretty damn good, just a lot >different. As opposed to how many on the restricted lists? I love Jyhad/VTES the way it is (and I don't mind the errata). Speaking of "nuclear-strike" errata, besides the 7 banned cards and you also listed Tomb of Ramses and Mind Rape. Hmmm...there's Legacy of Pander (which has been effectively neutered now as well). I'm also tempted to include Blood of the Cobra in there as well. Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > Speaking of "nuclear-strike" errata, besides the 7 banned cards and you also > listed Tomb of Ramses and Mind Rape. > > Hmmm...there's Legacy of Pander (which has been effectively neutered now as > well). I'm also tempted to include Blood of the Cobra in there as well. > > Halcyan 2 Well, add Fame to that list as well. No more unblockable Force of Will with an added three + one pool-loss :) Sten -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:06:27 +0200, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote: >Halcyan 2 wrote: > >> Speaking of "nuclear-strike" errata, besides the 7 banned cards and you also >> listed Tomb of Ramses and Mind Rape. >> >> Hmmm...there's Legacy of Pander (which has been effectively neutered now as >> well). I'm also tempted to include Blood of the Cobra in there as well. > >Well, add Fame to that list as well. No more unblockable Force of Will with an >added three + one pool-loss :) No no no no. Not Fame. It wasn't rare, the errata didn't change its function THAT much, and while the errata did destroy a number of decks based around Fame, it also opened up a whole bunch of other decks. Anyone who traded for lots of Fame (for some reason; I got plenty just by opening boosters) can still be happy they did. When I say "nuclear strike" errata, I mean the kind that totally, TOTALLY changes the way the card works, and significantly alters the demand for the card itself. Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and LoP all got nuked (although Mind Rape is still worth 6 of in a deck). Return to Innocence got nuked too, but then it got banned (which was just as well) so it was already on the list. Fame is doing just fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: ngry7.61610$My2.33...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com... > Why not try to play NCL for a few weeks I've been suggesting this in my playgroup a couple of times, but so far the response has been mostly negative. So we haven't tried it yet. That's one of the reasons I psoted here and asked about other players experiences with both CL and NCL game environments. Thanks to everybody for the comments. > (or show up at a sanctioned tournament > to watch the decks play out) and see what happens? I might actually do that. > > Thinking about other similar cars (someone mentioned > > Freak Drive, Form of Mist would be another example) that I think can easily > > become unbalanced under the standard rules, I wonder why the NRA rule isn't > > included in the normal rules? > > Let's talk about your definition of "can easily become unbalanced" before you > start assuming that these cards can become unbalanced. When I said unbalanced I meant that certain cards used without limitation could give a player an advantage over many other deck strategies. I had some examples, however, since someone pointed out to me that Form of Mist is an action modifier that can only be used once per action and Freak Drives don't enable you to do the same action again under NRA, I running out of specific examples and can only guess that there might be other cards (Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap probably could be an abusive combo if it can be used unlimited times in a deck)

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:23:13 GMT, "mostly harmless" <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> wrote: >Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: >ngry7.61610$My2.33...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com... > >> Why not try to play NCL for a few weeks > >I've been suggesting this in my playgroup a couple of times, but so far the >response has been mostly negative. So we haven't tried it yet. That's one of >the reasons I psoted here and asked about other players experiences with >both CL and NCL game environments. Get them to nail down their reasons for playing with a CL. "it stops stealth bleed" and "it stops boring, repetitive decks" are usually the two you'll get. Now bring a Malk S&B deck, with 4 of each DOM bleed card/modifier, and 4 of each OBF modifier. Tweak to taste. It should sweep, erasing the first argument. Then bring a weenie PRE bleed deck, with 4 of every PRE bleed card, 4 Marijava Ghouls, and 4 of every S:CE card. After THIS sweeps, you've knocked the legs out from under the second argument, and can go on to the business of getting everyone to convert to NCL. Warning: you had better know your group really well before trying this. Some people don't take well to object lessons, and it's never good to prove a point at the expense of everyone hating you.[0] >When I said unbalanced I meant that certain cards used without limitation >could give a player an advantage over many other deck strategies. I had some Not really. There are counters to everything. If someone uses Form of Mist constantly to get past your blockers, quit blocking and watch him start discarding FoM rapidly. Or play IG and knock his vampires' blocks off. Or just play with plenty of Wakes and intercept, and block AGAIN. >examples, however, since someone pointed out to me that Form of Mist is an >action modifier that can only be used once per action and Freak Drives don't >enable you to do the same action again under NRA, I running out of specific >examples and can only guess that there might be other cards (Fifth >Tradition/Minion Tap probably could be an abusive combo if it can be used >unlimited times in a deck) It takes a lot of work to support a pure Minion Tap/5th deck. The first problem: +1 intercept shuts it down. "So play the Nosferatu": now how will you oust your prey? It's possible, but you have to build a Nossie vote deck well, since you don't have Presence. "So play the Malkavians": now how will you keep from getting your ass kicked by the first combat deck to Rush you? It's possible, again, but there's only so much Obedience out there. "So play the Gangrel": now you're back to the "how to oust your prey?" problem, except the Nossies are easier to build a vote deck with. d'oh! "Fuck it, play the Brujah": well, you can oust your prey and kick everyone's ass, and +1 intercept shuts you down... Full circle. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <REVy7.108935$Pg3.3...@news.chello.at>, mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes >I've been suggesting this in my playgroup a couple of times, but so far the >response has been mostly negative. Are these "We don't want to" negatives or "But NL means...." negatives? There are many facets of NL rules that don't click into place properly under xCL - the limitations on action modifiers, the limitations on reaction cards and so on - which xCL players simply miss as balancing factors. Under xCL, if you have two Lost in Crowds in your hand and can only play one on the action (with no other stealth), it's a bit of bad luck. Oh well. Under NL, that may be a facet of bad deck construction, with improper card balances. What may be useful is taking any of the posts/threads you find back up your points on NL vs xCL, printing them out and just letting other people read them themselves. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 20011014114214...@mb-mu.aol.com... > Mostly Harmless wrote: > >>That's what I meant. I didn't want to imply that constructing NCL decks is > less of a challenge or less creative. But it seemed to me that it partly > leads to decks that are pretty boring to play against.>> > > Boring to play against is a completely subjective statement--what is boring to > you is probably a good game to me. True. [...] > >>Is this an observation other people can confirm? Does NCL result in more > predictable games?>> > > More predictable games? Possibly, in that if I am playing a deck with a focused > strategy and my prey is also playing a focused strategy, I generally know if my > deck will do well or not against my prey's deck, but there are still countless > other interactions to affect the outcome--luck, my predator, his prey, table > talk, politics, whatever. Nothing is ever certain, even with hyper focused > decks. My concern was that certain types of tsuch 'hyper focused' decks would get an advantage over the majority of other deck strategies thus resulting in players sticking to such decks, which I (and this is, as you correctly pointed out, merely and utterly subjective) find rather boring. I often like to play decks that concentrate on one strategy but also have a little bit of everything in them. Now I could imagine that such toolbox oriented decks would suceed less often in a NCL environment.

....salem christ.... <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: Pine.SOL.3.90.1011015201322.7288A-100000@bohm... > On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > mostly harmless wrote: > [snip] > > > > > > For example, a deck full of Form of Mist (used at superior) enables you to > > > just circumvent combat until noone is able to block anymore (and NRA doesn't > > > prevent this, since you only need to take one action to do it). > > > > True, but a single WwEF or Forced Awakening works fine. If the initial block > > was taken by a minion that was made available by such a play, then the blocker > > need only increase his intercept to match the new stealth and block again. > > ...and let's not forget that superior Form Of Mist counts as an action > modifier, and thus is restricted to being played once per action per minion. > Oops, I hadn't thought of that. Takes the wind out if the sails of my example, I guess.

In message <xLVy7.109041$Pg3.3...@news.chello.at>, mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes >My concern was that certain types of tsuch 'hyper focused' decks would get >an advantage over the majority of other deck strategies thus resulting in >players sticking to such decks, Why would they? You will leave yourself completely open to a number of weaknesses which can be exploited. A Brujah cel/pot deck is completely floored by relatively large amounts of damage prevention (which doesn't have to be that much in the whole deck, really). > which I (and this is, as you correctly >pointed out, merely and utterly subjective) find rather boring. I often like >to play decks that concentrate on one strategy but also have a little bit of >everything in them. This works extremely well. >Now I could imagine that such toolbox oriented decks >would suceed less often in a NCL environment. See Britain. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:ua9nsts79980onc62...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even the change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. > Several of which were only for ante anyway, > and the current Mind Rape is still pretty damn good, just a lot > different. As opposed to how many on the restricted lists? > > I don't claim that Jyhad was any better designed than Magic; they both > had some major flaws straight up. But I do think that card limits and a > huge-ass restricted list is a VERY poor way to fix problems. Errata is > painful, but nothing will ever be perfect the first time. > > >Again, it is just annoying to me the abuse that Magic takes > >from this newsgroup about its 4 card limit (a mechanism > >that works very well for Magic), its restricted list > >(which is duplicated in a more restrictive way by several > >Jyhad cards), and any number of other reasons. > > It's NOTICEABLY different to print a card with an inherent restriction, > as opposed to coming along and slapping it on a 'restricted' list later. > No duplication has taken place. > > Actually, I generally give Magic abuse where it deserves: the > composition of its overall playerbase and the severe wallet-hoovering > approach that WotC takes towards that same playerbase. > > -- > Derek > > PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between > two periods of fighting. Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: > > What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards > > that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. > > *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there > > that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 > > permanently-[bleep]ed cards. > > Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even the > change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. ? Ritual of the Bitter Rose's power is no less now than when originally printed (nor any less than any given printing). Second Tradition is no less powerful now than ever. Rutor's Hand is mildly weakened from its original printing by the "only one" clause, but it is strengthened by the ability to prevent damage in the superior (an ability lacking in the original printing, since there's no way to prevent out-of-combat damage without errata). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:48:17 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message >news:ua9nsts79980onc62...@4ax.com... >> What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards >> that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. >> *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there >> that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 >> permanently-fucked cards. > >Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even the >change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. Rutor's Hand is EMINENTLY playable under the current errata; it got a tiny bit weaker, but not much at all. Ritual and ONB never got errata that I know of (why are they included?). 2nd Tradition is still one of the premier cards, so I can't see how anyone got screwed by errata when trading for 2nd Trads. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: > Of Noble Blood? > > ONB never got errata > that I know of Of Noble Blood: cannot target a titled vampire (errata). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:00:03 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: >> Of Noble Blood? >> >> ONB never got errata >> that I know of > >Of Noble Blood: cannot target a titled vampire (errata). Oh. Yeah, that would make sense. I still don't see that the errata was a big deal, though. It turned a little-played card into a less-played card. (Never seen one hit the table, myself). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote : > mostly harmless wrote: > >Now I could imagine that such toolbox oriented decks > >would suceed less often in a NCL environment. > > See Britain. In America, Jared Strait's been having success for years with toolbox decks... - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: [snip] >And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's >DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" >that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering >number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own >banned list. They're comparatively minor compared with MtG. Played with any Moxes lately (other than Type 1 rules)? >Again, it is just annoying to me the abuse that Magic takes >from this newsgroup about its 4 card limit (a mechanism >that works very well for Magic), its restricted list >(which is duplicated in a more restrictive way by several >Jyhad cards), and any number of other reasons. Does it really? I gave up on the game because of the escalation. 4CL makes escalation very easy. With NCL, the cards have to be better designed in the first place. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote [snip] >Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. >The luck of the draw factor I was referring to was one where >one player's luck of finding his restricted card prevents the >other player from ever playing the same card. >All card games that I know of have varying degrees of >"luck of the draw." In a tourney, you can play first and not have a draw phase for the first turn or go second and have one. If luck of the draw isn't very important in MtG, why was this rule added? >Hey, while we're here, I'd like to heap some abuse on the >uniqueness of vampires. I understand why the same player >shouldn't be able to play with 2 of the same vampire, but >that two players can randomly be caught in a contesting >situation across the table, next to one another, but in >all cases completely randomly is one of this game's >more irritating features. Clue: "S" is for struggle. >> > I also doubt Jyhad would have had to invent the >> > No Repeat Action floor rule if Jyhad had a card >> > limit (I'm not advocating card limits, but I am >> > becoming weary of the ridicule being heaped on >> > Magic by those arguing against XCL). >> >> Anyone who has been doing that has been doing it in error, IMHO. It is >> important to remember that Magic was designed with a 4CL, while Jyhad was >> designed -- by the same guy -- with NCL. > >Not exactly (though I agree with the sentiment). >Alpha and Beta Magic were not designed with a 4CL, and perhaps >even Arabian Nights were available before the 4CL rule was >installed. They were, however, designed with a rarity limit, >the mistaken notion that the rare cards would be less available >and therefore less used in each deck. But otherwise you are correct, Yes, it was in an early issue of Scrye where it was admitted they didn't figure on the game being such a success. Players would have maybe only a couple hundred cards rather than suitcases full. Betting on your product not being successful? >the vast majority of Magic cards were designed with the >understanding that only 4 copies would be available for any deck. True, and you need that to hold it in line as well as it does (which is poorly). [ quoted text not captured ]

Mostly Harmless wrote: >>My concern was that certain types of tsuch 'hyper focused' decks would get an advantage over the majority of other deck strategies thus resulting in players sticking to such decks, which I (and this is, as you correctly pointed out, merely and utterly subjective) find rather boring.>> You'd be surprised. I like to play hyper-focused decks (I often hear comments like "Ya know, it *is* possible to build decks that use more than one discipline..."), and I lose as often as I win--and many of my opponents play much more well rounded decks than I do. The trick about the hyper focused deck is that while it does do a single thing really well, there are lots of other things that it can't do at all, and if its opponent is a well rounded deck and happens to draw the right cards at the right time, it can shut down the hyper focused deck, just 'cause it happened to have the right defenses at the right time. >>I often like to play decks that concentrate on one strategy but also have a little bit of everything in them.>> While I don't like decks like this personally, I have no reason to believe that they don't do well overall. People post tournament winning decks all the time that have weird, all over the place cards and disciplines. Also keep in mind that certain strategies (vote and S+B) tend to have more room in them for corner case cards than, say a Rush deck, due to the number of cards needed per action. A S+B deck needs about 2 cards per action to be sucessful (a stealth card and a bleed card) where a Rush deck needs like 5 or 6 per action to be sucessful--thus if you are building an S+B deck, you have more opportunity to include fringe element cards. >>Now I could imagine that such toolbox oriented decks would suceed less often in a NCL environment.>> Go look at the Lasombra's winning deck archive. While certainly not an exauhstive list of decks, it is the best list of winning decks we have. I think you'll find that the decks in question are farily equally split between hyper focused decks (like my Rush deck, for instance) and toolboxy decks. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Finnerty

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BCC6690...@white-wolf.com... > "Kevin M." wrote: > > > What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards > > > that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. > > > *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there > > > that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 > > > permanently-[bleep]ed cards. > > > > Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even the > > change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. > > ? > ? > Ritual of the Bitter Rose's power is no less now than when originally printed > (nor any less than any given printing). I never said it was LESS powerful, just that it received IMHO heavy errata. > Second Tradition is no less powerful now than ever. I never said it was LESS powerful, but the errata in 1998 letting you use it when you were untapped increased its power level, I think. > Rutor's Hand is mildly weakened from its original printing by the "only one" > clause, but it is strengthened by the ability to prevent damage in the > superior (an ability lacking in the original printing, since there's no way > to prevent out-of-combat damage without errata). Agreed. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES 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 ]

In message <8x3z7.65733$My2.36...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>, Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> writes >> Second Tradition is no less powerful now than ever. > >I never said it was LESS powerful, but the errata in 1998 letting you use it >when you were untapped increased its power level, I think. It restored it to the reading of the Jyhad version, if nothing else. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3BCC6690...@white-wolf.com... > > "Kevin M." wrote: > > > > What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards > > > > that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. > > > > *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there > > > > that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 > > > > permanently-[bleep]ed cards. > > > > > > Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even the > > > change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. > > > > ? > > > > ? > > > Ritual of the Bitter Rose's power is no less now than when originally printed > > (nor any less than any given printing). > > I never said it was LESS powerful, just that it received IMHO heavy errata. Oh. Then you've picked an odd thread in which to make your assertion. The current topic is cards that have been neutered by errata/reprinting. At any rate, it currently plays as originally printed. > > Second Tradition is no less powerful now than ever. > > I never said it was LESS powerful, but the errata in 1998 letting you use it > when you were untapped increased its power level, I think. Likewise - not currently neutered and it current plays as originally printed. (except that it can be played while tapped even if the intercept is not yet needed now). -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BCCE9AF...@white-wolf.com... > "Kevin M." wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3BCC6690...@white-wolf.com... > > > "Kevin M." wrote: > > > > > What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards > > > > > that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. > > > > > *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there > > > > > that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 > > > > > permanently-[bleep]ed cards. > > > > > > > > Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even the > > > > change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > ? > > > > > Ritual of the Bitter Rose's power is no less now than when originally printed > > > (nor any less than any given printing). > > > > I never said it was LESS powerful, just that it received IMHO heavy errata. > > Oh. Then you've picked an odd thread in which to make your assertion. > The current topic is cards that have been neutered by errata/reprinting. Derek Ray wrote that "Problem cards are when you need to create a rule (or errata) AFTER printing to specifically deal with the card." Derek also wrote that "When I say 'nuclear strike' errata, I mean the kind that totally, TOTALLY changes the way the card works, and significantly alters the demand for the card itself." I think my message fits in just fine with those as the ideas in the current thread to which I was responding. :) > At any rate, it currently plays as originally printed. > > > > Second Tradition is no less powerful now than ever. > > > > I never said it was LESS powerful, but the errata in 1998 letting you use it > > when you were untapped increased its power level, I think. > > Likewise - not currently neutered and it current plays as originally printed. > (except that it can be played while tapped even if the intercept is not > yet needed now). Agreed. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > "Kevin M." wrote: > > > > > Rutor's Hand? Ritual of the Bitter Rose? Of Noble Blood? Heck, even > the > > > > > change made to 2nd Tradition was significant. > > > I never said it was LESS powerful, just that it received IMHO heavy errata. > I think my message fits in just fine with those as the ideas in the current > thread to which I was responding. :) OK. Except that Second Tradition, Rutor's Hand, RotBR, and Of Noble Blood have not been "TOTALLY" changed. The changes (if any) to those cards are minor and have not significantly affected demand for the cards. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

>>Of Noble Blood: cannot target a titled vampire (errata). > >Oh. Yeah, that would make sense. > >I still don't see that the errata was a big deal, though. It turned a >little-played card into a less-played card. (Never seen one hit the >table, myself). Well, before the errata, it would have been tremendously helpful for many types of vote decks (esp. ones without Presence). Since Of Noble Blood is an action (not political), a Gangrel or Malkavian political deck for example could easily get one off to cause Arika or Alexandra to lose 3 votes. Similarly, you could counter 5th Traditions and even ToGP's by demoting the Princes and Justicars into lowly Primogen. Sort of ironic that it requires that useless title of Primogen, eh? Maybe it should have been titled "Misery Loves Company." =) Halcyan 2

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<icIy7.360$jq6.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > [ snip ] > > Hey, while we're here, I'd like to heap some abuse on the > uniqueness of vampires. I understand why the same player > shouldn't be able to play with 2 of the same vampire, but > that two players can randomly be caught in a contesting > situation across the table, next to one another, but in > all cases completely randomly is one of this game's > more irritating features. I see your point but I feel I have to defend one of my favourite features of VTES. I love the unique rule because it prevents the sort of situation you find in Magic tournaments. Although Magic has some unique cards, they are very few in number and in general you incur no penalty for the playing the same cards as other people. In fact, it happens so often that Magic players often plan ahead for the 'mirror match' specifically. The result is that if you turn up to a competitive Magic tournament of one hundred players, you'll probably find 25 near-identical copies of each of about three decks and the other 25 a random mixture. The result is a pretty boring series of games. It happens because anyone can copy a deck off the internet, turn up and play it without any penalty. Usually the deck you copy is something that won a tournament the week before or has been built by a well-respected constructor, so you know it will be good. Sure, you can take a chance and build creatively but you don't gain any real advantage for doing so instead of taking a 'net deck'. Now, imagine the same picture. A 100 player tournament. 25 people have turned up playing the deck from that month's Giovanni newsletter, 25 with the deck from the Toreador newsletter and 25 with the deck from the Gangrel newsletter. The remaining 25 are a random mixture of other clans. What happens? Absolute carnage for all those lazy people. Every round, on average, three out of four tables will have two decks contesting. Everyone who chose to play a net deck is at a significant disadvantage and those who exercised some creativity prosper. This is a very good thing in my opinion and one of the reasons why I now play tournament Jyhad rather than tournament Magic. ;) Having said all that, it is possible to play a popular clan and get around contesting. The last tournament I played, I had eight Ravnos and four Gangrel in my crypt. I ended up on a table with someone playing twelve Ravnos (no, really :)) in two games but luckily we'd chosen fairly different vampires and managed to step around one another. This was helped by the fact that we had a little negotiation about transfers in the first couple of turns. :) All in all, I like the unique rule because if I found myself sitting down at a table to both prey and be preyed on by identical Ventrue vote decks regularly, I'd pack this game in pretty quickly. > - Jason Bell Cheers, Phil

"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. > >The luck of the draw factor I was referring to was one where > >one player's luck of finding his restricted card prevents the > >other player from ever playing the same card. > >All card games that I know of have varying degrees of > >"luck of the draw." > > In a tourney, you can play first and not have a draw phase for > the first turn or go second and have one. If luck of the draw isn't > very important in MtG, why was this rule added? For no reason associated with "luck of the draw." The nature of the game, playing resources from your hand to the play area, gave a distinct advantage to the player going first, in that they were able to deploy their resources first with no corresponding disadvantage. The penalty of a card now serves as the disadvantage. Coincidentally, this is the same type of advantage held by the player going 4th in a 5 player game of Jyhad, where his prey does not get the advantage of having a predator with a play penalty in return for going before him, as all other players do. > > >Hey, while we're here, I'd like to heap some abuse on the > >uniqueness of vampires. I understand why the same player > >shouldn't be able to play with 2 of the same vampire, but > >that two players can randomly be caught in a contesting > >situation across the table, next to one another, but in > >all cases completely randomly is one of this game's > >more irritating features. > > Clue: "S" is for struggle. Hint: "R" is for random, and hey, "P" is for patronize. Sharing one or, god forbid, two vampires with another player is a crippling game disadvantage that is completely unrelated to strategy. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Jason Bell > <Jason...@mail.com> writes > > >> It's not about Jyhad vs. Magic. It's about restriction being a stupid > >> way to deal with cards being overpowered, which is true no matter what > >> game it's being used with. > > > >I strongly disagree with this sentiment. > > If card is over-powered to an abusive level, making it completely luck > of the draw (rather than careful deck crafting) as to whether you get it > or not does not fix it - it simply makes it less common that the abusive > situation will occur. When it occurs, it will still be entirely > abusive. You've just offered an argument against once-per-game cards in Jyhad. It is arguably worse for Jyhad, where your "careful deck crafting" could easily leave you with 3 or more dead cards when a fellow player uses his Giant's Blood early in the game to get card flow. In Magic, at least you still get to play your restricted card if you find it, regardless of whether your opponent has played his copy. In either game, I see nothing wrong with allowing cards with enormous game effects, as long as there are corresponding costs and restrictions. At least Magic has the additional option of addressing abusive cards through restriction, as opposed to having only text changes (Fame) or banning (Return to Innocence) as available tools. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > , "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: > > Correct. Freak Drive, Majesty, and Earth Meld were the three 'problem > cards'. The restriction on Giant's Blood, however, is a design > decision; it allows a huge effect to take place for free during one's > Master phase without being susceptible to just putting 4 or X of Giant's > Blood in your deck and reloading your vamps constantly. (Note that a > card limit wouldn't restrict the effect enough.) Why do you allow one game to have a card design feature to limit powerful cards (Jyhad's once-per-game) but do not allow another's game design feature to limit cards that turn out to be powerful (Magic's restricted list). > >And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's > >DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" > >that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering > >number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own > >banned list. > > What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards > that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. > *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there > that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 It's called Banishment. Though you object down the thread, Fame qualifies as a card that was destroyed and replaced by a totally new card called Fame. > permanently-f*cked cards. Several of which were only for ante anyway, > and the current Mind Rape is still pretty d*mn good, just a lot > different. As opposed to how many on the restricted lists? It has been awhile, but I don't recall Magic's Type I restricted list (the only format with a restricted list) as being terribly large. I suspect that from a percentage of cards standpoint, Magic's Type I restricted and banned lists are smaller than Jyhad's, especially if you include the cards that have been functionally changed through errata and later printings. > I don't claim that Jyhad was any better designed than Magic; they both > had some major flaws straight up. But I do think that card limits and a > huge-a** restricted list is a VERY poor way to fix problems. Errata is > painful, but nothing will ever be perfect the first time. I'm just not sure what superiority Jyhad's "well this card really isn't what it says" has over Magic's "you can only have one of these." I assure you that Jyhad's solution has caused my play group far more grief than Magic's ever caused those I played with. > It's NOTICEABLY different to print a card with an inherent restriction, > as opposed to coming along and slapping it on a 'restricted' list later. Yes, I agree that they are different. Magic's may be superior, since the tournament organization has more options for dealing with cards that unexpectedly become problems. > No duplication has taken place. I have no idea what this means. > Actually, I generally give Magic abuse where it deserves: the > composition of its overall playerbase and the severe wallet-hoovering > approach that WotC takes towards that same playerbase. Right. Of course, if I tried to make the same point about White Wolf, I get flamed for defamation, restraint of trade, and slander. - Jason Bell

"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's > >DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" > >that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering > >number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own > >banned list. > > They're comparatively minor compared with MtG. Played with any > Moxes lately (other than Type 1 rules)? This is an odd distinction, since Jyhad doesn't have any constructed tournament structure except what corresponds to Magic's Type I. > >Again, it is just annoying to me the abuse that Magic takes > >from this newsgroup about its 4 card limit (a mechanism > >that works very well for Magic), its restricted list > >(which is duplicated in a more restrictive way by several > >Jyhad cards), and any number of other reasons. > > Does it really? I gave up on the game because of the escalation. > 4CL makes escalation very easy. With NCL, the cards have to be better > designed in the first place. I just don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Please define the term "escalation" in this context. I assume you mean the escalation of the power of whichever cards were most recently printed. There's nothing about 4CL that enables that, it's a decision by the designers. - Jason Bell

Derek >> Jason > > > Actually, I generally give Magic abuse where it deserves: the > > composition of its overall playerbase and the severe wallet-hoovering > > approach that WotC takes towards that same playerbase. > > Right. Of course, if I tried to make the same point about White Wolf, > I get flamed for defamation, restraint of trade, and slander. This is an odd distinction, since Jyhad doesn't have any constructed tournament structure except what corresponds to Magic's Type I. :> WOTC requires you to buy cards on a continuous basis to continue to play in tournaments that attract players by forcing out ALL of the cards you own that are not in the current list of playable cards. V:EKN requires you to not play with 7 cards that you may own. Jyhad only decks are still tournament viable and tournament legal. Show me the parallel. :> Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com (ps its not that I don't think collectable card games are a bad idea for the purchaser (I do), but that I don't think you can bash a company for making money when they acquire the rights to a collectable card game and expect any sympathy for your position.) -- Posted from rr-163-54-196.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.196] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In message <QaIz7.13433$%B6.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> If card is over-powered to an abusive level, making it completely luck >> of the draw (rather than careful deck crafting) as to whether you get it >> or not does not fix it - it simply makes it less common that the abusive >> situation will occur. When it occurs, it will still be entirely >> abusive. > >You've just offered an argument against once-per-game cards in Jyhad. No, it's substantially different. There is nothing about once per game that limits the number of times it occurs in a deck. Nor is there anything about the restricted list that prevents two players both having it and playing it. >It is arguably worse for Jyhad, where your "careful deck crafting" >could easily leave you with 3 or more dead cards when a fellow player >uses his Giant's Blood early in the game to get card flow. Which provides a significant cost to the card. If you want to "guarantee" it, you're going to end up allocating some of the deck in that manner to dead weight. That's a not insignificant cost. >In Magic, >at least you still get to play your restricted card if you find it, >regardless of whether your opponent has played his copy. This is a different paradigm entirely. Part of the effect of something like Giant's Blood is worked around the costing elements that this generates. A card like Giant's Blood is good. So I play it. You think "Oh that's good." So you play it. It then becomes a pain in the arse for both of us when the other plays it. So we move off. A canny player, who can capitalise on such metagame shifts, will be able to pounce in the gaps to their own advantage. Or a player might just get lucky (it happens). It's a kind of self-righting mechanism; the more something is played, the more it discourages that play. >In either game, I see nothing wrong with allowing cards with enormous >game effects, as long as there are corresponding costs and restrictions. Certainly a potentially supportable point of view (though many might argue that there are some lines you couldn't cross) - though recall that when Magic's banned list, restricted list and 4 card limit were introduced, many cards didn't have corresponding costs and restrictions. >At least Magic has the additional option of addressing abusive cards >through restriction, as opposed to having only text changes (Fame) or >banning (Return to Innocence) as available tools. Text changes result in a situation where you don't have to restrict the card. Also recall that it is rare for Jyhad decks to be checked prior to games (the rarity of surplus judges etc.). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:14:09 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> , "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: >> >> Correct. Freak Drive, Majesty, and Earth Meld were the three 'problem >> cards'. The restriction on Giant's Blood, however, is a design > >Why do you allow one game to have a card design feature to >limit powerful cards (Jyhad's once-per-game) but do not allow >another's game design feature to limit cards that turn out to >be powerful (Magic's restricted list). Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Magic's restricted list an "oh, shit, we made a whole lot of cards too powerful, how can we fix it" bolt-on as well, as opposed to a design feature? >> What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards >> that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. >> *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there >> that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 > >It's called Banishment. first: I don't consider Banishment's errata major. The function of the card is still the same; you just can't use it with weenies anymore. And nobody who traded for 9,000 Banishments is going to be all THAT sad about the errata, they're just going to whip out Democritus and go nuking from THAT end. second: it desperately needed to happen. Weenie decks with, say, Igo Cryptic Riderring their Banishments through against Sheldon or Arika were over-the-top good. I haven't seen anyone play a hard-core Banishment deck in awhile, but they were damned vicious when they were popular. >Though you object down the thread, Fame qualifies as a card that >was destroyed and replaced by a totally new card called Fame. Hm. First errata: unique. That's minor. Second errata: controller of Famous loses pool, not prey of Famous. That's still pretty damn minor. Someone is still losing 3 pool, and the other stuff stays the same. Anyone who traded for lots of Fame can still make plenty of decks with Fame; they're just combat now, instead of suicide. And it needed to happen for its own reasons (i-shoot-myself loop decks were kind of ugly, even under NRA). >> permanently-f*cked cards. Several of which were only for ante anyway, >> and the current Mind Rape is still pretty d*mn good, just a lot >> different. As opposed to how many on the restricted lists? > >It has been awhile, but I don't recall Magic's Type I restricted list >(the only format with a restricted list) as being terribly large. >I suspect that from a percentage of cards standpoint, Magic's >Type I restricted and banned lists are smaller than Jyhad's, >especially if you include the cards that have been functionally >changed through errata and later printings. That suspicion could stand to see some sunlight under the actual numbers, although I object to your using -any- card that has been errata'd; i'm trying to identify cards that were made unplayable by errata, or just plain banned. >> I don't claim that Jyhad was any better designed than Magic; they both >> had some major flaws straight up. But I do think that card limits and a >> huge-a** restricted list is a VERY poor way to fix problems. Errata is >> painful, but nothing will ever be perfect the first time. > >I'm just not sure what superiority Jyhad's "well this card really isn't >what it says" has over Magic's "you can only have one of these." >I assure you that Jyhad's solution has caused my play group far more >grief than Magic's ever caused those I played with. Magic also never had to deal with completely-dropped support from WotC, either. When you get abandoned by your parent company, you have to make some allowances. >> It's NOTICEABLY different to print a card with an inherent restriction, >> as opposed to coming along and slapping it on a 'restricted' list later. > >Yes, I agree that they are different. Magic's may be superior, since >the tournament organization has more options for dealing with cards >that unexpectedly become problems. Yeah, "Let's ban it!" is SUCH a popular decision among the players. At least with "Let's change a few words on it!" they get to keep playing the card. >> Actually, I generally give Magic abuse where it deserves: the >> composition of its overall playerbase and the severe wallet-hoovering >> approach that WotC takes towards that same playerbase. > >Right. Of course, if I tried to make the same point about White Wolf, >I get flamed for defamation, restraint of trade, and slander. Not by me you don't. You just get tagged for being wrong. Nearly all of the 'best' cards in Final Nights are commons. (Summon Soul, Clandestine Contract, The Summoning, etc.) Note that White Wolf is also providing plenty of downtime inbetween releases, so everyone's pocketbook has a chance to recover, as opposed to dumping out expansions every month, is it? -- Derek

>It has been awhile, but I don't recall Magic's Type I restricted list >(the only format with a restricted list) as being terribly large. >I suspect that from a percentage of cards standpoint, Magic's >Type I restricted and banned lists are smaller than Jyhad's, >especially if you include the cards that have been functionally >changed through errata and later printings. I don't think using Type 1 (aka Classic) for any sort of comparisons is worthwhile. It has, over the years, dropped to about the 6th most prevalent format far, far behind the ones above it: Type 2 (aka Standard), Extended, block constructed, sealed, booster draft (other draft forms are common as well). It's just not an important format, though, of course, it has its fans.

Jason Bell wrote: > Why do you allow one game to have a card design feature to > limit powerful cards (Jyhad's once-per-game) but do not allow > another's game design feature to limit cards that turn out to > be powerful (Magic's restricted list). Because once-per-game allows players to decide for themselves how important the effect is and build their deck accordingly. If I think the Giant's Blood effect is super-key to winning, I can stick 7 or 17 or 70 of them in my deck in my effort to become the first one who gets one out. This point means that if the competition is important, players automatically build a disadvantage into their decks which compensates for it. Actually though, I think the real answer to your question is that Giant's Blood is nearly as important in Jyhad as the cards on the Magic restricted list. It takes up a valuable master card slot and only gets built in (in my decks anyway) to large cap decks and even then is sometimes used at fairly mundane times. (Yippee, I refilled Democritus when he was down to 7. I'm so happy I could just shit.) Granted, it does prevent players from building "Giant's Blood decks" which revolve around taking advantage of its refill properties. And if Magic restriction were only used to curb that aspect of certain cards, I would never have minded. But that's not what it's used for by and large. Mostly, it's used so a great effect any time anywhere regardless of whether you build a deck around it can only be lucked into with one card instead of four. And it can be even be used multiple times per game if one starts using various Graveyard-digging cards (principally the also-restricted Regrowth but when you're talking about things like Time Walk and Ancestral Recall, quite a few other such cards become worth while). So it doesn't even prevent such things from being used once per game. > It has been awhile, but I don't recall Magic's Type I restricted list > (the only format with a restricted list) as being terribly large. > I suspect that from a percentage of cards standpoint, Magic's > Type I restricted and banned lists are smaller than Jyhad's, > especially if you include the cards that have been functionally > changed through errata and later printings. Actually, if they created a constructed type which allowed players to use all cards from any editions except those that were banned, as Jyhad does, the list of cards that should be banned for reasons of being seriously and unfairly undercosted would make a *HUGE* list! That's one of the reasons a lot of players give for not creating such a constructed type. They can't even imagine doing it right, as has been done in Jyhad, because SO MANY older Magic cards were misdesigned by the standards of the current designers. This is why Type 1.5 is so biased towards older cards! This is also why players consistently reject both Types 1.5 and Extended, which has the same problem on a lesser scale, and stick to Type 2 - then complain that Magic forces them to spend money on new cards constantly. As an alternative to banning cards, the DCI could errata the old, undercosted cards to bring them into line with the current card design standards. But the DCI has throughout its history rejected the concept of using errata for this purpose. The stubborn refusal to do either that or ban any but the absolute worst problem cards was what caused the terrible player frustration with Jyhad that kept it from ever developing much of a tournament following when the DCI had control over it. Having bad tournament rules, IMHO, ultimately affects player satisfaction with a CCG as a whole. Most players - even non-tournament players - are ultimately unsatisfied with unbalanced rulesets and look to the tournament rules and rulings to find a balanced game. When Scott Johnson took over Jyhad and fixed all these problems that the DCI's flawed philosophies caused, the game has seen a renaissance which speaks for itself. White Wolf take a game Wizards of the Coast couldn't make profitable and turn it around? Are they geniuses? I don't think so. Their only genius was in putting a guy in charge who wasn't hamstrung by DCI policy. The DCI would do well to learn from this experience and create a play- balanced constructed type which allows all card sets. But they'll never learn. Fred

Jason Bell wrote: > You've just offered an argument against once-per-game cards in Jyhad. > It is arguably worse for Jyhad, where your "careful deck crafting" > could easily leave you with 3 or more dead cards when a fellow player > uses his Giant's Blood early in the game to get card flow. Or you could 15 of them in just to run up against the guy who put 20 in and beat you to the punch. Or the guy who put two of them in but got lucky. You're correct. That's why I say, the real answer to your problem is that no Jyhad card has as unbalanced an effect in Jyhad as the cards on the restricted list have in Magic. The only way Giant's blood is abusive is if one could build a deck around its effect, which is a legitimate reason to limit its utility to once per game. I think it would have worked just as well to limit it to once per game PER PLAYER, but I suppose the designers felt this was more fun and not all that big of a luck swing. As I posted elsewhere, where this why Magic cards were restricted - and not that the restricted cards simply had too advantageous of an effect in and of themselves without building the whole deck around them - I wouldn't have a problem with it. > In Magic, > at least you still get to play your restricted card if you find it, > regardless of whether your opponent has played his copy. Or, even if you've already played YOUR copy of it. Restricting doesn't even prevent one player from playing Time Walk seven times while his opponent plays his not even once. As has been pointed out to you before, the fact that both players CAN potentially play a given restricted card doesn't mean it happens very often. Usually, the restricted card has uneven effects if it has any effects at all. > In either game, I see nothing wrong with allowing cards with enormous > game effects, as long as there are corresponding costs and restrictions. Costs would do it. Restriction has nothing to do with costs. It just means the unfair thing happens less often. > At least Magic has the additional option of addressing abusive cards > through restriction, as opposed to having only text changes (Fame) or > banning (Return to Innocence) as available tools. That's exactly our point. The quality of restriction as a tool is inferior to banning and errata, both of which either eliminate the problem entirely. Eliminating such problems is necessarily the goal. Fred

> > Thats why I made this topic we manage to do every game with 4 cards > limit, even with this limit we have not enough of some cards. and > after buying so many booster boxes and having every starter, I find it > very fustrating. that I still only have 3 catonic fears. > > but its the same with flux we manage to have quite good decks and even > fun decks who can compete (even if they are stealth decks who may not > bleed at stealth untill 2 players remain.) > > Grtx Samsman Dude where are you from in the Netherlands?? Lemme just say thet we in Utrecht played 6CL for years. We've switched to NCL for the last 2 years now, and it really isn't a problem. With that 4CL you need the rare cards, while with a NCL commons are equally good or even better. Drop me an email at tim....@mailandnews.com and come to Utrecht for a game or 2. And if you need some common cards I got plenty left after making 25+ decks. Really, the number of cards you own do not make you need a CL, you simply have to toolbox your deck a little more... Hey, I only own 5 or 6 Catatonic Fears...I prefer majesty anyway. Tim Eijpe Prince of Utrecht

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:54:21 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >>It's called Banishment. > >first: I don't consider Banishment's errata major. The function of the >card is still the same; you just can't use it with weenies anymore. And >nobody who traded for 9,000 Banishments is going to be all THAT sad >about the errata, they're just going to whip out Democritus and go >nuking from THAT end. > >second: it desperately needed to happen. Weenie decks with, say, Igo >Cryptic Riderring their Banishments through against Sheldon or Arika >were over-the-top good. I haven't seen anyone play a hard-core >Banishment deck in awhile, but they were damned vicious when they were >popular. I don't see much evidence of this in the winning deck archive. The closest examples are Legacy of Pander decks and they have been addressed by errata to that card. It seems reasonable to me that a weenie can propose a vote to ban an Inner Circle member. What's not reasonable is that the same weenie can cast enough votes to make it pass. The problem is weenie voting locks, not Banishment abuse. Andrew

In message <85DE21DCBD6B62C8.ED2E88CB...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I don't see much evidence of this in the winning deck archive. The >closest examples are Legacy of Pander decks and they have been addressed >by errata to that card. No errata was issued for Legacy of Pander. The card was reprinted with originally intended card text, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:29:54 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:54:21 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >>second: it desperately needed to happen. Weenie decks with, say, Igo >>Cryptic Riderring their Banishments through against Sheldon or Arika >>were over-the-top good. I haven't seen anyone play a hard-core >>Banishment deck in awhile, but they were damned vicious when they were >>popular. > >I don't see much evidence of this in the winning deck archive. The >closest examples are Legacy of Pander decks and they have been addressed >by errata to that card. Legacy of Pander was the popular means to pull it off, yes. The problems have NOT been addressed, however. >It seems reasonable to me that a weenie can propose a vote to ban an >Inner Circle member. What's not reasonable is that the same weenie can >cast enough votes to make it pass. The problem is weenie voting locks, >not Banishment abuse. No, the problem is Banishment abuse. Take a deck with a bunch of low-caps with pre/PRE, backed by Gideon Fontaine, that already has a couple Praxis out. The table has mustered enough votes on its own to keep it in check, such that no vote can pass without the table's approval OR without a big-PRE modifier. Gideon calls a KRC, doing 3 to his prey and 1 to himself, with Bribes. He plays Bewitching Oration on it too, just to make sure. The table thinks about it, says "let's all gain a pool", and passes the vote. Cryptic Rider. Banishment on the vamp with the most votes. Cryptic Rider. Praxis Seizure, and suddenly the weenie deck has vote lock, and Banishments start landing everywhere. Remember, he's GOT six or more minions; he can do all this in one turn, though he may have more than one turn if he happened to hit a voter who was empty. Sure, it doesn't cost you pool if they were full (rare), but you still lose the minion for a turn. And if you happen to catch Sheldon at low blood, that's a -huge- swing in your favor. I've seen it done, and it's not difficult to set up in your hand; it's even less difficult to make sure that Gideon can play both a BO and Awe at the right time to kick off the first "vote" in the Cryptic Rider chain. -- Derek

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote >> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >And once again, don't get high and mighty about Jyhad's >> >DESIGN superiority over Magic, considering the "bolt on's" >> >that had to be added to make the game work, the staggering >> >number of changes to card texts and errata, and its own >> >banned list. >> >> They're comparatively minor compared with MtG. Played with any >> Moxes lately (other than Type 1 rules)? > >This is an odd distinction, since Jyhad doesn't have any constructed >tournament structure except what corresponds to Magic's Type I. Unless it has changed since I was quasi-following MtG tourney rules, you can't play with cards that are older than the current set and the one before (plus, I believe, a standalone set if one of the two wasn't one). Over time, this means that your cards become illegal to play in a Type II tourney. >> >Again, it is just annoying to me the abuse that Magic takes >> >from this newsgroup about its 4 card limit (a mechanism >> >that works very well for Magic), its restricted list >> >(which is duplicated in a more restrictive way by several >> >Jyhad cards), and any number of other reasons. >> >> Does it really? I gave up on the game because of the escalation. >> 4CL makes escalation very easy. With NCL, the cards have to be better >> designed in the first place. > >I just don't understand the point you're trying to make here. >Please define the term "escalation" in this context. >I assume you mean the escalation of the power of whichever >cards were most recently printed. There's nothing about 4CL >that enables that, it's a decision by the designers. Escalation means that cards keep getting more powerful (on average) over time. e.g. I got into MtG in Alpha. At that point, many creatures had no special abilities. Last time I saw, few, new creatures *didn't* have special abilities. Uh, no. If you don't watch what you design, then you need something like 4CL to make it work. It's much harder to design the cards so they don't need such a crutch to be playable. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote >> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. >> >The luck of the draw factor I was referring to was one where >> >one player's luck of finding his restricted card prevents the >> >other player from ever playing the same card. >> >All card games that I know of have varying degrees of >> >"luck of the draw." >> >> In a tourney, you can play first and not have a draw phase for >> the first turn or go second and have one. If luck of the draw isn't >> very important in MtG, why was this rule added? > >For no reason associated with "luck of the draw." >The nature of the game, playing resources from your hand to >the play area, gave a distinct advantage to the player going >first, in that they were able to deploy their resources first >with no corresponding disadvantage. The penalty of a card >now serves as the disadvantage. It was not played like that for some time. Then the rule was changed. What was the situation requiring it? >Coincidentally, this is the same type of advantage held by the >player going 4th in a 5 player game of Jyhad, where his prey >does not get the advantage of having a predator with a play >penalty in return for going before him, as all other players >do. The advantage in VTES is much smaller. Has it ever been possible to win on the first turn in VTES? Even if so, to the extent it was possible in MtG? >> >Hey, while we're here, I'd like to heap some abuse on the >> >uniqueness of vampires. I understand why the same player >> >shouldn't be able to play with 2 of the same vampire, but >> >that two players can randomly be caught in a contesting >> >situation across the table, next to one another, but in >> >all cases completely randomly is one of this game's >> >more irritating features. >> >> Clue: "S" is for struggle. > >Hint: "R" is for random, and hey, "P" is for patronize. > >Sharing one or, god forbid, two vampires with another >player is a crippling game disadvantage that is completely >unrelated to strategy. Methuselahs are struggling with each other for control. Contesting reflects that. I like the tenseness that it adds. Tastes differ. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > That's exactly our point. The quality of restriction as a tool is > inferior to banning and errata, both of which either eliminate the problem > entirely. Eliminating such problems is necessarily the goal. Again, it seems that you also have (unintentionally) made an argument against once-per-game cards. - Jason Bell

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote > Derek >> > Jason > > > > > Actually, I generally give Magic abuse where it deserves: the > > > composition of its overall playerbase and the severe wallet-hoovering > > > approach that WotC takes towards that same playerbase. > > > > Right. Of course, if I tried to make the same point about White Wolf, > > I get flamed for defamation, restraint of trade, and slander. > > This is an odd distinction, since Jyhad doesn't have any constructed > tournament structure except what corresponds to Magic's Type I. > > :> > > WOTC requires you to buy cards on a continuous basis to continue to play > in tournaments that attract players by forcing out ALL of the cards > you own that are not in the current list of playable cards. > > V:EKN requires you to not play with 7 cards that you may own. > > Jyhad only decks are still tournament viable and tournament legal. > > Show me the parallel. There need be no parallel. Hey, I have a 160 page paperback book here in front of me that is priced at $15.00, from White Wolf Game Studio. I hear an enormous sucking sound. ... > (ps its not that I don't think collectable card games are a bad > idea for the purchaser (I do), but that I don't think you can > bash a company for making money when they acquire the rights > to a collectable card game and expect any sympathy for your position.) Right, Derek can bash WotC for it, but I can't bash WW for it. My point exactly. - Jason Bell

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Well then, there are exactly zero cards on the restricted list for all of those other formats combined. But that sort of takes all the fun out of the discussion, doesn't it? - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: > > >Why do you allow one game to have a card design feature to > >limit powerful cards (Jyhad's once-per-game) but do not allow > >another's game design feature to limit cards that turn out to > >be powerful (Magic's restricted list). > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Magic's restricted list an "oh, sh*t, > we made a whole lot of cards too powerful, how can we fix it" bolt-on as > well, as opposed to a design feature? Maybe in the beginning (moxes and such), but the restricted list also limits the ease of card combinations which have very large game effects. > >> What, all seven cards of the banned list? To this we can add the cards > >> that got "nuclear-strike errata": Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and.. > >> *ponder* well, ok, i'm sure there's at least ONE more card out there > >> that got the Big Kaboom as far as errata, so call it 10 > > > >It's called Banishment. > > first: I don't consider Banishment's errata major. ... > Hm. First errata: unique. That's minor. Second errata: controller > of Famous loses pool, not prey of Famous. That's still pretty d*mn > minor. I suppose your minor errata are another person's de-powering. To claim that the errata preventing weenies from Banishing was minor, or ending the Fame/torpor yo-yo was minor misses the point that these errata put the brakes on powerful card combinations or strategies that were being used to great effect. > >It has been awhile, but I don't recall Magic's Type I restricted list > >(the only format with a restricted list) as being terribly large. > >I suspect that from a percentage of cards standpoint, Magic's > >Type I restricted and banned lists are smaller than Jyhad's, > >especially if you include the cards that have been functionally > >changed through errata and later printings. > > That suspicion could stand to see some sunlight under the actual > numbers, although I object to your using -any- card that has been > errata'd; i'm trying to identify cards that were made unplayable by > errata, or just plain banned. There are 49 cards currently restricted for play in Type I tournaments. I feel comfortable saying that there are 7 times as many Magic cards as Jyhad/VteS cards. Only 11 cards are banned, though the vast majority of those are due to their dealing with ante (only two cards are banned otherwise, both of which involve dropping the card from the air onto the playing surface). > >> It's NOTICEABLY different to print a card with an inherent restriction, > >> as opposed to coming along and slapping it on a 'restricted' list later. Ah, but it is not so noticeably different to change the text of a card in an important way (adding restrictions, changing play conditions), that looks as much like a slap-on as a restricted list. > >Yes, I agree that they are different. Magic's may be superior, since > >the tournament organization has more options for dealing with cards > >that unexpectedly become problems. > > Yeah, "Let's ban it!" is SUCH a popular decision among the players. At > least with "Let's change a few words on it!" they get to keep playing > the card. No they don't. They get a new card with the same title. I'm not being glib here. Fame, Banishment, Tomb, none of these cards are the same as they were when originally printed. And none of them were fixed because their play conditions were confusing. I don't believe that your insistence that the changes were merely minor, or even that the new cards are good or useful cards counter that observation. - Jason Bell

> Right, Derek can bash WotC for it, but I can't bash WW for it. > My point exactly. No, either of you CAN bash any company you like, and you both have. It's a matter of whether this opinion will be well received. Being that WotC refused to spend any more money on V:TES to make any money, they're not really going to be in our favor 'round here. Being that WW essentially resurrected a dead game (publishing-wise, anyway), the very game that we all love to play, they've done a whole lot more to earn our favor that WotC has. And, really, WotC has moved on from loving the games to just making the money. Didn't that salon.com article you linked say all that? On the other hand, Steve Wieck comes out to play in the Atlanta tournaments. And if you've seen him, you know he doesn't do it just as a publicity stunt just to make more money. =) Also, several people here have expressed the view of being "sick of" this, that, or the other about Magic, and moving onto V:TES, some of it related to having to keep buying cards to keep up (and a lot of it other stuff). Does anyone read the Magic groups, and if so, can they confirm anyone there saying "I'm so sick of V:TES and it's NCL, and once-per-game cards, and I'm glad I moved onto playing Magic?" (I'm not holding my breath.) [The rest of the points I don't have much to go on, and I won't blindly go forth in ignorance. I played Magic all of twice, from the original set with randomly shuffled cards for decks (how could I know any better? No one knew what a CCG was!), and have steered clear of tables of it in the past, mostly due to waves of immaturity and/or body odor coming from the tables. As such, Type 1, Type 2, restricted, et. al. are a bunch of concepts I'm glad I don't have to deal with playing V:TES; the game has enough to remember! =] -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote sorry for the snip > The DCI would do well to learn from this experience and create a play- > balanced constructed type which allows all card sets. But they'll never > learn. Never learn? They have an enormously successful tournament environment. They have attendance at their pre-releases that would make V:teS drool (or be unable to accomodate). I'm not sure what Magic should learn from V:tES' decision to change card texts as opposed to limiting access to problem cards. - Jason Bell

In message <LR0A7.16578$%B6.56...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Never learn? They have an enormously successful tournament >environment. They have attendance at their pre-releases that >would make V:teS drool (or be unable to accomodate). > >I'm not sure what Magic should learn from V:tES' decision to >change card texts as opposed to limiting access to problem cards. For WotC's purposes, they'd learn very little. Where being nice to players, not continually forcing them to buy new cards, game balance[0] and so on are concerned, WotC very often act in a manner entirely contrary. [0] I do recall Buyback entering the game. It was explicitly stated in the rules that reductions couldn't affect Buyback. Presumably, it had been play-tested that way. It didn't last very long, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: snip > Also, several people here have expressed the view of being "sick of" >this, that, or the other about Magic, and moving onto V:TES, some of it >related to having to keep buying cards to keep up (and a lot of it other >stuff). Does anyone read the Magic groups, and if so, can they confirm >anyone there saying "I'm so sick of V:TES and it's NCL, and once-per-game >cards, and I'm glad I moved onto playing Magic?" (I'm not holding my >breath.) *snigger* Can't say I've ever heard that. :-) Wait. Let me say it aloud... Okay, now I've heard one guy say it, but it still made me laugh. DaveZ/Atom Weaver Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

> Also, several people here have expressed the view of being "sick of" > this, that, or the other about Magic, and moving onto V:TES, some of it > related to having to keep buying cards to keep up (and a lot of it other > stuff). Does anyone read the Magic groups, and if so, can they confirm > anyone there saying "I'm so sick of V:TES and it's NCL, and once-per-game > cards, and I'm glad I moved onto playing Magic?" (I'm not holding my > breath.) > Man, I hate to be the one to say this. I have one of my players here in Lafayette, La. who can not handle playing with NCL. He builds his decks with a four card limit and then tells me how the game is broken with NCL, yet can't show how. Apparently, some people can't handle freedom. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > sorry for the snip > > > The DCI would do well to learn from this experience and create a play- > > balanced constructed type which allows all card sets. But they'll never > > learn. > > Never learn? They have an enormously successful tournament > environment. They have attendance at their pre-releases that > would make V:teS drool (or be unable to accomodate). Apples and oranges. Magic has the advantage of being the first CCG on the market. It is decidedly less complex which makes it attractive to a larger population of players. It's natural that both of these advantages translate into more popularity. It will always be impossible to compare the two directly. None the less, my impression is that Magic has been going consistently downhill for years in terms of sales and in the attendance of tournaments. Jyhad clearly was going downhill while it was under the DCI's watch and reversed field the instant it was transferred to LSJ. You tell me what to think. > I'm not sure what Magic should learn from V:tES' decision to > change card texts as opposed to limiting access to problem cards. "Limiting access to problem cards"? If you mean restriction, I'm pretty sure Jyhad tournaments are more popular and well-attended than T1 Magic tournaments. I think the DCI should learn that restriction is a lousy means of play balance and that the popularity of your format will suffer for using it in preference to tools that completely fix such problems. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I've said multiple times that Jyhad has no once-per-game card whose solitary effect is anywhere near as unbalancing as any of the cards on Magic's restricted list. If there were such a card, I'd probably agree with you that the once-per-game limit is not a sufficient check on their effect. Fred

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: [snip] >cards, and I'm glad I moved onto playing Magic?" (I'm not holding my >breath.) [snip] >knew what a CCG was!), and have steered clear of tables of it in the past, >mostly due to waves of immaturity and/or body odor coming from the tables. [snip] Maybe, you should change your strategy and hold your breath? <g> [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Jason Bell wrote: >> >> "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote >> >> sorry for the snip >> >> > The DCI would do well to learn from this experience and create a play- >> > balanced constructed type which allows all card sets. But they'll never >> > learn. >> >> Never learn? They have an enormously successful tournament >> environment. They have attendance at their pre-releases that >> would make V:teS drool (or be unable to accomodate). > >Apples and oranges. Magic has the advantage of being the first CCG on the >market. It is decidedly less complex which makes it attractive to a larger Actually, it wasn't. It's certainly the first one with wide popularity. I remember thinking that I had seen a CCG advertised in early "Dragon". I confirmed it. >population of players. It's natural that both of these advantages translate Is it really less complex? It may have started fairly simple, but now? There are so many exceptions, so many rulings. >into more popularity. It will always be impossible to compare the two It's similar to D&D vs. all other RPGs. >directly. None the less, my impression is that Magic has been going >consistently downhill for years in terms of sales and in the attendance of >tournaments. Jyhad clearly was going downhill while it was under the DCI's >watch and reversed field the instant it was transferred to LSJ. You tell me >what to think. Oh, what a straight line! Tell you what to think? OK. Send all your money to me. I need it for living expenses until I start college. (Really. My budget for the next three months is truly sad.) >> I'm not sure what Magic should learn from V:tES' decision to >> change card texts as opposed to limiting access to problem cards. > >"Limiting access to problem cards"? If you mean restriction, I'm pretty >sure Jyhad tournaments are more popular and well-attended than T1 Magic >tournaments. I think the DCI should learn that restriction is a lousy >means of play balance and that the popularity of your format will suffer >for using it in preference to tools that completely fix such problems. Agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'm sill looking for some Sabbat Vampires of the Sabbat set. Write me off and tell me which ones, I may jsut have them... Darn it, I'll have to read all that thread about CL / NCL, and I KNOW I'll have to say a few things, and I'll get started for more hours of doing nothing but Jyhading... I hate White Wolf. ;-) -- Orpheus orph...@wanadoo.fr http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > > >Jason Bell wrote: > >> > >> "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > >> > >> sorry for the snip > >> > >> > The DCI would do well to learn from this experience and create a play- > >> > balanced constructed type which allows all card sets. But they'll never > >> > learn. > >> > >> Never learn? They have an enormously successful tournament > >> environment. They have attendance at their pre-releases that > >> would make V:teS drool (or be unable to accomodate). > > > >Apples and oranges. Magic has the advantage of being the first CCG on the > >market. It is decidedly less complex which makes it attractive to a larger > > Actually, it wasn't. It's certainly the first one with wide > popularity. I remember thinking that I had seen a CCG advertised in > early "Dragon". I confirmed it. I guess you're going to have to give us more information than that because I have no idea what you're talking about. But in any event, this is kind of an irrelevant objection. Magic was the first game of its kind at the time and caught on without the disadvantage of any existing, popular CCGs out there overshadowing it. I don't think any technical objections to the statement that it was the first CCG in existence really impugns my point. > > >population of players. It's natural that both of these advantages translate > > Is it really less complex? It may have started fairly simple, > but now? There are so many exceptions, so many rulings. It is, IMHO, a simpler game, yes. My opinion is that you find groups of people who are less tolerant of complexity (e.g. younger children) willing to play Magic who will not touch Jyhad. Granted, that's a subjective assessment but it's a definitely a legitimate objection to Jason Bell's suggestion that popularity is proof of peoples' desire to deal with play-balance problems using restriction rather than banning or errata. Even if it's not a provable one. The point is, who knows what the exact cause is of Magic's popularity compared to Jyhad? It has other things going for it that have nothing to do with restriction. > >into more popularity. It will always be impossible to compare the two directly. > > It's similar to D&D vs. all other RPGs. It sure is. Likewise, it's hard to prove that anything D&D did was better and more popular than any other RPG since D&D was always the first RPG. It was the one people got used to and played because all their other friends played. > > None the less, my impression is that Magic has been going > >consistently downhill for years in terms of sales and in the attendance of > >tournaments. Jyhad clearly was going downhill while it was under the DCI's > >watch and reversed field the instant it was transferred to LSJ. You tell me > >what to think. > > >> I'm not sure what Magic should learn from V:tES' decision to > >> change card texts as opposed to limiting access to problem cards. > > > >"Limiting access to problem cards"? If you mean restriction, I'm pretty > >sure Jyhad tournaments are more popular and well-attended than T1 Magic > >tournaments. I think the DCI should learn that restriction is a lousy > >means of play balance and that the popularity of your format will suffer > >for using it in preference to tools that completely fix such problems. > > Agreed. Fred

> > Speaking of "nuclear-strike" errata, besides the 7 banned cards and you also > > listed Tomb of Ramses and Mind Rape. > > > > Hmmm...there's Legacy of Pander (which has been effectively neutered now as > > well). I'm also tempted to include Blood of the Cobra in there as well. What was the previous version of Blood ? I don't know if anyone mentionned this already, but one of the biggest "nuclear-strikes" IMO is Thoughts Betrayed !!! It used to be "ultimate", and now is only a good card. And didn't Kiss of Râ undergo a rise in power (as if it needed it) ? > > > > Halcyan 2 > > Well, add Fame to that list as well. No more unblockable Force of Will with an > added three + one pool-loss :) > > Sten > > -- > NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ > Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se > 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 > Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39 > > >

In message <9quflh$d54$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes >> > Hmmm...there's Legacy of Pander (which has been effectively neutered now >as >> > well). I'm also tempted to include Blood of the Cobra in there as well. > >What was the previous version of Blood ? I believe he may be referring to the fact that hand strike portions of the strike aren't considered hand strikes. Since the card text says "as if it were ranged", and hand strikes cannot be ranged, any hand strike portion does not function. <URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=eb4eb7f8.0107100923.6d6c1761%4 0posting.google.com> >I don't know if anyone mentionned this already, but one of the biggest >"nuclear-strikes" IMO is Thoughts Betrayed !!! Unfortunately, some cards were just too good. The ability to almost entirely neuter your opponent in combat would either have had to become seriously expensive or become less powerful. (Similar arguments were made regarding Tomb. Assuming you had 3 transfers (and on a 5 player table, the average number of transfers a player gets in their first turn is 2.8) the card paid for itself, there and then. Compare with, say, Short Term Investment or Protracted Investment, which take far longer to pay for themselves, and the fact that Tomb can generate far more pool.) If you take Thoughts Betrayed and compare it to similar cards, we find: - Immortal Grapple - which prevents certain kinds of strikes - Drawing out the Beast - which prevents use of certain cards and maneuvers - Terror Frenzy - which, again, prevents certain cards and maneuver - Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction - which prevents strikes, but need blocks (on whichever side) - Dog Pack - which prevents Strike: Combat Ends (but is seriously overcosted anyway) and so on (there are probably a few others). We mix them all together, create a card, and then make it cost a meagre 2 blood. And it was given to Dominate, which was already a seriously useful mono-discipline. And it could be used for offence (Tremere, which is where it was probably intended to go) but also to shut down opponents for defence (Ventrue, which is probably where it wasn't intended to go). You'd have needed to up the cost of the card significantly - probably to 4 or so - to stop it being that horrid. Or tone it down. >It used to be "ultimate", and now is only a good card. Which is fine. It's still a good card. >And didn't Kiss of Râ undergo a rise in power (as if it needed it) ? It was clarified that Kiss of Ra blocked the action, rather than the blocking minion. This is simply a reading of card text, however. (Unused material snipped.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Man, I hate to be the one to say this. I have one of my players here in > Lafayette, La. who can not handle playing with NCL. He builds his decks > with a four card limit and then tells me how the game is broken with NCL, > yet can't show how. Apparently, some people can't handle freedom. I have that exact problem in my group; just so happens the person that "taught" all of us to play is the one who holds onto the 4CL and various other rules misconceptions. Each piece of errata, each ruling, I've had to fight him every step of the way, since I started going to tournaments and learning the real rules. People like Jay Kristof and Jeff Thompson have been great to me at the tournaments, when I bombard them with questions. I've gotten some of the people in my group to go with NCL and the other VEKN rules, but we're having severe problems with a few people. One solution we tried was go to other game stores to recruit newer players, but in our area it seems everyone plays 4CL. I'm at a loss, in how to convince people of the game balance that the VEKN rules bring to the game. John Bell VEKN Cincy Prince

John Bell <webm...@spectrumdesigns.cc> wrote in message news:a757ead4.01102...@posting.google.com... > I've gotten some of the people in my group to go with NCL and the > other VEKN rules, but we're having severe problems with a few people. > One solution we tried was go to other game stores to recruit newer > players, but in our area it seems everyone plays 4CL. I'm at a loss, > in how to convince people of the game balance that the VEKN rules > bring to the game. I'm not sure if it works, since around here everyone plays by VEKN rules, but one idea would be to lend them a NCL deck to play a few times. You can then show them that that deck can beat some other NCL decks, and that it can be beat by other NCL decks. Or, you can bring a 4CL Malkavian S&B deck and show them how broken that is... ...but don't try this if they have a bad temper and don't take lessons easily. :-) Flux

> I'm not sure if it works, since around here everyone plays by VEKN rules, > but one idea would be to lend them a NCL deck to play a few times. You can > then show them that that deck can beat some other NCL decks, and that it can > be beat by other NCL decks. The same could go with CL decks. > Or, you can bring a 4CL Malkavian S&B deck and show them how broken that > is... The same could go with a Malk S&B NCL. > ...but don't try this if they have a bad temper and don't take lessons > easily. :-) "Lesson" seems a little pretentious, don't you think ? I, personnally, intend to convince a few friends to try NCL, because I ALSO find it interesting. Not because I find CL "broken". And I don't intend to force anybody into doing it, just to propose a try to some friends ; maybe they'll get convinced, maybe I won't, we'll see. But only ONE thing counts : that we'll all have fun together. Because tat's what friends, and games, are for. Sorry if that seems a little harsh, Flux, it's just that I'm an utopist and would like all the players, CL or not, to take each other's hands and go bleeding... uh, dancing together, naked, in corn fields... darn, wouldn't that be more like Rage than Vampire ? Darn.... Orpheus, very tired and slowly slipping into the hands of Insanity (who tried Dementation on me ?). > > Flux > >

In message <9qvk1g$hqj$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes >> Or, you can bring a 4CL Malkavian S&B deck and show them how broken that >> is... > >The same could go with a Malk S&B NCL. Not really. Under NL, Malk S&B is fine. All the counters are available in spades. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:9qvk1g$hqj$1...@wanadoo.fr... > > I'm not sure if it works, since around here everyone plays by VEKN rules, > > but one idea would be to lend them a NCL deck to play a few times. You can > > then show them that that deck can beat some other NCL decks, and that it > can > > be beat by other NCL decks. > > The same could go with CL decks. The point is to show that NCL decks are not broken, ie, that any NCL deck is balanced against another NCL deck. Of course, for this to work properlly you'd preferably give them a NCL deck that they perceive as 'broken'. > > Or, you can bring a 4CL Malkavian S&B deck and show them how broken that > > is... > > The same could go with a Malk S&B NCL. Not really, you can prepare for a Malk S&B deck under NCL, but it'll be much harder to do so under 4CL. The point being that, S&B is broken under 4CL, but not under NCL. > > ...but don't try this if they have a bad temper and don't take lessons > > easily. :-) > > "Lesson" seems a little pretentious, don't you think ? Maybe, but I couldn't find another way to put it (then again, it's past 1 AM here and English is not my first language, so you'll have to excuse my innacuracies...) > I, personnally, intend to convince a few friends to try NCL, because I ALSO > find it interesting. Not because I find CL "broken". And I don't intend to > force anybody into doing it, just to propose a try to some friends ; maybe > they'll get convinced, maybe I won't, we'll see. But only ONE thing counts : > that we'll all have fun together. Because tat's what friends, and games, are > for. Surely that would be preferable, but the OP claimed he had already tried reasoning with his fellow players with limited success, so some more 'agressive' tactics might be in order if he really intends to convince them to play NCL. > Sorry if that seems a little harsh, Flux, it's just that I'm an utopist and > would like all the players, CL or not, to take each other's hands and go > bleeding... uh, dancing together, naked, in corn fields... darn, wouldn't > that be more like Rage than Vampire ? Darn.... I wouldn't know, I never played Rage. Though I might have danced in cornfields before... :-) > Orpheus, very tired and slowly slipping into the hands of Insanity (who > tried Dementation on me ?). Not me! It was the blue octopus, in the library, with the violet spray can. Really. ;-) Flux

Orpheus wrote: >>The same could go with a Malk S&B NCL.>> Umm, yeah. No. The Malkavians under NCL (i.e. the actual rules) simply aren't that effective. Under a card limit, the Malkavian's main strategy (stealth and bleed) is completely unhindered due to the built in redundancy of both bleed and stealth cards. For instance, under 4CL using only Jyhad cards, a Malk S+B deck could be built with: 4x Govern the Unaligned 4x Dominate Kine 4x Computer Hacking 4x Conditioning 4x Bonding 4x Threats 4x Lost in Crowds 4x Cloak the Gathering 4x Faceless Night 4x Scouting Mission 4x Mask 2K 4x Veil of Darkness (the rare Obf card that gives everyone +1 stealth...) Add 12 master cards for a 60 card deck of pure speed S+B. This will be incredibly effective in a 4CL environment simply because the necessary defenses (bleed bounce or Rush) are greatly curtailed by the CL, due to a lack of similar redundancy in necessary cards. The problem with the Malks under a card limit is that the CL simply doesn't hinder them at all, because the game was designed to be played with no card limit, so the fact that there is so much redundancy in Dominate and Obfuscate cards providing the Malkavians with unlimited ammo in a CL environment wasn't really an issue. The necessary defenses that made the Malkavians balanced (bleed bounce and Rush combat), however, are completely hindered by a CL, such that the Malkavians reign supreme under a CL environment. Now under the actual rules, the Malkavians aren't any more effective--the difference between having 4 each of 5 or 6 different stealth cards and having 20 of one stealth card are farily minimal (well, actually, you are better off with 4 each of 5 than 20 of one...), but the decks that can stand up to them, namely Rush combat decks and decks with plentiful bleed bounce suddenly become playable. Thus, the Malkavians fall back in to line. The Malkavians make effective decks--a S+B deck is strong, sure, but highly vulnerable to both bleed bounce and Ruch combat. If the prey of a Malk S+B deck has, say, 12 Deflections in it (which isn't unreasonable for a deck that relies on bounce as its bleed defense), that Malk deck is in a very bad position--it goes to bleed, its prey attempts to block, the Malk deck plays a stealth card, and its prey bounces the bleed down the table. The Malk deck is now bleeding his grand prey on a regular basis, doing his prey's work for him. The Malk deck is screwed--he can't oust his prey, and he can't do anything at all, lest he oust his grand prey, giving his prey 6 more pool and a VP, starting the process all over again. If a Malk S+B deck is sitting next to a Rush deck, the Malk deck has zero hope at all--it might not even take a single action the entire game. When I am playing my Rush deck, if my prey is a Malk S+B deck, I am totally happy--I torporize every vampire he brings out and oust him quickly. If my predator is a Malk deck, I generally do the same thing, and get him ousted rather quickly by my grand predator. Thus, as a Malk deck can be horribly shut down by two different defenses (bleed bounce and Rush combat), playing such a deck in competition is gambling that you won't sit next to such a deck--if you do, you are dead from the get go. Under the actual rules, Malk S+B is playable and effective, but no more so than any other viable strategy. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Finnerty

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> Actually, it wasn't. It's certainly the first one with wide >> popularity. I remember thinking that I had seen a CCG advertised in >> early "Dragon". I confirmed it. > >I guess you're going to have to give us more information than that because I have >no idea what you're talking about. But in any event, this is kind of an irrelevant >objection. Magic was the first game of its kind at the time and caught on without >the disadvantage of any existing, popular CCGs out there overshadowing it. I don't >think any technical objections to the statement that it was the first CCG in >existence really impugns my point. Don't give it credit it doesn't deserve. "first game of its kind at the time" is weasel wording. MtG was not first. It was first to make it big. That is an accomplishment of its own. The MITS Altair is commonly thought to be the micro that got it all started, but it really wasn't the first either. [snip] >> Is it really less complex? It may have started fairly simple, >> but now? There are so many exceptions, so many rulings. > >It is, IMHO, a simpler game, yes. My opinion is that you find groups of people who >are less tolerant of complexity (e.g. younger children) willing to play Magic who >will not touch Jyhad. Granted, that's a subjective assessment but it's a definitely >a legitimate objection to Jason Bell's suggestion that popularity is proof of >peoples' desire to deal with play-balance problems using restriction rather than >banning or errata. Even if it's not a provable one. The point is, who knows what >the exact cause is of Magic's popularity compared to Jyhad? It has other things >going for it that have nothing to do with restriction. MtG is, at the basic level, simpler. Now, add on all of the exceptions due to various card rulings, and I think you'd find it more complex. It starts simple, and when the hook is set, gotcha! In the same way, it starts off cheaper than many games -- I'm not considering only CCGs here -- and then the wallet emptier kicks in. [snip] >> It's similar to D&D vs. all other RPGs. > >It sure is. Likewise, it's hard to prove that anything D&D did was better and more >popular than any other RPG since D&D was always the first RPG. It was the one people >got used to and played because all their other friends played. Exactly. Even people who know nothing about RPGs will recognize "Dungeons & Dragons". It's a cultural icon. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > > > > > That's exactly our point. The quality of restriction as a tool is > > > inferior to banning and errata, both of which either eliminate the problem > > > entirely. Eliminating such problems is necessarily the goal. > > > > Again, it seems that you also have (unintentionally) made an > > argument against once-per-game cards. > > I've said multiple times that Jyhad has no once-per-game card whose solitary > effect is anywhere near as unbalancing as any of the cards on Magic's restricted > list. If there were such a card, I'd probably agree with you that the once-per-game > limit is not a sufficient check on their effect. Dunno about that. Well, first let me clear up your misconception that I believe that once-per-game is not a serious limitation to a card to offset a large game effect. I think once-per-game is a serious limitation and am not suggesting that any of the cards currently with that restriction should be further limited. The conversation was about comparing once-per-game in V:tES to one-per-deck in Magic. I believe their similarity lies in that problems would result if they were allowed in larger quantities. In each game, the limitation (for the most part) limits access to cheap resourses (lots of free pool for the votes, lots of free blood for Giant's Blood). Giant's Blood is just the sort of free-resource boon that Black Lotus is, though without the early game-acceleration effect that Black Lotus can have. The game effect is, nonetheless, very large, and is most felt at just the opposite time in a game that Black Lotus has its largest effect. Giant's blood in the middle-end period of a game as all vampires are having to decide whether to take productive actions or take time off to hunt, a big bundle of free blood is a big deal. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > I've said multiple times that Jyhad has no once-per-game card whose > > solitary effect is anywhere near as unbalancing as any of the cards > > on Magic's restricted list. If there were such a card, I'd probably > > agree with you that the once-per-game limit is not a sufficient > > check on their effect. > > Dunno about that. > > Well, first let me clear up your misconception that I believe that > once-per-game is not a serious limitation to a card to offset a > large game effect. I think once-per-game is a serious limitation > and am not suggesting that any of the cards currently with that > restriction should be further limited. Then let me clear up your misconception that it even matters whether once-per-game is a serious limitation or not. As I said, the cards that have it, do not have the dramatic one-time-effect that the cards on Magic's restricted list do. > The conversation was > about comparing once-per-game in V:tES to one-per-deck in > Magic. I'm saying that it's an irrelevant comparison. Once-per-game does not stop unbalancing one-time-effects. That would have the same problem that restriction has: an unbalancing effect that goes off even one time is still an unbalancing effect. It just happens less often. > I believe their similarity lies in that problems would > result if they were allowed in larger quantities. That's what I strongly disagree with. Most of the cards on the Magic restricted list have effects that are distinctly unbalancing with even the play of a single one of them. I do not find that to be true of Giant's Blood, the primary Jyhad once-per-game card. > Giant's Blood is just the sort of free-resource boon that Black Lotus is, > though without the early game-acceleration effect that Black Lotus can > have. It's that early game-acceleration which is exactly the unbalancing thing. Keep a fattie out on the table unopposed for four or five turns and you've won the game - or at least usually you've taken control of it to such an extent that you can't be stopped. A Black Lotus, which a fairly average draw around it, can often make that happen. One of the things that makes such draws so crucial in Magic is the one-card-per-turn resource limit, which makes some fairly innocent-seeming things actually turn out to be huge keys. Most of the cards on the restricted list are a lot more important than a free Master Card fill in Jyhad - especially considering that a single prince action (5th Tradition) can do the exact same thing. Fred

On 22 Oct 2001 01:25:57 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Thus, as a Malk deck can be horribly shut down by two different defenses (bleed >bounce and Rush combat), playing such a deck in competition is gambling that >you won't sit next to such a deck--if you do, you are dead from the get go. > >Under the actual rules, Malk S+B is playable and effective, but no more so than >any other viable strategy. It doesn't seem that 4CL handicaps the Rush deck much. Looking at the winning deck archive, it's unusual for decks to pack more than a total of 12 Ambush/Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered. And there's no shortage of nasty combat cards. The Deflection/Redirection defense isn't quite so good under 4CL but you have to be using Dominate to use those - that's a poor metagame answer to Stealth/Bleed, even in NCL. What might be good is for more disciplines to get good anti-bleed cards - Chimestry and Presence might reasonably get deflection cards too. And maybe these new disciplines like Melnibone too. From Derek's writings, I gather than a common defense against agsint Stealth/Bleed is not to intercept and let him jam up on Stealth. This would work just as well under 4CL, right? But overall, it seems that Malkavian Stealth/Bleed is a more effective strategy than many others under NCL too - see Ben Peal for details. NCL advocates have been saying this stuff for over 5 years now and it seems that the 4CL groups are still out there in force. I imagine that, after 5 years of play, they are well aware of stealth/bleed decks and what they can do. And I'd take this talk of "actual rules" more seriously if you played by them yourself. It'd be really good if folk could just play by the rulebook and what's printed on the cards. But nobody does, do they? Andrew

> Under the actual rules, Malk S+B is playable and effective, but no more so than > any other viable strategy. I understand quite well what you and James exposed, and it seems quite reasonnable. the only difference in CL is that some clans will be able to counter Malks that way (Toreador : intercept / combat end ; Tzimisce : intercept, you die ; !Ventrue : intercept and / or redirections, as the combination of the Dom and Aus redirections takes its true value only in CL IMHO, included for Malks, I'll grant you that) while the other clans will either have to include this factor in their strategy (either 4 Pack Tactics + 4 Elder + all the Bum's, Ambushes, Haven Uncovered, Templar vote or its Camarilla equivalent, War Party which stays permanently, etc.), incorporate a 4th discipline for more intercept (usually Aus, but could be Ani or Obt), or to hope that they go very fast and / or don't have Malks as their predators. So, it's not easy either, but it's quite feasable, and it's not easy either in NCL (as you have to build your deck with them in mind). As I already said in another thread, I've played a deck with a Malk predator (he payed 4CL, and my deck was only 3!!!) and he didn't succeed once in bleeding my !Brujah !!!!!! He had included some Cel dodge for surviving, so he wasn't "pure S&B", but these in NCL survive to oust their prey, than they usually die (ok, often enough they get 2VPs). And my deck included some Obt, and not only for intercept ; so, everything can happen. I would say this : The main difference between playing CL and NCL is that in CL the clan specifics are much more important, for better or for worse : if a clan isn't made for intercepting, it will have to win some other way. Aus Vs Obf is normal, even in tabletop or LRPG, even if you're a kickass Brujah, you'll be able to do nothing if the Malk disappear in front of your "Mental terciary" nose. Now, agreed, some Clans may be advantaged or disadvanteged by their basic discipline combination, but that's where deck-building will take some thinking ; and, after all, the creators of Vampire didn't have VTES in mind when they attributed the disciplines to the Clans !

In message <E30F73BFE7C28ECB.85376A92...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >It doesn't seem that 4CL handicaps the Rush deck much. Looking at the >winning deck archive, it's unusual for decks to pack more than a total >of 12 Ambush/Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered. And there's no shortage of >nasty combat cards. There, is, however a shortage of Immortal Grapple, Psyche!, Hidden Lurker, Telepathic Tracking or whatever the deck is using to foil the fact that Majesty has 12 sources of Strike: Combat Ends. >From Derek's writings, I gather than a common defense against agsint >Stealth/Bleed is not to intercept and let him jam up on Stealth. This >would work just as well under 4CL, right? It's *a* defence. It's not the only defence, and it can be combined with other forms of defence too. (e.g. bleed reduction, counter-rush etc) > But overall, it seems that >Malkavian Stealth/Bleed is a more effective strategy than many others >under NCL too - see Ben Peal for details. It's an effective strategy, sure, but it's not killer. All the counters can be had far more effectively under NL, thus, relative to xCL, the strategy is far more balanced. >NCL advocates have been saying this stuff for over 5 years now and it >seems that the 4CL groups are still out there in force. I imagine that, >after 5 years of play, they are well aware of stealth/bleed decks and >what they can do. Actually, very often, no. A *lot* of xCL groups are: - doing it because that's how they've always done it - doing it because Magic does it - assuming that it helps poor players, when in fact it doesn't - working with "Gentleman's Rules" of "no cheese", often unspoken and so on. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

In message <9r0v1g$1k4$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes >So, it's not easy either, but it's quite feasable, and it's not >easy either in NCL (as you have to build your deck with them in mind). If you're building a deck without thinking "What happens if I get bled? What happens if I get bled at stealth?" you really should. Bleed is the fundamental underlying element of attack, which is entirely card-less if necessary. This isn't "building a deck with <S&B Malks> in mind". This is building a deck that stands a chance against *any* bleed deck. And a good deck under NL with bleed defence is a perfectly viable proposition. Wakes (disciplineless, animalism, possibly a side effect of a Homunculus out of turn deck), bleed reduction (Serpentis, Chimerstry, Auspex, Greta, independents), bounce (Dominate, Auspex), intercept (Auspex, Animalism, disciplineless, master cards, Chimerstry, Necromancy, Obtenebration, 2nd Tradition etc.) are all perfectly viable. A combat deck doesn't have to plan for stealth and bleed using tactics different to normal - the Bum's Rushes and Haven Uncovereds (or whatever) it puts in the deck *are there for expressly that purpose*. They can rush an annoying voter, an annoying bleeder, an annoying interceptor or just go forward. It's not special preparation *at all*. It's building a deck that, due to attacking secondary resources, is inherently flexible. A political deck, if it goes via the Ventrue, the Toreador, the !Toreador, the Lasombra, the !Ventrue, the Tzimisce, the !Tremere and so on (the people who've been mentioned recently) have access to bleed bounce. Bleeding is fundamental; you need to have some tactics to cope with it. (Similarly, what do you do if someone votes? What do you do if someone rushes your vampires? Are you going to play the odds, the metagame, or the defence?) A political deck can also use Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure to move itself out of the way of any strategy it doesn't like, very useful. Similarly, Free States Rant is going to play havoc with such decks. Blood gain is often rare. Forcing them to spend a turn hunting whilst you suck up pool with Voter Captivation, and can then do it the following round with probably only one vote (assuming they hunt for one, you can split three points between several vampires), is scary. Add Temptation, if you're a Setite deck. Any deck can try and use speed to outpace the stealth-bleeders - if I can get to my prey first, going hell for leather, I've got a VP. (The table wins rules may re-adjust this, of course.) This speed simply isn't available on a relative scale, under xCL. The Malkavian S&B deck comes forward at a rate of knots, destroying everything in its path. Anyone who *isn't* playing Malkavian S&B is slowed down due to the fact that they can't rely on drawing *anything*. A deck with a significant bleed element may choose to back-bleed as a form of defence. "Hey Mr Grand Predator, would you be awfully upset if I sent this bleed for three at your prey?" Again, such flexible elements may not be available to an xCL deck, which can't use, say, multiples of Kindred Spirits. (Or even Night Moves, which is still excellent.) Defence against stealth-bleed really isn't hard under NL, once you work out some reliable, solid tactics. Under xCL, you can work out the tactics... and then fail entirely to draw them. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip] > It doesn't seem that 4CL handicaps the Rush deck much. Looking at the > winning deck archive, it's unusual for decks to pack more than a total > of 12 Ambush/Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered. And there's no shortage of > nasty combat cards. Uhm, yeah, No. Get off the crackpipe man! Say I play a Nossie Potence Rush deck versus your Toreador Presence Vote deck. Then I would have exactly 4 IG and maximally 12 manouvers (Behind you!, Swallowed by the Night and Fake out)against your 12 presence C:ends (majesty, staredown and Catatonic Fear) not to mention your 12 Cel manouvers (rapid Thought, Flash and Pursuit). Combine that with only 4 Bums Rush, 4 Ambush and 4 Haven Uncovered and Oh..I lose. Better go for a bleed deck next time. Nuff said. The problem with XCL isn't that the game was intended to be NCL or that XCL makes other strategies more viable. The problem with XCL in VTES is that it makes other strategies NON-viable. Try making an aggressive intercept deck with only 4 Eagle Sight. That is my biggest problem with XCL (having played it as well). The fact tha XCL makes concepts and strategies NON-viable is the problem. That XCL enhances creativity is also a misunderstanding. If people mean that you have to be creative to work around the inherent XCL problems, sure that is true. But creativity in a XCL deck?? I have played them, they're not creative. The solution around the XCL deckbuilding problems are ceative, the deck is not. NCL enhances creativity and deckbuilding skill. It can also make a deck superfocussed which can be countered by single cards. With NCL the game becomes the well known Rock-paper-scissors game, while with XCL it boils down to who has the most/better acrds useable to work around the XCL deckbuilding problems. If peoplle want to play XCL go for it, but do try NCL for a while. Under NCL you CAN make funny, non-focussed good viable decks. They are called toolboxes... Tim Eijpe

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:02:06 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 22 Oct 2001 01:25:57 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > >>Thus, as a Malk deck can be horribly shut down by two different defenses (bleed >>bounce and Rush combat), playing such a deck in competition is gambling that >>you won't sit next to such a deck--if you do, you are dead from the get go. >> >>Under the actual rules, Malk S+B is playable and effective, but no more so than >>any other viable strategy. > >It doesn't seem that 4CL handicaps the Rush deck much. Looking at the >winning deck archive, it's unusual for decks to pack more than a total >of 12 Ambush/Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered. And there's no shortage of >nasty combat cards. None of which can be made to "stick" in the face of multiple Combat Ends and Dodge cards. Presence has 3 different S:CE cards. Celerity has one and a half, and Vampiric Speed's superior is one of the lesser-seen but-still-obnoxious defensive cards out there -- the Toreador are pretty difficult to hit when you're limited to only 4 IG. >The Deflection/Redirection defense isn't quite so good under 4CL but you >have to be using Dominate to use those - that's a poor metagame answer >to Stealth/Bleed, even in NCL. What might be good is for more What you describe as a poor metagame answer is also the primary means of dealing with S&B in tournaments; most decks find a way to pack some form of Dominate, or Auspex for the Telepathic Misdirections. As 'poor' an answer as it is, it comes with a built-in benefit... since you're sure to see malk S&B at a tournament, if you plan for it and it sits behind you, you generally should be able to oust your first prey rapidly, and possibly your second. It may not be the BEST means of dealing with S&B for any given deck, but most people tend to throw their hands up in the air and play a Dominate clan "just to be safe". >disciplines to get good anti-bleed cards - Chimestry and Presence might >reasonably get deflection cards too. And maybe these new disciplines >like Melnibone too. Chimerstry doesn't really need it; its intercept is already more than sufficient to trash Malks. Presence doesn't need one for the same reason Dominate shouldn't have had Deflection; putting powerful bleed and powerful bleed defense in the same discipline makes it unbalanced. (If WW named a discipline Melnibone, I could see a copyright lawsuit forming rapidly. I don't think there's any bounce against those. ;) >From Derek's writings, I gather than a common defense against agsint >Stealth/Bleed is not to intercept and let him jam up on Stealth. This >would work just as well under 4CL, right? But overall, it seems that Well, no, because the 4CL actually helps mediocre deck-builders. Since it's not possible to put in more than 4 of each stealth card, you actually end up getting just the right amount of stealth in the deck and a good mix of it, instead of "too much", or "all the same". I probably wouldn't try to "no-block" a 4CL deck unless I had absolutely no way to get even +1 intercept. >Malkavian Stealth/Bleed is a more effective strategy than many others >under NCL too - see Ben Peal for details. It is a strong strategy, indeed. However, Ben Peal's deck is significantly different from the classic "Malk S&B" that 4CL groups and old-timers fear. It is carefully limited and non-reckless, and it DOESN'T come out of the gate nuking the hell out of its prey. It's also somewhat Deflection-proof, but I believe it doesn't bleed for more than 3 at a time, either. Again, it's S&B built by someone with a brain. What old-timers remember was before anyone had figured out how to defend against Malks, and hadn't really understood that "not blocking" was even an option. So you got "govern", "attempt to block", "lost in crowds", "conditioning", over and over again. This prompted knee-jerk reactions like slapping a 4CL on... and there you go. >NCL advocates have been saying this stuff for over 5 years now and it >seems that the 4CL groups are still out there in force. I imagine that, Gamers are stubborn, even when presented with proof positive. >after 5 years of play, they are well aware of stealth/bleed decks and >what they can do. I imagine they aren't, actually. The 4CL s&b deck posted will run roughshod over most 4CL groups, ...and realize that such a deck can be created in 10 minutes. Adding some tricks and the like to it, spending some time, trying to make it GOOD instead of just an example? I'd say it would run over ALL 4CL groups then, since there just won't be any sort of defense against it short of building a deck specifically designed to stop S&B... which will fail when it's not sitting in front of s&b. Most 4CL groups enforce their limits by social pressure, and then believe that the limits and not the social pressure are what is keeping the game balanced for them. >And I'd take this talk of "actual rules" more seriously if you played by >them yourself. It'd be really good if folk could just play by the >rulebook and what's printed on the cards. But nobody does, do they? Aw, now you had to go and do it, didn't you; you took a reasonably well thought out post and tacked a troll onto the end of it. for shame. Of course, it's possible that the entire 4CL thrust of this message is also a troll to stir things up, but hell, all threads degenerate into the 4CL stuff anyway, and I didn't start it this time, so i don't care. =) -- Derek

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:18:06 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >None of which can be made to "stick" in the face of multiple Combat Ends >and Dodge cards. Presence has 3 different S:CE cards. Celerity has one >and a half, and Vampiric Speed's superior is one of the lesser-seen >but-still-obnoxious defensive cards out there -- the Toreador are pretty >difficult to hit when you're limited to only 4 IG. Yes, but the stealth and bleedin' Malkavians don't easily get any of this S:CE, do they? The S:CE decks can counter the Rush decks like the Rush decks counter the Stealth+Bleed. >What you describe as a poor metagame answer is also the primary means of >dealing with S&B in tournaments; most decks find a way to pack some form >of Dominate, or Auspex for the Telepathic Misdirections. As 'poor' an >answer as it is I don't mean that it's ineffective, I mean that it narrows the metagame choice. I assume that's why the Ventrue are so good - they have dominate to deal with the stealthy bleeders, presence/fortitude to deal with combat and presence/dominate for bleed and/or vote offense. Their disciplines are so good that I'd have thought that they would be the dominant clan in 4CL just like they are in NCL. Why are the Malkavians the standard bogeyman instead? >>after 5 years of play, they are well aware of stealth/bleed decks and >>what they can do. > >I imagine they aren't, actually. You indicate earlier that no-brainer stealth+bleed was the sort of thing that would make players introduce a 4CL. If you had such a deck, it seems fairly obvious step to trim it to work within 4CL. The theory that such groups also have peer pressure to avoid cheese is more plausible. This probably expresses itself in play. If someone plays a cheesy deck, like Malkavian S+B, then it will attract cross-table flak and that may be enough to balance the metagame. I've seen the same sort of thing happen in the NCL game (e.g. when I play a weenie deck). Is this cross-table pressure allowed for in the anti-CL argument? >it's possible that the entire 4CL thrust of this message is also >a troll to stir things up, but hell, all threads degenerate into the >4CL stuff anyway, and I didn't start it this time, so i don't care. =) Me neither. It's just that when Peter preaches about using the "actual rules", I can't resist pointing out that he doesn't use them either - he'll ban cards, use NRA, different deck limits, etc. This sort of thing used to bug me in the early days of Magic. Everyone used to play with a 60 card mimimum when the rulebook clearly said that it was 40. Andrew

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:46:54 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:18:06 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>None of which can be made to "stick" in the face of multiple Combat Ends >>and Dodge cards. Presence has 3 different S:CE cards. Celerity has one >>and a half, and Vampiric Speed's superior is one of the lesser-seen >>but-still-obnoxious defensive cards out there -- the Toreador are pretty >>difficult to hit when you're limited to only 4 IG. > >Yes, but the stealth and bleedin' Malkavians don't easily get any of >this S:CE, do they? The S:CE decks can counter the Rush decks like the >Rush decks counter the Stealth+Bleed. Well, the Malks -do- get 4 Obedience. Or, for maneuvers, Behind You and Swallowed by the Night (even Fake Out) -- and if you're going that route, 4 Disguised Weapon, 4 Concealed Weapon, 4 Deer Rifles, and 4 .44 Magnums will create a significant problem for Rush. You can also use the 12 Dodge cards available to the Malks; Behind You, Read Intentions, and disciplineless... again, 4 IG simply isn't enough to make the buggers hold still. Under 4CL, a Rush deck isn't really viable even against S&B, with only 8 Rush cards and a true scattershot of other combat cards. The stock Rush deck includes 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered, and STILL occasionally finds itself without a Rush action. A version with 4 fewer Rush cards is going to get caught with its pants down, especially when it has to burn through too many maneuvers just to catch the FIRST vampire. (Which, by the way, it's now short on as well. The best solution to transient maneuvers as pure defense is Trap, and it can only have 4 of those.) >I don't mean that it's ineffective, I mean that it narrows the metagame >choice. I assume that's why the Ventrue are so good - they have >dominate to deal with the stealthy bleeders, presence/fortitude to deal >with combat and presence/dominate for bleed and/or vote offense. Their >disciplines are so good that I'd have thought that they would be the >dominant clan in 4CL just like they are in NCL. Why are the Malkavians >the standard bogeyman instead? 4CL encourages toolboxing, since it's difficult to make any but a very small set of focussed decks. The Ventrue's weakness is intercept, and the first thing people do when toolboxing is usually start including intercept of some form; locations, permanents, what have you. With only 4 Majesty and 4 Freak Drive available to them to "dual up" their actions, they start to run into a severe problem of just "not enough stealth". They don't get killed, because they still have 12 S:CE and all those Fortitude cards... but they also don't have any way to deter people from constantly intercepting them. Also, the Ventrue are frequently supported by Minion Tap/5th, which isn't as viable under 4CL. The Malks are also what we bring up first as an example because usually the first reason CL groups give is "it's too easy to break the game, Malk stealth bleed becomes too powerful". So we like to counter that argument straight off, and then wait and see if they have any others. >You indicate earlier that no-brainer stealth+bleed was the sort of thing >that would make players introduce a 4CL. If you had such a deck, it >seems fairly obvious step to trim it to work within 4CL. The theory >that such groups also have peer pressure to avoid cheese is more >plausible. This probably expresses itself in play. If someone plays a >cheesy deck, like Malkavian S+B, then it will attract cross-table flak >and that may be enough to balance the metagame. I've seen the same sort >of thing happen in the NCL game (e.g. when I play a weenie deck). Is >this cross-table pressure allowed for in the anti-CL argument? What cross-table pressure? You have a deck with little to no focus, meaning it can't do ANYTHING reliably. You're going to need all your resources to throw at your prey; you can't be taking two of your valuable 4 KRCs (another Ventrue weakness; inability to make vote offense 'go') and splitting them 2-2 cross table at the stealth/bleeder. You're going to need to drop 3 on your prey every single time. Same with Rush; when you only have 8 cards, it's going to hurt like hell to waste one going over and beating up the S&B grandprey. >>it's possible that the entire 4CL thrust of this message is also >>a troll to stir things up, but hell, all threads degenerate into the >>4CL stuff anyway, and I didn't start it this time, so i don't care. =) > >Me neither. It's just that when Peter preaches about using the "actual >rules", I can't resist pointing out that he doesn't use them either - >he'll ban cards, use NRA, different deck limits, etc. This sort of >thing used to bug me in the early days of Magic. Everyone used to play >with a 60 card mimimum when the rulebook clearly said that it was 40. I'm surprised that was the only thing that used to bug you about Magic, frankly. =) [0] -- Derek [0] ObCheapShotAtMagic for Jason :)

tim....@mailandnews.com (Tim Eijpe) wrote in message news:<e96a9e4b.01102...@posting.google.com>... > [snip] > > > > It doesn't seem that 4CL handicaps the Rush deck much. Looking at the > > winning deck archive, it's unusual for decks to pack more than a total > > of 12 Ambush/Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered. And there's no shortage of > > nasty combat cards. > > Uhm, yeah, No. Get off the crackpipe man! > I really hate to say this, since I don't want to give any support to card limits, but... I completely agreed with you at one point. A good combat deck cannot be built with 4CL. My friend, however, firmly insisted on building his decks under 4CL. He saw that NCL wasn't broken (well, he sort of saw that), and didn't object to my decks (which usually would fit under 6CL or 7CL just due to the way I constructed them, but not always), but he always used 4CL. A few of the other people in his playgroup also used 4CL, but some didn't. It was an odd mix, but since we weren't too competitive, it wasn't a real problem. Anyway, he built a Nos/!Nos combat deck under 4CL, which he took to 2 tournaments, one of which he won and the other he got to the finals. It was like 64 cards. Even against Tory decks, he wasn't too bad. He was quite happy with 4 Immortal Grapple, 4 Hidden Lurker, 4 Swallowed By the Night, 4 Behind You! I didn't agree with his deck philosophy (and he didn't agree with me suggesting to add 2 of a card... "if I'm gonna add 2, why not add 4?" to which I replied "if you're gonna add 4, why not add 6?"), but Nossies are just good at combat. His one weakness was running out of cards, but that still wasn't that much of a problem. It was a *good* deck, even by NCL standards. Similarly, a 4CL Malk S&B can still be a good deck in NCL. The game is actually not *too* poorly balanced under 4CL, which is why a lot of people don't see the light. The problem with 4CL is that it strongly favours the suitcase players who have 4 of the rares that substitute for the commons that most people use 8 of. The other problem is this: In 4CL, Malks can S&B, Nossies can fight, Ventrue and Toreador can vote. That's about it. In NCL, there are a lot more deck types open to you. You can't make a Settite deck at all in 4CL, TMK, except perhaps a very weak S&B.

Andrew wrote: >>It doesn't seem that 4CL handicaps the Rush deck much. Looking at the winning deck archive, it's unusual for decks to pack more than a total of 12 Ambush/Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered.>> Standard is 12 Rush and 4 Haven. Some folks play more, some play less. 4CL handicaps you plenty, as you are forced to use Ambush if you don't want to (Ambush is generally less effective than Bum's Rush due to the conditonality). You also have only 4 Immortal Grapple, which makes you lose. And only 4 Taste, which makes you much less effective. And only 4 of a given combat card (Torn Signpost or Undead Strength, say), which makes you much less efficient. Rush decks already skate the edge of nigh-impossible to play effectively. Any hamstringing is bad. >>But overall, it seems that Malkavian Stealth/Bleed is a more effective strategy than many others under NCL too - see Ben Peal for details.>> Nope. Ben Peal is just a more effective player than many others. >>And I'd take this talk of "actual rules" more seriously if you played by them yourself. It'd be really good if folk could just play by the rulebook and what's printed on the cards. But nobody does, do they?>> I play by the official tournament rules, thus I use the actual rules. A given sub set of them, but the actual rules none the less. There is no situation where a card limit is supported as an actual rule. Thus, playing with a card limit is not playing bythe actual rules. Again I ask you--why are you here? You don't like this game, you don't play this game. You make baseless and generally incorrect statements. You follow up each reasonable seeming comment with some sort of troll-like comment like the one above. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>Me neither. It's just that when Peter preaches about using the "actual rules", I can't resist pointing out that he doesn't use them either - he'll ban cards,>> ??? What cards do I ban? I play by virtue of the official tournament rules set. I play with the banned cards that are banned by the rules. >>use NRA,>> Which are part of the official tournament rules set. >>different deck limits, etc.>> Which are part of the official tournament rules set. Please provide another example of "etc." >>This sort of thing used to bug me in the early days of Magic. Everyone used to play with a 60 card mimimum when the rulebook clearly said that it was 40.>> Rules for competetive play and casual play are different in all sorts of games. Like in Chess, Bridge, and any number of games. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:18:52 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >Well, the Malks -do- get 4 Obedience. Or, for maneuvers, Behind You and >Swallowed by the Night (even Fake Out) -- and if you're going that >route, 4 Disguised Weapon, 4 Concealed Weapon, 4 Deer Rifles, and 4 .44 >Magnums will create a significant problem for Rush. You can also use >the 12 Dodge cards available to the Malks; Behind You, Read Intentions, >and disciplineless... again, 4 IG simply isn't enough to make the >buggers hold still. That's about half the library given over to combat defense. What's the exact recipe for the unbeatable 4CL Malkavian deck? >Under 4CL, a Rush deck isn't really viable even against S&B, with only 8 >Rush cards and a true scattershot of other combat cards. The stock Rush >deck includes 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered, and STILL >occasionally finds itself without a Rush action. That's on the high side. The decks in the winning deck archive have less. The most I found was 8 Rush, 3 Haven, 4 Ambush. If you have some permanent rush you can manage with less, I'd have thought. >What cross-table pressure? You have a deck with little to no focus, >meaning it can't do ANYTHING reliably. You're going to need all your >resources to throw at your prey; you can't be taking two of your >valuable 4 KRCs (another Ventrue weakness; inability to make vote >offense 'go') and splitting them 2-2 cross table at the stealth/bleeder. >You're going to need to drop 3 on your prey every single time. Same >with Rush; when you only have 8 cards, it's going to hurt like hell to >waste one going over and beating up the S&B grandprey. I think you're exaggerating here. If the deck makes itself unpopular enough, players will go for it even if it hurts their position - just to teach it a lesson. I saw a player in a VEKN tournament in London do something vindictive (contesting when he clearly shouldn't, I think). I asked why he was doing this silly thing and his response was that he was only playing for fun. Guys like that may be all it takes to keep the cheesy decks down. >I'm surprised that was the only thing that used to bug you about Magic, >frankly. =) [0] The main issues were that the rules were almost unknowable - there was nothing like the Comprehensive Rules or Oracle then. And that they started banning cards - individually at first and then wholesale. Andrew

> The game is actually not *too* poorly balanced under 4CL, which is why > a lot of people don't see the light. What church do you go to ? ;-) The problem with 4CL is that it > strongly favours the suitcase players who have 4 of the rares that > substitute for the commons that most people use 8 of. Well, and the CL players think the contrary ! Because some Rare cards still are very good, and IG (now Unco) isn't the only one ! Try a Tzimisce fighting deck with or without Breath of the Dragon and other very good Vic Rares, Terror Frenzy, and Song in the Dark ; as I said, many people are looking for these on the net, I don't think it's just for collection... The other > problem is this: In 4CL, Malks can S&B, Nossies can fight, Ventrue > and Toreador can vote. That's about it. A little schematic, but yes, each clan in CL is more specialised than in NCL, but then this can be argumented for and against ; it's as if you looked at the Masquerade RPG, some people will want to put Protean to all characters with Celerity, some will argue that it's unfair and / or too specific to Gangrels (except for Elders), some characters will have more out-of-clans discipline thant their own, and this will disturb some people and not at all some others ; maters of taste, really. In NCL, there are a lot more > deck types open to you. You can't make a Settite deck at all in 4CL, > TMK, except perhaps a very weak S&B. You can, playing "on the edge". And it makes S&B not very fast, but with lots of defense (CE, some Ser strikes), so it can win ; not to mention the allies...

I assume that's why the Ventrue are so good - they have > dominate to deal with the stealthy bleeders, presence/fortitude to deal > with combat and presence/dominate for bleed and/or vote offense. Their > disciplines are so good that I'd have thought that they would be the > dominant clan in 4CL just like they are in NCL. Why are the Malkavians > the standard bogeyman instead? You said it : Malks are the Bogeyman, because if you're their prey and not rightly prepared, you're dead ; but Ventrue win games more often. That being said, I thing most of the clans can be built effectively, even if some are better than others ; the harder to do still are the Independents, though... But isn't that the same in NCL ? > >>after 5 years of play, they are well aware of stealth/bleed decks and > >>what they can do. > > > >I imagine they aren't, actually. Yes, we are. And of the ways to counter them too. > You indicate earlier that no-brainer stealth+bleed was the sort of thing > that would make players introduce a 4CL. If you had such a deck, it > seems fairly obvious step to trim it to work within 4CL. The theory > that such groups also have peer pressure to avoid cheese is more > plausible. This probably expresses itself in play. If someone plays a > cheesy deck, like Malkavian S+B, then it will attract cross-table flak > and that may be enough to balance the metagame. I've seen the same sort > of thing happen in the NCL game (e.g. when I play a weenie deck). Is > this cross-table pressure allowed for in the anti-CL argument? Interesting comment... > >it's possible that the entire 4CL thrust of this message is also > >a troll to stir things up, but hell, all threads degenerate into the > >4CL stuff anyway, and I didn't start it this time, so i don't care. =) > > Me neither. It's just that when Peter preaches about using the "actual > rules", I can't resist pointing out that he doesn't use them either - > he'll ban cards, use NRA, different deck limits, etc. Want to scream ? Here are our actual houserules : - 3CL - 1CL on uniques - More often than not, we play in 40 blood pool. But we can laso play in 30, for shorter games and smaller crypts. Most of the people I know play the same thing, except with 4CL. And it works. And they think NCL is broken. I still don't know, really ; but I intend to try different ways of playing, and stick with the one / ones that I will enjoy better. Yours, -- Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

In message <9r28k1$glr$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes >Well, and the CL players think the contrary ! Because some Rare cards still >are very good, and IG (now Unco) isn't the only one ! Try a Tzimisce >fighting deck with or without Breath of the Dragon and other very good Vic >Rares, Terror Frenzy, and Song in the Dark ; as I said, many people are >looking for these on the net, I don't think it's just for collection... Lots of people are looking for many cards; this doesn't make them all great cards. It may mean that people immediately assume cards with a strong effect being strong cards in terms of power ratios. Try http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rtpa2 for an example of an extremely successful Tzimisce deck. No Breath of the Dragon, Terror Frenzy or Song in the Dark. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>That's on the high side. The decks in the winning deck archive have less. The most I found was 8 Rush, 3 Haven, 4 Ambush. If you have some permanent rush you can manage with less, I'd have thought.>> I'm not quite sure what archive you are looking at--my Rush deck is in there, and it has 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I play by the official tournament rules, thus I use the actual rules. A given > sub set of them, but the actual rules none the less. There is no situation > where a card limit is supported as an actual rule. Thus, playing with a card > limit is not playing bythe actual rules. This sums up the whole point. Regardless of what a player does CL or NCL the official game play is set. Anything else can be allowed in your house rules. Want to include Magic cards in your library. go right ahead, just don't expect to play in a ranked game. (or at my house, I burn magic cards). If a player wishes to limit their selves with a CL and play that deck in a ranked game, there in nothing prohibiting that so long as the basic rules are followed. A CL eliminates any chance of ever playing a corruption deck, you just can not even begin to thing about such things. Most other Decks can be worked around a CL if you try. But who wants to work that hard? > Again I ask you--why are you here? You don't like this game, you don't play > this game. You make baseless and generally incorrect statements. You follow up > each reasonable seeming comment with some sort of troll-like comment like the > one above. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Seems that Andrew is here to keep you busy. and he probably does not have anything better to do with his time. Raille

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20011022212905...@mb-mi.aol.com... > Andrew wrote: > >>That's on the high side. The decks in the winning deck archive have > less. The most I found was 8 Rush, 3 Haven, 4 Ambush. If you have some > permanent rush you can manage with less, I'd have thought.>> > > I'm not quite sure what archive you are looking at--my Rush deck is in there, > and it has 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered. My GenCon Potence Rush deck had 11 Bum's and 2 Ambush.... But the rampages and 10 computer hacks result in combat often as well. Robert

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:38:40 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:18:52 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Well, the Malks -do- get 4 Obedience. Or, for maneuvers, Behind You and >>Swallowed by the Night (even Fake Out) -- and if you're going that >>route, 4 Disguised Weapon, 4 Concealed Weapon, 4 Deer Rifles, and 4 .44 >>Magnums will create a significant problem for Rush. You can also use >>the 12 Dodge cards available to the Malks; Behind You, Read Intentions, >>and disciplineless... again, 4 IG simply isn't enough to make the >>buggers hold still. > >That's about half the library given over to combat defense. What's the >exact recipe for the unbeatable 4CL Malkavian deck? You don't want to include all of these, obviously. I would include 4 DW, 1 CW, 4 Deer Rifles, and one Ivory Bow (no good against Potence/IG, but very good against lots of other pesky combat). The exact recipe? (shrug) As I've stated elsewhere, it hasn't been built yet. It only takes ten minutes to throw 4 of each appropriate DOM/OBF card in, then a few entertaining Masters (multiple Suddens; can't permit Minion Tap/Blood Doll to ever happen), a Pulse or two, some Deflections, some Redirections, some Wakes. And then you can just play aggressively, instead of politely, and see what happens. I would expect things to run rather well, and actually spending -time- on building it could only improve matters. If I ever find myself in a 4CL environment, I'll probably build it to encourage switching to NL. Fortunately, I'm not afflicted with one. >>Under 4CL, a Rush deck isn't really viable even against S&B, with only 8 >>Rush cards and a true scattershot of other combat cards. The stock Rush >>deck includes 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered, and STILL >>occasionally finds itself without a Rush action. > >That's on the high side. The decks in the winning deck archive have >less. The most I found was 8 Rush, 3 Haven, 4 Ambush. If you have some >permanent rush you can manage with less, I'd have thought. Peter and Robert have pointed out otherwise -- and I would say, based on a LOT of experience playing combat, that if you have only 8 Rush in your deck, you're going to have a hand without some rather quickly, and be forced to bleed for 1 lots while your prey totally ignores you and your predator pummels you mercilessly. When Didi Meyers has just been influenced out behind you, a Rush deck needs to make some rapid choices. You can't try to block, since you have no intercept and will just help him move stealth cards. You COULD sit and wait for a turn to see what happens, but that will cost you 4-6 pool. So you really NEED to Rush backwards right away, and the only cards that will let you do that are Haven Uncovered and Bum's Rush. You can't Ambush Didi because she's untapped, so you're already down to a SEVERE shortage of cards you can use, half of which can be Sudden Reversaled. Even if you HAVE a card you can use to go backwards with, that's additional pressure you're not putting on your prey, and you've only a finite amount of Rush actions. If you fail to Rush backwards, you get nailed for 5 pool. Next out is Roland Bishop, joy, rapture. If you don't Rush backwards TWICE, you're going to get hit for at least 6-10 pool this turn -- and the damage you're taking is costing you the ability to bring out minions, which is what you need to have a hope of winning. So a Rush deck -does- actually have some trouble with a Malk deck under 4CL... and realize that Malks are generally soft and crunchy to a Rush deck under NL! One can only imagine how much trouble it would have trying to deal with a deck that actually had significant combat defense. This means that a Rush deck is effectively unplayable under 4CL, since you really can't win with it; and therefore the Malk deck gets even stronger in comparison, since one of its natural counters does not exist. >I think you're exaggerating here. If the deck makes itself unpopular One of the common arguments in favor of 4CL is "it provides more variety! decks cant do the same thing over and over". This translates to "loss of consistency and reliability", which means that yes, you really ARE struggling <-- neat word eh?) just to get your deck to do something every turn. Chucking stuff cross-table only makes it even HARDER to win. Most players just won't do it. >enough, players will go for it even if it hurts their position - just to Bad play... can't assume it. >teach it a lesson. I saw a player in a VEKN tournament in London do >something vindictive (contesting when he clearly shouldn't, I think). I >asked why he was doing this silly thing and his response was that he was >only playing for fun. Guys like that may be all it takes to keep the >cheesy decks down. I would never, EVER consider making a game-balance decision based on something like "well, there will be poor players at the table". To deal with issues like this, you must assume that players will always make the best plays possible, and attempt to win. Relying on momos to balance your game simply means you end up with a game played largely by momos, such as... aw, I can't take two cheap shots in the same thread. =) -- Derek

On 22 Oct 2001 22:28:03 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >I play by the official tournament rules, thus I use the actual rules. These are not the actual rules if it is not a tournament. >>different deck limits, etc.>> >Which are part of the official tournament rules set. >Please provide another example of "etc." I'm not sure how far you take this. Time limits? Judges? Admissability of new sets? Playtesters? It seems likely likely that you don't use the full tournament rules for your private games. It's probably an unwritten hybrid. House rules, not actual rules. Andrew

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > That's what I strongly disagree with. Most of the cards on the > Magic restricted list have effects that are distinctly unbalancing > with even the play of a single one of them. I do not find that to > be true of Giant's Blood, the primary Jyhad once-per-game card. Well let me, in turn, strongly disagree with you. All 5 Moxen, Black Lotus, and Sol Ring all reside on the restricted list, and not a one of them provide a distinctly unbalancing single effect. If they did, at the very least there would be a restriction to only 1 Mox total in a deck. > > Giant's Blood is just the sort of free-resource boon that Black Lotus is, > > though without the early game-acceleration effect that Black Lotus can > > have. > > It's that early game-acceleration which is exactly the unbalancing thing. > Keep a fattie out on the table unopposed for four or five turns and you've > won the game - or at least usually you've taken control of it to such an > extent that you can't be stopped. A Black Lotus, which a fairly average > draw around it, can often make that happen. Wow, we seem to have had dramatically different experiences in Type I Magic. There are few deck types that win with creatures, and most of those have access to the unrestricted Dark Ritual. It is much cheaper in Magic to tear down resources than to bring them out, so unless you're caught with a crappy hand, your opponent's accelleration should not be of enormous concern. And crappy hands destroy Jyhad games just as they do Magic games. > One of the things that makes > such draws so crucial in Magic is the one-card-per-turn resource limit, > which makes some fairly innocent-seeming things actually turn out to be > huge keys. Most of the cards on the restricted list are a lot more > important than a free Master Card fill in Jyhad - especially considering > that a single prince action (5th Tradition) can do the exact same thing. Scoff. So you'd have no objection to a free once-per-game master card that adds three blood to an uncontrolled vampire? Hey, it's just a single prince action. - Jason Bell

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 22 Oct 2001 22:28:03 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > >I play by the official tournament rules, thus I use the actual rules. > > These are not the actual rules if it is not a tournament. They are actual rules. They exists at all times regardless if you are playing a tourneyment or not. > >>different deck limits, etc.>> > > >Which are part of the official tournament rules set. > > I'm not sure how far you take this. Time limits? Judges? > Admissability of new sets? Playtesters? It seems likely likely that > you don't use the full tournament rules for your private games. It's > probably an unwritten hybrid. House rules, not actual rules. Yes. Yes. Yes. and Yes. Raille

[snip] > I completely agreed with you at one point. A good combat deck cannot > be built with 4CL. My friend, however, firmly insisted on building > his decks under 4CL. He saw that NCL wasn't broken (well, he sort of > saw that), and didn't object to my decks (which usually would fit > under 6CL or 7CL just due to the way I constructed them, but not > always), but he always used 4CL. A few of the other people in his > playgroup also used 4CL, but some didn't. It was an odd mix, but > since we weren't too competitive, it wasn't a real problem. I myself have a few players in my group who insist on plying 4CL. However they view that as being a NCL deck which happemns to have a maximum of 4 cards. > Anyway, he built a Nos/!Nos combat deck under 4CL, which he took to 2 > tournaments, one of which he won and the other he got to the finals. > It was like 64 cards. Even against Tory decks, he wasn't too bad. He > was quite happy with 4 Immortal Grapple, 4 Hidden Lurker, 4 Swallowed > By the Night, 4 Behind You! I never said it isn't possible. But in this case what if I do not block? Rendering the HL ineffective, he will have 4 IG to back up his combat and 8 manouvers (which is sound) what will he do against my 12 presence Combat ends, 4 Obedience and so on...Like I said the problem with XCL isn't that they aren't viable in itself. A XCL makes deckconcept non-viable AND thus unbalances the game when different concept hit the table (given by my example). I didn't agree with his deck philosophy > (and he didn't agree with me suggesting to add 2 of a card... "if I'm > gonna add 2, why not add 4?" to which I replied "if you're gonna add > 4, why not add 6?"), but Nossies are just good at combat. His one > weakness was running out of cards, but that still wasn't that much of > a problem. It was a *good* deck, even by NCL standards. Similarly, a > 4CL Malk S&B can still be a good deck in NCL. > True, right on the spot. CAN be a good deck, while with the option of NL you can make the deck better. > The game is actually not *too* poorly balanced under 4CL, which is why > a lot of people don't see the light. The problem with 4CL is that it > strongly favours the suitcase players who have 4 of the rares that > substitute for the commons that most people use 8 of. The other > problem is this: In 4CL, Malks can S&B, Nossies can fight, Ventrue > and Toreador can vote. That's about it. In NCL, there are a lot more > deck types open to you. You can't make a Settite deck at all in 4CL, > TMK, except perhaps a very weak S&B. Exactly, though I feel having played a 6CL for years, that it does unbalance the game. Not for all clans or deckconcept, but decks that rely on a 2-3 card combo, e.g. TS, IG, taste of vitae...the fact that other deck concepts aren't as much hindered by a XCL makes for an unbalanced environment. When we were playing 6CL there were no Rush potence decks, as they couldn't score any VP's. Assamite combat was hard too with only 12 long range strikes availlable. setites were strictly S&B. etc. Clans were not played, concept were not tried simply because they didn't stand a chance, and our games got very tiresome and similar. Just my opinions, Tim

In message <MA8B7.25116$Hw3.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: >Scoff. So you'd have no objection to a free once-per-game master >card that adds three blood to an uncontrolled vampire? Hey, it's >just a single prince action. You've missed one of the limitations of the Prince action, here. Mis- stating the case is unlikely to help you advance one. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'm not quite sure what archive you are looking at--my Rush deck is in there, > and it has 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered. If you play Sabbat, try War Party ! I don't see anyway this card can be burned (B4 its recipient !)... And you could replace some of the Bum's with Ambushes. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9r3gqb$m92$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes: >> I'm not quite sure what archive you are looking at--my Rush deck is in >there, >> and it has 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered. > >If you play Sabbat, try War Party ! I don't see anyway this card can be >burned (B4 its recipient !)... And you could replace some of the Bum's with >Ambushes. The rush decks referenced most often use tiny vampires, wherever possible. Titles are an unnecessary cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Tournament rules that pertain to deck construction and which affect the game rules directly. Time limits are a provision to move the tournament along at minimal rate in a shared public facility which may not be available indefinitely. I think most people have no problem understanding that it is not a rule intended to affect the outcome of the game itself, though it sometimes does do so from necessity. Hence, you apply Time Limits as necessary for your informal game, like when someone's wife has fetched a softball bat and looks like she'd really like the game over with at this time of the night. Other rules of that type (e.g. playtesters, admissibility of sets) are also applied on a local, as-needed basis. Meaning usually not. People who want to look at what someone like Peter is saying and take it for what it's worth shouldn't have too much trouble discerning what "playing by tournament rules" means in an informal setting. It means simulating the meaningful rules about deck construction and play and ignoring the ones whose reasons for existence do not apply to that setting. These little semantic objections, whether Peter is playing by "house rules" vs. "actual tournament rules" do not make a very good point, IMO. Call it what you will, everything he talks about doing is everything I've experienced multiple other informal play groups doing for the exact same reasons - which is the point. The use of the pertinent tournament rules insures balance and allows decks built for them to be transferred from one informal setting to another seamlessly (as well as directly into tournaments) without changing the strength of a given deck. The fact that many groups apparently do this attests to the validity of using these rules. And makes the term "house rules" inadequate in describing their function. Fred

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > Jason Bell wrote: > > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > > > That's what I strongly disagree with. Most of the cards on the > > Magic restricted list have effects that are distinctly unbalancing > > with even the play of a single one of them. I do not find that to > > be true of Giant's Blood, the primary Jyhad once-per-game card. > > Well let me, in turn, strongly disagree with you. All 5 Moxen, > Black Lotus, and Sol Ring all reside on the restricted list, and > not a one of them provide a distinctly unbalancing single effect. A fair number of people argue this but I think it's just naive. It's not always easy to see how a turn of extra mana source development wins games because you can't go back and replay the game as if that mox were a basic land of the same color. And the amount of difference a single card has to make is not an easily measurable thing. So we'll have to agree to disagree about this. But I'm pretty sure in my mind that I'm right. > If they did, at the very least there would be a restriction to > only 1 Mox total in a deck. There should be a restriction of _NO_ moxes total in a deck. Multiple moxes in an opening hand IS a huge thing, which is my whole point. You restrict them to one per deck, it's just more of the same: an unbalancing card restricted by number yet some more (than restricting the potential for 20 down to 5) which still affects the game too much when drawn as it is. > Wow, we seem to have had dramatically different experiences in > Type I Magic. There are few deck types that win with creatures, > and most of those have access to the unrestricted Dark Ritual. Dark Ritual requires a black mana seed and produces only 2 mana of a set color. Black Lotus requires no seed and produces 3 mana of any color, albeit they have to be the same color. These kinds of subtle differences are very important, much like the subtle advantage that moxen bring are very important. > It is much cheaper in Magic to tear down resources than to bring > them out, so unless you're caught with a crappy hand, your opponent's > accelleration should not be of enormous concern. It can be. The advantage of acceleration is not just to get the fattie out but to be in a position to deny your opponent's attempt to kill it for long enough to destroy his life total. (Alternatively there are a number of other resources you an attack in that time, such as putting a permanent out that forces him to discard and giving yourself unstoppable card advantage.) As you note, it's one thing to get the Serra Angel out and another to keep it on the table. Accelerated mana development, or a large burst of flexible mana, is something that makes this possible. As is an extra turn or a burst of extra card draws. Those cards are on the restricted list for a reason. > And crappy hands destroy Jyhad games just as they do Magic games. Always. This is what makes arguing about this stuff impossible. The effects of restricted cards in Magic is hidden amongst the normal variations of luck and makes it difficult to discern just how powerful they are. But reducing the effect of crappy hands vs. great hands is *exactly* why restrictions sucks as a tool for game balance. As long as one can potentially draw 4 or 5 restricted cards in his opening hand, nothing has been fixed. > > One of the things that makes > > such draws so crucial in Magic is the one-card-per-turn resource limit, > > which makes some fairly innocent-seeming things actually turn out to be > > huge keys. Most of the cards on the restricted list are a lot more > > important than a free Master Card fill in Jyhad - especially considering > > that a single prince action (5th Tradition) can do the exact same thing. > > Scoff. So you'd have no objection to a free once-per-game master > card that adds three blood to an uncontrolled vampire? Nope. Not at all. It's not that big a deal. (And it's not free either It's a precious master phase action.) Fred

> I really hate to say this, since I don't want to give any support to > card limits, but... Skipping an important point that allows you to understand the "other way" of thinking is a good way to NEVER make any progress in a discussion, even if that point could be used as "ammunition" against you. > The game is actually not *too* poorly balanced under 4CL, which is why > a lot of people don't see the light. I think this is the most important overlooked point by NCL zealots. Certain strategies dominate, some are impossible to play, but the game has it's own goofy "balance" and is still playable. If libraries had to be no more than 30 cards, or Master cards were banned, or whatever, THEN it's pretty easy to make the case for "playing by the rules." But simple evidence that decks that are coincidentally 4CL or nearly 4CL HAVE won tournaments, even in an NCL environment, shows the format isn't as clearly broken. > The problem with 4CL is that it > strongly favours the suitcase players who have 4 of the rares that > substitute for the commons that most people use 8 of. "A" problem more than "The" problem. Much more interesting and telling is: > The other > problem is this: In 4CL, Malks can S&B, Nossies can fight, Ventrue > and Toreador can vote. That's about it. First telling point: you CAN make decks that function under xCL. And play them. And have some sense of balance, and an evolving metagame. And, most tragically, have fun. Hard to tell people that are having fun "you're doing it all wrong," especially when their experiences with NCL have been "not fun." > In NCL, there are a lot more > deck types open to you. You can't make a Settite deck at all in 4CL, > TMK, except perhaps a very weak S&B. And this IS a problem, and really the biggest problem, and it does shoot the "creativity" argument in the foot. You are not "forced" to be "creative" in any way by a 4CL, mostly due to redundant cards with similar effects. However, an NCL automatically allows for more decks to be created, because all 4CL decks are a (small) playable subset of NCL. The OPTION of creativity is limited by a card limit. (Derek addresses this more clearly in a parallel message.) Part of the problem with a solution is people trying to "prove" one side or the other with atypical examples. Yes, you can mow down table after 4CL table with 4CL S&B, to show them that CL != creative, and CL != balanced. But a 4CL camper, when opened up to NCL, may immediately make a MT/5th megabloat deck and crush an uprepared table to "prove the point" about creativity, and get back to 4CL BEFORE THE METAGAME CAN ADJUST. (Key Point, could you tell?) Getting your ass handed to you by a new deck can quickly discourage that kind of deck from being played, or requires a shift in the metagame to handle that kind of deck. But I would guess it's easy to mistake the "problem" as the lack of a card limit: The rules changes, one guy stomped everyone, no one had fun. What changed? The card limit. Solution? Reinstall card limit. Fun resumes, all is well. Okay, how about turning the tables? Why shouldn't the NCLer's try the 4CL and see how it plays? Well, because we can try it ANY time, just by not putting more than 4 of any card. 4CL isn't about what you do with YOUR deck, it's about hamstringing what the OTHER decks do, to limit the kinds of decks you'll be up against. But we've already played the game long enough under NCL to know the game is quite balanced. There IS NO "best deck." Quite the opposite. Furthermore, there's NO correlation between a decks' "winningness" or "fun factor" and the value of x for the xCL it would fit in. If 4CL is better than 6CL is better than 8CL (which for most any deck is nearly NCL), then decks that "break" xCL more and more would win more and more, so if I have 12 of some card(s) and I'm up against a 4CL deck, I would consistently win, and consistently have less fun...but that's just not true. And, most importantly, we're interested (well, most of us, Bakija isn't, since he's seen it all already) in creative deckbuilding options. The lower the xCL, the more decks in the "deckbuilding phase space" get knocked out. You can't mandate creativity, but you could at least allow for it! *whew!* Okay, there's one more counterarugment to address, but I'll let someone actually make it before addressing it. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Robert wrote: >>My GenCon Potence Rush deck had 11 Bum's and 2 Ambush.... But the rampages and 10 computer hacks result in combat often as well.>> I currently have 6 Computer Hackings in there, and I'm gonna try it out at a Tournament this weekend. Maybe it'll work! [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>These are not the actual rules if it is not a tournament.>> Every single game I play is a tournament. Every single one. Yup. Even when I just play a single pick up game, whomever wins walks away with fabulous cash prizes. >>I'm not sure how far you take this. Time limits? Judges? Admissability of new sets? Playtesters? It seems likely likely that you don't use the full tournament rules for your private games. It's probably an unwritten hybrid. House rules, not actual rules.>> Again, Andrew, please explain why you choose to contribute to this forum. You don't like this game. The very basis of the game (players getting removed) is something you don't like. You don't like the various rules tweaks. You don't like that the cards are changed in various sets. You don't like that some cards are banned or errataed. You don't seem to like any of the actual rules. You don't like the art. You don't seem to like anything about this game, and don't even seem to play it, yet here you are. Oh, wait. You couldn't be bothered to actually do that. Never mind. Mostly you just seem to like hanging around here and posting flame bait. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > >Scoff. So you'd have no objection to a free once-per-game master > >card that adds three blood to an uncontrolled vampire? Hey, it's > >just a single prince action. > > You've missed one of the limitations of the Prince action, here. Mis- > stating the case is unlikely to help you advance one. Scoff again. Fine, if the "younger" really puts a burr up your butt (or any deviation from an exact comparison bothers you so much), try Third Tradition as a replacement example. - Jason Bell

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > Well let me, in turn, strongly disagree with you. All 5 Moxen, > > Black Lotus, and Sol Ring all reside on the restricted list, and > > not a one of them provide a distinctly unbalancing single effect. > > A fair number of people argue this but I think it's just naive. It's > not always easy to see how a turn of extra mana source development wins > games because you can't go back and replay the game as if that mox were > a basic land of the same color. And the amount of difference a single > card has to make is not an easily measurable thing. So we'll have to > agree to disagree about this. But I'm pretty sure in my mind that I'm > right. I understand your position, my best Type I deck was a resource denial (land destruction) deck. I believe that the cheap defensive and responsive cards make the early accelleration cards less effective than you believe. > > If they did, at the very least there would be a restriction to > > only 1 Mox total in a deck. > > There should be a restriction of _NO_ moxes total in a deck. And ban Soul Gem! It could cause problems, so let's prevent anyone from playing it. That's the spirit. Zillah's Valley provides early accelleration, so does Information Highway (and how). Montreal? It's gotta go. All of it, they just provide that subtle advantage that makes the game unfair. I'm hoping you don't agree with these statements (I sure don't), and maybe I'm being too glib or oversimplifying your argument. But if game accelleration is a major objection that you have for one game (such that you suggest banning cards as you have above), it seems that consistency would require you to take the same position for the next game. The rest of this thing is way too much of a Magic discussion to be appropriate for this group, so I'm going to leave it be. - Jason Bell

In article <20011023164156...@mb-ms.aol.com>, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM says... > Andrew wrote: > >>These are not the actual rules if it is not a tournament.>> > > Every single game I play is a tournament. Every single one. Yup. Even when I > just play a single pick up game, whomever wins walks away with fabulous cash > prizes. > I think I may have taken a few of your pennies you use for blood in that Succubus Club game, so you're probably right. :) --Bill Barksdale

In message <yCkB7.30678$%B6.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason [ quoted text not captured ] We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires as a once per game action. It has a different significant set of down-sides. We also have Wendel Delburton as a minion creation (ally, rather than vampire). It seems perfectly reasonable that a master card could have some similar function to Third Tradition in a perfectly playable manner. (Though you would have to determine how its clan was specified, due to the lack of acting vampire. You would also have to determine if/how blood could be gained - The Embrace's "No blood, must hunt" rather than "Some blood, no action" might be a better model for such an effect.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:igB4l31z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires as a > once per game action. It has a different significant set of down-sides. Shock Troops has no limitation on the number of times it can be played per game. Card Text. Shock Troops [SW] Cardtype: Master Cost: X pool <Master.> Requires a ready archbishop or cardinal. Put X Master: Discipline cards from your hand into play. These cards represent clanless Sabbat vampires of 1 capacity with those respective Disciplines and do not count as Master: Discipline cards while in play. These vampires are not unique, must hunt the turn they are created, have -1 stealth on all actions and cannot attempt bleeds or political actions. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted from rr-163-54-196.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.196] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On 23 Oct 2001, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Robert wrote: > >>My GenCon Potence Rush deck had 11 Bum's and 2 Ambush.... But the rampages > and > 10 computer hacks result in combat often as well.>> > > I currently have 6 Computer Hackings in there, and I'm gonna try it out at a > Tournament this weekend. Maybe it'll work! does this mean that i should put some computer hackings in my weenie pot deck that i have shamlessly built from ideas espoused in this very newsgroup, with none of my own origional thought? (other than what to put in to make up for the fact that i don't own 10 IG, merely 7 or something, and i don't own many TS, and most of them are in a different deck). i mean, really....if i am going to copy a basic deck concept from you guys, you could at least keep your concept immutable. O:) salem

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > There should be a restriction of _NO_ moxes total in a deck. > > And ban Soul Gem! It could cause problems, so let's prevent > anyone from playing it. That's the spirit. > Zillah's Valley provides early accelleration, so does Information > Highway (and how). Montreal? It's gotta go. All of it, they > just provide that subtle advantage that makes the game unfair. > > I'm hoping you don't agree with these statements (I sure don't), > and maybe I'm being too glib or oversimplifying your argument. > But if game accelleration is a major objection that you have for > one game (such that you suggest banning cards as you have > above), it seems that consistency would require you to take > the same position for the next game. I thing you missed the point. I am not objecting to "game acceleration". I simply said that the advantage that moxen provide which can rather subtle is the acceleration of the development of one player's position. That is, for the first several turns, their available mana is one turn ahead of schedule for each mox they drew. This is often dismissed as minor and in many games it is a minor thing. In many other games, it's not. Anyway, to fast forward to your point about the Soul Gem, I'll say this: all different types of cards in a CCG provide a differing advantage to their user (hopefully it's an advantage, some cards are so badly designed you wonder) which appears to players as a different level of "power". (The term "power" referring to both the effect and the cost being taken into account, so that LSJ's "Win Game" card which could never be played would be an extremely weak card by this definition of "power".) There are many, many cards in a game and their power levels likely can be described as some kind of a statistical bell-shaped curve. The ones in the middle are so close and squished in that players' opinions of the cards' power levels will vary more than the power levels themselves and thus players will eternally disagree which cards rank where in power. But it's the ones at the top of the curve that have the potential to really wreck a CCG, assuming they're far enough away from the rest of the pack. Those are the ones people need to consider banning - though not necessarily ban. Now I don't think Soul Gem is likely to be outside of the middle of the pack, myself. There did exist such cards in Jyhad, outside the pack too far to ignore. They all got errated except for Return From Innocence, which got banned. I feel the restricted list in Magic represents pretty much the same type of card. If they errataed the cards on that list to tone down their power levels, there'd be no need to ban them. But refusing to do either is problematic, IMO. Fred

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <yCkB7.30678$%B6.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason > Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > >> You've missed one of the limitations of the Prince action, here. Mis- > >> stating the case is unlikely to help you advance one. > > > >Scoff again. > >Fine, if the "younger" really puts a burr up your butt (or any deviation > >from an exact comparison bothers you so much), try Third Tradition > >as a replacement example. > > We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires as a > once per game action. It has a different significant set of down-sides. ...i don't see anything in shock troops' text about once per game.... salem.

> It seems perfectly reasonable that a master card could have some similar > function to Third Tradition in a perfectly playable manner. (Though you > would have to determine how its clan was specified, due to the lack of > acting vampire. You would also have to determine if/how blood could be > gained - The Embrace's "No blood, must hunt" rather than "Some blood, no > action" might be a better model for such an effect.) And Creation Rites ? It's quite weird : I've just acquired my second copy of it : both are from Sabbat War, C2000 ; but only one has the line "You may move a blood from the acting vampire to this card" !! So, is that the actual rule, and how come it isn't written on my other copy of the card ??? [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > And Creation Rites ? It's quite weird : I've just acquired my second copy of > it : both are from Sabbat War, C2000 ; but only one has the line "You may > move a blood from the acting vampire to this card" !! So, is that the actual > rule, and how come it isn't written on my other copy of the card ??? The SW version was misprinted (omitting the line you note). It has errata restoring the line. See the online card list, as usual. > [James Coupe's Signature snipped] Please edit the messages you're quoting appropriately. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <9r640u$ddr$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes: >> It seems perfectly reasonable that a master card could have some similar >> function to Third Tradition in a perfectly playable manner. (Though you >> would have to determine how its clan was specified, due to the lack of >> acting vampire. You would also have to determine if/how blood could be >> gained - The Embrace's "No blood, must hunt" rather than "Some blood, no >> action" might be a better model for such an effect.) > >And Creation Rites ? It's quite weird : I've just acquired my second copy of >it : both are from Sabbat War, C2000 ; but only one has the line "You may >move a blood from the acting vampire to this card" !! So, is that the actual >rule, Yes. See on-line card text. > and how come it isn't written on my other copy of the card ??? <Rocky Horror Picture Show> An ACCIDENT! That's how it happened! </RHPS> More helpfully, see: http://www.thelasombra.com/lists/card_changes_by_set.txt (2nd edition Sabbat War) http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR10-20.htm (The note about Creation Rites.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <65a975975eb16612e61...@mygate.mailgate.org>, The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:igB4l31z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > >> We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires as a >> once per game action. It has a different significant set of down-sides. > >Shock Troops has no limitation on the number of times it can >be played per game. Sorry, my apologies. This was supposed to say, to address the point of creating Giant's Blood style cards, something like: "We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires. But rather than as a once per game action, it has a different set of down-sides." I'll try to remember to think after spending 6 hours working on a student newspaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<sCvbNYPN...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <9quflh$d54$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> > writes > >What was the previous version of Blood ? > > I believe he may be referring to the fact that hand strike portions of > the strike aren't considered hand strikes. > > Since the card text says "as if it were ranged", and hand strikes cannot > be ranged, any hand strike portion does not function. > Which is equivalent to nuclear strike errata, as otherwise, it could be used with the two very useful Quietus hand strikes. The thing is, hand strikes can deal ranged damage if they say they do. If a card said, "make a hand strike. this strike deals ranged damage", or "your hand strikes are considered to deal ranged damage until the end of the round", or "deal strength damage, ranged. this is considered a hand strike" then it would be a hand strike that was ranged, by explicit card text. These would override the rules text that says that hand strikes are not ranged, but we already have provision for that: "where the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence." The only difference between my hypothetical cards and the combo of Blood of the Cobra and Scorpion's Touch is that the combo is slightly ambiguous (very slightly). It results in the equivalent of, "ranged. make a hand strike." According to the rules, (6.4.5) When a minion strikes with a hand strike at close range, he does an amount of damage equal to his strength* to the opposing minion AND (6.4.3) Unless the strike is identified as ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or combat ends), it is only effective at close range. The piece from 6.4.3 does not specifically say that a strike that is ranged *will* be effective at long range, it simply says that a non-ranged strike will not be effective at long range. But it obviously implies that a ranged strike is effective at long range. The piece from 6.4.5 doesn't say that the hand strike will not be effective at long range, it seems to imply that it will be effective only at close range, because it is not a ranged strike. There is another bit that got quoted saying that a hand strike is a "non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the minion's strength." This is meant to imply that a hand strike cannot be ranged, but forgets the implicit "unless it says it is." A strike that says it is ranged and says it is a hand strike is a ranged hand strike, because the cards take precedence. So essentially, we are left with wondering whether Blood of the Cobra only allows cards to be *played* as if they were ranged strikes or if it allows them to take effect as though they were ranged strikes. If the latter, then it really should work with the Quietus hand strikes. It was ruled not to do so, which to me constitutes major errata. The card is not completely useless, but it goes from being a very useful card to being mostly a waste of time.

> So essentially, we are left with wondering whether Blood of the Cobra > only allows cards to be *played* as if they were ranged strikes or if > it allows them to take effect as though they were ranged strikes. If > the latter, then it really should work with the Quietus hand strikes. > > It was ruled not to do so, which to me constitutes major errata. The > card is not completely useless, but it goes from being a very useful > card to being mostly a waste of time. Not to mention the "={Usable by a tapped vampire.}=" errata to Extortion, to make it playable by vampires that didn't play a Wakey, i.e. *as* *intended*. It seems fairly obvious what the *intent* of BotC was, but it's been ruled into near-wallpaper, rather than similarly errata'd to reflect the purpose of the card. Somewhat understandable, I guess, since "usable by a tapped vampire" is straightforward clarification, while it looks like BotC would need a total re-write to do what it looks like it's supposed to do. Still, it's quite a pity for what looked like an cool card. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5287ede4.01102...@posting.google.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<sCvbNYPN3s07Ew >Q...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... >> In message <9quflh$d54$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> >> writes >> >What was the previous version of Blood ? >> >> I believe he may be referring to the fact that hand strike portions of >> the strike aren't considered hand strikes. >> >> Since the card text says "as if it were ranged", and hand strikes cannot >> be ranged, any hand strike portion does not function. >> >Which is equivalent to nuclear strike errata, as otherwise, it could >be used with the two very useful Quietus hand strikes. Or, alternatively, it's a card functioning under the rules. This isn't a rewrite of the card, this is how the card functions under the rules. Hand strikes cannot *by definition* be successfully performed at range. Hence the hand strike cannot occur. This is nothing more than reading the card text and the relevant rule, then putting it all together. Some such rules instances don't function as you might expect; they are, however, the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > Hand strikes cannot *by definition* be successfully performed at range. > Hence the hand strike cannot occur. This is nothing more than reading > the card text and the relevant rule, then putting it all together. > > Some such rules instances don't function as you might expect; they are, > however, the rules. This is all true, but the rules, and the cards that function under them, are not some ossified structure that must be hewn to for all time. There have been additions, clarifications, and qualitative changes made to the rules in the past, and there will be more in the future (I would guess). Clearly, this card was intended to produce a particular effect, and it is a small shame that the card may as well have never been printed due to an unwillingness to fix an obvious error. I understand the precedence, I think, which is intended to minimize the introduction of erratta, but I disagree that an absolutist adherence to this maxim serves the game best. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham david.che...@duke.edu

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.01102...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu >, David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> writes: >I understand the precedence, >I think, which is intended to minimize the introduction of erratta, but I >disagree that an absolutist adherence to this maxim serves the game best. Considered change serve the game well; creating ad hoc rules *changes* on the fly without (presumably) consulting the rules team are unlikely to help anything. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<pc56q9FR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > >Which is equivalent to nuclear strike errata, as otherwise, it could > >be used with the two very useful Quietus hand strikes. > > Or, alternatively, it's a card functioning under the rules. This isn't > a rewrite of the card, this is how the card functions under the rules. > > Hand strikes cannot *by definition* be successfully performed at range. > Hence the hand strike cannot occur. This is nothing more than reading > the card text and the relevant rule, then putting it all together. > > Some such rules instances don't function as you might expect; they are, > however, the rules. It seems like you didn't bother to read anything past the line that you quoted. Do you dispute that a card that said, "strike: deal strength damage, ranged. This is a hand strike." would be both a ranged strike and a hand strike? This means that it *is* possible for a hand strike to be performed at range, only if the strike *says* that it is both ranged and a hand strike. The question is whether BotC causes the strike to act that way (it would say, "ranged, make a hand strike", which seems to imply the same thing as my hypothetical card above). The ruling on the card says no. This changes the way that the card would otherwise have been played, weakening it considerably. That's pretty close to what would be called "nuclear strike errata." I don't think that the card needed to be ruled this way. It's not overpowered *or* counter-intuitive in its original form.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > >> You've missed one of the limitations of the Prince action, here. Mis- > >> stating the case is unlikely to help you advance one. > > > >Scoff again. > >Fine, if the "younger" really puts a burr up your butt (or any deviation > >from an exact comparison bothers you so much), try Third Tradition > >as a replacement example. > > We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires as a > once per game action. It has a different significant set of down-sides. > > We also have Wendel Delburton as a minion creation (ally, rather than > vampire). > > It seems perfectly reasonable that a master card could have some similar > function to Third Tradition in a perfectly playable manner. (Though you > would have to determine how its clan was specified, due to the lack of > acting vampire. You would also have to determine if/how blood could be > gained - The Embrace's "No blood, must hunt" rather than "Some blood, no > action" might be a better model for such an effect.) Shocking. Just shocking that you would take your shots at me for not considering the "younger uncontrolled vampire" in my earlier comparison, but blithely gloss over the required presence of an Archbishop/Cardinal plus discipline cards in hand, with pool cost to boot for one of your counters; and the difference between a 1 life 0 strength ally and a 2 capacity vampire with a discipline in the other. I have come to believe you're engaging in this discussion to make your insults whenever you can, and I don't appreciate it. - Jason Bell

In message <5287ede4.01102...@posting.google.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<pc56q9FRbw17Ew >Z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... >> >Which is equivalent to nuclear strike errata, as otherwise, it could >> >be used with the two very useful Quietus hand strikes. >> >> Or, alternatively, it's a card functioning under the rules. This isn't >> a rewrite of the card, this is how the card functions under the rules. >> >> Hand strikes cannot *by definition* be successfully performed at range. >> Hence the hand strike cannot occur. This is nothing more than reading >> the card text and the relevant rule, then putting it all together. >> >> Some such rules instances don't function as you might expect; they are, >> however, the rules. > >It seems like you didn't bother to read anything past the line that >you quoted. Do you dispute that a card that said, "strike: deal >strength damage, ranged. This is a hand strike." would be both a >ranged strike and a hand strike? Hand strikes, by definition, cannot be ranged. > This means that it *is* possible for >a hand strike to be performed at range, only if the strike *says* that >it is both ranged and a hand strike. Indeed. >The question is whether BotC causes the strike to act that way It doesn't; specific card text would be needed. It is a perfectly supportable argument to go to the Rules Team and say: "This is how I think this *should* work. Here are my reasons." Under the current rules, however, it is not supportable to just rule it works that way. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <nSMB7.22448$jq6.7...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: >> >> You've missed one of the limitations of the Prince action, here. Mis- >> >> stating the case is unlikely to help you advance one. >> > >> >Scoff again. >> >Fine, if the "younger" really puts a burr up your butt (or any deviation >> >from an exact comparison bothers you so much), try Third Tradition >> >as a replacement example. >> >> We already have Shock Troops, which allows the creation of vampires as a >> once per game action. It has a different significant set of down-sides. >> >> We also have Wendel Delburton as a minion creation (ally, rather than >> vampire). >> >> It seems perfectly reasonable that a master card could have some similar >> function to Third Tradition in a perfectly playable manner. (Though you >> would have to determine how its clan was specified, due to the lack of >> acting vampire. You would also have to determine if/how blood could be >> gained - The Embrace's "No blood, must hunt" rather than "Some blood, no >> action" might be a better model for such an effect.) > >Shocking. Just shocking that you would take your shots at me for not >considering the "younger uncontrolled vampire" in my earlier comparison, >but blithely gloss over the required presence of an Archbishop/Cardinal >plus discipline cards in hand, with pool cost to boot for one of your >counters; These are all quite easily done on card text, and can be mirrored accurately if so wanted. Doing this would be trivial, and merits little discussion from a practicality point of view. (Though if the comparison between Fifth Tradition and Giant's Blood is extended, requiring an Archbishop/Cardinal would rather irksome.) I was pointing out the potential problems - that of specifying clan in a consistent manner, and of supplying blood. These are not entirely insurmountable, but they would need to be addressed in a relatively consistent manner. > and the difference between a 1 life 0 strength ally and a >2 capacity vampire with a discipline in the other. Jake Washington (correction to my post) also has another significant ability, which you gloss over. The 2 capacity vampire with a discipline does not. >I have come to believe you're engaging in this discussion to make your >insults whenever you can, and I don't appreciate it. This would be an incorrect assumption on your part. However, if you will consistently lie and misrepresent the facts, you will generally not be treated in a manner you would desire (for instance, your lying and misrepresentations will be pointed out). If you choose not to lie and misrepresent the facts, a number of these things will not, and indeed cannot, happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 24 Oct 2001 10:34:05 -0700, Chris Berger wrote: >Blood of the Cobra and Scorpion's Touch I'm coming in late to this but I gather that someone's saying that these cards don't work together. That's obvious BS. Scorpion's Touch is clearly poison. Blood of the Cobra is obviously designed to make such effects work at a distance just like the Spitting Cobra - a real animal which squirts a jet of venom at its foe's eyes. A hand strike doesn't mean that you're literally using your hand (some minions don't have hands). It just means that you're using your body, not a weapon. In any case, mystical martial artists can throw punches at a distance - I have an amusing book on the subject called Advanced Dim Mak. In fantasy games like this, such stuff actually works. Andrew

In message <9C5C1A26F3EF2E6A.EB83D2D9...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >I'm coming in late to this but I gather that someone's saying that these >cards don't work together. That's obvious BS. If you would care to make a legitimate argument under the rules, you would do better. As the rules currently stand, what inspires cards is separate from how they interact once the mechanics are established. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > > >I have come to believe you're engaging in this discussion to make your > >insults whenever you can, and I don't appreciate it. > > This would be an incorrect assumption on your part. However, if you > will consistently lie and misrepresent the facts, you will generally not > be treated in a manner you would desire (for instance, your lying and > misrepresentations will be pointed out). If you choose not to lie and > misrepresent the facts, a number of these things will not, and indeed > cannot, happen. Assumption confirmed. You are involved in this discussion only to toss insults. - Jason Bell

In message <MB0C7.37207$%B6.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason [ quoted text not captured ] Not at all. It is fact that you have either been lying or mis-representing facts consistently. I will point this out only as long as you do that. When you cease to do that, I cannot point that out. Whilst pointing such things out, I will also address any points that it occurs to me to address. Thus "only" is completely wrong, since it is clear that I will address points as well as point out your lies and mis- representations through empirical evidence (the fact that I regularly do so). You may care to retract your lie that I am only involved in this discussion to toss insults, since this is clearly, provably, blatantly false. (Though I find it unlikely that you will do so.) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<+HIP89UUc$17E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <9C5C1A26F3EF2E6A.EB83D2D9...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >I'm coming in late to this but I gather that someone's saying that these > >cards don't work together. That's obvious BS. > > If you would care to make a legitimate argument under the rules, you > would do better. > > As the rules currently stand, what inspires cards is separate from how > they interact once the mechanics are established. Hi I would appreciate if someone can post the ruling that created this thread. I think there has been a clarification that you cannot use BotC on your hand strike but you have to use a strike card (and you should use a close ranged strike as a ranged per BotC). ST is a modifier on your hand strike so that con not be combined with BotC. Is that correct? If it is not please explain the correct ruling. If it is correct i would like to understand why there's a discussion: Maybe it's my english but i see what i've written above as totally clear from card text. BotC: Strike: ranged. --Ok it's ranged-- Play -- i have to play a card-- a non-ranged strike --ahh a strike card non ranged-- that requires Quietus -- it has to show a quietus symbol-- from your hand -- yes from my hand and... ok not from the ash heap (argh my quietus-necro deck goes puff)-- and use that strike -- my strike non ranged card-- as if it were ranged. -- as a ranged strike. Clear-- No mean to offend anybody. i just wanted to say that sometimes you seems "spacchiate il capello in quattro" (literally "to break an hair in 4" there's a saying in english for this?), your always trying to find a subtle meaning that simply doesn't exists. Regards Andrea

In message <8b06c4c.01102...@posting.google.com>, andrea <andrea....@infinito.it> writes: >I think there has been a clarification that you cannot use BotC on >your hand strike but you have to use a strike card (and you should use >a close ranged strike as a ranged per BotC). ST is a modifier on your >hand strike so that con not be combined with BotC. >Is that correct? No. "If the strike is one that says to make a hand strike or make a melee wepaon strike, then the strike is ranged, but the hand or melee weapon portion of the strike is still only effective at close range. [RTR 20010710]" Hence you can still play Scorpion's Touch with Blood of the Cobra. However, as hand strikes must be at close range, the hand strike portion does not function. >No mean to offend anybody. i just wanted to say that sometimes you >seems "spacchiate il capello in quattro" (literally "to break an hair >in 4" there's a saying in english for this?), your always trying to >find a subtle meaning that simply doesn't exists. This is a result of playing a card game where the text is one of the things that a player will have to use during the game, and where subtle variances in wording can significantly alter a situation. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 Oct 2001 00:57:29 -0700, andrea wrote: >No mean to offend anybody. i just wanted to say that sometimes you >seems "spacchiate il capello in quattro" (literally "to break an hair >in 4" there's a saying in english for this?), your always trying to >find a subtle meaning that simply doesn't exists. The equivalent phrase in English is "to split hairs". Someone who says that hand strikes only work at close range because of what the rules say, is splitting hairs. They're trying to impute a meaning where none was intended. The rules talk mostly about hand strikes in the context of the default strike that you can make without a card. It's clear that you can make these at long range because that's what vampires have to do when they find themselves at long range with no other option - they just wave their hand. Ordinarily this is not effective in doing damage because these strikes are not ranged. Blood of the Cobra changes all that. It's really quite simple. Hand strikes are strikes made without a weapon in which your strength determines the amount of damage. It's mostly a damage thing but also serves as a basis for special effects like Immortal Grapple. People are confused because most hand strikes, including the default one, are not ranged. If, by some magic, they do become ranged then they become effective at range - that's what the term means. You can't have a ranged strike which is not effective at long range - that would be an absurd contradiction. A splitting of hairs. BTW, I have a classic Kung Fu video called Master of the Flying Guillotine. The eponymous villain has amazingly bushy eyebrows which all this talk of hairsplitting brings to mind. But he also has an Indian henchman whose arms are able to stretch in a most unlikely manner so that he can deliver blows at some distance - it's a hoot to watch. Or did you see that episode of Angel in which the villainous surgeon is able to detach his hands and send them off to murder folk from a distance? There must surely be more WoD tricks of this sort - aspects of Serpentis or Viscissitude, perhaps ? Andrew

>It's really quite simple. Hand strikes are strikes made without a >weapon in which your strength determines the amount of damage. It's >mostly a damage thing but also serves as a basis for special effects >like Immortal Grapple. People are confused because most hand strikes, >including the default one, are not ranged. If, by some magic, they do >become ranged then they become effective at range - that's what the term >means. You can't have a ranged strike which is not effective at long >range - that would be an absurd contradiction. A splitting of hairs. If that's the case, why is everyone suddenly up in arms *now*? Andrew, shouldn't you have been complaining back when Sabbat Wars was released because of Shadow Strike? There's strength based damage that isn't considered a hand strike because it's ranged. >Or did you see that episode of Angel in which the villainous surgeon is >able to detach his hands and send them off to murder folk from a >distance? There must surely be more WoD tricks of this sort - aspects >of Serpentis or Viscissitude, perhaps ? Sounds like a new application for Rutor's Hand... Halcyan 2

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Twb0Bd$VJS2...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <8b06c4c.01102...@posting.google.com>, andrea > <andrea....@infinito.it> writes: > >I think there has been a clarification that you cannot use BotC on > >your hand strike but you have to use a strike card (and you should use > >a close ranged strike as a ranged per BotC). ST is a modifier on your > >hand strike so that con not be combined with BotC. > >Is that correct? > > No. > > "If the strike is one that says to make a hand strike or make a melee > wepaon strike, then the strike is ranged, but the hand or melee weapon > portion of the strike is still only effective at close range. [RTR > 20010710]" > > Hence you can still play Scorpion's Touch with Blood of the Cobra. > However, as hand strikes must be at close range, the hand strike portion > does not function. OK i didn't get the problem was not on BotC but on ST. So if there's a card that says 'make an hand strike AND 1 damage' and you play BotC you do the 1 damage but not the Hand strike (Yes, OK, you do the strike but there is no damage, you smash the air). > > >No mean to offend anybody. i just wanted to say that sometimes you > >seems "spacchiate il capello in quattro" (literally "to break an hair > >in 4" there's a saying in english for this?), your always trying to > >find a subtle meaning that simply doesn't exists. > > This is a result of playing a card game where the text is one of the > things that a player will have to use during the game, and where subtle > variances in wording can significantly alter a situation. This way you risk to spend nights arguing instead of playing. And much more at tourneys, you risk to end up discussing the meaning of every single card. (And let's hope judges are aligned to every subtle meaning!) I don't want to say there aren't cards you need to clarify, but still there are many discussion here that are 'strange' to me. With this example: BotC modifies a strike card, ST modifies a hand strike Q. cat BotC modify a 'modify hand strike'? (And i do think is a legitimate question!) A. Yes it can but has no effect because..... OK. Closed. Stop. End. Finish. Terminee. Finito. Chiuso. Andrea

>This way you risk to spend nights arguing instead of playing. >And much more at tourneys, you risk to end up discussing the meaning >of every single card. (And let's hope judges are aligned to every >subtle meaning!) Doesn't matter either way. I end up spending way too much time arguing with my playgroup anyway. Most of the time they won't believe me though (no matter how well-versed I am with the rules). And they're too lazy to stop the game and go search for the ruling on the web. So things are rectified and I'm exonerated only the week after (when I go home, find the ruling, and e-mail it to everyone)... Halcyan 2

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<oxhqhTMzB$17E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <5287ede4.01102...@posting.google.com>, Chris > Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > >It seems like you didn't bother to read anything past the line that > >you quoted. Do you dispute that a card that said, "strike: deal > >strength damage, ranged. This is a hand strike." would be both a > >ranged strike and a hand strike? > > Hand strikes, by definition, cannot be ranged. I don't think this ruling makes sense to me either. Sure, hand strikes by definition do not take effect at range. Likewise, strike cards that do not say "ranged" on the card by definition do not take effect at range. Why does Blood of the Cobra make one type effective at range but the other not? (I can't find any "by definition cannot be ranged" text in the rulebook; at [6.4.5] it does say "When a minion strikes with a hand strike at close range, he does an amount of damage equal to his strength* to the opposing minion" but I don't find any implication that this is any less alterable than the part at [6.4.3] which restricts all other strike cards: "Most strikes are effective only at close range. Unless the strike is identified as ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or combat ends), it is only effective at close range.") > > This means that it *is* possible for > >a hand strike to be performed at range, only if the strike *says* that > >it is both ranged and a hand strike. > > Indeed. > > >The question is whether BotC causes the strike to act that way > > It doesn't; specific card text would be needed. The card text actually there looks to me like it's not any more specific about making other non-ranged strikes work at long range than it is about non-ranged hand strikes. "Strike: ranged. Play a non-ranged strike that requires Quietus from your hand and use that strike as if it were ranged." The RTR on the card [20010710] interprets this as if it modified the text of the other strike card played to begin with "Strike: ranged", but there's nothing in the text that makes this interpretation more obviously correct than reading it as making *all* the effects of the other strike card usable at range. (eg, if you read the card as inserting "ranged" *after* the existing text of the other strike card rather than before.) > It is a perfectly supportable argument to go to the Rules Team and say: > "This is how I think this *should* work. Here are my reasons." This is how I think it should work. These are my reasons. :-) > Under the current rules, however, it is not supportable to just rule it > works that way. Well, given that there's an RTR going the other way already, yeah, it'd have to be an RTR reversing it. But I think they should reverse it. I think most players intuitively expect it to work with hand strikes, and as the text isn't clear (and it doesn't seem like working with hand strikes would make it overpowered), the card should work intuitively. Josh you always gotta take some shot in the dark...

Joshua Duffin wrote: > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > > >It seems like you didn't bother to read anything past the line that > > >you quoted. Do you dispute that a card that said, "strike: deal > > >strength damage, ranged. This is a hand strike." would be both a > > >ranged strike and a hand strike? > > > > Hand strikes, by definition, cannot be ranged. > > I don't think this ruling makes sense to me either. Sure, hand FWIW, here's the thread that produced the BotC ruling: http://groups.google.com/groups?th=30d2140ac51d9c1 It may help shed some light on the reasoning involved. Note that the actual ruling is based on the daisy-chaining of effects, not on the definition of "hand strike" itself. At any rate, for the above fictional strike question, the answer is paradox. You cannot have a non-ranged ranged strike. That would be like "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". Or "Strike: 2 aggravated non-aggravated damage." An omnipotent being cannot make a rock she cannot lift (or, more clearly, she could not make a yard-long meter stick). One cannot make "a something" that is not that something. > strikes by definition do not take effect at range. Likewise, > strike cards that do not say "ranged" on the card by definition > do not take effect at range. Why does Blood of the Cobra make I think you're mixing "attribute" for "definition". Any offensive strike without the "ranged" attribute is offensively ineffective at long range. This is not the definition of anything, however (nor does it violate the definition of anything). > one type effective at range but the other not? See the thread cited above for the answer. > (I can't find any "by definition cannot be ranged" text in the > rulebook; at [6.4.5] it does say "When a minion strikes with The "definition" of a hand strike isn't in the rulebook. It is in the rulings list, however. [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the nature of a "ruling" is to resolve such ambiguities, yes. If there was an "obviously correct" interpretation, then that would be a "clarification". [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > The RTR on the card [20010710] interprets this as if it > > modified the text of the other strike card played to begin > > with "Strike: ranged", but there's nothing in the text that > > makes this interpretation more obviously correct than reading > > it as making *all* the effects of the other strike card > > usable at range. (eg, if you read the card as inserting > > "ranged" *after* the existing text of the other strike card > > rather than before.) > > Well, the nature of a "ruling" is to resolve such ambiguities, yes. > If there was an "obviously correct" interpretation, then that would > be a "clarification". Incidentally, the current ruling has the added benefit of matching the backstory, as well. The hand strike that normally delivered the "poisoned blood" is made superfluous by the "ranged" delivery method. That doesn't mean that the hand strike connects, though - it just means that the poisonous blood is delivered. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > BTW, I have a classic Kung Fu video called Master of the Flying > Guillotine. The eponymous villain has amazingly bushy eyebrows which > all this talk of hairsplitting brings to mind. But he also has an > Indian henchman whose arms are able to stretch in a most unlikely manner > so that he can deliver blows at some distance - it's a hoot to watch. > > Or did you see that episode of Angel in which the villainous surgeon is > able to detach his hands and send them off to murder folk from a > distance? There must surely be more WoD tricks of this sort - aspects > of Serpentis or Viscissitude, perhaps ? In Kindred of the East, which is an expansion (sort of) of Vampire: the Masquerade, there is a discipline that allows stuff like this. It's based on the legendary Penangallan of South East Asia, who were vampires that often consisted of nothing more than a head and entrails. Of course, they were easily thwarted by just kicking them away from you as you would a football. There's also a really cool short story by Robert Bloch about the Penangallan called 'The Scent of Vinegar' which was printed in the anthology 'Dark Destiny' by none other than White Wolf. Highly recommended... Cheers, WES

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:53:43 -0400, LSJ wrote: >The "definition" of a hand strike isn't in the rulebook. It is in >the rulings list, however. Tsk. I was trying to understand all this better and the natural document to work from is the latest rulebook - the Final Nights edition. WotC rulings made 4 years ago hardly seem germane. I was trying to understand why you need a definition of what constitutes a hand strike when I'd have thought that it would define itself by use of the term "hand strike", as on Dagon's Call. The combat cards seem ok so I started looking at allies. Take Survivalist, for example. This reads, "Ally with 1 life. 2R damage, 0 bleed...". Ok, supposing this is in combat with someone and wants to strike them. The rules say, "Each minion chooses his strike. The strike can be from a combat card, from a weapon the minion possesses or (the default) a hand strike." The Survivalist will usually have no weapon or combat card and so it will therefore be doing a hand strike. We then resolve the strike. The following paragraph tells us how to do that. We have to assume that the "2R damage" on this ally card relates to its default strike but that seems reasonable. We therefore see that the Survivalist will be doing a hand strike for 2 at either close or long range. We then have to make sense of 6.4.5. This seems to be a list of special strike effects and, as none of these bold terms have been used in this case, we might just pass on. But the first of them indicates that it relates to the default strike and so it seems reasonable to apply that. It tells us that when the hand strike is used at close range, you do the strength as damage and that allies have a default strength of zero. The Survivalist has no strength in its text so that means it will do no damage at close range. So, the conclusion one reaches is that, without a separate weapon or combat card, the Survivalist will do zero damage at close range, 2 damage at long range and that this is a hand strike. Or, alternatively, one can conclude that the current card templating and rules are a mess and that's why people struggle to decipher the game using 4 year old rulings instead. Who playtests and proof-reads this stuff - I don't see any credits for this. I trust you will improve the process for the new Camarilla base set. The third time is the charm. The end-result of getting this right ought to be that the Survivalist's built-in strike has the attributes "gun" and "weapon". And that, if he has some other weapon attached, he could use one or the other but not both. That, by the way, is the way the Muddled Vampire Hunter should work too - he clearly comes with his own shotgun. If he has a concealed Ivory Bow then he might use that instead but would probably not get the First Strike benefit in that case. Another problem solved. Andrew

>The combat cards seem ok so I started looking at allies. Take >Survivalist, for example. This reads, "Ally with 1 life. 2R damage, 0 >bleed...". Ok, supposing this is in combat with someone and wants to >strike them. The rules say, "Each minion chooses his strike. The >strike can be from a combat card, from a weapon the minion possesses or >(the default) a hand strike." The Survivalist will usually have no >weapon or combat card and so it will therefore be doing a hand strike. Well, I'd argue that (like many cases), card text (the 2R) allows you to get around the normal restriction on where your strike can come from. Under your interpretation, Aurora and Lazarus might have useless specials as well. Or since Treasured Samadji isn't a weapon (and there's no provision for just normal equipment), you can never use its dodge either. It could be argued that the last three say "may (whatever) as a strike" but then there's the argument that Survivalist's 2R implicitly says the same thing (Survivalist may strike for 2R). >It tells us that when the hand strike is used at close range, you do the >strength as damage and that allies have a default strength of zero. The >Survivalist has no strength in its text so that means it will do no >damage at close range. > Correct. Same with Outcast Mage, Thadius, Order of Hermes Cabal, Wendell, Rom Gypsy, and Talaq. >The end-result of getting this right ought to be that the Survivalist's >built-in strike has the attributes "gun" and "weapon". And that, if he >has some other weapon attached, he could use one or the other but not >both. That, by the way, is the way the Muddled Vampire Hunter should >work too - he clearly comes with his own shotgun. If he has a concealed >Ivory Bow then he might use that instead but would probably not get the >First Strike benefit in that case. Another problem solved. And I suppose we should assume that all those Mages, Hunters, and Gypsies are carrying guns too? And I have no idea where you get the MVH having a shotgun thing. Halcyan 2

On 27 Oct 2001 00:51:05 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >Well, I'd argue that (like many cases), card text (the 2R) allows you to get >around the normal restriction on where your strike can come from. Under your >interpretation This is not my interpretation. This is what the rules say. My actual interpretation is that you have to read between the lines of the literal text and use common sense to decide what to do. >>It tells us that when the hand strike is used at close range, you do the >>strength as damage and that allies have a default strength of zero. The >>Survivalist has no strength in its text so that means it will do no >>damage at close range. Really? I would play that he has a magnum and does 2 damage at both close and long range. >>The end-result of getting this right ought to be that the Survivalist's >>built-in strike has the attributes "gun" and "weapon". And that, if he >>has some other weapon attached, he could use one or the other but not >>both. That, by the way, is the way the Muddled Vampire Hunter should >>work too - he clearly comes with his own shotgun. If he has a concealed >>Ivory Bow then he might use that instead but would probably not get the >>First Strike benefit in that case. Another problem solved. > >And I suppose we should assume that all those Mages, Hunters, and Gypsies are >carrying guns too? If it's important to categorize strikes (hand, melee weapon, gun etc), then each ally should specify the type of their strike. Hunters use guns, Mages use spells, Gypsies use knives, etc. >And I have no idea where you get the MVH having a shotgun thing. Elementary - I look at the card and observe that he has a double-barrelled shotgun slung over his shoulder. The card text says "4 hand damage" but we all know that that's gibberish. He clearly bushwacks kindred at close range with both barrels. It's the flaky use of misleading terms like "hand" for this which causes trouble. He clearly doesn't rip vampires to pieces with his bare hands and so the word "hand" should not be used to muddle us. He uses a gun to make a first strike doing 4 damage at close range only. Andrew

>Really? I would play that he has a magnum and does 2 damage at both >close and long range. So if he does have a magnum, does this mean you can steal it or destroy it? Also, interestingly enough, notice that though he does 2R damage, he does *not* have an innate manuever, which a magnum would have. Please explain that. >If it's important to categorize strikes (hand, melee weapon, gun etc), >then each ally should specify the type of their strike. Hunters use >guns, Mages use spells, Gypsies use knives, etc. LOL. So I suppose the Hunters' guns and the Gypsies' knives would classify as "weapons" and "equipment" but a Mage's spells wouldn't? You would be able to steal the knives and the guns but you can't really steal any spells, eh? And don't forget that Hunters don't necessarily have to use just guns. I'm not well-versed in Hunter: the Reckoning myself but Wendell could very well be using some supernatural ability instead of conventional weapons. And BTW Andrew, you *still* haven't addressed the situation where according to your definition, Aurora and Lazarus can't use their specials and you can't use Treasured Samedji to dodge... >Elementary - I look at the card and observe that he has a >double-barrelled shotgun slung over his shoulder. The card text says "4 >hand damage" but we all know that that's gibberish. He clearly >bushwacks kindred at close range with both barrels. It's the flaky use >of misleading terms like "hand" for this which causes trouble. He >clearly doesn't rip vampires to pieces with his bare hands and so the >word "hand" should not be used to muddle us. He uses a gun to make a >first strike doing 4 damage at close range only. LOL. Now you're using the *picture* to argue abilities? Maybe every vampire pic with a leather jacket should automatically get a Leather Jacket. In addition to the gun, the Survivalist should surely get an innate Flak Jacket or something. Maybe when someone successfully becomes Brujah Justicar they should automatically get a sword. And vamps that succeed with Crusade: Detroit should get a chainsaw. And don't forget the paradox that is the Submachine Gun. As someone pointed out a while ago, the picture of the Submachine Gun is actually some sort of rifle. The picture is just there to make the card look nice! It's not supposed to perfectly represent everything on the card!!! Anyway, FYI, shotguns in Jyhad/VTES only do 3 damage (not 4). You'd need an Assault Rifle for 4. And if the MVH had a gun, why would it do 4 damage FS at close range only? With his gun, shouldn't he be able to shoot at long range just as well??? >It's the flaky use >of misleading terms like "hand" for this which causes trouble. He >clearly doesn't rip vampires to pieces with his bare hands and so the >word "hand" should not be used to muddle us. Well maybe he *does* use his hands. Maybe he's some sort of confused, *supernatural* hunter, which explains his super strength. Halcyan 2

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > At any rate, for the above fictional strike question, the answer > is paradox. > > You cannot have a non-ranged ranged strike. > That would be like "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". > Or "Strike: 2 aggravated non-aggravated damage." Tsk tsk. I believe that this paradox does not exist, because a default, not an opposite, rules unless otherwise specified. For instance, all strikes are non-ranged unless made otherwise (thus saving the need to put "non-ranged" on every strike card that does not say "ranged"). Similarly, all strikes are considered not to be dodges unless stated otherwise (thus, even a strike that has an additional effect to a dodge still says dodge). Finally, all damage is considered not to be aggravated unless stated to be aggravated (thus saving the need for "non-aggravated" on every strike that does not say "aggravated.") This ruling feels more like the situation caused by the allies who can play disciplines as though they were vampires, but can't use those same cards as though they were vampires. I disagree with but live with both rulings. > An omnipotent being cannot make a rock she cannot lift (or, more > clearly, she could not make a yard-long meter stick). One cannot > make "a something" that is not that something. Actually, while the first may not be true, the second can be. Omnipotence should reflect the ability to alter the reality of what a yard or meter are. But I may be trying to spacchiate il capello in quattro here. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > >> This would be an incorrect assumption on your part. However, if you > >> will consistently lie and misrepresent the facts, you will generally not > >> be treated in a manner you would desire (for instance, your lying and > >> misrepresentations will be pointed out). If you choose not to lie and > >> misrepresent the facts, a number of these things will not, and indeed > >> cannot, happen. > > > >Assumption confirmed. You are involved in this discussion only > >to toss insults. > > Not at all. > > It is fact that you have either been lying or mis-representing facts > consistently. I will point this out only as long as you do that. When > you cease to do that, I cannot point that out. > > Whilst pointing such things out, I will also address any points that it > occurs to me to address. Thus "only" is completely wrong, since it is > clear that I will address points as well as point out your lies and mis- > representations through empirical evidence (the fact that I regularly do > so). > > You may care to retract your lie that I am only involved in this > discussion to toss insults, since this is clearly, provably, blatantly > false. (Though I find it unlikely that you will do so.) I suppose it must be possible that someone could believe that a position can only be true or a lie. I don't think I've never met someone who simultaneously had that idea and was over the age of 9, but maybe I have now. Unless I am convinced that somehow you are one of these strange, vicious, small minded people who exists in a world where everyone who disagrees with you is a liar (or a f*ckwit, your previous favorite epithet), I will continue to believe that you engage in this discussion only to be extremely offensive and generally unpleasant, using your ability to address the discussion at all only as a tool for your unpleasantness. In case you haven't gathered it yet, no, a retraction is not likely to be forthcoming. Also in case you haven't noticed, I get a little snappy when I'm called a liar in a public forum (a consistent liar to boot). - Jason Bell

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011027055005...@mb-md.aol.com>... <snip rude sarcastic response to a serious post> Ok, so andrew may be a bit off, and what he suggests really doesn't work... But you know what he means! Quit nit picking it! Its a serious question. WHat IS a hand strike, according to rulings. Lazarus's strike? Muddled vampire hunters? etc... And now that we've declared this, why? WHy are they hand strikes, or not? What's the reason behing the ruling, and why can't we build this in to the later sets errata on the cards? When Andrew read those two areas of rules in his first post, and they wind up contradicting themselves, that's a problem. This isn't warhammer where you flip a coin when you have a rules dispute... this is a CCG. The only unclear thing in it should be things like Malkavian game (they haven't defined in the rules what this 'rock paper scissors' thing is :)). SOrry... I was just ggetting a little upset at how harshly you're lashing out, Halcyon, at Andrew... not that I know either of you guys and it could be some internal hatred for one another (in which I should probbaly back off...). ~SCreaming Vermillian

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20011026111239...@mb-mq.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That's pretty sad really, you'd think that, after the 100th time you're right they'd take your word for it and then get it checked later.

On 27 Oct 2001 09:50:05 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >So if he does have a magnum, does this mean you can steal it or destroy it? >Also, interestingly enough, notice that though he does 2R damage, he does *not* >have an innate manuever, which a magnum would have. Please explain that. He can provide a maneuver for a Brujah antitribu but not for himself. That's odd, I agree. >don't forget that Hunters don't necessarily have to use just guns. I'm not >well-versed in Hunter: the Reckoning myself but Wendell could very well be >using some supernatural ability instead of conventional weapons. Sure. Ideally the cards which provide strikes should say what sort of strike they are. Wendell's MO is not clear but I reckon that Millicent Smith has a White Phosphorus Grenade hidden in her Bible <grin>. >And BTW Andrew, you *still* haven't addressed the situation where according to >your definition, Aurora and Lazarus can't use their specials and you can't use >Treasured Samedji to dodge... The rules are not of my making. If you think the literal text is the be-all and end-all then try reading it yourself and see how _you_ address this situation. >The picture is just there to make the card look nice! It's >not supposed to perfectly represent everything on the card!!! It should, don't you think? Recall the phrase, "a picture is worth a thousand words". That's a reasonable summary of the relative cost of what goes into a CCG card - the picture is by far the most expensive component. >And don't forget the paradox that is the Submachine Gun. As >someone pointed out a while ago, the picture of the Submachine Gun >is actually some sort of rifle. It looks like a submachine gun to me. It's a fairly good piece compared to most. The original art for .44 Magnum didn't match the title - that's just a dinky little pistol. The Sawed-Off Shotgun is the biggest howler - it shows a pump-action shotgun instead. Presumably that's why the card was renamed in Sabbat. It's not clear why it reverted to the incorrect name in Sabbat War. >Anyway, FYI, shotguns in Jyhad/VTES only do 3 damage (not 4). They are a different sort of shotgun. The Muddled Vampire Hunter has a double-barreled shotgun. >And if the MVH had a gun, why would it do 4 damage FS at >close range only? With his gun, shouldn't he be able to shoot at long range >just as well??? Like I said, he bushwacks his prey - that's why he gets first strike. >Well maybe he *does* use his hands. Maybe he's some sort of confused, >*supernatural* hunter, which explains his super strength. His current errata describes him as having "4 strength" - stronger than a Werewolf Pack! You might have such a hunter - a fragile version of Buffy - but that's not what the current art shows. Another thing. I just updated the equipment card section of my binder, putting the different versions of Saturday Night Special side by side in it. It's very noticeable how the text on this is shrinking in size. The Sabbat War version was far smaller than the WotC original but the text is even smaller on the Final Nights version. If this trend continues then you'd better hope that the pictures on the cards are accurate because it's all that you'll be able to make out. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:E1F4B69FA9ED3FB3.F992AA0B...@lp.airnews.net... > It looks like a submachine gun to me. It's a fairly good piece compared > to most. The original art for .44 Magnum didn't match the title - > that's just a dinky little pistol. The Sawed-Off Shotgun is the biggest > howler - it shows a pump-action shotgun instead. Presumably that's why > the card was renamed in Sabbat. It's not clear why it reverted to the > incorrect name in Sabbat War. The Sabbat's Combat Shotgun is different from Jyhad/VtES's Sawed-Off Shotgun. The Jyhad version is usable once per combat, while the Sabbat version is usable once per round (and costs one more pool). Flux

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:12:50 -0000, Flux wrote: >The Sabbat's Combat Shotgun is different from Jyhad/VtES's Sawed-Off >Shotgun. The Jyhad version is usable once per combat, while the Sabbat >version is usable once per round (and costs one more pool). The art shows an identical weapon - I didn't read the fine print. Andrew

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:21:06 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >>>It tells us that when the hand strike is used at close range, you do the >>>strength as damage and that allies have a default strength of zero. The >>>Survivalist has no strength in its text so that means it will do no >>>damage at close range. > >Really? I would play that he has a magnum and does 2 damage at both >close and long range. I'm still not sure what the orthodox answer is to this - perhaps LSJ can oblige, please. How much damage does a Survivalist do at short range - zero or two? If it's two, as I thought, does he have the option of doing zero instead? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > How much damage does a Survivalist do at short range - > zero or two? If it's two, as I thought, does he have the option of > doing zero instead? Depends on his strike. Card text (from the online list): "0 strength" and "Survivalist may strike for 2R damage" If he makes a hand strike, he (like every other minion) deals strength damage. If he strikes for 2R damage, he deals 2R damage. If he dodges, he deals no damage. etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BD9A327...@white-wolf.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I don't think this ruling makes sense to me either. Sure, hand > > FWIW, here's the thread that produced the BotC ruling: > http://groups.google.com/groups?th=30d2140ac51d9c1 > > It may help shed some light on the reasoning involved. > Note that the actual ruling is based on the daisy-chaining of effects, > not on the definition of "hand strike" itself. OK, thanks. Again, of course, the daisy-chaining of effects could lead to the answer going either way. (And did. ;-) > At any rate, for the above fictional strike question, the answer > is paradox. > > You cannot have a non-ranged ranged strike. > That would be like "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". > Or "Strike: 2 aggravated non-aggravated damage." > > An omnipotent being cannot make a rock she cannot lift (or, more > clearly, she could not make a yard-long meter stick). One cannot > make "a something" that is not that something. No, but you could make a something that acts as if it weren't that something. A hand strike doesn't normally work at long range. A Tongue of the Serpent strike doesn't normally work at long range. An Entombment strike doesn't normally work at long range. As far as backstory (and paradoxes) go, it seems just as sensible to me that hand strikes can take effect at long range as that Entombment can. > > strikes by definition do not take effect at range. Likewise, > > strike cards that do not say "ranged" on the card by definition > > do not take effect at range. Why does Blood of the Cobra make > > I think you're mixing "attribute" for "definition". > Any offensive strike without the "ranged" attribute is offensively > ineffective at long range. This is not the definition of anything, > however (nor does it violate the definition of anything). You're right, I was just adopting the "by definition" terminology that James was using. It's really "by the rulebook". > > (I can't find any "by definition cannot be ranged" text in the > > rulebook; at [6.4.5] it does say "When a minion strikes with > > The "definition" of a hand strike isn't in the rulebook. It is in > the rulings list, however. Ah, now I see. Perhaps the rulings definition could now be abolished in favor of the rulebook explanation, since current cardtexts reflect "correct" operation? If I recall correctly, the definition was created so that people would be able to tell what strikes were and were not hand strikes when cards lacked text specifying their handedness. Current official text for all allies and strike cards, I believe, now tells you when a strike is a hand strike. [snip] > > The RTR on the card [20010710] interprets this as if it > > modified the text of the other strike card played to begin > > with "Strike: ranged", but there's nothing in the text that > > makes this interpretation more obviously correct than reading > > it as making *all* the effects of the other strike card > > usable at range. (eg, if you read the card as inserting > > "ranged" *after* the existing text of the other strike card > > rather than before.) > > Well, the nature of a "ruling" is to resolve such ambiguities, yes. > If there was an "obviously correct" interpretation, then that would > be a "clarification". Right. :-) This is presumably still up for RT review from the June 2001 discussion, yeah? Perhaps the RT could also consider eliminating the hand-damage definition in the rulings at that point? As long as I'm making a wish list, anyway. :-) Josh hand of the cobra!

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<108A95156055DB3E.D0DE542A...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] This explains a lot of the rules comprehension problems you've been having Andrew- you've clearly being playing using the 'Snap' rules. Snap actually _is_ broken under NCL. mattgreen. -marvels at this breathtaking line of arguement whilst wondering how much damage Didi Meyers' dog inflicts.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:47:16 -0500, LSJ wrote: >> How much damage does a Survivalist do at short range - >> zero or two? If it's two, as I thought, does he have the option of >> doing zero instead? > >Depends on his strike. >Card text (from the online list): > >"0 strength" and "Survivalist may strike for 2R damage" I see. I didn't realise that this card had errata too - I was referring to the Sabbat War card and had supposed that to be up-to-date. I note that the errata describes him as {mortal} too. Attributes like this are useful - my suggestion is that you include something of the sort with every strike so that it's always clear what sort of strike it is. The new FAQ now tells us that his 2R strike is not a hand strike but that doesn't tell us what sort of a strike it actually is. Plan ahead ... Andrew

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > You cannot have a non-ranged ranged strike. > > That would be like "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". > > Or "Strike: 2 aggravated non-aggravated damage." > > > > An omnipotent being cannot make a rock she cannot lift (or, more > > clearly, she could not make a yard-long meter stick). One cannot > > make "a something" that is not that something. > > No, but you could make a something that acts as if it weren't > that something. ... and then it wouldn't be that something. If you make a hand strike act as if it were not a hand strike, then it wouldn't do hand damage. Only hand strikes deal hand damage. That's the point - you can't make a hand strike that is not a hand strike. You can make something else, sure. > A hand strike doesn't normally work at long > range. A hand strike never works at long range since it is "non-ranged" by definition. > A Tongue of the Serpent strike doesn't normally work > at long range. An Entombment strike doesn't normally work at > long range. As far as backstory (and paradoxes) go, it seems > just as sensible to me that hand strikes can take effect at > long range as that Entombment can. ? "Steal blood" is not intrinsically non-ranged. "Go to torpor" is not intrisically non-ranged. "Hand strike" is non-ranged. > > The "definition" of a hand strike isn't in the rulebook. It is in > > the rulings list, however. > > Ah, now I see. Perhaps the rulings definition could now be > abolished in favor of the rulebook explanation, since current > cardtexts reflect "correct" operation? If I recall correctly, > the definition was created so that people would be able to > tell what strikes were and were not hand strikes when cards > lacked text specifying their handedness. Current official text > for all allies and strike cards, I believe, now tells you when > a strike is a hand strike. Perhaps. But a hand strike is properly non-ranged (the current situation). "X damage" is rangeable, but "hand strike" is not. And, as pointed out early, this current situation has the added benefit of matching the backstory. Blood of the Cobra doesn't involve ripping your hand off and flinging it at your opponent. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:47:16 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >> How much damage does a Survivalist do at short range - > >> zero or two? If it's two, as I thought, does he have the option of > >> doing zero instead? > > > >Depends on his strike. > >Card text (from the online list): > > > >"0 strength" and "Survivalist may strike for 2R damage" > > I see. I didn't realise that this card had errata too - I was referring > to the Sabbat War card and had supposed that to be up-to-date. I note > that the errata describes him as {mortal} too. Attributes like this are No errata. The "Mortal" bit is a ruling. The rest is just clarification. [6.4.5] > useful - my suggestion is that you include something of the sort with > every strike so that it's always clear what sort of strike it is. The > new FAQ now tells us that his 2R strike is not a hand strike but that > doesn't tell us what sort of a strike it actually is. Plan ahead ... His 2R strike has been clearly not a hand strike since long before the new FAQ. [RTR 14-FEB-1995] It "is" a ranged-damage-dealing strike, that's all (and that's sufficient). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Oct 2001 09:13:25 -0800, mgreen02 wrote: >This explains a lot of the rules comprehension problems you've been >having Andrew In this case of the Survivalist, reading the text on the card was my big mistake. The official position is that one not only ignores the picture, you ignore the printed card text too. The only thing that matters on a card is its title. Everything else is just a placeholder for the true explanation of the card's function which is out there in cyberspace. White Wolf could save lots of money on art and layout by just printing the title in big letters - kinda like Lunch Money. From what you guys say, you'd be just as happy playing with "macro" cards like this. And to avoid messy, role-playing considerations of what the card title might signify, maybe the card titles should be replaced by numbers. That would really cut down on costs. All you'd need for a new card would be another number - you could print the next ten sets altogether. It'd be like the joke about the silent order of monks who told jokes by holding up numbered cards - each indexing a standard joke in their big book of same. That way they didn't have to write the jokes on their slates in long-hand. A visitor tried to join the fun by holding up a numbered card of his own. This was greeted by stone-faced silence. When he asked why this hadn't gone down so well, he was informed that it was the way that he had told it! Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > In this case of the Survivalist, reading the text on the card was my big > mistake. The official position is that one not only ignores the > picture, you ignore the printed card text too. It might appear that way to players whose position it is to ignore the rules, even when given references to the rules in question. For the players who know the rules (or who can read them when directed to the appropriate sections), the printed card text suffices in the case of Survivalist (except when trying to ascertain if he's Mortal or not, of course). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:30:22 -0500, LSJ wrote: >> In this case of the Survivalist, reading the text on the card was my big >> mistake. The official position is that one not only ignores the >> picture, you ignore the printed card text too. > >It might appear that way to players whose position it is to ignore the rules, >even when given references to the rules in question. I don't know what you're talking about - what reference? Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] The reference I supplied in response to your earlier claim that your Sabbat War copy of Survivalist had been errata'ed: 6.4.5. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:42:35 -0500, LSJ wrote: >No errata. The "Mortal" bit is a ruling. The rest is just clarification. >[6.4.5] > >His 2R strike has been clearly not a hand strike since long before the... > >It "is" a ranged-damage-dealing strike, that's all (and that's sufficient). If the Survivalist's 2R strike was clearly labelled as a gun strike (as it obviously is) then it'd be fun and interesting to use stuff like Manstopper Rounds with him. If you're having to tweak the card anyway to add stuff like "mortal" then you might as well do a thorough job. Instead of cleaning up the game in this way, a higher priority seems to be to carefully categorise all the addenda as "rulings", "clarifications", "errata" or "MRP". It's wasted effort, AFAIC - what you call these afterthoughts doesn't change anything. The only important functional category would be "optional". But that's one we don't get. Andrew

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:12:42 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > >If the Survivalist's 2R strike was clearly labelled as a gun strike (as >it obviously is) No, it isnt.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BDD9358...@white-wolf.com>... > A hand strike never works at long range since it is "non-ranged" > by definition. [...] > ? > "Steal blood" is not intrinsically non-ranged. > "Go to torpor" is not intrisically non-ranged. > "Hand strike" is non-ranged. Without the definitional ruling, "hand strike" is no more intrinsically non-ranged than the others, it merely defaults to non-ranged. Of course, that does require us to be in an alternate universe where the ruling doesn't exist. :-) > And, as pointed out early, this current situation has the added > benefit of matching the backstory. Blood of the Cobra doesn't > involve ripping your hand off and flinging it at your opponent. :-) Apparently what it does involve is using Dagon's Call, Scorpion's Touch, Vascular Explosion, or Weakness at long range. But not doing strength damage for the first two. :-) I guess the "play a strike requiring Quietus" makes it pretty narrow - and unlikely to work with hand strikes - up front. Still, I hate to see a marginal card be ruled even more marginal. :-) Josh marginalizin' and stealin'

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:07:10 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The reference I supplied in response to your earlier claim that your Sabbat >War copy of Survivalist had been errata'ed: 6.4.5. 6.4.5 is where I came in and I still find it unsatisfactory. It's a slight polish of 15.3 from the original Jyhad rulebook. That had the heading "Special Combat Effects" and that's still how it reads - that we're dealing with special stuff rather than the norm. It wasn't much help with the Survivalist as printed. For completeness, one remaining thing that bothers me is nested strikes - a strike which is defined to be another strike, as on Scorpion's Touch, "Strike: make a hand or melee weapon strike...". Can you play another combat card to do the nested hand strike? Could that be another Scorpion's Touch? I suspect not but it's muddled because of confusion between the two senses of hand strike - the default strike and a strike made with bare hands. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:07:10 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >The reference I supplied in response to your earlier claim that your Sabbat > >War copy of Survivalist had been errata'ed: 6.4.5. > > 6.4.5 is where I came in and I still find it unsatisfactory. It's a > slight polish of 15.3 from the original Jyhad rulebook. That had the > heading "Special Combat Effects" and that's still how it reads - that > we're dealing with special stuff rather than the norm. It wasn't much > help with the Survivalist as printed. It handles the "how much damage does he do with a hand strike" question' directly and satifactorily. > For completeness, one remaining thing that bothers me is nested strikes > - a strike which is defined to be another strike, as on Scorpion's > Touch, "Strike: make a hand or melee weapon strike...". Can you play > another combat card to do the nested hand strike? Could that be another No. One strike per strike. > Scorpion's Touch? I suspect not but it's muddled because of confusion > between the two senses of hand strike - the default strike and a strike > made with bare hands. There's no confusion on the rules end. There's only one default strike - the strike made with bare hands. [6.4.5] [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <59b20daa.01102...@posting.google.com>, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> writes: >Without the definitional ruling, "hand strike" is no more >intrinsically non-ranged than the others, it merely defaults to >non-ranged. The definition does, however, exist. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F If I had a dick, I'd go get laid. We can do the B457CA213D7E6 next best thing. Let's kill people. Oh, not *you*. 68C3695D623D5D

In message <DBE3714D6E52B7C3.D3021277...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > People are confused because most hand strikes, >including the default one, are not ranged. Not true. The rules state that hand strikes are *by definition* not ranged. Hence the hand strike does not function at range. [ quoted text not captured ]