someone has been spamming...

Someone on this newsgroup has been doing some serious spamming. Let's just say that corporate MIS entities are all over this, and when they track it back to the originator... well, it won't be pretty. It was a rather deft little trick this person played, but not well hidden. Needless to say, this person may face a lawsuit, or at the very least, some serious flaming. At this point the person will remain un-named in order for this person to step forward and apologize. I thank you all for your time. Let the debates continue.... -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com "Put your soul in the water and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry "Beauty of Gray"

Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >Someone on this newsgroup has been doing some serious spamming. Let's just >say that corporate MIS entities are all over this, and when they track it back >to the originator... well, it won't be pretty. It was a rather deft little >trick this person played, but not well hidden. Needless to say, this person >may face a lawsuit, or at the very least, some serious flaming. At this point >the person will remain un-named in order for this person to step forward and >apologize. I thank you all for your time. Pardon me if I'm a wee bit skeptical. Most of the people you've been arguing with have impressed me over the year plus that Jyhad has been out as some of the more civilized net.people I've had the privilege of encountering. Plus, there has been a notable lack of venom in the card limit argument. If everyone's being polite in a newsgroup, why would someone go straight to dirty net.tricks, skipping the flaming? I'd put money on this being as empty as your mystery arguments. "Well, I know the True Answer, but, I'm not telling anyone!". > Let the debates continue.... heh. Such as it is. It's well and good to have different opinons. That's what makes the world go round. People like what they like. But to dignify some of the arguments presented with the name "debate" is stretching it. In a debate, if I remember my high school letter "sport" correctly (so sue me, I was a geek at a geeky school :), both sides present their case as to why they're right, then rebut the other side's arguments. There has been no rebuttal in the 4CL side of this "debate". -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

As a net newbie, I need a definition of Spamming, please. Chick_Lewis

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6tpp$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #Someone on this newsgroup has been doing some serious spamming. Let's just say #that corporate MIS entities are all over this, and when they track it back to #the originator... well, it won't be pretty. It was a rather deft little trick #this person played, but not well hidden. Needless to say, this person may face #a lawsuit, or at the very least, some serious flaming. At this point the #person #will remain un-named in order for this person to step forward and apologize. I #thank you all for your time. Let the debates continue.... The issue has been resolved all. Thanks for your patience. Please note that the so-called guilty party has stepped forward and apologized. Now back to our regular newsgroup.... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4bc6qq$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6tpp$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com >(Greg Zuvich), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: >#Someone on this newsgroup has been doing some serious spamming. Let's just say >#that corporate MIS entities are all over this, and when they track it back to >#the originator... well, it won't be pretty. It was a rather deft little trick >#this person played, but not well hidden. Needless to say, this person may face >#a lawsuit, or at the very least, some serious flaming. At this point the >#person >#will remain un-named in order for this person to step forward and apologize. I >#thank you all for your time. Let the debates continue.... > >The issue has been resolved all. Thanks for your patience. Please note that the >so-called guilty party has stepped forward and apologized. Now back to our regular >newsgroup.... Does anyone besides Greg know WTH he's talking about? What spam? What guilt? What lawsuit? What party? Why weren't the rest of us invited? :-) -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Hi Scott, On 21 Dec 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > In article <4bc6qq$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, > Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: > >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6tpp$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com > >(Greg Zuvich), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: > >#Someone on this newsgroup has been doing some serious spamming. Let's just say > >#that corporate MIS entities are all over this, and when they track it back to > >#the originator... well, it won't be pretty. It was a rather deft little trick More stuff deleted > >The issue has been resolved all. Thanks for your patience. Please note that the > >so-called guilty party has stepped forward and apologized. Now back to our regular > >newsgroup.... > > Does anyone besides Greg know WTH he's talking about? > > What spam? > What guilt? > What lawsuit? > What party? > Why weren't the rest of us invited? :-) > -- Maybe we are all in the Kill File? Algustas *****We should face reality and our past mistakes in an honest, adult way. Boasting of glory does not make glory, and singing in the dark does not dispel fear.***** Hussein, King of Jordan, 1967

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bcehn$a...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #In article <4bc6qq$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, #Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: #>Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6tpp$6...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com #>(Greg Zuvich), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #>#Someone on this newsgroup has been doing some serious spamming. Let's just #say #>#that corporate MIS entities are all over this, and when they track it back to #>#the originator... well, it won't be pretty. It was a rather deft little #trick #>#this person played, but not well hidden. Needless to say, this person may #face #>#a lawsuit, or at the very least, some serious flaming. At this point the #>#person #>#will remain un-named in order for this person to step forward and apologize. #I #>#thank you all for your time. Let the debates continue.... #> #>The issue has been resolved all. Thanks for your patience. Please note that #the #>so-called guilty party has stepped forward and apologized. Now back to our #regular #>newsgroup.... # #Does anyone besides Greg know WTH he's talking about? # #What spam? #What guilt? #What lawsuit? #What party? #Why weren't the rest of us invited? :-) In response to Mr. Johnson all I can say is that you are more than welcome to the party, however the big corporate entities might have to send men in nice suits to get rid of you. Someone out there was playing a lovely little game with some of the newgroups, one of which was this one. Attaching some deceptive, err.... let's call them "riders" to posts that people have made. Needless to say the corp. entity beings were not pleased. It was mostly just an annoyance to MIS depts. all over, but it was still vicious enough that it could have really bothered the less, err... "protected". It was rather much of a prank and was easily traced, but in the end no harm was done. As for what the hell I am talking about... I could tell ya, but then... well, I just won't tell you. Sorry to add more spam kids! enjoy! [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bcehn$a...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson), >the great and noble sovereign, articulated: >#Does anyone besides Greg know WTH he's talking about? ># >#What spam? >#What guilt? >#What lawsuit? >#What party? >#Why weren't the rest of us invited? :-) I've been wondering the same things myself. >In response to Mr. Johnson all I can say is that you are more than welcome to >the party, Could you please begin at the beginning? What the hell IS "the party"? Does it serve beer? Are there recreational drugs involved? Or is it simply a vague reference with which to mystify newcomers and old hands alike? >however the big corporate entities might have to send men in nice suits to >get rid of you. Oooh! Sounds dangerous. Maybe you meant to post in r.g.t-c.misc where INWO is discussed. >Someone out there was playing a lovely little game with some of the >newgroups, one of which was this one. Attaching some deceptive, err.... >let's call them "riders" to posts that people have made. Needless to say the >corp. entity beings were not pleased. It was mostly just an annoyance to MIS >depts. all over, but it was still vicious enough that it could have really >bothered the less, err... "protected". It was rather much of a prank and was >easily traced, but in the end no harm was done. As for what the hell I am >talking about... I could tell ya, but then... ...we'd get an idea and someone else might try it, too. All right, fair enough. (By the way, you don't have to be so disgustingly coy about saying what you mean. We're mostly adults, here, you know.) But this has nothing to do with the commonly understood definition of "spamming". Spamming, by most definitions I've heard, involves reposting the same article over and over in a large number of newsgroups, often for commercial gain. It is disruptive and obviously violates newsgroup topicality netiquette. If the prank to which you refer involved any true spamming, you didn't seem to indicate that. That's why some of us are a bit confused by all this. >well, I just won't tell you. Sorry to add more spam kids! enjoy! I hope you didn't add any more "spam". Such posts are usually auto-canceled. Yours was posted only to r.g.t-c.jyhad. Fred

In article <4b9u2g$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: > In a >debate, if I remember my high school letter "sport" correctly (so sue me, I >was >a geek at a geeky school :), both sides present their case as to why they're >right, then rebut the other side's arguments. There has been no rebuttal in >the 4CL side of this "debate". While I wouldn't call this a "debate", since it's not a contest, I'm interested in knowing what the 4CL side needs to "rebut"? Just out of curiosity . . .

NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >While I wouldn't call this a "debate", since it's not a contest, I'm >interested in knowing what the 4CL side needs to "rebut"? Just out of >curiosity . . . Umm... thinking... (this was a couple weeks ago, all the posts are long expired..) ah! ok, data retrieved from long term memory :) In the previous debate, the arguments ran as such : NL: if you fix vote pushing and repeat actions on untaps, there are no "degenerate" decks that are unstoppable. The game is self-balancing. under 4CL, it pays to have a lot of cards, so that you can use 4 of each similar common plus 4 of each similar rare to make a focused deck. under 4CL, the number of different +stealth and +bleed cards available means that a focused Malk S&B is quite possible, while such a deck's natural enemy (a rush combat deck) cannot be made (along with most other deck styles). 4CL: for really new players, it's hard to get more than 4 of a needed common anyway, so a 4CL tries to balance the field between new and experienced players. At least, these are the arguments on both sides that I never saw satisfactorily rebutted. The two arguments against 4CL's remaining point have two weak counters : The needed commons can be easily traded for from the experienced players or bought bulk for a few cents per card; even under 4CL, the experienced players have the advantage of having 4 of the similar rares to back up his 4 commons. I haven't seen a good counter to the NL arguments. The 4CL proponents invariably fall back on "well, we like it" rather than addressing the points. Which is fine. It is, after all, a game to be played such that you like it and have fun, but it is not a satisfactory debate on the topic, as was claimed by the person I followed up to. [ quoted text not captured ]

Okay, one last 4cl argument that I haven't really seen addressed: in 4cl the fifth through fortieth extra cards aren't all that useful, and I've seen them given away to new players to give them a better starting chance. I've done this myself, because I think it's in my best interests to have as many people playing Jyhad as possible; I don't think I would have too much of an impetus to do this under no limits. It may have been Curt Adams who wrote that and ideal number of WWEF can be obtained by opening only *two* booster starter boxes (pardon me if it isn't). This seems to be a prohibitive entrance fee to get a sufficient amount of *commons*, of all things... TJH

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >OK, let me take a mild stab at it . . . >I'm not sure the "one-vote-per Meth" "fix" on vote pushing works. Suppose >my vote deck gets behind in votes because someone else's Justicar comes >out before I get any voting vamps. If I'm limited to one vote per PA, >doesn't that rather hurt my Political deck? Calling a vote is a 1-stealth Use Bewitching Orations, or even Charming Lobby. Besides, votes aren't supposed to be sure things - they're supposed to promote table-wide deals and discussions and broken promises. If you can guarantee every vote will pass, that becomes more boring than S&B. >action, easily blocked. All the vote cards in the world won't help you in >the ensuing combat. If NL needs this "fix", it seems pretty unstable . . >. ditto for repeat actions. CL fixes both these problems. >I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". Hardly a It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. >definitive counterargument . . . I'll try building a Rush deck for my next >game, and then post the results. Still, it seems like there are plenty of >force-a-combat cards to deal with a S&B if you're not the prey. If you >are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the others >to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been >cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that overly-powerful decks are a good thing. Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case under 4cl. >To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to >playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. Malk S&B are not hindered at all under 4cl: ----- From: curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: Card Restrictions Date: 7 Jun 1995 22:24:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3r5n1o$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Sneak Cards: 4 Cloak the Gathering 4 Faceless Night 4 Lost in Crowds 4 Mask of 1000 Faces 4 Seduction 4 Spying Mission 4 Psychic Veil Bleed Cards 4 Bonding 4 Conditioning 4 Deflection 4 Computer Hacking 4 Govern the Unaligned 4 Kine Dominance 4 Threats 1 Pulse of the Canaille 4 Guns, 11 Masters 80 Cards total. Now, assuming each Veil gets used for 1 bleed and the Pulse gets used twice, he can get 58 points of bleed at a total of +36 Stealth, with 4 Seductions for that extra boost and 4 Deflections for some delightful little surprises. *Such* a hardship. (Of course, if he hasn't got $$$, he probably doesn't have 4 PV and 4 KD, but hey, why should we let people without $$$ have a shot at the big leagues by allowing them to use extras of the roughly equivalent Lost in Crowds plus Govern the Unaligned?) Mr. Malk can still easily clear the table, but at least you have the consolation of knowing that due to card limits, his deck has become completely, utterly predictable, with no options left for variety within the context of stealthy bleeds. ----- > I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need >empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are true. >Looking forward to hearing more about this . . . -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <4cr7dd$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >NL: > if you fix vote pushing and repeat actions on untaps, there are no > "degenerate" decks that are unstoppable. The game is self-balancing. > > under 4CL, it pays to have a lot of cards, so that you can use 4 of > each similar common plus 4 of each similar rare to make a focused deck. > > under 4CL, the number of different +stealth and +bleed cards available means > that a focused Malk S&B is quite possible, while such a deck's natural enemy > (a rush combat deck) cannot be made (along with most other deck styles). > > OK, let me take a mild stab at it . . . I'm not sure the "one-vote-per Meth" "fix" on vote pushing works. Suppose my vote deck gets behind in votes because someone else's Justicar comes out before I get any voting vamps. If I'm limited to one vote per PA, doesn't that rather hurt my Political deck? Calling a vote is a 1-stealth action, easily blocked. All the vote cards in the world won't help you in the ensuing combat. If NL needs this "fix", it seems pretty unstable . . . ditto for repeat actions. CL fixes both these problems. I've never agreed with the concept that more cards are needed under CL. Most of the "similar effect" cards are commons/uncommons anyway. Other than Kine Dominance, I can't think of a rare that I regularly include in my decks at the limit (plus, I only have 3 KD). I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". Hardly a definitive counterargument . . . I'll try building a Rush deck for my next game, and then post the results. Still, it seems like there are plenty of force-a-combat cards to deal with a S&B if you're not the prey. If you are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the others to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >I'm not sure the "one-vote-per Meth" "fix" on vote pushing works. Suppose >my vote deck gets behind in votes because someone else's Justicar comes >out before I get any voting vamps. If I'm limited to one vote per PA, >doesn't that rather hurt my Political deck? No, not really. It just means that you can't use a handful of PA cards for your votes. You'll have to use those nice presence based plus vote cards, for instance. Without a limit of one PA per meth, there's simply no reason to ever use cards like Bewitching Oration. Or, for that matter, any of the other more convoluted cards that deal with voting/politics. Simply put PA cards in the deck instead, they're always worth a free vote, and you can always use them as an action, too! >Calling a vote is a 1-stealth action, easily blocked. All the vote cards in >the world won't help you in the ensuing combat. Quite true, but irrelevant to the question. When getting intercepted, it doesn't matter if you've got 8 million votes or one. >If NL needs this "fix", it seems pretty unstable . . Huh? Even under 4CL, vote pushing is king. Just put four of every PA in your deck. One's as good as another when it comes to getting more votes to pass something. > ditto for repeat actions. CL fixes both these problems. Yes. Note what I said : "if you add the following two fixes ... degenerate decks don't really work under NL". I simply feel that 4CL is like fixing a short circuit by smashing the circuitboard with a mallet. "Look ma, no more short!!" I'd much rather fix the specific problem (repeat actions) than change the way the whole game works. >I've never agreed with the concept that more cards are needed under CL. >Most of the "similar effect" cards are commons/uncommons anyway. Other >than Kine Dominance, I can't think of a rare that I regularly include in >my decks at the limit (plus, I only have 3 KD). Fists of Death. Flesh of Marble. Psychic Veil. And that's just off the top of my head. I've never seen a DS card, so I don't know if they've done the MtG thing of adding more similar cards, but it could be even worse. BTW, it's looking like a fix for Thoughts Betrayed should join the above two fixes. However, I've never even seen the card, so can't comment on that :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >In a fit of insanity <4cr7dd$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.i >ndiana.edu (Alec Habig), cried forth: >#I haven't seen a good counter to the NL arguments. The 4CL proponents >#invariably fall back on "well, we like it" rather than addressing the points. >#Which is fine. It is, after all, a game to be played such that you like it and >#have fun, but it is not a satisfactory debate on the topic, as was claimed by >#the person I followed up to. > >The NL camp did the same. The arguments here were "well, I like it. your >idea is poopy." Except for the posts on web pages about NL, there wasn't a >whole lot added to that side of the argument as posted here. Huh? In the very post you just followed up to, I listed 3 good reasons for NL vs one for 4CL. No preferences, just statements about the way things worked. >I am still working on that paper I promised on the benefits of 4CL. We have >been very busy here at work, and I have had *zero* time to putz around here. >I will finish it at some point and I will post it. Great, I look forward to seeing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: > It may have been Curt Adams who wrote that and ideal number of WWEF >can be obtained by opening only *two* booster starter boxes (pardon me >if it isn't). This seems to be a prohibitive entrance fee to get a >sufficient amount of *commons*, of all things... Yes, it is. But that is because WwEF is a broken card (or, more precisely, a card that breaks the game by circumventing the resource allocation scheme [CSA]). Fix WwEF, and you won't find that you "need" 10 in every deck. Even under the as-written WwEF, I've won three of my last four games with no WwEF in my decks (One deck had no untaps whatsoever) - but these decks were heavy on resource management to compensate. [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >I'm not sure the "one-vote-per Meth" "fix" on vote pushing works. Suppose >my vote deck gets behind in votes because someone else's Justicar comes >out before I get any voting vamps. If I'm limited to one vote per PA, >doesn't that rather hurt my Political deck? Calling a vote is a 1-stealth >action, easily blocked. All the vote cards in the world won't help you in >the ensuing combat. If NL needs this "fix", it seems pretty unstable . . >. ditto for repeat actions. CL fixes both these problems. Peace be with you, CL doesn't prevent degenerate wienie vote deck, it just makes them more expensive. So, you can only include four KRC, four CA, four Sabbat Threat, four Paradigm Shift. Just throw in any other vote that can do damage, like Domain Chalenge (sp) or Autarkis Persecusion (I may have that backwards). Suppliment your deck with plenty of Praxi and you'll be able to pass every vote that you want. This is terribly boring. One of the local players didn't like the idea of one vote each, but he quickly adapted by adding Ventrue HQ, a couple of Justicar votes, and a couple of Princes in his crypt. Being limited to 1 vote/PA does "limit" purely political decks, but not cripple them like 4CL does to rush combat. One of the advantages of 4CL is supposed to be enforced diversity, i.e.: you can only have a few of the cards you really want so are forced to broaden you deck to make it effective (see all the posted attempts at a Cel/Pot rush combat deck). CL does not fix the problem of degenerate all-vote decks. >I've never agreed with the concept that more cards are needed under CL. >Most of the "similar effect" cards are commons/uncommons anyway. Other >than Kine Dominance, I can't think of a rare that I regularly include in >my decks at the limit (plus, I only have 3 KD). Except that there is no duplicate for BR (HU requires a Master phase and can be SRd). >I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". Hardly a Oooh! I'm famous! 8^) >definitive counterargument . . . I'll try building a Rush deck for my next >game, and then post the results. Still, it seems like there are plenty of >force-a-combat cards to deal with a S&B if you're not the prey. If you >are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the others >to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been >cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. No. I requested that someone post a 4CL CEL/POT rush combat deck and I got a gun/vote/rush deck. 4CL does prohibit some strategies; that was my original point and I stand by it. "[T]here are plenty of force-a-combat cards to deal with S&B" - Other than BR & HU, what else can I use (Archon will not pass, btw). Crying to my opponents for help is a minus, see R. Garfield's spiel on it in the Jyhad guide. >To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to >playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. > I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need >empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are true. I'm looking forward to seeing one also. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In a fit of insanity <4cr7dd$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.i ndiana.edu (Alec Habig), cried forth: #NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: #>While I wouldn't call this a "debate", since it's not a contest, I'm #>interested in knowing what the 4CL side needs to "rebut"? Just out of #>curiosity . . . <snip> #I haven't seen a good counter to the NL arguments. The 4CL proponents #invariably fall back on "well, we like it" rather than addressing the points. #Which is fine. It is, after all, a game to be played such that you like it and #have fun, but it is not a satisfactory debate on the topic, as was claimed by #the person I followed up to. The NL camp did the same. The arguments here were "well, I like it. your idea is poopy." Except for the posts on web pages about NL, there wasn't a whole lot added to that side of the argument as posted here. I am still working on that paper I promised on the benefits of 4CL. We have been very busy here at work, and I have had *zero* time to putz around here. I will finish it at some point and I will post it. -- <<END TRANSMISSION>> ...Zzz-z-z-kkk........

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL > proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". Hardly a > definitive counterargument . . . I'll try building a Rush deck for my next > game, and then post the results. Still, it seems like there are plenty of > force-a-combat cards to deal with a S&B if you're not the prey. If you > are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the others > to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been > cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. > > To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to > playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. > I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need > empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are true. > > Looking forward to hearing more about this . . . You know, I play with no limits but don't care if various people want to play with 4CL, as long as I don't have to play that way. I don't see why you would want to use 4CL in a game that wasn't designed with them in mind and works well without them (with some minor rule changes). Nonetheless, I don't want to get in the middle of the 4CL vs. no limits debate. However, I am very tired of a debate where neither side really pays attention to what the other side says. Very little useful information is generated this way. The classic example of this lack of communication is the Brujah Rush thing. The NL camp never said you couldn't make a 4CL Brujah Rush deck. What they _did_ say was that you couldn't make a 4CL Brujah Cel/Pot deck, i.e. there was a deck type available under NL that was impossible under 4CL. Now a Brujah Cel/Pot deck is different from a Brujah Rush deck based on guns in several important ways. I'm not saying which is better, but the advantages of the Cel/Pot deck are: The Cel/Pot vampire is ready immediately to Rush; no equipping actions are necessary. The Cel/Pot vampire is not vulnerable to Canine Horde, Fast Hands, Blood Rage/Fury nor Peace Treaty. The Cel/Pot vamp is ready to fight without expending pool on weapons. Now, the gun deck has other advantages, such as being able to fight under Thoughts Betrayed, but that isn't the point. The _point_ is that the Brujah Cel/Pot deck is unavailable under 4CL. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <4culcl$r...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >No, not really. It just means that you can't use a handful of PA cards for >your votes. You'll have to use those nice presence based plus vote cards, >for >instance. Without a limit of one PA per meth, there's simply no reason to >ever >use cards like Bewitching Oration. Or, for that matter, any of the other >more >convoluted cards that deal with voting/politics. Simply put PA cards in the >deck instead, they're always worth a free vote, and you can always use them >as an action, too! > Simply disagree with the above. The Pre-based voting cards and Cryptic Rider, etc. have their places in any voting deck; especially under CL. Extra PA's don't get replaced during the vote (Pre-based cards do), and they only count for 1 each. >>Calling a vote is a 1-stealth action, easily blocked. All the vote cards in >>the world won't help you in the ensuing combat. > >Quite true, but irrelevant to the question. When getting intercepted, it >doesn't matter if you've got 8 million votes or one. > Hardly irrelevant. I was responding to the idea that voting needed an outside-the-rules "fix" limiting each Meth to 1 PA per vote. Meths that load up on PA at the expense of combat/defense cards make themselves vulnerable to other Meths with enough intercept to block their voting actions. To my mind, that's the non-voting deck's main counter to the vote deck. >>If NL needs this "fix", it seems pretty unstable . . > >Huh? Even under 4CL, vote pushing is king. Just put four of every PA in >your >deck. One's as good as another when it comes to getting more votes to pass >something. > See above. >> ditto for repeat actions. CL fixes both these problems. > >Yes. Note what I said : "if you add the following two fixes ... degenerate >decks don't really work under NL". I simply feel that 4CL is like fixing a >short circuit by smashing the circuitboard with a mallet. "Look ma, no more >short!!" I'd much rather fix the specific problem (repeat actions) than >change >the way the whole game works. OK, but this doesn't address CL's benefits to players short of cards (players with fewer cards in my group understandably balked when I suggested going to a NL environment), or the increased predictability (and therefore, to me, decreased interest) in NL decks. This issue is a matter of taste, not arguable. > >>I've never agreed with the concept that more cards are needed under CL. >>Most of the "similar effect" cards are commons/uncommons anyway. Other >>than Kine Dominance, I can't think of a rare that I regularly include in >>my decks at the limit (plus, I only have 3 KD). > >Fists of Death. Flesh of Marble. Psychic Veil. And that's just off the top >of my head. I've never seen a DS card, so I don't know if they've done the >MtG thing of adding more similar cards, but it could be even worse. FoD is an expensive way to get more hand damage. FoM's OK, but not so much better than a dodge/additional strike, and needs Pro. Much as I want to, I haven;t been able to use Psychic Veil as well as I thought . . . at best, it's worth a couple of normal +1 stealth cards . . . > >BTW, it's looking like a fix for Thoughts Betrayed should join the above two >fixes. However, I've never even seen the card, so can't comment on that :) See, this is the problem with NL. As long as WotC does insufficient playtesting, each expansion will contain cards that have unexpected results in NL. In CL, the cards won't be so much of a problem. I'd rather see an overall CL introduced than a bunch of unconnected, cobbled-together rules designed to fix specific cards/actions, or even limits on certain cards but not others. To me, the current tournament rules for deck construction are unacceptable, targeting one type of deck without addressing any other.

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >Okay, one last 4cl argument that I haven't really seen addressed: in 4cl >the fifth through fortieth extra cards aren't all that useful, and I've >seen them given away to new players to give them a better starting >chance. I've done this myself, because I think it's in my best >interests to have as many people playing Jyhad as possible; I don't >think I would have too much of an impetus to do this under no limits. Peace T.J., Well, locally, we've given or offered to give various commons & some uncommons to new players. I feel this has to do more with generosity (sp) than having enough cards. You see a similar effect in Mt$. Since any cards above four are "useless", some players (the generous ones) give their dupes away. Some other players won't give land away. > It may have been Curt Adams who wrote that and ideal number of WWEF >can be obtained by opening only *two* booster starter boxes (pardon me >if it isn't). This seems to be a prohibitive entrance fee to get a >sufficient amount of *commons*, of all things... Well, I personally disagree with Curt on the "ideal" number of WWEFs. I have decks with four or less wakes in them (my Gangel deck has zero, I believe). There will always be certain cards which are more desir- able than others. It is part of the nature of the beast. At $20-30 per box of boosters, I don't think that getting enough cards to be able to get/trade for "enough" WWEFs is all that expensive (one box should provide enough trade fodder to get what you want). [ quoted text not captured ]

(the infamous 4cl Malk deck!) > Sneak Cards: > 4 Cloak the Gathering > 4 Faceless Night > 4 Lost in Crowds > 4 Mask of 1000 Faces > 4 Seduction > 4 Spying Mission > 4 Psychic Veil > > Bleed Cards > 4 Bonding > 4 Conditioning > 4 Deflection > 4 Computer Hacking > 4 Govern the Unaligned > 4 Kine Dominance > 4 Threats > 1 Pulse of the Canaille Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution to this. Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, and three are unique: but these are surmountable. Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic Projection. Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept.

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>Use Bewitching Orations, or even Charming Lobby. Besides, votes aren't >>supposed to be sure things - they're supposed to promote table-wide >>deals and discussions and broken promises. If you can guarantee every >>vote will pass, that becomes more boring than S&B. > >Naturally votes aren't suposed to be sure things, but if you're building a >vote deck, you're emphasizing that aspect of the game, hoping to be >successful at it, at the expense of others. This is the whole idea of >deck building, I thought. And you can still block the vote-caller with >only 1 intercept (haven't heard anything about that yet). Peace be with you, Adding in BOs does emphasize voting. As far as being blocked, use Volfchek or Obfuscate. >>>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >>>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". >> >>It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable >>Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. > >This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B >under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or >"Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? Those extra actions you have to take to make the deck work can easily be the difference between life & death. Stopping to equip or vote while your pred is doing 4-6/bleed costs you minion actions that could better be spent pounding your pred's minions. Plus, all those votes/equip dilute your deck making your combats less effective when you get into them. >>>If you are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the >others >>>to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been >>>cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. >> >>That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that >>overly-powerful decks are a good thing. > >Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and >broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? Yes, according to Garfield. >>Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case >>under 4cl. > >I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be >a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not >viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL >that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a >subset of NL" argument, I know that). Can you give me some examples of decks which are viable under CL which are not viable under NL? >>>To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to >>>playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under >4CL. >> >>Malk S&B are not hindered at all under 4cl: >> (another posting of the 4CL Malk S&B deck, and its analysis) > >Understood. The multiplicity of different stealth cards let any Obf-user >(I happen to be playing Nosferatu right now, same idea, better in combat) >do his thing under CL and hinder other deck ideas. That's been granted. >Let's move past restating this and get on to the next step. I'd love to >see the NL Rush Combat deck posted, so I can start with that and adjust >for CL. Ok, we agree. Certain card effects: bleed mod, stealth, intercept, etc. are "duplicated" enough so that strategies based on those effects can remain effective under CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Jan 1996, T.J. Hull wrote: > Okay, one last 4cl argument that I haven't really seen addressed: in 4cl > the fifth through fortieth extra cards aren't all that useful, and I've > seen them given away to new players to give them a better starting > chance. I've done this myself, because I think it's in my best > interests to have as many people playing Jyhad as possible; I don't > think I would have too much of an impetus to do this under no limits. I don't give away any card in Jyhad. I simply can't afford to. CL or no, once you start supporting 10 decks, it is impossible to keep a mint set, keep up the decks, and have the available stock to make more. To keep people interested in playing, I first let them play some of my decks (so they can see what a developed deck can do, even if they can't play it like its creator), I let them borrow cards, and I trade with them. The wonderful thing about Jyhad is that I know I can trade them those 15 commons/uncommons they need to make a deck, because that one rare I get from them can easily be traded for fifteen that I need. > It may have been Curt Adams who wrote that and ideal number of WWEF > can be obtained by opening only *two* booster starter boxes (pardon me > if it isn't). This seems to be a prohibitive entrance fee to get a > sufficient amount of *commons*, of all things... Trading for commmons is easy. Even when trading with someone like me (who will _not_ give cards away, and _always_ takes handouts when it comes to cards), you will likely get the bulk commons/uncommons, because they are easy to trade for. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

On 9 Jan 1996, Greg Zuvich wrote: > In a fit of insanity <4cr7dd$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.i > ndiana.edu (Alec Habig), cried forth: > #NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: > #>While I wouldn't call this a "debate", since it's not a contest, I'm > #>interested in knowing what the 4CL side needs to "rebut"? Just out of > #>curiosity . . . > > <snip> > > #I haven't seen a good counter to the NL arguments. The 4CL proponents > #invariably fall back on "well, we like it" rather than addressing the points. > #Which is fine. It is, after all, a game to be played such that you like it and > #have fun, but it is not a satisfactory debate on the topic, as was claimed by > #the person I followed up to. > > The NL camp did the same. The arguments here were "well, I like it. your idea > is poopy." Except for the posts on web pages about NL, there wasn't a whole lot > added to that side of the argument as posted here. Really. I'm sorry you felt my 17 posts on the subject, in five days were all a lot of nya-nya-ing. My points were made: No answer to Malks, need for expensive rares, not in the design of the game, why _4_Cl, and a number of others. > I am still working on that paper I promised on the benefits of 4CL. We have been > very busy here at work, and I have had *zero* time to putz around here. I will > finish it at some point and I will post it. Looking forward to seeing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Jan 1996, T.J. Hull wrote: > (the infamous 4cl Malk deck!) [Cut!!] > > Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution > to this. > > Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. How many of each are you going to have in your deck? And how are they going to reliably come up? Assuming four of each (too maximize chances) there is a roughly 85% chance that you will not get all four in the first 15 cards of a 60 card deck. > Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is > required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of > each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and > take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, > and three are unique: but these are surmountable. > > Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic > Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic > Projection. > > Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 > stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 > intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. > > There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika > with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of > stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. Unfortunately, S&B is ready to go from the get go. Auspex needs to build. By the time you could get out Masika with a flamethrower (15 pool!) and any of your permanent intercept, you should be dead. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorry about replying to my own post; my server is acting up. Anyway: what happens if you don't catch that Malkavian? 1. Major Boon. You should Major Boon your Malkavian predator at the earliest oppurtunity. Malkavians have great difficulty keeping blood in their pool without killing their prey; the threat of taking a six+ point bleed themselves is usually enough to kepp them bleeding you at three or so for a while, making it easier to catch them (since they're jamming their own hand). Their alternative of biting the bullet and taking one huge bleed isn't so terrible either. 2. Telepathic Misdirection; some Toreador can also use Deflection. 3. Telepathic Counter (Î often don't include this). A note about "exercising" the Malkavian's deck; if one is playing an intercept combat deck, your deck gets equally exercised. If you run out of intercept, you have a perfectly good combat deck; if they run out of stealth, their vampires simply beg to be killed. Generally, if you want to go though your deck use KRCG, etc. last. Finally, a crypt: Franciscus Dieter Kleist Brazil Colin Flynn Zoe Dorian Strack Felicia Nostrum x2 Kallista, Master Sculptor Masika x3 More Zoes might be good. Thanks - TJH

On 9 Jan 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > Yes, it is. But that is because WwEF is a broken card (or, more > precisely, a card that breaks the game by circumventing the > resource allocation scheme [CSA]). Fix WwEF, and you won't find > that you "need" 10 in every deck. I agree that WWEF is a "broken" card. (For those of you who haven't read the cited article above (CSA), basicly WWEF is the only card that can be "tossed" whenever it isn't wanted. Toss it during your grandprey's turn. Toss it as your predator does her last action. It never really "holds off" other card resources.) What can be done to fix it? I suggest not being able to redraw until the end of your next discard phase. But I digress. Most decks and players I've talked to feel WWEF is excellent. One even goes so far as to include 4 for every deck. How does one get around _not_ using it? Many of mine do not, but they are typically animalism decks or supply other untappers. > Even under the as-written WwEF, I've won three of my last four games > with no WwEF in my decks (One deck had no untaps whatsoever) - but > these decks were heavy on resource management to compensate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What do you mean by that? Thanks! [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >In article <4culcl$r...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, >aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >>No, not really. It just means that you can't use a handful of PA cards >for >>your votes. You'll have to use those nice presence based plus vote >cards, >>for >>instance. Without a limit of one PA per meth, there's simply no reason >to >>ever >>use cards like Bewitching Oration. Or, for that matter, any of the other >>more >>convoluted cards that deal with voting/politics. Simply put PA cards in >the >>deck instead, they're always worth a free vote, and you can always use >them >>as an action, too! >> >Simply disagree with the above. The Pre-based voting cards and Cryptic >Rider, etc. have their places in any voting deck; especially under CL. >Extra PA's don't get replaced during the vote (Pre-based cards do), and >they only count for 1 each. No cards get replaced during a Political Action except for the PA played to call the vote. None. >See, this is the problem with NL. As long as WotC does insufficient >playtesting, each expansion will contain cards that have unexpected So, this is actually a problem with playtesting. With Appropriate house rules (no vote push, no repeat action, TB only lasting one round, etc.), then NL is good. 4CL will restrict the spoiler cards, but has the miserable side effect of restricting good, balanced cards as well. >results in NL. In CL, the cards won't be so much of a problem. I'd >rather see an overall CL introduced than a bunch of unconnected, >cobbled-together rules designed to fix specific cards/actions, or even 4CL over good playtesting, eh? >limits on certain cards but not others. To me, the current tournament >rules for deck construction are unacceptable, targeting one type of deck >without addressing any other. Agreed wholeheartedly. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution > to this. > > Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. >********* You left out Raven Spy********** > Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is > required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of > each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and > take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, > and three are unique: but these are surmountable. > > Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic > Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic > Projection. > > Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 > stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 > intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. > > There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika > with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of > stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. > > ****But You need to intercept all his actions. And he can hold off the heavy bleed mod for the action that gets thru. You also need to have the combat cards to really hurt him, or he will just do it again. While this is going on you also have to be trying to oust your prey. And you also left out the backways and Labryinth for Stealth. REF

In article <4d07hj$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >Simply disagree with the above. The Pre-based voting cards and Cryptic >Rider, etc. have their places in any voting deck; especially under CL. >Extra PA's don't get replaced during the vote (Pre-based cards do), and >they only count for 1 each. As has been pointed out before, no cards are replaced during a PA other than the original vote. >Hardly irrelevant. I was responding to the idea that voting needed an >outside-the-rules "fix" limiting each Meth to 1 PA per vote. Meths that >load up on PA at the expense of combat/defense cards make themselves >vulnerable to other Meths with enough intercept to block their voting >actions. To my mind, that's the non-voting deck's main counter to the >vote deck. Unfortunately, one can only block so many times. The main (to my mind, the only) source of degeneracy in political decks is weenie hordling. Unless you can reliably keep 4 minions untapped and 4 Wakes in your hand and sufficient intercept around, the weenie hordlings are just going to overrun. Burn all you want; there's more coming out. And vampires in torpor even count for Autarkis Persecution, at least according to card text. "Darn. You torpored 4 of my guys. Lessee, I'll call an Autarkis. That's 3 guys out of torpor, 7 in...I'll gain 10 pool. Hey, that was fun. Let's do it again. And during influence, I'll bring out a couple three more folks." A superior combat deck of a particular stripe can slow this deck down, but not stop it. >OK, but this doesn't address CL's benefits to players short of cards >(players with fewer cards in my group understandably balked when I >suggested going to a NL environment), or the increased predictability (and >therefore, to me, decreased interest) in NL decks. This issue is a matter >of taste, not arguable. de gustibum non disputandum est, and all that, surely. But I must take issue with your 'increased predictability' remark. Certainly, a given deck becomes more predictable (once you figure out what its trick is -- which is nontrivial in some cases), but NL increases the variety of deck *types*, which is (I believe) the argument of the NL camp. So, instead of the uncertainty of wondering if your trick will show up (because, under 4cl, you can't make it a sure thing), you have the uncertainty of wondering whether this partcular trick is going to work better than the rest of the tables' tricks. And, under NL, there are so *many* different approaches to the same goal that it's a variety all its own. >FoD is an expensive way to get more hand damage. FoM's OK, but not so >much better than a dodge/additional strike, and needs Pro. Much as I want >to, I haven;t been able to use Psychic Veil as well as I thought . . . at >best, it's worth a couple of normal +1 stealth cards . . . I think what Mr. Habig was trying to point out is that these cards, even though their effects are similar (or, in some cases, inferior) to certain commons, the fact that you can have 8 +hand damage cards in a deck as opposed to 4 (FoD + Undead Str vs. US alone), or 4 more stealth cards, or 4 more prevent damage cards, or whatever, gives the edge to folks with more rares, simply because a deck with 4 Fod & 4 US has better odds of increasing hand damage in a given combat than a deck with only 4 US. But if you can throw in 8 or 12 US, then the only advantage the guy with 4 or 6 FoD has is that he can stack them with US...and as you mentioned, it costs a blood. Better to pack more (free) US and just a couple three FoDs. The game becomes self-limiting. >See, this is the problem with NL. As long as WotC does insufficient >playtesting, each expansion will contain cards that have unexpected >results in NL. In CL, the cards won't be so much of a problem. Unfortunately (as has been pointed out by others), CL fixes the nail that sticks up by burning the whole damn lumber yard. It's downright Procrustean. >I'd >rather see an overall CL introduced than a bunch of unconnected, >cobbled-together rules designed to fix specific cards/actions, or even >limits on certain cards but not others. Oy. Definitely a matter of taste. I'd much rather have a balanced cardset, but failing that, I'm willing to swallow specific limits on some cards. >To me, the current tournament >rules for deck construction are unacceptable, targeting one type of deck >without addressing any other. Amen. No argument from me here. gomi ihnjh, ijls 'procrustean' -- i come from the water that weren't no easy thing it's more than nature it's like my destiny - the toadies

NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: [much CL/NCL discussion snipped]> >No, but there are vamps/allies that allow a D attack vs. a vampire (I >know, some of them are only against small vamps, but some aren't), plus HU >(in a multi-way, can be pretty nasty as the HU'er and all the players in >between get a crack at the exposed Malk before said Malk can cover up >again). A good Brujah combat deck should be able to torporize a Malk from an S&B deck in one combat 9 times out of 10. HU in this instance is just a deck doing contortions to try the accomodate arbitrary rules not designed into the system or card mix. > > gnfnrf

On 10 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: : In article <4cu3h8$8...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." : <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: : : >Peace be with you, : : Hope so . . . : : > (description of how to build an effective vote deck under CL/no vote : pushing) : >Being limited to 1 vote/PA does "limit" purely political decks, but not : cripple : >them like 4CL does to rush combat. One of the advantages of 4CL is : supposed : >to be enforced diversity, i.e.: you can only have a few of the cards you : >really want so are forced to broaden you deck to make it effective (see : all : >the posted attempts at a Cel/Pot rush combat deck). CL does not fix the : >problem of degenerate all-vote decks. : : The Ventrue's political clout can be stopped by a vamp on a Sport Bike : waiting between the vote caller and the meeting hall, but there hasn't : been any response to this concept yet (in 2 replies). Seems like this : would be a problem for a vote deck under NL/no multiple actions or any : version of CL. Are you saying that there is no answer to an interceptor next to a vote deck even under CL? I don't think you mean that... The intercepter doesn't matter in either the vote push or multiple actions CL environment. Call a vote. Get blocked or untap. Call again. Presto the vote passes due to vote push. CL does not stop this. Under NL without push or multiple actions, the same minion cannot untap to recall a vote. Weenie horded votes can still happen, but they need political muster behind them, not merely the original vote plus the political actions in hand. In short, the problem is contained. : >Except that there is no duplicate for BR (HU requires a Master phase and : >can be SRd). : : No, but there are vamps/allies that allow a D attack vs. a vampire (I : know, some of them are only against small vamps, but some aren't), plus HU : (in a multi-way, can be pretty nasty as the HU'er and all the players in : between get a crack at the exposed Malk before said Malk can cover up : again). Those vampires include a 10-Gangrel, a 9(?)-Nosferatu, and a 8(?)-Malkavian. Even if I am wrong on the numbers, they are large vampires. Whilst you are calling up a large vampire, you are getting torn to hell by S&B. You have two options, go for the big one right away (not really an option due to the free feeding farm you represent, and the fact that you might not yet know who your predator is), or get up a blocker or two. Thus, you lose roughly 3 to 8 pool getting out a blocker and spend 2 to 3 more turns getting out the apropriate vampire. Not too effective. The other option, of getting out vampires who can attack others leaves you with either the Gangrel for the Garou, or the Malks for the Muddled. Your options in deck building decrease. [Rush (no, not Limbaugh :) comments snipped] : No argument that CL prohibits some strategies, that's obvious. Seems like : the assertion you're making in opposition to CL is that the "natural : enemy" of one particular deck type is hopelessly crippled by CL. : Specifically, a force-combat deck is not effective enough under CL to : prevent S&B from being a stable strategy. Doesn't matter to me whether : that force-combat deck is "pure CEL/POT" or "Rush Combat" or whatever : terminology you wish to give it. The real question is, is there a deck : possible under CL, the existence of which is of sufficient threat to make : a player contemplating a semi-degenerate S&B deck to think twice? I say : maybe, you say no. I, too, have yet to see one. In your attempt to make one, these three points are a necesity: 1) It must be fast. Without speed, it can easily be made to meat. 2) It must be cheap. Not quite a corrolary on 1. W/o cheapness you are contributing to your own demise. 3) It only really needs the combat necessary to stop a non-combat deck. A pure S&B will usually not have the combat to face even marginal combat decks. 4) I know I said three, but this is an important point to _any_ deck. It must be robust. It is easy to make even a 4CL deck that can toast Malks, but that's all it can toast. :>>[T]here are plenty of force-a-combat >cards to deal with S&B : : >Other than BR & HU, what else can I use (Archon will not pass, btw). : : Use the vamp-attacking vamps and allies cited above. And why can't you : get Archon to pass? Everyone at the table knows how dangerous the MS&B is Putting it on myself, if my deck show's evidence in being a combat monster, will not make political decks happy. No one wants a combat deck being able to directly attack whenever it has the card's it wants. : ... put Archon on someone else's vamp, especially the prey's, if that's : not you. Or cajole the others into letting you have it; promise you'll : only use it against those degenerate Malks, etc. This leads to your next : statement: See the above. In addition, as soon as the Archon has removed enough Malks for them to cease being a menace, I would have it go after hostile voters, to keep them from removing the title. : >Crying to my opponents for help is a minus, see : >R. Garfield's spiel on it in the Jyhad guide. : : DIdn't see it. Can you give me a summary in your (inevitable . . . good : natured kidding here!) response? : : >>To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to : >>playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under : 4CL. : >> I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need : >>empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are : true. : > : >I'm looking forward to seeing one also. : : You can help! Post the CEL/POT deck, let me tinker with it to bring it : under CL. Then I'll try it at then next local con and with my local : group. Thanks! Good luck. Please post your deck as it progresses so the whole lot of us can help. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: [Broken cards and their effect on game play] >>>BTW, it's looking like a fix for Thoughts Betrayed should join the above two fixes. However, I've never even seen the card, so can't comment on that :) >See, this is the problem with NL. As long as WotC does insufficient >playtesting, each expansion will contain cards that have unexpected >results in NL. In CL, the cards won't be so much of a problem. I'd >rather see an overall CL introduced than a bunch of unconnected, >cobbled-together rules designed to fix specific cards/actions, or even >limits on certain cards but not others. To me, the current tournament >rules for deck construction are unacceptable, targeting one type of deck >without addressing any other. Just as much of a problem as having more similar cards come out. What to do when more S:CE cards arrive or other "tappers" arrive in the 4CL environment. The ones that are integratable in Pro/Pre/For decks will make a virtually unbeatable "tap out" deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: >Yes, it is. But that is because WwEF is a broken card (or, more >precisely, a card that breaks the game by circumventing the >resource allocation scheme [CSA]). Fix WwEF, and you won't find >that you "need" 10 in every deck. > >Even under the as-written WwEF, I've won three of my last four games >with no WwEF in my decks (One deck had no untaps whatsoever) - but >these decks were heavy on resource management to compensate. Well, I'm not so sure the card is broken; I mostly wanted to include an example that had been used on the newsgroup. I quite often exclude them from my decks, but think the same argument holds for any common card under no limits. James pointed out that this argument was based mostly on generosity. I agree, but think that 4cl devalues the 5th card so much (apart from trading value, or convenience of having several decks made up at once) that this compels more people to give stuff away. Generosity is a relative thing, after all; most people *are* in the game because they like it and like the cards. I'd give up my fifth Smiling Jack readily, but would be unlikely to part with my fourth Indomitibility. The point was also made that since Jyhad booster boxes are cheap, the expenditure is not as much as it's cracked up to be. But what if the new player wants Vampire, or Dark Soverigns? Thanks, TJH

On 10 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <4ctng3$3...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. > Scott Johnson) writes: [Vote decks use of varied cards to pass votes] > Naturally votes aren't suposed to be sure things, but if you're building a > vote deck, you're emphasizing that aspect of the game, hoping to be > successful at it, at the expense of others. This is the whole idea of > deck building, I thought. And you can still block the vote-caller with > only 1 intercept (haven't heard anything about that yet). Yes, but under the cited problem deck we are looking at, who cares if you intercept one of the vampires. The one that gets through will be pushed to the teeth. > >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL > >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". > >It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable > >Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. > This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B > under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or > "Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? I'm not sure if I agree the deck above works, but even so, it does not fit the criteria. If I ask for a lemon turnover in a bakery, and get a lime turnover, it may be similar, but it's not what I'm asking for. If I had asked for a "sweet, but sour turnover" then it would have been appropriate. (Sorry for the awful analogy...) > >>If you are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the > others > >>to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been > >>cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. > >That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that > >overly-powerful decks are a good thing. > Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and > broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? The basic arguement here is that a table-wide deal should not be needed to deal with one particular strategy. Certainly deals are necessary in situations (during a vote, when that Gangrel combat monster starts looking like it can mop a disorganized table, etc) but not in generalities ("Uh-oh, a Malkavian sneak and bleed deck is on the table. We'd best stomp it now..."). This concedes the grandeur of Malk S&B outside a NL environment. > >Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case > under 4cl. > I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be > a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not > viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL > that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a > subset of NL" argument, I know that). > >>To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to > >>playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under > 4CL. > >Malk S&B are not hindered at all under 4cl: > > (another posting of the 4CL Malk S&B deck, and its analysis) > Understood. The multiplicity of different stealth cards let any Obf-user > (I happen to be playing Nosferatu right now, same idea, better in combat) > do his thing under CL and hinder other deck ideas. That's been granted. > Let's move past restating this and get on to the next step. I'd love to > see the NL Rush Combat deck posted, so I can start with that and adjust > for CL. But the problem with saying that Obf-users are able to do as they wish in a CL environment means that intercept decks are not equal to the stealth decks. This should not be the case. From a mechanics standpoint it shows imbalance. From a game world standpoint, it ignores the way its source Vampire the Masquerade operates. An imbalanced game that ignores its source material is not one I would call "good". [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >> (description of how to build an effective vote deck under CL/no vote >pushing) >>Being limited to 1 vote/PA does "limit" purely political decks, but not >cripple >>them like 4CL does to rush combat. One of the advantages of 4CL is >supposed >>to be enforced diversity, i.e.: you can only have a few of the cards you >>really want so are forced to broaden you deck to make it effective (see >all >>the posted attempts at a Cel/Pot rush combat deck). CL does not fix the >>problem of degenerate all-vote decks. > >The Ventrue's political clout can be stopped by a vamp on a Sport Bike >waiting between the vote caller and the meeting hall, but there hasn't >been any response to this concept yet (in 2 replies). Seems like this >would be a problem for a vote deck under NL/no multiple actions or any >version of CL. Peace be with you, Unless the Ventrue player sends Natasha Volfchek or some vamp with Obfuscate to call the vote. Just put some Malk/Nosf or Obf skill cards in your deck. >>Except that there is no duplicate for BR (HU requires a Master phase and >>can be SRd). > >No, but there are vamps/allies that allow a D attack vs. a vampire (I >know, some of them are only against small vamps, but some aren't), plus HU >(in a multi-way, can be pretty nasty as the HU'er and all the players in >between get a crack at the exposed Malk before said Malk can cover up >again). Off the top of my head, there are only five minions which have (D) to attack built in: Wynn, Roxanne, Ebanezer Roush, Renegade Garou, MVH. Of these, Wynn is a ten and has inferior Pot, Roxanne is a nine and has inferior Pot and is limited in whom she can attack, Ebanezer is an eight and has sup Pot and is limited in whom he can attack, RG cost five pool and requires Gangrel, MVH costs two and requires Malkavian. Ebanezer has potential (if I pay that much for a vamp, I'd better be getting sup of one of the disciplines which my deck is built on), but he is limited to attacking the smaller vamps. The two & three pointers aren't the ones I'm normally worried about BR'g. This leaves Wynn, who is too expensive (only inf Pot & NO cel) for my deck. Yes, HU can be nasty, but it can also by SR'd and you never seem to have enough Master phases. >>>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >>>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". >> >>Oooh! I'm famous! 8^) > >Can I have your autograph 8)? Sure, send me your address and I'll drop you one in the mail. >>I requested that someone post a 4CL CEL/POT rush combat deck and >>I got a gun/vote/rush deck. 4CL does prohibit some strategies; that was >>my original point and I stand by it. > >No argument that CL prohibits some strategies, that's obvious. Seems like >the assertion you're making in opposition to CL is that the "natural >enemy" of one particular deck type is hopelessly crippled by CL. >Specifically, a force-combat deck is not effective enough under CL to >prevent S&B from being a stable strategy. Doesn't matter to me whether >that force-combat deck is "pure CEL/POT" or "Rush Combat" or whatever >terminology you wish to give it. The real question is, is there a deck >possible under CL, the existence of which is of sufficient threat to make >a player contemplating a semi-degenerate S&B deck to think twice? I say >maybe, you say no. Well, at least we agree on something. >>>[T]here are plenty of force-a-combat >cards to deal with S&B > >>Other than BR & HU, what else can I use (Archon will not pass, btw). > >Use the vamp-attacking vamps and allies cited above. And why can't you >get Archon to pass? Everyone at the table knows how dangerous the MS&B is >. . . put Archon on someone else's vamp, especially the prey's, if that's >not you. Or cajole the others into letting you have it; promise you'll >only use it against those degenerate Malks, etc. This leads to your next >statement: Because Archon is a very powerful effect and other players are loath to let you have it, IME. Promises, IME, aren't worth the ATP they're spoken with. There can be only one, after all. >>Crying to my opponents for help is a minus, see >>R. Garfield's spiel on it in the Jyhad guide. > >DIdn't see it. Can you give me a summary in your (inevitable . . . good >natured kidding here!) response? The bottom line was that Garfield said he was trying to create a game mechanic which would eliminate the whining that players do when playing multiplayer games, e.g.: "He's winning! Get him!"; "I'm not a threat."; "Look at all the pool she has!"; "Joe's deck is too powerful!"; etc. >You can help! Post the CEL/POT deck, let me tinker with it to bring it >under CL. Then I'll try it at then next local con and with my local >group. Thanks! My Brujah rush combat deck is on the following page: http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ [Thanks, Mark.] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4cu3h8$8...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >Peace be with you, Hope so . . . > (description of how to build an effective vote deck under CL/no vote pushing) >Being limited to 1 vote/PA does "limit" purely political decks, but not cripple >them like 4CL does to rush combat. One of the advantages of 4CL is supposed >to be enforced diversity, i.e.: you can only have a few of the cards you >really want so are forced to broaden you deck to make it effective (see all >the posted attempts at a Cel/Pot rush combat deck). CL does not fix the >problem of degenerate all-vote decks. The Ventrue's political clout can be stopped by a vamp on a Sport Bike waiting between the vote caller and the meeting hall, but there hasn't been any response to this concept yet (in 2 replies). Seems like this would be a problem for a vote deck under NL/no multiple actions or any version of CL. >Except that there is no duplicate for BR (HU requires a Master phase and >can be SRd). No, but there are vamps/allies that allow a D attack vs. a vampire (I know, some of them are only against small vamps, but some aren't), plus HU (in a multi-way, can be pretty nasty as the HU'er and all the players in between get a crack at the exposed Malk before said Malk can cover up again). >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". > >Oooh! I'm famous! 8^) Can I have your autograph 8)? >I requested that someone post a 4CL CEL/POT rush combat deck and >I got a gun/vote/rush deck. 4CL does prohibit some strategies; that was my >original point and I stand by it. No argument that CL prohibits some strategies, that's obvious. Seems like the assertion you're making in opposition to CL is that the "natural enemy" of one particular deck type is hopelessly crippled by CL. Specifically, a force-combat deck is not effective enough under CL to prevent S&B from being a stable strategy. Doesn't matter to me whether that force-combat deck is "pure CEL/POT" or "Rush Combat" or whatever terminology you wish to give it. The real question is, is there a deck possible under CL, the existence of which is of sufficient threat to make a player contemplating a semi-degenerate S&B deck to think twice? I say maybe, you say no. >>[T]here are plenty of force-a-combat >cards to deal with S&B >Other than BR & HU, what else can I use (Archon will not pass, btw). Use the vamp-attacking vamps and allies cited above. And why can't you get Archon to pass? Everyone at the table knows how dangerous the MS&B is . . . put Archon on someone else's vamp, especially the prey's, if that's not you. Or cajole the others into letting you have it; promise you'll only use it against those degenerate Malks, etc. This leads to your next statement: >Crying to my opponents for help is a minus, see >R. Garfield's spiel on it in the Jyhad guide. DIdn't see it. Can you give me a summary in your (inevitable . . . good natured kidding here!) response? >>To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to >>playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. >> I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need >>empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are true. > >I'm looking forward to seeing one also. You can help! Post the CEL/POT deck, let me tinker with it to bring it [ quoted text not captured ]

NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: : >Use Bewitching Orations, or even Charming Lobby. Besides, votes aren't : >supposed to be sure things - they're supposed to promote table-wide : >deals and discussions and broken promises. If you can guarantee every : >vote will pass, that becomes more boring than S&B. : Naturally votes aren't suposed to be sure things, but if you're building a : vote deck, you're emphasizing that aspect of the game, hoping to be : successful at it, at the expense of others. This is the whole idea of : deck building, I thought. And you can still block the vote-caller with : only 1 intercept (haven't heard anything about that yet). The vote-caller can be blocked using only +1 intercept in _either_ CL or NL - it isn't really something that changes between games. It has been an observation (both of myself and of others on this group) that there doesn't tend to be as much intercept hanging around in NL as there does in CL. Some of the reasons for this are; 1) CL is more permanent-based. This leads to a buildup for 2 reasons: - In CL, there are a limited number of intercept cards available to even the Auspex-heavy clans. Becuase of this, permanents (KRCG, Sports Bikes, London Evening Star) are needed if intercept is desired. - Becuase permanents have a much greater role, people have an increasing desire to stop their equipping. As an example: If Anvil equips with a SMG in CL, that is _incredibly_ dangerous, as now I _know_ that he's going to do at least 4 damage every time, rather than have to hope for the right cards. Under NL, Rake was likely going to be doing at least 4-6 every turn _anyway_... Also, getting that first Sports Bike is crucial - you can now stop your predator/prey from getting theirs. 2) In CL, there is the 'What else am I going to put in?' factor. You only have a limited amount of useful cards you can add from your core disciplines, so you need other cards to fill the gaps wqhile you wait for them to appear. The permanent (or non-permanent) intercept cards allow you to feel like you are doing something useful. 3) Due to the lack of other ways to get into combat under CL, the Combat decks are forced to block actions in order to do so. This means that they need intercept. 4) Under NL, perfectly viable Auspex decks can be built without including a single intercept card - attempting to do so under CL is basically a waste of time. Thus, intercept shows up more often in CL than in NL. Because of this, there is a much more significant chance of that 'one point of intercept' needed to block a vote _existing_ than there is under NL. : >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL : >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". : > : >It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable : >Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. : This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B : under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or : "Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? A valid point; you will, however, have difficulty in getting any amount of people to agree on the definition of 'viable'. For onr person, it means "I can stop him with the help of the table about 80% of the time," while for another it means "If he is my predator, I should be able to survive his attacks without anyone else's help about 50%, plus/minus luck factors and who is the better deck-builder." Viable is in the eye of the beholder. : >That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that : >overly-powerful decks are a good thing. : Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and : broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? Yes. Voting is the _one_ time during a Jyhad game where it is not only acceptable, it is _expected_ that you will attempt to make deals and come to aggreements in an attempt to pass/defeat a vote. It is written into the rules that way, _deliberately_ so by the designer of the game. All other actions (bleeding included, before the Rules Team changed the meaning of the (D) symbol) are intended to be aimed at your prey _only_. Voting is (originally) the only thing that can affect someone other than your prey; therefore, voting is the only thing that should involve anyone other than your prey in determining the success/failure of a given action. : >Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case : under 4cl. : I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be : a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not : viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL : that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a : subset of NL" argument, I know that). Again, we have the word 'viable'. If you are talking about taking a CL deck and moving it to a NL environment, then yes; that deck, as made, is not a viable deck anymore. The _concept_, however, may still be a workable one which needs only minor revisions in order to work. This gets back to terminology; James asked for a cel/pot rush deck and was given instead a vote/guns/rush deck. He indicated that this was not what he was looking for; he wanted something which conformed _exactly_ to the specifications he had set out. The person replying to him looked instead at the _reasons_ for setting those conditions (to stop a Malkavian) and instead designed a deck which had a decent chance of doing just that (in a CL environment.) Neither proponent was happy when the other didn't agree with them, because the challenge had _obviously_ been passed/failed... Terminology is everything - until one agrees on the basic terms, one cannot ever hope to agree on the results. Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

On 9 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <4cr7dd$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, > aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: > > >NL: > > if you fix vote pushing and repeat actions on untaps, there are no > > "degenerate" decks that are unstoppable. The game is self-balancing. > > > > under 4CL, it pays to have a lot of cards, so that you can use 4 of > > each similar common plus 4 of each similar rare to make a focused deck. > > > > under 4CL, the number of different +stealth and +bleed cards available > means > > that a focused Malk S&B is quite possible, while such a deck's natural > enemy > > (a rush combat deck) cannot be made (along with most other deck styles). > > > > > > OK, let me take a mild stab at it . . . > > I'm not sure the "one-vote-per Meth" "fix" on vote pushing works. Suppose > my vote deck gets behind in votes because someone else's Justicar comes > out before I get any voting vamps. If I'm limited to one vote per PA, > doesn't that rather hurt my Political deck? Calling a vote is a 1-stealth > action, easily blocked. All the vote cards in the world won't help you in > the ensuing combat. If NL needs this "fix", it seems pretty unstable . . > . ditto for repeat actions. CL fixes both these problems. It doesn't really hurt your political deck. It just forces you to play with more variety to be robust. "If NL needs this 'fix'..." it does not mean that it is pretty unstable. The fix NL gives to vote pushing is necessary in a 4CL envirnoment as well. By putting in 4 of each of the offensive votes (for 24 damaging votes), a few praxis seizures, and a bunch of other votes for flavor, a 4CL deck is just as hurt. You may only need one intercept to block a vote, but the weenie-voter doesn't give a damn. You can't block the next couple of votes. For repeated actions, the 4CL environment isn't much better. The league I started has shown me this. I play a presence/protean/fortitude deck (Ventrue/Gangrel, of course), and have alot of "tapper" cards (Majesty, Earth Meld, Form of Mist, Freak Drive), with fortitude for damage prevention. They block, they tap, I keep going (usually). I go again. The league doesn't play with CL but nearly no one has more than 4 of a card (though someone managed 3 gypsies). Whenever this "tapper" effect happens (because I get a lucky series of draws), I usually oust my prey. With 4 of each and a 80 card deck, 20% of my cards are "tappers". I am virtually guaranteed to be tapping out my prey, and still do what I want. There is no effective answer to this under 4CL either. In both cases, without this errata, decks need to beef up on "anti-S:CE" cards. > I've never agreed with the concept that more cards are needed under CL. > Most of the "similar effect" cards are commons/uncommons anyway. Other > than Kine Dominance, I can't think of a rare that I regularly include in > my decks at the limit (plus, I only have 3 KD). Immortal Grapple for one... > I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL > proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". Hardly a > definitive counterargument . . . I'll try building a Rush deck for my next > game, and then post the results. Still, it seems like there are plenty of > force-a-combat cards to deal with a S&B if you're not the prey. If you > are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the others > to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been > cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. In my opinion, no singular deck should need the agreement of the entire table to oust it. When was the last time you played Diplomacy, or Risk, or whatever strategy game, and said "Aha! They are playing Blue!!! We must gang up on them or we will all be devoured (or at least lose)." It doesn't happen, because in those games, you gang up on someone when someone has become a threat in regards to their position (i.e., they have too much territory) instead of who they are (they are blue). In _non-trivial_ games, any of the offered strategies should have some merit and there should not exist a strategy that is penultimate. The fun of playing Diplomacy is that winning the game comes from variance on strategy, not saying "I won, even though I wasn't playing Turkey." This statement should not happen in a non-trivial game. > To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to > playing with CL. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Malk S&B under 4CL shows no other strong rivals. A 4CL Malk S&B deck can hang with most NL playing groups. I have never seen it cited as a reason _for_ CL. What is your? > I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. > I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need > empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are true. I hope you do well. > Looking forward to hearing more about this . . . In this group, I'm sure you will... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: > Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution >to this. > > Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. > >Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is >required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of >each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and >take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, >and three are unique: but these are surmountable. equipment and retainers require actions to get, a big disadvantage. >Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 >stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 >intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. > > There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika >with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of >stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. There are several permanent stealth things, too - also, did you include Bonding in your stealth count? Overall, cardwise, stealth and intercept are reasonably balanced. Throw in the fact that many actions are at a natural +1 stealth, things become a little more difficult. "But!", you exclaim, "the most important action, bleeding, is at no natural stealth!". Quite true. However, this highlights the main problem : Stealthing bleeds contributes directly to your victory condition - oust your prey. Intercept is primarily defensive. Loading up on intercept might save you from your predator, but does little to help you oust your own prey. A maxed out intercept deck will probobly stalemate vs. a S&B deck predator. But, it does nothing vs. anybody else. OtoH, that S&B deck beats anybody except that maxed out intercept deck, and perhaps a weenie vote deck. Therein lies the Big Imbalance. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

(the infamous 4cl Malk deck!) > Sneak Cards: > 4 Cloak the Gathering > 4 Faceless Night > 4 Lost in Crowds > 4 Mask of 1000 Faces > 4 Seduction > 4 Spying Mission > 4 Psychic Veil > > Bleed Cards > 4 Bonding > 4 Conditioning > 4 Deflection > 4 Computer Hacking > 4 Govern the Unaligned > 4 Kine Dominance > 4 Threats > 1 Pulse of the Canaille Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution to this. Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, and three are unique: but these are surmountable. Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic Projection. Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case >>>under 4cl. >> >>I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be >>a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not >>viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL >>that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a >>subset of NL" argument, I know that). >Can you give me some examples of decks which are viable under CL which >are not viable under NL? I think he ment... effective more then viable. You have some decks that can work and not be nuked under 4CL that you can't use under NL. The main example I can think of is combat based decks. A workable combat deck under 4CL will most likely die a horrible death to combat decks in a NL enviroment. Also... on a total side note, being the member of a group that plays 10% limits, the CL/NL thing is annoying. 10% is a CL style (I suppose), but it has a hell of a lot more in common with NL then 4CL, which is what I assume most people mean when they say CL. As an example, Rush Combat is a viable strategy under 10%. I won our game last week by basicly using the deck you (James) posted on the web site (after replacing some of the rares with other things). Most of the decks I've seen posted (including the one I "borrowed") have around 10% of a given card at most (and those that did have more then 10%... didn't look like fun to play vs or with). 10% promotes some variety by preventing some of the most abusive things from happening, but hasn't seemed to need any of the "fixes" (yet). I think if someone made a weenie vote deck it could be abusive... but the group isn't quite that competative. -CT -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

In article <4ctng3$3...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >Use Bewitching Orations, or even Charming Lobby. Besides, votes aren't >supposed to be sure things - they're supposed to promote table-wide >deals and discussions and broken promises. If you can guarantee every vote >will pass, that becomes more boring than S&B. Naturally votes aren't suposed to be sure things, but if you're building a vote deck, you're emphasizing that aspect of the game, hoping to be successful at it, at the expense of others. This is the whole idea of deck building, I thought. And you can still block the vote-caller with only 1 intercept (haven't heard anything about that yet). >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". > >It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable >Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or "Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? >>If you are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the others >>to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been >>cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. > >That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that >overly-powerful decks are a good thing. Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? >Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case under 4cl. I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a subset of NL" argument, I know that). >>To sum up, I think the Malk S&B situation is the biggest argument to >>playing with CL. I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4d0bsr$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >No cards get replaced during a Political Action except for the PA played >to call the vote. None. Whoops. Right. Sorry. >>See, this is the problem with NL. As long as WotC does insufficient >>playtesting, each expansion will contain cards that have unexpected > >So, this is actually a problem with playtesting. With Appropriate >house rules (no vote push, no repeat action, TB only lasting one round, >etc.), then NL is good. No, this isn't "actually" a problem with playtesting; there's a problem there _as_well_. But _because_ there's a problem there, NL will continue to need more and more card-specified rules. Now it looks like Toreador Grand Ball is also broken . . . >4CL will restrict the spoiler cards, but has the miserable side effect >of restricting good, balanced cards as well. "Miserable" . . . value-loaded words are almost always a matter of taste. >>results in NL. In CL, the cards won't be so much of a problem. I'd >>rather see an overall CL introduced than a bunch of unconnected, >>cobbled-together rules designed to fix specific cards/actions, or even > >4CL over good playtesting, eh? Yeah, let's continue to have lousy playtesting. That's what I want. >>limits on certain cards but not others. To me, the current tournament >>rules for deck construction are unacceptable, targeting one type of deck >>without addressing any other. > >Agreed wholeheartedly. Hooray! Look, here's my current position. NL needs fixes on specific cards/actions because of insufficient playtesting, an issue about which we can do nothing. It makes possible decks that are OTP's, which are dull to play against. It rewards people who have loads of expensive cards to put in their decks. CL helps address the broken-card/action issue by limiting their frequency. It's more difficult to make a OTP (except the S&B). In my experience, people who have fewer cards are more comfortable with a CL environment because they feel less threatened. The main argument against CL right now is that it maks the S&B deck a stable strategy by "eliminating" the effectiveness of it's natural enemy, the Rush combat deck. I believe the jury is still out on this question. Also, please note: while 4CL may be too restrictive for the Rush deck, perhaps 8CL or 15% would allow it to work. This is a question that can be resolved _in_play_; CL fans should get on it. I am.

In article <4d0uqb$s...@shellx.best.com>, go...@shellx.best.com (up and crumbling) writes: >>Simply disagree with the above. The Pre-based voting cards and Cryptic >>Rider, etc. have their places in any voting deck; especially under CL. >>Extra PA's don't get replaced during the vote (Pre-based cards do), and >>they only count for 1 each. > >As has been pointed out before, no cards are replaced during a PA other >than the original vote. But can't you play them before the vote begins as a modifier to your action? >>Hardly irrelevant. I was responding to the idea that voting needed an >>outside-the-rules "fix" limiting each Meth to 1 PA per vote. Meths that >>load up on PA at the expense of combat/defense cards make themselves >>vulnerable to other Meths with enough intercept to block their voting >>actions. To my mind, that's the non-voting deck's main counter to the >>vote deck. > >Unfortunately, one can only block so many times. The main (to my mind, >the only) source of degeneracy in political decks is weenie hordling. Unless >you can reliably keep 4 minions untapped and 4 Wakes in your hand and >sufficient intercept around, the weenie hordlings are just going to >overrun. Burn all you want; there's more coming out. And vampires in >torpor even count for Autarkis Persecution, at least according to >card text. "Darn. You torpored 4 of my guys. Lessee, I'll call an >Autarkis. That's 3 guys out of torpor, 7 in...I'll gain 10 pool. Hey, >that was fun. Let's do it again. And during influence, I'll bring out >a couple three more folks." But the weenies don't have votes of their own before the Prince votes happen. I think this is an issue of what happens first. As soon as my predator/prey makes Smudge Prince of Boonieville, I'm know what's going on. And this voting deck is under CL, remember, so they generally won't have just the right magic card to vote . . . anyway, there has to be some less draconian fix than "each Meth gets one extra vote card" . . . hell, that makes _me_ less powerful than Smudge, Prince of Boonieville! >A superior combat deck of a particular stripe can slow this deck down, >but not stop it. Isn't that the game? To do your thing faster than the other guy? I just don't see anything preordained about the weenie-vote-deck's win. Under CL, anyway. >>OK, but this doesn't address CL's benefits to players short of cards >>(players with fewer cards in my group understandably balked when I >>suggested going to a NL environment), or the increased predictability (and >>therefore, to me, decreased interest) in NL decks. This issue is a matter >>of taste, not arguable. > >de gustibum non disputandum est, and all that, surely. But I must take >issue with your 'increased predictability' remark. Certainly, a given >deck becomes more predictable (once you figure out what its trick is -- >which is nontrivial in some cases), but NL increases the variety of >deck *types*, which is (I believe) the argument of the NL camp. > >So, instead of the uncertainty of wondering if your trick will show up >(because, under 4cl, you can't make it a sure thing), you have the >uncertainty of wondering whether this partcular trick is going to >work better than the rest of the tables' tricks. And, under NL, there >are so *many* different approaches to the same goal that it's a variety >all its own. I don't agree that NL significantly increases the variety of deck types. So far, the only deck "type" that is being claimed possible under NL and not under CL is Rush combat, and the jury's still out (for me). Plus, there's this. Me and 3 friends sit down to play a few games of NL VTES (we have all day). We play the first game, I see the other decks' tricks. How exciting is the second game? Unless we all lug 3 or 4 VTES decks around (I'd rather carry a deck each of L5R, OnTE, UC!, and Shadowfist), we know what's likely to happen, and we're just playing to find out who gets their cards firs

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: >>I think he ment... effective more then viable. You have some decks >>that can work and not be nuked under 4CL that you can't use under NL. >>The main example I can think of is combat based decks. A workable >>combat deck under 4CL will most likely die a horrible death to combat >>decks in a NL enviroment. >Are you saying that you could take a deck concept that worked under >4CL and in an NL environment it would be unworkable? If so, I'd like >and example, please. Nope... what I ment is b/c 4cl and nl are different games, you can create a deck that might get some victroy points in a 4cl enviroment, but would be unable to function properly in a nl enviroment. Specific example... ummmmm... I would say the Brujah 4cl "combat" deck that was posted would do fairly well in a 4cl enviro. In a nl enviro it wouldn't do as well, mainly b/c it wouldn't be as good at what it did (combat) as the other combat decks were. Another example (and I'm reaching here) would be a Malk nuke deck. A deck that in 4cl did extremely well vs the common malk decks, and marginal against other deck types. I would be able to negate the decks that several other players would (most likely) be playing, and probably get so VP. But in a nl enviro, there aren't as many people playing with Malks, so it would be significantly weaker. >[big spiel on 10%CL omitted] >Well, long, long, long ago, I suggested 10%CL as a mid-ground, mainly >because I couldn't see a situation where I would ever need more than >10% of my deck to be any one card. Unfortunately, 10%CL wouldn't fix >the wienie vote problem. I don't think it does either, but until someone in our group tries to do one, we haven't done a thing to limit voting. If someone does put together some ungodly good weenie vote deck that just rips around the table, we'll probably do something. Obviously, we're doing this more for our personal group... and origionally when we went to 10%, possible preemptive fixes to somethings were discussed... but a "wait and see" attitiude is what we developed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4d14qb$e...@superb.csc.ti.com>, c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes: >>>I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be >>>a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not >>>viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL >>>that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a >>>subset of NL" argument, I know that). > >>Can you give me some examples of decks which are viable under CL which >>are not viable under NL? > >I think he ment... effective more then viable. You have some decks >that can work and not be nuked under 4CL that you can't use under NL. >The main example I can think of is combat based decks. A workable >combat deck under 4CL will most likely die a horrible death to combat >decks in a NL enviroment. Yeah! Thanks. >Also... on a total side note, being the member of a group that plays >10% limits, the CL/NL thing is annoying. 10% is a CL style (I >suppose), but it has a hell of a lot more in common with NL then 4CL, >which is what I assume most people mean when they say CL. Not me. I've been very careful not to say 4CL. Like you, I believe that there is some CL that enhances the game. Don't know what it is yet, maybe it's 6, or 8, or 10%, or 15%. But I know it's out there, and I know it's more "fun", less "degenerate" and needs fewer house rules than NL >As an example, Rush Combat is a viable strategy under 10%. I won our >game last week by basicly using the deck you (James) posted on the web >site (after replacing some of the rares with other things). Most of >the decks I've seen posted (including the one I "borrowed") have >around 10% of a given card at most (and those that did have more then >10%... didn't look like fun to play vs or with). 10% promotes some >variety by preventing some of the most abusive things from happening, >but hasn't seemed to need any of the "fixes" (yet). I think if >someone made a weenie vote deck it could be abusive... but the group >isn't quite that competative. I think I'll be able to talk my group into going from 4CL to 8CL; that's effectively 10% for us. I still plan to make a Rush deck under more restrictive rules, maybe 6CL. Thanks for chiming in!

refp...@best.com wrote: > > >> Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution >> to this. >> >> Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. >>********* You left out Raven Spy********** >> Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is >> required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of >> each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and >> take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, >> and three are unique: but these are surmountable. >> >> Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic >> Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic >> Projection. >> >> Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 >> stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 >> intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. >> >> There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika >> with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of >> stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. >> >> ****But You need to intercept all his actions. >And he can hold off the heavy bleed mod for the action that >gets thru. You also need to have the combat cards to really >hurt him, or he will just do it again. While this is going >on you also have to be trying to oust your prey. >And you also left out the backways and Labryinth for Stealth. >REF My post was split. We're also talking about Malkavians here, not Gangrel nor Nosferatu. It doesn't take too mny combat cards to get this to work. TJH

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >On 10 Jan 1996, T.J. Hull wrote: >> Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. > >How many of each are you going to have in your deck? And how are they >going to reliably come up? Assuming four of each (too maximize chances) >there is a roughly 85% chance that you will not get all four in the first >15 cards of a 60 card deck. I'm just not going to put 4 of each unique location (or the retainer) in the deck. There will also be reaction card intercept, as listed below. I would probably put in 4 bikes, 2 KRCG, 1 London, and 2 Winthrop. >> Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic >> Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic >> Projection. >> >> Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 >> stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 >> intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. >> >> There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika >> with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of >> stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. > >Unfortunately, S&B is ready to go from the get go. Auspex needs to >build. By the time you could get out Masika with a flamethrower (15 >pool!) and any of your permanent intercept, you should be dead. Please note the non-permanent intecept. My post got split - see the other part. Information Highway could get Masika out fast, but I would likely bring out Felicia first. Hand damage would still get the blood off their vampires, which is what needs to happen to live. I believe Masika costs 14 pool with a flame thrower, and this can be out be round three anyway (and he should be able to intercept the first bleed with hands, or Misdirect it, or hopefully my grand-predator has bled and I can get that Major Boon out. Most of the vampires in the crypt I posted had superior Auspex. The deck should be based on weapons and Celerity, but hands do in a pinch... TJH

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) wrote: >T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >> Alright, let's look at the possibility of an intercept combat solution >>to this. >> >> Intercept Permanants: KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, Sports Bike, London Tabloid. >> >>Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is >>required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of >>each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and >>take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, >>and three are unique: but these are surmountable. > >equipment and retainers require actions to get, a big disadvantage. Sure. > >>Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 >>stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 >>intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. >> >> There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika >>with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of >>stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. > >There are several permanent stealth things, too - also, did you include >Bonding in your stealth count? Oops. Which permanent stealth cards apply to Malkavians, though? (except the DS one, which is poor) >Overall, cardwise, stealth and intercept are reasonably balanced. Throw in the >fact that many actions are at a natural +1 stealth, things become a little more >difficult. Umm, there should be enough intercept to handle it. With a combat deck, you won't have to intercept too often. >"But!", you exclaim, "the most important action, bleeding, is at no >natural stealth!". Quite true. However, this highlights the main problem : > >Stealthing bleeds contributes directly to your victory condition - oust your >prey. Intercept is primarily defensive. Loading up on intercept might save >you from your predator, but does little to help you oust your own prey. Not true. Intercept hunting, equipping, etc. It's easier to bleed if your prey has no vampires . >maxed out intercept deck will probobly stalemate vs. a S&B deck predator. But, >it does nothing vs. anybody else. It should be an intercept combat deck. Please see my post following the one with my name on it, above. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks! TJH

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>>This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B >>>under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or >>>"Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? >> >>Those extra actions you have to take to make the deck work can easily >>be the difference between life & death. Stopping to equip or vote while >>your pred is doing 4-6/bleed costs you minion actions that could better >>be spent pounding your pred's minions. Plus, all those votes/equip >>dilute your deck making your combats less effective when you get into >them. > >I'll try to refute this by posting a fast Rush deck under CL. The above >assertions are just that until more data is obtained. Peace be with you, Not to me they're not. I have experience playing Rush with a fast bleed pred. If you aren't torp'g his sup Dom vamps from the get go, you'll not have a chance to ever torp them (you'll be out). Just one or two non-combat minion actions (equip/vote) can make _all_ the difference in the world. >>>>>If you are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get >the >>>others >>>>>to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has >been >>>>>cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. >>>> >>>>That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that >>>>overly-powerful decks are a good thing. >>> >>>Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and >>>broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? >> >>Yes, according to Garfield. > >Addressed in other post, but the esteemed Richard isn't playing at my >house. I _like_ deals, discussions, and promises, broken and kept. This >is a whole new aspect to your argument, and one which I disagree with >vehemently. Actually, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for what RG wrote. I play Diplomacy (the best game EVER) and love deals, discussion, & promises. There is obviously a problem, though, if you have to "cry 'wolf'" when a Malk shows up. >>>>Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case >>>>under 4cl. >>> >>>I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may >be >>>a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not >>>viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL >>>that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a >>>subset of NL" argument, I know that). >> >>Can you give me some examples of decks which are viable under CL which >>are not viable under NL? > >This may be a trivial response, but all of them. Obviously, any CL deck >can be reproduced under NL, but more focused/sharpened/"improved" by >replacing some cards with more copies of others. Are you saying that all CL decks are viable under NL (in contradiction to your earlier statement) or am I misreading your response? >Yeah, we agree. Let's move on. Your S&B objection to CL is noted; I'm Your post was clipped here. Is your software giving you problems? [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >In article <4d0uqb$s...@shellx.best.com>, go...@shellx.best.com (up and >crumbling) writes: >>>Simply disagree with the above. The Pre-based voting cards and Cryptic >>>Rider, etc. have their places in any voting deck; especially under CL. >>>Extra PA's don't get replaced during the vote (Pre-based cards do), and >>>they only count for 1 each. >> >>As has been pointed out before, no cards are replaced during a PA other >>than the original vote. >But can't you play them before the vote begins as a modifier to your >action? No. They have explicit text denying this timing scheme. "Only During a Political Action" disallows playing before the vote starts, according to the Design Team (a ruling I agree with). [ quoted text not captured ]

NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >Look, here's my current position. NL needs fixes on specific >cards/actions because of insufficient playtesting, an issue about which we >can do nothing. It makes possible decks that are OTP's, which are dull to >play against. Agreed. It seems we differ on whether or not making these fixes is worth it. >It rewards people who have loads of expensive cards to put in their decks. Not true. The cards that are most useful seem to be commons. A ten cent card isn't expensive :) Of course, getting a dollars worth of those ten cent cards requires you do do something other than open a booster, which may be easier for some than others. >CL helps address the broken-card/action issue by limiting their frequency. > It's more difficult to make a OTP (except the S&B). ...and weenie votes. It takes a 2CL (ala the DC tourny rules) to stop that. >In my experience, people who have fewer cards are more comfortable with a CL >environment because they feel less threatened. True. Although I wonder how much the correlation between experience playing the game, and number of cards owned affects this. >The main argument against CL right now is that it maks the S&B deck a >stable strategy by "eliminating" the effectiveness of it's natural enemy, >the Rush combat deck. I believe the jury is still out on this question. Actually, that was just the most extreme example. Rush combat is the most restricted, because there are only 2 types of Rush cards to choose from. The difference between the two styles of play can really only be felt if you try some of each. I find that a tight card limit makes for a game where people sit around waiting to draw a useful card. NL games are faster and more exciting. Pretty much every deck design simply works better. You raised the point elsewhere that this is not the style of play your group likes. You want to bring one Jyhad deck along, but don't want to be run over by a deck style that your deck can't handle, since you have no option to change. I find the "in between hands" phase of the game, where people adjust their decks or haul out new ones, to be entertainingg. Different gameing environments are obviously contributing to the way we feel on the issue. >Also, please note: while 4CL may be too restrictive for the Rush deck, >perhaps 8CL or 15% would allow it to work. This is a question that can be >resolved _in_play_; CL fans should get on it. I am. I'd tend to agree with this. In fact, there are few NL decks that would push an 8CL, actually, so you playing under an 8CL probobly is the same as James playing under NL. There's some point where having too many of the same card jams up your hand as badly as having too many different cards. I suspect the happy medium lies in the neighborhood of 10-15% degeneracy. The vote pushing problem is a separate issue. I'll choose to play the game as Jyhad was originally written (a meth may play _a_ PA for a vote), and happily ignore VtES and the RT :) Wow, the always bitter CL argument, approaching a cordial level of understanding? Film at 11:00!! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peace Curt, Good post, up until . . . curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >It's true that players with small collections who do not trade are at a >disadvantage in a NL game. ^^^^ Change this to "any trading card" and you have a true statement. Players with small collections are disadvantaged under _all_ TCGs, regardless of card limits, as they have fewer choices when making a deck. Under certain scenarios, (the card set is balanced, for example) this disadvantage is minimized. In games where the rares are disproportionally powerful, the problem is aggravated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >>It's true that players with small collections who do not trade are at a >>disadvantage in a NL game. ^^^^ >Change this to "any trading card" and you have a true statement. Oh, absolutely. Actually, it should come as no surprise that people who don't (or can't) trade are at a big disadvantage in a trading card game. Jyhad, however, has relatively strong categorization, by which I mean cards fall into categories (particular disciplines, clans, or strategies). Cards out of your deck's categories are generally completely useless, and often actively detrimental due to immediate redraw and limited discard. Since there are so many categories, most Jyhad cards are quite useless in any given deck. So it's actually harder to build a playable deck out of a small *untraded* card set in Jyhad than in most other CCGs. The flip side is that since rares are not particularly useful you can trade away rares to get the commons you need. So if you trade, you can make a really good deck (often tournament-caliber) from a small card collection. NL Jyhad, then, is more of a *trading* card game than anything else on the market. If you go to 4cl, the overall power level drops, assuming you control the Malks with gentlevampire's agreements or table gangup policies or some such. So it is easier to design a playable deck without trading. At the same time, it becomes harder to design a really competitive deck, because you've got to have particular rares to substitute for the extra commons you're no longer allowed (e.g., Kine Dominance for Bonding, Fists of Death for Undead Strength, etc.) IMO, the best policy is to go NL and trade. That way you can get really good decks -not just playable ones - with small collections. If somebody finds trading unpleasant and isn't willing or able to become a suitcase player, Jyhad really isn't the game for them. >Players >with small collections are disadvantaged under _all_ TCGs, regardless of >card limits, as they have fewer choices when making a deck. Under certain >scenarios, (the card set is balanced, for example) this disadvantage is >minimized. In games where the rares are disproportionally powerful, the >problem is aggravated. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Charles T. Schwope wrote: > Also... on a total side note, being the member of a group that plays > 10% limits, the CL/NL thing is annoying. 10% is a CL style (I > suppose), but it has a hell of a lot more in common with NL then 4CL, > which is what I assume most people mean when they say CL. > As an example, Rush Combat is a viable strategy under 10%. I won our > game last week by basicly using the deck you (James) posted on the web > site (after replacing some of the rares with other things). Most of > the decks I've seen posted (including the one I "borrowed") have > around 10% of a given card at most (and those that did have more then > 10%... didn't look like fun to play vs or with). 10% promotes some > variety by preventing some of the most abusive things from happening, > but hasn't seemed to need any of the "fixes" (yet). I think if > someone made a weenie vote deck it could be abusive... but the group > isn't quite that competative. Others have mentioned this, but I too usually mean any limit when I mean CL. I used to be in the 10% camp myself. As most people arguing for limits seem to be in the 4CL camp, I usually tend to address my responses with that in mind. I guess I am guilty of 4cardism (a close relative to the other -isms :). Most of my deck would conform to a 10% limit. The problem for me in _enforcing_ such a limit, is that it is not a necessary one. Why do it? Most decks that are made NL are ~ 10% limit. Those that are not made by it, so what? IMHO, One simply cannot create a "degenerate" deck under NL, so why add a limit to a game that wasn't designed with one in mind? As Curt mentioned earlier, once you put in your 20th card of ultimate doom, you begin to not be able to do _anything_. So what if you have a KRC? You need the votes to pass it (as long as you are not playing unlimited vote push), you may need stealth. You will still need defensive cards. My transformation from 6CL(3 weeks) -> 10% happened because I tried it, liked it and found no ill result. My transformation from 10% (2 months) -> NL happened because I realised that they were virtually identical, and that with a few house rules, what could one do in NL? No more than any other deck. Whatever people believe about Jyhad (or for that matter, anything), it is always best to question your opinions, and if possible test them. Wherever you arrive, even if it is the same place, you are always better for it. (Imagine, kids, for only a modest hourly fee or a little tuition, you too can be privy to the secrets of the universe! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <4d0bsr$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. > Scott Johnson) writes: [Back and forth discussion on how lack of playtesting sets the environment for a need for limits or a need for house rules] > Look, here's my current position. NL needs fixes on specific > cards/actions because of insufficient playtesting, an issue about which we > can do nothing. It makes possible decks that are OTP's, which are dull to > play against. It rewards people who have loads of expensive cards to put > in their decks. Not quite. Rares that are powerful are typically unique or highly expensive (a la horrid reality) or both. For the remainder, it is not the rares that are need in bulk, but the commons - the Bum's Rushes, the Telepathic Counters, etc.. On the contrary, a CL environment rewards people who have loads of expensive cards because after they max out on torn signposts they can go to town with fists of death. CL also needs fixes on the "broken card" issue, or at least as much as NL does. As an example, look at LSJ's house rules. Nearly all of them could be taken away and NL holds. All you need to hang on to are these: @#$@#$ The "Golden Tenents" of Jyhad $#@$#@ 1) No unlimited vote push 2) No repeat actions. The rest are all flavor. Someone doesn't like what, say, Seduction does (a (D) targeted at a player rather than a name), so they change it. Many of the changes for cards like Majesty/Earth Meld are all the same, they cling to the "Golden Tenents". This is not a "bulk" of rules to carry about. Now pretend we are in a CL environment. Suddenly, as more cards are printed, we get the "magic" response. "You mean I can only put so many in? I'll max out." You can see this again and again in Type I decks in Magic. Playing black? You always throw in a Demonic Tutor. Red -> Fork. Green -> Channel. White -> Balance. Blue -> Recall. Moxes and Lotus to those that have them. Feldon's Cane. Sol Ring. "Ok, now let's build the rest of the deck." In _any_ environment, if a card is "broken" it will bring about this effect. > CL helps address the broken-card/action issue by limiting their frequency. > It's more difficult to make a OTP (except the S&B). In my experience, > people who have fewer cards are more comfortable with a CL environment > because they feel less threatened. They do tend to feel more threatened until you show them a collection. After they've played about 4-5 games, they can see, as cool as Patagia is, Bum's Rush is usually more useful in their Nosferatu deck. As is Storm Sewers. As for CL limiting the frequency of cards, as more cards get made, CL begins to fail at this, due to the "Lightning Bolt" effect from Magic. I don't mean just varied forms of stealth. I mean suddenly having 4 more S:CE or similar card usable by presence. I mean another KRC-like vote. As an aside, see what Carlotta Giovanni (7-Blood from DS who can retrieve _any_ card from the ash heap at 1-stealth) does in a CL environment. Suddenly you have unlimited KRC/majesty/whatever. (Yes, she can be blocked, but in a deck that uses her, who cares? If you play to protect her, it doesn't matter.) > The main argument against CL right now is that it maks the S&B deck a > stable strategy by "eliminating" the effectiveness of it's natural enemy, > the Rush combat deck. I believe the jury is still out on this question. This one is too easy to demonstrate. Play a game with people you don't know. Ask them to play 4CL (if they don't). Play the "Penultimate" S&B deck. I would wager a lot that either it gets ganged by the table or wins handily. Now, give the deck to any of them, pull out you 4CL deck and be their prey with a 4CL Limbaugh deck (Rush... I mean :). You can thoroughly expect a grinding unless the table helps again. W/o limits a Malk is the same as a 4CL Malk, and a Rush deck will have some hard work to neuter the Malk. As most people concede, a 4CL deck will not usually be able to accomplish a particular goal (vote/combat/etc) as well (note this concession below) as a NL deck. If the NL Rush deck has a problem, how will a 4CL fare? > Also, please note: while 4CL may be too restrictive for the Rush deck, > perhaps 8CL or 15% would allow it to work. This is a question that can be > resolved _in_play_; CL fans should get on it. I am. Glad to hear it. :) Good luck in your quest. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Jan 1996, CurtAdams wrote: [Discussion with TJH about WwEF and it's breaking the NL side of the debate] > Alternatively, you can restrict Wakes to 4 per deck and leave other cards > unrestricted. I am leery of that suggestion. For those playing some other limit (such as 10%), this may be more comfortable, but despite its use as a "free" resource card, even beginning to retread steps on the CL path seems suspect. House rules fix it far better. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Jan 1996, Alec Habig wrote: [Response to NCascone snipped] > Wow, the always bitter CL argument, approaching a cordial level of > understanding? Film at 11:00!! :) It _is_ nice, isn't it! :) I just hope that in my attempts at conversion, I don't sink to the depths of the church during the Inquisition! If I ever do, please, anyone, e-mail me to let me know that my thumb screws are getting too tight! ;) Honestly though, the tone seems so much more cordial. Thanks especially to Charles S., TJH, and NCascone for disagreeing in a thought-provoking manner. There are others, but I'm too tired (just finished playing 4 and 4 player game of Jyhad. 13 straight hours! 8pm->9am) to think of any others! Looking forward to more debate! [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>There is obviously a problem, though, if you have to "cry 'wolf'" when >>a Malk shows up. > >Why not? I can't think of a better reason to "cry 'wolf'". Keeps folks >from making MS&B in our group. Peace be with you, It appears to me that you are agreeing with the NLers that MS&B is so powerful under 4CL and that there are no effective counters (other than getting the whole table to gang-bang the Malk). Do you have a problem with any other type/theme of deck that your group auto-bangs (to keep people from playing it)? >>Are you saying that all CL decks are viable under NL (in contradiction to >>your earlier statement) or am I misreading your response? > >I'm saying that all CL decks (especially under more restrictive CL's) are >at a disadvantage in NL. Therefore, since IME CL decks need to have more >than one "focus" to win, the combinations of concepts that are common in >CL become to slow to work in NL. IME, NL decks tend to have more than one focus (though they tend to have one major, the others being minors) to prevent your opponents from shutting you completely down with the play of a single card. My original question was, "Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4d36d9$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>>>Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and >>>>broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? >>> >>>Yes, according to Garfield. >> >>Addressed in other post, but the esteemed Richard isn't playing at my >>house. I _like_ deals, discussions, and promises, broken and kept. This >>is a whole new aspect to your argument, and one which I disagree with >>vehemently. > >Actually, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for what RG wrote. I play >Diplomacy (the best game EVER) and love deals, discussion, & promises. >There is obviously a problem, though, if you have to "cry 'wolf'" when >a Malk shows up. Why not? I can't think of a better reason to "cry 'wolf'". Keeps folks from making MS&B in our group. >>>>>Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case >>>>>under 4cl. >>>> >>>>I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may >>be >>>>a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not >>>>viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL >>>>that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a >>>>subset of NL" argument, I know that). >>> >>>Can you give me some examples of decks which are viable under CL which >>>are not viable under NL? >> >>This may be a trivial response, but all of them. Obviously, any CL deck >>can be reproduced under NL, but more focused/sharpened/"improved" by >>replacing some cards with more copies of others. > >Are you saying that all CL decks are viable under NL (in contradiction to >your earlier statement) or am I misreading your response? I'm saying that all CL decks (especially under more restrictive CL's) are at a disadvantage in NL. Therefore, since IME CL decks need to have more than one "focus" to win, the combinations of concepts that are common in CL become to slow to work in NL. >>Yeah, we agree. Let's move on. Your S&B objection to CL is noted; I'm > >Your post was clipped here. Is your software giving you problems? Hope not . . . let me know if it happens again, OK?

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960110154810.342P-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >>>>BTW, it's looking like a fix for Thoughts Betrayed should join the above >two fixes. However, I've never even seen the card, so can't comment on that >:) >>See, this is the problem with NL. As long as WotC does insufficient >>playtesting, each expansion will contain cards that have unexpected >>results in NL. In CL, the cards won't be so much of a problem. I'd >>rather see an overall CL introduced than a bunch of unconnected, >>cobbled-together rules designed to fix specific cards/actions, or even >>limits on certain cards but not others. To me, the current tournament >>rules for deck construction are unacceptable, targeting one type of deck >>without addressing any other. > >Just as much of a problem as having more similar cards come out. What to >do when more S:CE cards arrive or other "tappers" arrive in the 4CL >environment. The ones that are integratable in Pro/Pre/For decks will >make a virtually unbeatable "tap out" deck. Nah, I don't think so. I think we're all pretty much agreed that mutli-actions aren't as much of a problem under CL, especially more restrictive CL's like 4. I tried a For/Pre Ventrue tap-out deck; the vamps that could do it were really expensive, and I didn't have an untapin hand anywhere near as frequently as I wanted one, and Majesty doesn't help if the other guy doesn't block. Got a CL tap out deck to post?

In article <4ctglg$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: > In article <4cr7dd$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, > aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: > >>NL: >> if you fix vote pushing and repeat actions on untaps, there are no >> "degenerate" decks that are unstoppable. The game is self-balancing. >> >> under 4CL, it pays to have a lot of cards, so that you can use 4 of >> each similar common plus 4 of each similar rare to make a focused deck. >> >> under 4CL, the number of different +stealth and +bleed cards available > means >> that a focused Malk S&B is quite possible, while such a deck's natural > enemy >> (a rush combat deck) cannot be made (along with most other deck styles). >> >> > > OK, let me take a mild stab at it . . . > I'M NOT RESPONDING TO> <BUNCH OF STUFF CUT THAT i'M > I plan to try my hand at building a Rush deck under 4CL. > I still think it can be done. I'm willing to be convinced, but I need > empirical evidence that the claims against Rush combat under CL are true. > I just wanted to say that I think it is ENTIRELY possible to build a Rush deck with 4 CL, in fact, I have thought about it quite a bit (as a deck concept, but it doesn't appeal to me too much). I would have to agree that a formidible Ruch deck can be built in 4CL environment. -X

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960110155532.342Q-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >How many of each are you going to have in your deck? And how are they >going to reliably come up? Assuming four of each (too maximize chances) >there is a roughly 85% chance that you will not get all four in the first >15 cards of a 60 card deck. Do you mean that you won't get 1 copy each of all 4? Or do you mean that you won't get any copy of any of them? Show your work, please 8). >> Advantages: offer intercept where no additional card playing is >> required. Disadvantages: costs pool (except for Mr. Winthrop); one of >> each would give a daunting +4 intercept, but would cost 6 pool and >> take a minimum of 2 turns to set up. Two of these cards are masters, >> and three are unique: but these are surmountable. >> >> Non-permanent intercept: 2nd tradition, Elder Intervention, Telepathic >> Misdirection, Spirit's Touch, Eagle's Sight, Enhanced Senses, Psychic >> Projection. >> >> Summary: 7 types of stealth cards, only one of which gives more than +1 >> stealth. 7 types of non-permanent intercept cards, 4 of which give +2 >> intercept; 4 types of permanent intercept. Plus 2nd Tradition, but the Prince can be expensive (except of course Volker/Rake) >> >> There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika >> with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of >> stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. > >Unfortunately, S&B is ready to go from the get go. Auspex needs to >build. By the time you could get out Masika with a flamethrower (15 >pool!) and any of your permanent intercept, you should be dead. Only if the Rush deck is the prey. Otherwise, there should be enough time to get a little intercept out there, plus you should have enough Rush/rush-like stuff to knock off a Malk or two before then.

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960110152545.342O-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >: The Ventrue's political clout can be stopped by a vamp on a Sport Bike >: waiting between the vote caller and the meeting hall, but there hasn't >: been any response to this concept yet (in 2 replies). Seems like this >: would be a problem for a vote deck under NL/no multiple actions or any >: version of CL. > >Are you saying that there is no answer to an interceptor next to a vote >deck even under CL? I don't think you mean that... > >The intercepter doesn't matter in either the vote push or multiple >actions CL environment. Call a vote. Get blocked or untap. Call >again. Presto the vote passes due to vote push. CL does not stop this. >Under NL without push or multiple actions, the same minion cannot untap >to recall a vote. Weenie horded votes can still happen, but they need >political muster behind them, not merely the original vote plus the >political actions in hand. In short, the problem is contained. Under CL you have 12 untaps max (I think) and they require superior of these 3 disciplines. Multi-actions are just not that much of a problem. As far as weenie votes go, I don't know why, but our group hasn't seen these unlimited weenie vote decks yet. I'll try one and let you all know if it works, but I think these assertions might be based more on "what could happen" rather than "what actually does happen in play". Vote push/mutli-actions are much more of a problem in NL, obviously. >: >Except that there is no duplicate for BR (HU requires a Master phase and >: >can be SRd). >: >: No, but there are vamps/allies that allow a D attack vs. a vampire (I >: know, some of them are only against small vamps, but some aren't), plus HU >: (in a multi-way, can be pretty nasty as the HU'er and all the players in >: between get a crack at the exposed Malk before said Malk can cover up >: again). > >(explanation of why these vamps/allies don't help) Hey, it was just a suggestion. Plus, we still haven't mentioned Bloodhunt, or the VTES cards that stop big bleeds (don't have my VTES yet, but I've heard _something_ about that . . . >I, too, have yet to see one. In your attempt to make one, these three >points are a necesity: > 1) It must be fast. Without speed, it can easily be made to meat. > 2) It must be cheap. Not quite a corrolary on 1. W/o cheapness you > are contributing to your own demise. > 3) It only really needs the combat necessary to stop a non-combat > deck. A pure S&B will usually not have the combat to > face even marginal combat decks. > 4) I know I said three, but this is an important point to _any_ > deck. It must be robust. It is easy to make even a 4CL deck > that can toast Malks, but that's all it can toast. OK, I'll do what I can . . . >:>>[T]here are plenty of force-a-combat >>cards to deal with S&B >: >: >Other than BR & HU, what else can I use (Archon will not pass, btw). >: >: Use the vamp-attacking vamps and allies cited above. And why can't you >: get Archon to pass? Everyone at the table knows how dangerous the MS&B is > >Putting it on myself, if my deck show's evidence in being a combat >monster, will not make political decks happy. No one wants a combat deck >being able to directly attack whenever it has the card's it wants. > >: ... put Archon on someone else's vamp, especially the prey's, if that's >: not you. Or cajole the others into letting you have it; promise you'll >: only use it against those degenerate Malks, etc. This leads to your next >: statement: > >See the above. In addition, as soon as the Archon has removed enough >Malks for them to cease being a menace, I would have it go after hostile >voters, to keep them from removing the title. If you don't have the votes to keep it, it'll be stripped as soon as the table perceives the Malks as no longer a threat (or else when they're

In article <4d1akh$a...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >The vote-caller can be blocked using only +1 intercept in _either_ CL or >NL - it isn't really something that changes between games. > >(a bunch of reasons, mostly valid, why Intercept is more likely to show up in CL than in NL) > >Thus, intercept shows up more often in CL than in NL. Because of this, >there is a much more significant chance of that 'one point of intercept' >needed to block a vote _existing_ than there is under NL. Well, maybe instead of putting out a house rule crippling voting, NL players should think about putting more intercept into their decks . . . >: >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >: >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". >: > >: >It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable >: >Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. > >: This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B >: under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or >: "Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? > >A valid point; you will, however, have difficulty in getting any amount of >people to agree on the definition of 'viable'. For onr person, it means >"I can stop him with the help of the table about 80% of the time," while >for another it means "If he is my predator, I should be able to survive >his attacks without anyone else's help about 50%, plus/minus luck factors >and who is the better deck-builder." > >Viable is in the eye of the beholder. > Viable is subjective, my working definition for "viable Rush deck" is: "deck whose existence would cause the Malk player to think twice before putting a pure S&B deck together". Pretty scientific, huh? >: Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and >: broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? > >Yes. Voting is the _one_ time during a Jyhad game where it is not only >acceptable, it is _expected_ that you will attempt to make deals and come >to aggreements in an attempt to pass/defeat a vote. It is written into >the rules that way, _deliberately_ so by the designer of the game. All >other actions (bleeding included, before the Rules Team changed the >meaning of the (D) symbol) are intended to be aimed at your prey _only_. > >Voting is (originally) the only thing that can affect someone other than >your prey; therefore, voting is the only thing that should involve anyone >other than your prey in determining the success/failure of a given action. This is an opinion that Mr. McClure also evinced in another part of this string, andone with which I disagree vehemently. I play mutli-way expressly for the enjoyment of the diplomacy involved, and not just during votes. I don't know what the rules team did to the (D) symbol, but most of our multi-way games involve _lots_ of deal-making, whining, promises (broken and kept), and all that. Trying to limit diplomacy to "only during votes" seems like an attempt to rob the game of a lot of its flavor. >: >Every basic strategy should have a viable deck. This is not the case >: under 4cl. > >: I think you're trying to make CL more like NL here. "Rush Combat" may be >: a "basic strategy" under NL, but, as defined by the NL folks, it's "not >: viable" under CL. OK, but there are decks that become viable under CL >: that aren't in an NL environment (BTW, don't bother with the "CL is a >: subset of NL" argument, I know that). > >Again, we have the word 'viable'. If you are talking about taking a CL >deck and moving it to a NL environment, then yes; that deck, as made, is >not a viable deck anymore. The _concept_, however, may still be a >workable one which needs only minor revisions in order to work. Well, under CL, most decks need more than one trick. Moving the deck from CL to NL means the deck will need to pare d

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960110150540.342L-100000-100000-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> Naturally votes aren't suposed to be sure things, but if you're building a >> vote deck, you're emphasizing that aspect of the game, hoping to be >> successful at it, at the expense of others. This is the whole idea of >> deck building, I thought. And you can still block the vote-caller with >> only 1 intercept (haven't heard anything about that yet). > >Yes, but under the cited problem deck we are looking at, who cares if you >intercept one of the vampires. The one that gets through will be pushed >to the teeth. Like I said in a previous message in this string, I haven't seen the weenie-vote-deck under CL yet. I'll build one and play it at my next opportunity. To me, this sounds more like "what could happen" than "what actually happens in play". >> >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >> >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". > >> >It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable >> >Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. > >> This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B >> under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or >> "Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? > >I'm not sure if I agree the deck above works, but even so, it does not >fit the criteria. If I ask for a lemon turnover in a bakery, and get a lime >turnover, it may be similar, but it's not what I'm asking for. If I had >asked for a "sweet, but sour turnover" then it would have been >appropriate. (Sorry for the awful analogy...) I just think we're being a little too picky. In fact, what we're looking for is "a robust deck that stops MS&B", which is more like "something sweet but sour" than it is like "lemon turnover". >> >>If you are the prey, you need to use the multi-player dynamic to get the >> others >> >>to help eliminate the Malk before they start scoring big. This has been >> >>cited as a negative; to me it's a matter of taste. > >> >That a table will gang up on a overly-powerful deck does not mean that >> >overly-powerful decks are a good thing. > >> Wait a minute, what about those "table-wide deals and discussions and >> broken promises" you mentioned before? Those are only OK during votes? > >The basic arguement here is that a table-wide deal should not be needed >to deal with one particular strategy. Certainly deals are necessary in >situations (during a vote, when that Gangrel combat monster starts >looking like it can mop a disorganized table, etc) but not in >generalities ("Uh-oh, a Malkavian sneak and bleed deck is on the table. >We'd best stomp it now..."). This concedes the grandeur of Malk S&B >outside a NL environment. I think we're in the realm of taste here. I don't mind the red lightsand bells that go off at our multi-way table when Malks show up. I don't think it's so far from your Gangrel combat monster example, and I think it's a good simulation of what happens in Vampire-land when Malks show up . . . >But the problem with saying that Obf-users are able to do as they wish in >a CL environment means that intercept decks are not equal to the stealth >decks. This should not be the case. From a mechanics standpoint it >shows imbalance. From a game world standpoint, it ignores the way its >source Vampire the Masquerade operates. There's been a string of postings under this subject concerning intercept vs. stealth that makes a decent case for their effective balance. >An imbalanced game that ignores its source material is not one I would >call "good". Me either (sound of a straw man hitting the deck). I'm not convinced CL is imbalanced (see my post adjusting James McClure's Brujah deck), and I don't know enough about the source material to comment. Sorry.

In article <4d5sk8$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >It appears to me that you are agreeing with the NLers that MS&B is so >powerful >under 4CL and that there are no effective counters (other than getting the >whole table to gang-bang the Malk). Do you have a problem with any other >type/theme of deck that your group auto-bangs (to keep people from playing >it)? I'm saying that we recognize the danger of MS&B and know that we ignore it at our peril. Any Obf-based deck gets the same treatment, more or less. See my post revamping your Brujah deck for what might be an effective counter. >>>Are you saying that all CL decks are viable under NL (in contradiction to >>>your earlier statement) or am I misreading your response? >> >>I'm saying that all CL decks (especially under more restrictive CL's) are >>at a disadvantage in NL. Therefore, since IME CL decks need to have more >>than one "focus" to win, the combinations of concepts that are common in >>CL become to slow to work in NL. > >IME, NL decks tend to have more than one focus (though they tend to have one >major, the others being minors) to prevent your opponents from shutting you >completely down with the play of a single card. My original question was, >"Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" >There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. Well, that's once around the mulberry bush. My answer stays the same; most decks that have a chance to win under CL have a diminished chance to win under NL because of the sharper, more effective decks possible under NL. I can't be any more clear than that. Looking forward to your comments on my adjustment of your Brujah rush deck.

In article <4d14qb$e...@superb.csc.ti.com>, c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes: > 10% promotes some >variety by preventing some of the most abusive things from happening, >but hasn't seemed to need any of the "fixes" (yet). I think if >someone made a weenie vote deck it could be abusive... but the group >isn't quite that competative. Weenie vote decks are out of control even under 6-card. I just disassembled a deck designed to test weenie vote under vote pushing and 6cl after finding it was indeed far too good.

In article <4d5sk8$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>>There is obviously a problem, though, if you have to "cry 'wolf'" when >>>a Malk shows up. >> >>Why not? I can't think of a better reason to "cry 'wolf'". Keeps folks >>from making MS&B in our group. > >It appears to me that you are agreeing with the NLers that MS&B is so powerful >under 4CL and that there are no effective counters (other than getting the >whole table to gang-bang the Malk). Do you have a problem with any other >type/theme of deck that your group auto-bangs (to keep people from playing it)? I don't know about his group, but we don't have a problem with Malk S&B. And we hardly have to "gang up" against it. This is, of course, after I showed them all what a single deck can do to Malks (my "Anson and his Brujah Friends" deck; and LionRAR's Gangrel Intercept deck seems to hold its own against them alright also). My deck wasn't specifically designed to destroy Malks, but it is definitely strengthened when they are on the table! Like when I Malk Dementia his Duane and then Golconda his butt. Yum! Or MD his Ozmo, Minion Tap him to 1 blood, and then send him into Trapped combat against my Prey (the Prey usually elects not to take the bleed). Anyone want to diablarize? I'm not blocking! Even without Anson out, stealing Ozmo and sending him in to bleed my prey is a good thing, as it's a no-lose situation. At the very least, he's out of my hair for a little while. I particularly liked stealing the Malk IC member from my Predator. Note that this isn't just a "Malk-Nuke" deck, but a deck that stands well on it's own (having an estimated 60/40 win/loss ratio when either Anson doesn't come out or there are no Malks on the table); however, if there *are* Malks out there, this deck actually increases in strength. Aside from MD's though, which are admittedly a Malk-specific card, I also like Archon Investigations, which I have used to before to burn, for example, Democritus (a highlight in my Jyhad career ;) ). At the very least, just the threat of them in your prey's hand tends to slow down the bleed modifications. It seems to me that the opponents of 4CL are leaving out the V:TES cards, either because they don't have them (Peace, James, as I know this is the case with you) or they are just ignoring them. For example, a Pot/Cel Rush deck is IMHO very viable under 4CL, particularly after you include some of the new cards (Volker and Rake will allow you to ust play little vamps and still be able to use Bloodhunts (even better than Bum's Rushes in certain instances, as they last longer than a turn, and better than Haven Uncovereds, as they can't re SRed or later removed, and they don't take a Master Phase Action). I will be modifying James' Cel/Pot Rush Deck, and trying to get someone else to play a Malk S&B deck (modified from one I downloaded to make it even more sick), to see how the Rush deck fares under 4CL. >My original question was, >"Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" >There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working to dispel). IMHO 4CL works well to slow down "selfish vote" decks (sure, you can throw in other PAs to push votes, but it's far *better* to only put in KRCs and a few Conservative Agitations), and Malk S&B decks aren't any more of a problem than Gangrel "Intercept&Burn" (which seem to give me the most problem). And 4CL does this with one simple house rule, as opposed to multiple house rules and/or a limited list. If you can't come up with a good way to counter a deck, IMHO it's because you haven't tried hard enough (just from reading your posts, I can tell that you are all *smart* enough, you just don't seem to be giving it a chance). Some arguments I have read say "Why an artificial 4-card limit?" Artificial? *All* the rules are artificial, in that they were constructed; they didn't just fall from the sky. Why not a 4-card limit (as opposed to another CL)? So it has the stigma of Tragic:TG attached to it. Is this so bad? IMHO a 3-card limit is too limiting, and a 6-card limit (in a typical 80-90 card deck) does very little to limit *anything* (the NL deck examples that I have seen don't seem to use more than 6 of any but 1 or two cards, and those 1 or 2 cards are only present in numbers like 7 or 8). Maybe a 5-card limit is best, but if I take this to my play group, I know they will ask, "Why a 5-card limit?" Why? I don't know. Because 4CL is too much like Magic? -- ****************************************************************************** This bit of wisdom has been brought to you by: Mark Havener Lord of elfh...@netcom.com Wood Elf King (and Jyhad player extraordinaire!) ******************************************************************************

Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: : "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> : wrote: : >c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: : >>I think he ment... effective more then viable. You have some decks : >>that can work and not be nuked under 4CL that you can't use under NL. : >>The main example I can think of is combat based decks. A workable : >>combat deck under 4CL will most likely die a horrible death to combat : >>decks in a NL enviroment. : >Are you saying that you could take a deck concept that worked under : >4CL and in an NL environment it would be unworkable? If so, I'd like : >and example, please. : Nope... what I ment is b/c 4cl and nl are different games, you can : create a deck that might get some victroy points in a 4cl enviroment, : but would be unable to function properly in a nl enviroment. : Specific example... ummmmm... I would say the Brujah 4cl "combat" deck : that was posted would do fairly well in a 4cl enviro. In a nl enviro : it wouldn't do as well, mainly b/c it wouldn't be as good at what it : did (combat) as the other combat decks were. Another example (and I'm : reaching here) would be a Malk nuke deck. A deck that in 4cl did : extremely well vs the common malk decks, and marginal against other : deck types. I would be able to negate the decks that several other : players would (most likely) be playing, and probably get so VP. But : in a nl enviro, there aren't as many people playing with Malks, so it : would be significantly weaker. : : >[big spiel on 10%CL omitted] : >Well, long, long, long ago, I suggested 10%CL as a mid-ground, mainly : >because I couldn't see a situation where I would ever need more than : >10% of my deck to be any one card. Unfortunately, 10%CL wouldn't fix : >the wienie vote problem. : I don't think it does either, but until someone in our group tries to [ quoted text not captured ]

elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: >>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >It seems to me that the opponents of 4CL are leaving out the V:TES cards, >either because they don't have them (Peace, James, as I know this is the >case with you) or they are just ignoring them. For example, a Pot/Cel Peace Mark, Yes, until WotC sees the error of its ways, I'm locked out of VtES/DS/AH/etc. Since I can't buy any, I can't experiment with them. >>My original question was, >>"Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" >>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. > >So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >to dispel). A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). >Some arguments I have read say "Why an artificial 4-card limit?" >Artificial? *All* the rules are artificial, in that they were >constructed; they didn't just fall from the sky. Why not a 4-card limit Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any card limits. The idea was that the card set would be self limiting (you get what you pay for), so having lots of one specific card wouldn't degenerate. CL is "artificial" in that it goes totally against the design of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

I've been following the CL vs NL debate for awhile. I've tried both. I've tried *really* restricted play (4CL plus no duplicate Masters!), and I've tried no-holds-barred NL with an extensive collection. I had fun both ways, but... On the NL side, I can understand and agree all the logical arguments against card limites, particularly how it affects the level of power of permanents in the game. To me, this is the strongest argument. However, on the CL side, I've become disgusted with the NL environment because once players (new ones) got over their magic-mindset, the decks and play got extremely *boring*. A deck made out of (essentially) four to six cards just gets boring after a couple turns. I think the main difference between the two camps is that CL players are looking for a good *game*, while NL players are looking for a good gaming *environment*. I have to admit that each individual *game* under CL was more fun, but that NL opened up more possibilities... but games were often lopsided and dull. I've considered my own feelings on this subject for weeks now, and the only compromise (and I have to admit, I feel one is necessary) is: well, either play with no limits and avoid "boring" players (a problem in that often one finds this out too late), or play with some loose limits (6CL, 10% whatever) but allow one or two cards to "break the rule"... just name your transgressing card (usually Rush), and away you go! It's an idea anyway, mainly to promote within-game variety. Just had to let out my recent thoughts. You may return to your pointless bickering. :) -scott "Lord God, war is a beautiful thing, but I want to fight for my own pleasure and not because my adversary eats meat on Friday." -- Monsieur de Saint-Savin, _The_Island_of_the_Day_Before_

In article <4dh8kf$n...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: >>>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>>>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>It seems to me that the opponents of 4CL are leaving out the V:TES cards, >>either because they don't have them (Peace, James, as I know this is the >>case with you) or they are just ignoring them. For example, a Pot/Cel > >Peace Mark, > >Yes, until WotC sees the error of its ways, I'm locked out of VtES/DS/AH/etc. >Since I can't buy any, I can't experiment with them. Pity. Some of the new cards are pretty cool. Though I can sympathize with your position, I love the game to much to do the same. I bought a box and a half of the DS expansion (which I would have bought with or without the change in card backs), and 2 decks and 2 boosters of Vampire (plus a few loose vamps). So I spent about $20 more (after various discounts) than I might have had the card backs stayed the same. After trading, I have plenty of cards to play a 40/60 library and 100% V:TES crypt, for most of my decks, actually. $20 was worth it to me. >>>My original question was, >>>"Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" >>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. >> >>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >>to dispel). > >A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat >involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). Okay. I'm not going to try and disprove this, because even if I did, you'd just come back with a "Crazy Malkavian" deck--a deck who's primary purpose is to steal a Malkavian (with Malk Dementia) each turn. ;) I'll concede that some theoretical themes that focus on only a couple of cards aren't possible when you play under a 4CL (though I think your "Kitchen Sink" deck is feasible under CL, at least under 6CL/10%CL...it'll just be smaller than under NL). >>Some arguments I have read say "Why an artificial 4-card limit?" >>Artificial? *All* the rules are artificial, in that they were >>constructed; they didn't just fall from the sky. Why not a 4-card limit > >Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that >Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any >card limits. The idea was that the card set would be self limiting (you get >what you pay for), so having lots of one specific card wouldn't degenerate. >CL is "artificial" in that it goes totally against the design of the game. Well, Fortunately (for my argument), Magic was designed to be fully playable without any card limits also. Even though CL "goes against the design" of Tragic as well, you don't see people complaining that the 4CL in Magic is "artificial". Though Magic is *more* broken than V:TES under NL, that doesn't mean that V:TES wouldn't be better with a CL. I've played both with and without CL (having started Jyhad soon after it was released), and I feel that the CL environment makes for a more exciting game. Obviously you disagree with that, because it's a matter of taste, and we have different tastes. So we can agree to disagree here. I'd rather play with one simple house rule (4CL) than a bunch of house rules (which even the CL proponents agree are necessary to make the game "unbroken"). Again, a matter of taste, and we can agree to disagree here. BTW, I took the "Pepsi Challenge" with my play group tonight, and tried a slightly altered version of your Cel/Pot Rush deck. I wanted to pit it against the worst (according to many anti-limit critics) deck in 4CL--the Malk S&B deck. So I took one off of a Web page (thanks Sea...@Psinet.net.au), and modified it to make it even nastier (for example, adding Thoughts Betrayed from DS in case combat ensued, and a Sengir Dagger and Ivory Bow, to go with the TBs--Rush this!). In the first game of the evening, I played the Malks, and proceeded to walk through the other 3 Methuselahs (no one else ousted his prey but me!). It was nasty, as expected. Then I played the Rush deck that I had built, and took my place as the Malk's prey (giving the deck to a volunteer--a guy who plays Malks quite often). It was like he hit a brick wall. Every time he brought out a vamp, it got sent back in. He did not have much fun that game. My deck would have done even better if his predator had been mine (a Nosferatu deck that did considerably less damage with each bleed that *did* get through). I will be testing the deck a few more times over the next few weeks, but in the first trial, it seems to be able to hold its own pretty well against Malk S&B. I will post my Rush deck in a seperate message. -Elfholme [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960112104809.281F-100000@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >Honestly though, the tone seems so much more cordial. Thanks especially >to Charles S., TJH, and NCascone for disagreeing in a thought-provoking >manner. There are others, but I'm too tired (just finished playing 4 and >4 player game of Jyhad. 13 straight hours! 8pm->9am) to think of any >others! > > Thanks; I try . . .

In article <4d3ecd$b...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >>Look, here's my current position. NL needs fixes on specific >>cards/actions because of insufficient playtesting, an issue about which we >>can do nothing. It makes possible decks that are OTP's, which are dull to >>play against. > >Agreed. It seems we differ on whether or not making these fixes is worth it. Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is more elegant. >>It rewards people who have loads of expensive cards to put in their decks. > >Not true. The cards that are most useful seem to be commons. A ten cent >card >isn't expensive :) Of course, getting a dollars worth of those ten cent cards >requires you do do something other than open a booster, which may be easier >for >some than others. See response to $ issue under another thread of this string. >>CL helps address the broken-card/action issue by limiting their frequency. >> It's more difficult to make a OTP (except the S&B). > >...and weenie votes. It takes a 2CL (ala the DC tourny rules) to stop that. Tourney rules are now 6CL for these cards. Another triumph for the WotC Rules folks! >>The main argument against CL right now is that it maks the S&B deck a >>stable strategy by "eliminating" the effectiveness of it's natural enemy, >>the Rush combat deck. I believe the jury is still out on this question. > >Actually, that was just the most extreme example. Rush combat is the most >restricted, because there are only 2 types of Rush cards to choose from. The >difference between the two styles of play can really only be felt if you try >some of each. I find that a tight card limit makes for a game where people >sit >around waiting to draw a useful card. NL games are faster and more exciting. >Pretty much every deck design simply works better. Faster, maybe; exciting is one of those inarguable "taste" words. The real problem for the game is the stable strategy; if there's no natural enemy for the MS&B the game is broken. >You raised the point elsewhere that this is not the style of play your group >likes. You want to bring one Jyhad deck along, but don't want to be run over >by a deck style that your deck can't handle, since you have no option to >change. I find the "in between hands" phase of the game, where people adjust >their decks or haul out new ones, to be entertainingg. Different gameing >environments are obviously contributing to the way we feel on the issue. Not everyone likes dragging their binder(s) of V:TES around to be able to adjust decks between playing . . . >>Also, please note: while 4CL may be too restrictive for the Rush deck, >>perhaps 8CL or 15% would allow it to work. This is a question that can be >>resolved _in_play_; CL fans should get on it. I am. > >I'd tend to agree with this. In fact, there are few NL decks that would push >an 8CL, actually, so you playing under an 8CL probobly is the same as James >playing under NL. In fact, you're right; James' deck is legal under 10% or 8CL. >The vote pushing problem is a separate issue. I'll choose to play the game >as >Jyhad was originally written (a meth may play _a_ PA for a vote), and happily >ignore VtES and the RT :) Can't find this. Quote, please? >Wow, the always bitter CL argument, approaching a cordial level of >understanding? Film at 11:00!! :) And people think the human race isn't making progress . . .

In article <4d9lgh$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Weenie vote decks are out of control even under 6-card. I just >disassembled a deck designed to test weenie vote under vote pushing and >6cl after finding it was indeed far too good. Hmmm. Well, maybe there's a different overall fix that doesn't bust the vote decks . . .

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960112101050.281C@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >Not quite. Rares that are powerful are typically unique or highly >expensive (a la horrid reality) or both. For the remainder, it is not >the rares that are need in bulk, but the commons - the Bum's Rushes, the >Telepathic Counters, etc.. On the contrary, a CL environment rewards >people who have loads of expensive cards because after they max out on >torn signposts they can go to town with fists of death. Yeah, but the big $ player can forget signposts if they want and go right for a pile of FoD . . . I don't think this is a real big point either way . . . >CL also needs fixes on the "broken card" issue, or at least as much as NL >does. As an example, look at LSJ's house rules. Nearly all of them >could be taken away and NL holds. All you need to hang on to are >these: > > @#$@#$ The "Golden Tenents" of Jyhad $#@$#@ > 1) No unlimited vote push > 2) No repeat actions. I haven't much experience with the "broken weenie vote" deck, but I'm pretty sure that with a CL repeat actions aren't that much of a problem. There are problems with Toreador Grand Ball and Thoughts Betrayed now, too. NL will need help with these; wonder if CL will? >> CL helps address the broken-card/action issue by limiting their frequency. >> It's more difficult to make a OTP (except the S&B). In my experience, >> people who have fewer cards are more comfortable with a CL environment >> because they feel less threatened. > >They do tend to feel more threatened until you show them a collection. >After they've played about 4-5 games, they can see, as cool as Patagia >is, Bum's Rush is usually more useful in their Nosferatu deck. As is >Storm Sewers. Maybe my local players haven't been paying attention . . . they're a lot more concerned about degenerate decks with 15 of one card . . . >As for CL limiting the frequency of cards, as more cards get made, CL >begins to fail at this, due to the "Lightning Bolt" effect from Magic. I >don't mean just varied forms of stealth. I mean suddenly having 4 more >S:CE or similar card usable by presence. I mean another KRC-like vote. Are we still on this CL helps $ players thing? Can we agree to disagree? This is an issue only if you're building a deck that wants more than 4 of a common card that has a rare (and only a rare) that performs a similar action. There may be a few of these, but not many more than that. And this is more than balanced by the fact that the 15-Majesty deck can't be built (even under no multi-actions, this is a pain, and boring besides). >As an aside, see what Carlotta Giovanni (7-Blood from DS who can retrieve >_any_ card from the ash heap at 1-stealth) does in a CL environment. >Suddenly you have unlimited KRC/majesty/whatever. (Yes, she can be >blocked, but in a deck that uses her, who cares? If you play to protect >her, it doesn't matter.) This just shows that WotC is lousy at playtesting. Carlotta has the same effect in NL. >> The main argument against CL right now is that it maks the S&B deck a >> stable strategy by "eliminating" the effectiveness of it's natural enemy, >> the Rush combat deck. I believe the jury is still out on this question. > >(more assertions re: Rush deck under 4CL vs. MS&B) We'll see. >> Also, please note: while 4CL may be too restrictive for the Rush deck, >> perhaps 8CL or 15% would allow it to work. This is a question that can be >> resolved _in_play_; CL fans should get on it. I am. > >Glad to hear it. :) Good luck in your quest. Thanks; the deck's been posted. Have you looked at it yet?

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >>> >>I saw at least 1 Brujah Rush deck posted under CL. The leading NL >>> >>proponent dismissed it because "real Brujah don't use guns". >>> >It was dismissed as not being a Rush Combat, but rather, a viable >>> >Vote/Rush/Gun deck. Rush Combat is not possible under 4cl. >>> This is straining at a pea. If there's a viable counter-strategy to S&B >>> under CL, what's the difference whether it's "Rush Combat" or >>> "Vote/Rush/Gun"? Nomenclature? What's the big deal? >>I'm not sure if I agree the deck above works, but even so, it does not >>fit the criteria. If I ask for a lemon turnover in a bakery, and get a lime >>turnover, it may be similar, but it's not what I'm asking for. If I had >>asked for a "sweet, but sour turnover" then it would have been >>appropriate. (Sorry for the awful analogy...) >I just think we're being a little too picky. In fact, what we're looking >for is "a robust deck that stops MS&B", which is more like "something >sweet but sour" than it is like "lemon turnover". Peace be with you, No. Actually, I mentioned my Brujah Rush deck in response to something along the lines of 'all decks work under 4CL.' Cel/Pot Brujah Rush does not work under 4CL. It just happens that my deck is very good against Malk S&B (it represents one of the three "primary strategies" in Jyhad: bleed, vote, combat). [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >>As an aside, see what Carlotta Giovanni (7-Blood from DS who can retrieve >>_any_ card from the ash heap at 1-stealth) does in a CL environment. >>Suddenly you have unlimited KRC/majesty/whatever. (Yes, she can be >>blocked, but in a deck that uses her, who cares? If you play to protect >>her, it doesn't matter.) > >This just shows that WotC is lousy at playtesting. Carlotta has the same >effect in NL. Peace be with you, No, she doesn't. Since you can have an infinite number of whichever card in your library that you would be pulling out of your graveyard, there is no reason to pull cards out of your graveyard. Just draw the next card in your library. When you only have four of a card in your library, being able to reuse those limited resources is a tremendous advantage. When you can put as many of any card in your deck you want, you don't need to sift through your graveyard. [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >>NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >>>Look, here's my current position. NL needs fixes on specific >>>cards/actions because of insufficient playtesting, an issue about which we >>>can do nothing. It makes possible decks that are OTP's, which are dull to >>>play against. >> >>Agreed. It seems we differ on whether or not making these fixes is worth >it. > >Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix >them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is >more elegant. Peace be with you, That last sentence really bothers me. Elegant: /adj/ marked by or displaying elegance. Elegance: _1a._ grace and refinement in appearance, movement, or manners. _b._ tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. _2a._ grace and restraint of style. _b._ scientific precision and exactness. _3._ something elegant or luxurious. I assume that you are using definition #2 for "elegant." How can you say a limit on every card, not just the problem ones, is "restrained of style" or "precise/exact"? This is one of the big problems I have with CL. It arbitrarily limits cards which aren't broken (even in large numbers). Why limit all the cards when only a handful are broken/problem cards? Since when are "sledgehammer solutions" elegant? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> >>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. >> >>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >>to dispel). > >A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat >involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A little creativity will get you Grenades. >Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that >Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any >card limits. So was Magic. TJH

On 17 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960112101050.281C@pentose>, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > > >Not quite. Rares that are powerful are typically unique or highly > >expensive (a la horrid reality) or both. For the remainder, it is not > >the rares that are need in bulk, but the commons - the Bum's Rushes, the > >Telepathic Counters, etc.. On the contrary, a CL environment rewards > >people who have loads of expensive cards because after they max out on > >torn signposts they can go to town with fists of death. > > Yeah, but the big $ player can forget signposts if they want and go right > for a pile of FoD . . . I don't think this is a real big point either way > . . . Not as big as the others, true. :) IMHO, however, while a $ player can exist in either environment, a $ player in NL isn't a threat. So what if they have 20 FoD. All it takes are a few Majesties, Obedience, Earth Meld, Skin of Steel, (Protean Card reducing damage to 1), Thoughts Betrayed, Dodge, Manuever, Aggro +Rotschreck, etc.., etc.. etc... In a CL environment, once you run out of common cards, you have to start finding the uncommons. Once they run out, you _need_ the rares. In NL, you don't _need_ any rare to make a particular deck. > >CL also needs fixes on the "broken card" issue, or at least as much as NL > > >does. As an example, look at LSJ's house rules. Nearly all of them > >could be taken away and NL holds. All you need to hang on to are > >these: > > > > @#$@#$ The "Golden Tenents" of Jyhad $#@$#@ > > 1) No unlimited vote push > > 2) No repeat actions. > > I haven't much experience with the "broken weenie vote" deck, but I'm > pretty sure that with a CL repeat actions aren't that much of a problem. > There are problems with Toreador Grand Ball and Thoughts Betrayed now, > too. NL will need help with these; wonder if CL will? See my post in another thread on Weenie Vote and Repeat actions. CL needs just as much help as NL. As for Toreador Grand Ball and Thoughts Betrayed, I don't know if they really need fixing or not (as I've said previously). > >> CL helps address the broken-card/action issue by limiting their > frequency. > >> It's more difficult to make a OTP (except the S&B). In my experience, > >> people who have fewer cards are more comfortable with a CL environment > >> because they feel less threatened. > > > >They do tend to feel more threatened until you show them a collection. > >After they've played about 4-5 games, they can see, as cool as Patagia > >is, Bum's Rush is usually more useful in their Nosferatu deck. As is > >Storm Sewers. > > Maybe my local players haven't been paying attention . . . they're a lot > more concerned about degenerate decks with 15 of one card . . . I have literally _NEVER SEEN_ a degenerate deck made under the Golden Tenets of Jyhad. I have long issued a challenge to players to post a "degenerate" deck under those two tenets. No one I know has been able to do it, and I know _alot_ of Jyhad players. > >As for CL limiting the frequency of cards, as more cards get made, CL > >begins to fail at this, due to the "Lightning Bolt" effect from Magic. I > >don't mean just varied forms of stealth. I mean suddenly having 4 more > >S:CE or similar card usable by presence. I mean another KRC-like vote. > > Are we still on this CL helps $ players thing? Can we agree to disagree? But of course. This arguement isn't a $ arguement, but rather an arguement about how CL breaks down once the "degenerate" cards start having more clones of them (a la lightning bolt). > This is an issue only if you're building a deck that wants more than 4 of > a common card that has a rare (and only a rare) that performs a similar > action. There may be a few of these, but not many more than that. And > this is more than balanced by the fact that the 15-Majesty deck can't be > built (even under no multi-actions, this is a pain, and boring besides). A pain, yes. Boring, yes. But, what is the deck _doing_? Not too much. S:CE can be dealt with by a number of cards, and even if the minion gets out of combat scott free, they now have a minion who cannot attempt the same action. If they are playing politics, sorry no more motions from that vampire. If they are bleeding, sorry no more bleed. If they are doing both, they are weakening their ability to do either, and their bleeds will be less resilient, their votes less likely to pass. Who cares if there are 15 majeties? > >As an aside, see what Carlotta Giovanni (7-Blood from DS who can retrieve > >_any_ card from the ash heap at 1-stealth) does in a CL environment. > >Suddenly you have unlimited KRC/majesty/whatever. (Yes, she can be > >blocked, but in a deck that uses her, who cares? If you play to protect > >her, it doesn't matter.) > > This just shows that WotC is lousy at playtesting. Carlotta has the same > effect in NL. Far diminished. Yes, she can grab the card when you want it (better than having to wait to draw it), but If she can bring a hospitality back for the 5th time, if she can get yet another KRC, and everyone else has only 4 of a card, they are hopelessly outdone. I've seen it happen in a defacto 4CL (the Jyhad League). Everyone else has ~4 of a card at most, but with Carlotta, that players has however many of whatever card they want from their grave. In NL, everyone has however many of whatever card they want. They just can't get back the cards they have already played, they need it in hand. [Snippage on Rush v S&B.] > [Work on 4CL Rush deck] > Thanks; the deck's been posted. Have you looked at it yet? Just recently. See my comments on that thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960110152545.342O-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: [Discussion of weenie hordes and vote push not being contained in CL] > Under CL you have 12 untaps max (I think) and they require superior of > these 3 disciplines. Multi-actions are just not that much of a problem. > As far as weenie votes go, I don't know why, but our group hasn't seen > these unlimited weenie vote decks yet. I'll try one and let you all know > if it works, but I think these assertions might be based more on "what > could happen" rather than "what actually does happen in play". Vote > push/mutli-actions are much more of a problem in NL, obviously. In NL without house rules on vote pushing and repeat actions, they are definately more of a problem. But this does not end the problem in CL. In my Jyhad League, I play a Ventrue/Gangrel deck. The league itself has a defacto 4CL simply because AFAIK, no one has more than 4 of a card. My own deck, if I could max out on these cards, would have 4 Majesty, 4 Earth Meld, 4 Freak Drive, 4 Form of Mist (not an untapper-per-se, but accomplishing the same goal, tapping a minion and continuing the action, and an inferior Freak Drive can continue going), and 4 Force of Will. Throw in Presence Based Bleed and Misdirection and your deck is finished. With Skill cards, you find yourself with 16 Masters, a base deck of 40 cards and you throw in Presence bleed for fun. When my own deck has come up with its multitude of untap, only rules disallowing repeat actions have allowed me to swarm my prey. As a result, I have thrown in offensive vote to keep up the pressure. On a side note, if a decent interceptor can't get up next to a deck with Carlotta Giovanni, that deck has effectively won (each time I have seen Carlotta come up in the Brujah/Giovanni Brute Force Politics deck, KRC every turn..., without others having a decent reliable way to stop it.) CL does not address these. As for the true "bear": vote push. In _ANY_ environment, weenie vote push reigns supreme. Here is an explicit example: @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ The Battle Royal: A Weenie 4CL Vote Push Deck vs. Five Other NL Decks I was playing Jyhad one night with an experiment in mind. I had played with vote pushing before, but had never seen it actually done to the edge. Would it still work under 4CL? See for yourself. The five other decks are my own. Others who have played them or agaisnt them might attest by their integrity as decks (I certainly do). They are all constructed under NL, and I'm sure that even the CL-camp will agree: a NL deck can more easily accomplish an objective than a CL deck. I.e., NL Rush is more reliable, etc.. The Decks, in order of play: 1) "The Slumlords": A Nosferatu Political deck. Rush/Hidden Lurker the other voters. Pass your own at will. Only uses POT/OBF. 2) "Jeute! Merde!": A Ravnos "Screw" deck. Has all of the clan/strategy hosers. It uses thievery, Sudden Reversals, and Cross Table Stealth Reduction to mess with the table. Much anti-politics. 3) "Sowing Dissension's Seeds": A Presence Based Politics deck. Uses 2 Haven Uncovered and 6 Bloodhunts to get the table to fight itself. Dramatic Upheavels to move about to the best location. VERY good at making a vampire targetable. 4) "WEENIE VOTE PUSH": See below. 5) "The Stoic": A Gangrel Permanent Intercept deck. Regularly gets several minions with +1, and one with +3, not including cat's guidance. Fortitude combat and mucho presses. 6) "It Runs Like Water": A Tremere/Brujah CEL/THA deck. Uses 8 Haven Uncovered to slam dance someone by multiple attackers if necessary. Lots of temporary intercept, Bleed Bounce, and Cryptic Missions. THE WEENIE VOTE PUSH DECK: Crypt: Two of Each Caitiff, One of each other 2-Capacity, One Gideon Fontaine. Library: 4 Misdirection, 4 Anarch Revolt, 4 Information Superhighway, 4 Effective Management, 1 Of Each Praxis Seizure (19 Total), 4 KRC, 4 Sabbat Threat, 4 Parity Shift, 4 Conservative Agitation, 4 Domain Challenge, 4 Ancilla Empowerment, 4 The First Tradition, 4 Regaining the Upper Hand, 4 Consainguineas (sp?) Condemnation, 4 Bewitching Oration, 2 Kindred Segregation, 1 Command of the Harpies. 78 Card Total. Turns: Action: 2 First Praxis Seizure called and passed with 5 pushes. Would not have passed without pushes. Two more votes called to make another Prince and to use Conservative Agitation, not requiring vote push. 3 Another Prince. Comprehension dawns on the table, and they begin dealing to squash the deck. 4 The Gang Bang begins... 6 Player 2 dies 7 Player 1 dies 8 Player 6 dies 9 Player 5 decides to oust player 4 so that at least he can pick up some victory points. 10 Player 5 dies End result: Weenie Vote Push Deck has 5 victory points, 11 pool, 5 vampires in torpor, and 6 vampires in play (5 are Princes). Without ending vote push, this will be a creatable, virtually unbeatable deck. This deck also contested two vampires. It dropped them. Why should it care? There is always another prince 2 pool away. @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ One of the arguements for CL is that it does not need "bulky, non-elegant" rules to play well. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It _does_ need a no vote-push rule to be a viable game. Otherwise, what then? If a new player comes with their deck will you tell them, "So sorry, but you cannot play that deck, we just can't beat it." With repeat actions, though I have not explicitly shown so, it to is not truly "fixed", merely partially restrained. To top it off: Carlotta Giovanni. Her powers make her an instant add to a deck that wants to be "degenerate" in CL. Whatever you argue about CL, one thing that cannot be argued is that it does not need "inelegant" fixes. It needs them just as NL does. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4djg2i$e...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >That last sentence really bothers me. Elegant: /adj/ marked by or displaying >elegance. Elegance: _1a._ grace and refinement in appearance, movement, or >manners. _b._ tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. _2a._ >grace and restraint of style. _b._ scientific precision and exactness. _3._ >something elegant or luxurious. I assume that you are using definition #2 >for "elegant." How can you say a limit on every card, not just the problem >ones, is "restrained of style" or "precise/exact"? This is one of the big >problems I have with CL. It arbitrarily limits cards which aren't broken >(even in large numbers). Why limit all the cards when only a handful are >broken/problem cards? Since when are "sledgehammer solutions" elegant? This is a shift of argument, but I'm game. Be forewarned, though, "elegance", like "fun", can often be in the eye of the beholder. If we assume that CL's go some way toward fixing the multi-action/vote-push problems (and all the other problems caused by busted cards), CL's provide 1 blanket rule to fix the system. Otherwise, we are forced to use 1 rule each for each broken card/action. To me, one rule is more "restrained of style", not to mention "precise and exact".

In article <4djf1s$d...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >No. Actually, I mentioned my Brujah Rush deck in response to something >along the lines of 'all decks work under 4CL.' Cel/Pot Brujah Rush does >not work under 4CL. It just happens that my deck is very good against Malk >S&B (it represents one of the three "primary strategies" in Jyhad: bleed, >vote, combat). OK, but the main thrust of the NL argument against CL is that MS&B becomes unstopable except by ganging up. A robust 4CL Rush deck would prove this wrong under the most severe CL; we could then generalize to all CL.

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >>That last sentence really bothers me. Elegant: /adj/ marked by or displaying >>elegance. Elegance: _1a._ grace and refinement in appearance, movement, or >>manners. _b._ tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. _2a._ >>grace and restraint of style. _b._ scientific precision and exactness. _3._ >>something elegant or luxurious. I assume that you are using definition #2 >>for "elegant." How can you say a limit on every card, not just the problem >>ones, is "restrained of style" or "precise/exact"? This is one of the big >>problems I have with CL. It arbitrarily limits cards which aren't broken >>(even in large numbers). Why limit all the cards when only a handful are >>broken/problem cards? Since when are "sledgehammer solutions" elegant? > >This is a shift of argument, but I'm game. Be forewarned, though, >"elegance", like "fun", can often be in the eye of the beholder. Peace be with you, It is not a shift of argument. I took exception with your choice of wording in your last sentence and went about explaining why I felt that your choice of words was incorrect. Yes, the "tasteful" definition of elegance is definitely opinion based. >If we assume that CL's go some way toward fixing the >multi-action/vote-push problems (and all the other problems caused by >busted cards), CL's provide 1 blanket rule to fix the system. Otherwise, >we are forced to use 1 rule each for each broken card/action. To me, one >rule is more "restrained of style", not to mention "precise and exact". If that is true (CL goes some way toward fixing problems caused by busted cards), then 1CL should be the ultimate way to play. No broken card can ever be a problem. This is also extremely elegant (see your last sentence). [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >In article <4djf1s$d...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." ><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >>No. Actually, I mentioned my Brujah Rush deck in response to something >>along the lines of 'all decks work under 4CL.' Cel/Pot Brujah Rush does >>not work under 4CL. It just happens that my deck is very good against Malk >>S&B (it represents one of the three "primary strategies" in Jyhad: bleed, >>vote, combat). > >OK, but the main thrust of the NL argument against CL is that MS&B becomes >unstopable except by ganging up. A robust 4CL Rush deck would prove this >wrong under the most severe CL; we could then generalize to all CL. Peace be with you, MS&B is just one fascet of the debate against CL. Limiting my choices of deck (concept) is very important to me. Yes, a robust 4CL Rush deck would disprove the Malk assertion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Jan 1996, Mark Havener wrote: [Discussion by James McClure, NCascone, and others on "elegance"] > If I may interject a couple things here: "Elegant" in reference to game > design usually refers to the most important rule of thumb--KISS (Keep It > Simple, Stupid). If a single rule can be made that adequately solves a > game problem or loophole (or even better, a group of problems, as in this > case), it is better to use it than to use 2-3 rules > (even if the 2-3 rules might solve the problem a little better--a very > arguable point in the case of Jyhad/V:TES). A simple card limit rule is > more "elegant" in this case because it fixes the problem of the "broken" > cards with a single rule. If you play NL, you need either 2 houserules > (no repeat sactins, and no vote pushing), or a list of restricted cards, > to make the game work. And neither of these NL "fixes" address the > problems with the new cards (I know you don't use DS James, but many of > us do). You concede that NL works with the 2 Golden Tenets of Jyhad (No repeat actions and no vote push). You also say that CL works with its one rule. We both agree on the first point, but CL does not work to stop the Weenie Vote Push deck. In my explicit example in another thread, I showed this. Even with 4CL, the Weenie Vote Deck _DECIMATES_ 5 NL decks. In _any_ environment you _need_ a no vote push rule. Play the deck I posted and find out. Just don't let anyone else know what you are playing until the third turn (if they haven't figured it out yet). > As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to adopt > new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted list" > (depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ours who use > CL won't have to change our play environment at all. THAT'S why CL is > more elegant. True NL doesn't use a restricted list. This list comes from the Duelist Convocation, which I think nearly everyone agrees, can't come up with a decent set of rules for Jyhad to save their lives. ;) As for not having to change your environment at all, what happen's when the first KRC and Majesty and Hospitality and WwEF and this and that and the other "degenerate" (I use this term with reservation) cards get brothers and sisters. At that point you have a de-facto 8CL for those cards. The more that come, the more you will experience the "lightning bolt" effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4dlm4g$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>If we assume that CL's go some way toward fixing the >>multi-action/vote-push problems (and all the other problems caused by >>busted cards), CL's provide 1 blanket rule to fix the system. Otherwise, >>we are forced to use 1 rule each for each broken card/action. To me, one >>rule is more "restrained of style", not to mention "precise and exact". > >If that is true (CL goes some way toward fixing problems caused by busted >cards), then 1CL should be the ultimate way to play. No broken card can >ever be a problem. This is also extremely elegant (see your last sentence). Peace, James: I have to disagree with your statement that 1CL would be the ultimate way to play. 1CL is merely the penultimate. 0CL would be the ultimte way to play (if CL goes some way toward...). In fact, 0CL is how I prefer to play VtES. But for Jyhad, NL is my vote. :-) Hunter -- /\ J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhun...@io.com for GURPS bib. & Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-e...@io.com "What's the point of trying if you can't be a winner?" -- Calvin

In article <4djg2i$e...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >>>NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix >>them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is >>more elegant. > >Peace be with you, > >That last sentence really bothers me. Elegant: /adj/ marked by or displaying >elegance. Elegance: _1a._ grace and refinement in appearance, movement, or >manners. _b._ tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. _2a._ >grace and restraint of style. _b._ scientific precision and exactness. _3._ >something elegant or luxurious. I assume that you are using definition #2 >for "elegant." How can you say a limit on every card, not just the problem >ones, is "restrained of style" or "precise/exact"? This is one of the big >problems I have with CL. It arbitrarily limits cards which aren't broken >(even in large numbers). Why limit all the cards when only a handful are >broken/problem cards? Since when are "sledgehammer solutions" elegant? If I may interject a couple things here: "Elegant" in reference to game design usually refers to the most important rule of thumb--KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). If a single rule can be made that adequately solves a game problem or loophole (or even better, a group of problems, as in this case), it is better to use it than to use 2-3 rules (even if the 2-3 rules might solve the problem a little better--a very arguable point in the case of Jyhad/V:TES). A simple card limit rule is more "elegant" in this case because it fixes the problem of the "broken" cards with a single rule. If you play NL, you need either 2 houserules (no repeat sactins, and no vote pushing), or a list of restricted cards, to make the game work. And neither of these NL "fixes" address the problems with the new cards (I know you don't use DS James, but many of us do). As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to adopt new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted list" (depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ours who use CL won't have to change our play environment at all. THAT'S why CL is more elegant. -Elfholme [ quoted text not captured ]

>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> > >>>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. >>> >>>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >>>to dispel). >> >>A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat >>involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). > > Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A >little creativity will get you Grenades. Canine Hordes is the only ANI strike card. Wolf Companion and Murder of Crows do not benefit from the additional strike them of a pitch deck.> A Kitchen Sink deck, or pitch deck as someone termed, or what I call a frisbee deck, runs in it's simplest form on pot/cel. Brujah are the obvious choice. To add animalism, we would like Brujah with ANI, or even ani.. Brujah with ani: Don Cruez. That's it. And it's not even superior. Other clans have few more to contribute with all three skills. Angus (Gangrel) Lucretia, Harrod and Tiberius (Nosferatu) are some of the few. So even before we touch the library our crypt is full of 10 cost and IC vamps. Not a good idea. And you can't run a skill off 4 Master:Skill cards, so that's out. All this work and what do we get out of it? 4 Canine hordes. Big deal. This deck just can't work under 4CL. >>Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that >>Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any >>card limits. > >So was Magic. > I think JRM was saying that Magic made WotC realize how to design a game that worked without card limits. If he wasn't, then I am. :) gnfnrf > >

In article <4djecv$d...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >No, she doesn't. Since you can have an infinite number of whichever card >in your library that you would be pulling out of your graveyard, there is >no reason to pull cards out of your graveyard. Just draw the next card in >your library. When you only have four of a card in your library, being >able to reuse those limited resources is a tremendous advantage. When you >can put as many of any card in your deck you want, you don't need to sift >through your graveyard. Obviously she does have an enhanced effect in NL, but the point I was responding to was that she gives an unlimited supply of whatever card you want; even if you have 15 of a card in your 80-card library, your chances are pretty slim of drawing one out of your library on any given draw of one card.

On 18 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > OK, but the main thrust of the NL argument against CL is that MS&B becomes > unstopable except by ganging up. A robust 4CL Rush deck would prove this > wrong under the most severe CL; we could then generalize to all CL. That would take out one facet of the NL arguement. It would not address deck construction options, new player competition, the need for CL to use the same fixes NL has to work (the Golden Tenets), the "Lightning Bolt" effect, and Carlotta Giovanni. To continue with the Golden Tenets arguement, under CL w/o the Golden Tenets, degenerate decks can be made. Under NL w/ the Golden Tenets, degenerate decks can not be made. I'm sure others would be happy to add to this list. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Scott A DiBerardino wrote: > I've been following the CL vs NL debate for awhile. I've tried both. I've > tried *really* restricted play (4CL plus no duplicate Masters!), and I've > tried no-holds-barred NL with an extensive collection. I had fun both > ways, but... > > On the NL side, I can understand and agree all the logical arguments > against card limites, particularly how it affects the level of power of > permanents in the game. To me, this is the strongest argument. > > However, on the CL side, I've become disgusted with the NL environment > because once players (new ones) got over their magic-mindset, the decks > and play got extremely *boring*. A deck made out of (essentially) four to > six cards just gets boring after a couple turns. This situation is not a result of the mindset in NL construction, but of the players in those game. I would be interested in seeing some of those decks work. I.e., would they qualify as robust or are they One-Trick-Ponies who die as a result of a single card. In my own decks, they tend to be very varied. As an example, one I've already posted ("Sowing Dissension's Seeds"), has a number of Majesty (6 or 8, I can't remember :), 4 or 6 Bloodhunts, 3 or 4 Dramatic Upheavel, and hardly anything else with more than 2 copies. > I think the main difference between the two camps is that CL players are > looking for a good *game*, while NL players are looking for a good gaming > *environment*. I have to admit that each individual *game* under CL was > more fun, but that NL opened up more possibilities... but games were often > lopsided and dull. I think that everyone is looking for both. The NL camp wants to have fun, just like anyone else, and the CL camp want a fair environment, like anyone else. Yes, one can make effective and _dull_ NL decks. But this is a personal choice. One can make decks that are just as effective but not dull. NL does not mean OTP. > I've considered my own feelings on this subject for weeks now, and the > only compromise (and I have to admit, I feel one is necessary) is: > well, either play with no limits and avoid "boring" players (a problem in > that often one finds this out too late), or play with some loose limits > (6CL, 10% whatever) but allow one or two cards to "break the rule"... just > name your transgressing card (usually Rush), and away you go! It's an idea > anyway, mainly to promote within-game variety. A good compromise... Me, I'm a stodgy, old purist ... :) > Just had to let out my recent thoughts. You may return to your pointless > bickering. :) Bicker bicker bicker... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960112103810.281D-100000@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:42:33 -0600 > >On 11 Jan 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > >[Discussion with TJH about WwEF and it's breaking the NL side of the debate] > >> Alternatively, you can restrict Wakes to 4 per deck and leave other cards >> unrestricted. > >I am leery of that suggestion. For those playing some other limit (such >as 10%), this may be more comfortable, but despite its use as a "free" >resource card, even beginning to retread steps on the CL path seems >suspect. House rules fix it far better. Agreed, but if house rules can't be managed, for whatever reason, it's a fallback position.

On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Mark Havener wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960112101050.281C@pentose>, > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >Not quite. Rares that are powerful are typically unique or highly > >expensive (a la horrid reality) or both. For the remainder, it is not > >the rares that are need in bulk, but the commons - the Bum's Rushes, the > >Telepathic Counters, etc.. On the contrary, a CL environment rewards > >people who have loads of expensive cards because after they max out on > >torn signposts they can go to town with fists of death. > I don't agree here. Players with less money have fewer options as to how > many effective decks they can build, true, so they build one deck and then > trade for the cool rares they wish to add. With a 4CL, there isn't as > much incentive for us to hold onto that 5th cool rare, so we'll trade it > for one of his rares. But that rare isn't what the player needs in NL. They can get the bulk commons: the intercept, the stealth ("I'd rather have 8 faceless night"), the Bum's Rushes, the Telepatic Counters, the whatever. Smiling Jack might be cool, but the commons are more useful overall. In CL, the players still need the commons and uncommons, but they start to need rares if they want a particular strategy. If I want a _tough_ Nossie(non gun) combat deck, I start needing those Fist of Death and Immortal grapple. I've already gotten my fill of the other cards I've traded for. To get that Fist of Death, I'd better be able to trade a rare. Otherwise, I can just fill out on all the commons/uncommons I am offered. > You talk as if players with fewer cards can't > build and play an effective deck under 4CL. Not true. In my experience, > the biggest problem that players with fewer cards have is that they > typically have less experience, and so don't know how to play the cards > they do have as well. Once they learn how to do this, they typically do > as well as those of us with all the cards. I'm not saying that players with fewer cards can't play effective 4CL decks in that environment. I am saying that it is more rare intensive for them to do so. More rares are needed to compete. Of course, anyone who hasn't played as long needs time to learn strategy. > >CL also needs fixes on the "broken card" issue, or at least as much as NL > >does. As an example, look at LSJ's house rules. Nearly all of them > >could be taken away and NL holds. All you need to hang on to are > >these: > > @#$@#$ The "Golden Tenents" of Jyhad $#@$#@ > > 1) No unlimited vote push > > 2) No repeat actions. > > Though these would be nice (since I don't use either in my favorite deck ;) > ), they are not really necessary, in my experience. See my other post on the subject. Explicitly I have shown that limiting Vote pushing is a necessity, whatever the environment. > >Now pretend we are in a CL environment. Suddenly, as more cards are > >printed, we get the "magic" response. > If that does become a problem, we'll deal with it then. It's pretty > pointless to fix a problem before it exists, however. I do have problems > with a couple DS cards (Horrific Countenace and Thoughts Betrayed), > not because they mimic other cards, but because they are just broken, IMHO. That is a problem that is irrelevant to CL or NL. If they are "broken" (I'm still forming an opinion on that (well, TB, anyway)), they are broken. This doesn't respond to how the clone cards (Lightning Bolt, Incinerate, Chain Lightning) effect ruins card limits. As soon as more cloned cards arrive, the limit on those cards is now academic. > <Magic example snipped> > You seem to be supporting a Restricted list in your example (after all, > without card limits, the cards you mentioned are all *worse* than under > limits, but they are only really controlled in an environment where they > are restricted or banned). I despise lists of Restricted cards, because > a) it necessitates memorizing a list of cards that are probably going to be > changing next month, and b) it is yet more information that those of us > with Net access have that others don't (for a while, anyway). If I only > see 4 Freak Drives in a deck, I'm okay with that. I don't need it > restricted to two. I am _totally_ against a restricted list. I am definately _not_ advocating one. I am advocating use of two house rules (The Golden Tenets :), No Vote Push and No Repeated Actions. This controls nearly every card I have seen. (Two counterexamples come to mind: TB, and WwEF. WwEF is not a Gamebreaker. TB I am still considering) > >They do tend to feel more threatened until you show them a collection. > >After they've played about 4-5 games, they can see, as cool as Patagia > >is, Bum's Rush is usually more useful in their Nosferatu deck. As is > >Storm Sewers. > Hmmm...I probably wouldn't put more than 4 Storm Sewers in any Nosferatu > Deck, and there are alternatives to Bum's Rush (though Bloodhunt isn't as > good an alternative for Nosferatu as it is for Brujah, Rush Combat isn't that > good a theme to base a Nosferatu deck around anyway). I too feel that I wouldn't use more than 4 Storm Sewers (I might use 2-3), but Nossie's aren't good for Rush combat only under CL. Without limits, it makes for an excellent deck, especially with Disguised Weapons, Hidden Lurkers, and stealth. > >As for CL limiting the frequency of cards, as more cards get made, CL > >begins to fail at this, due to the "Lightning Bolt" effect from Magic. I > >don't mean just varied forms of stealth. I mean suddenly having 4 more > >S:CE or similar card usable by presence. I mean another KRC-like vote. > Again, why "fix" this problem before it happens? If it happens, we can > worry about it then. I suspect that we'll never have this problem, > though, as I don't see WOTC working too hard to get that many V:TES > expansions out. Foresight is always useful. And as for WotC, I have not been too impressed with how they have handled things since Jyhad came out. > >> The main argument against CL right now is that it maks the S&B deck a > >> stable strategy by "eliminating" the effectiveness of it's natural enemy, > >> the Rush combat deck. I believe the jury is still out on this question. > >This one is too easy to demonstrate. Play a game with people you don't > >know. Ask them to play 4CL (if they don't). Play the "Penultimate" S&B > >deck. I would wager a lot that either it gets ganged by the table or wins > >handily. > >Now, give the deck to any of them, pull out you 4CL deck and be their > >prey with a 4CL Limbaugh deck (Rush... I mean :). You can thoroughly > >expect a grinding unless the table helps again. > >W/o limits a Malk is the same as a 4CL Malk, and a Rush deck will have > >some hard work to neuter the Malk. As most people concede, a 4CL deck > >will not usually be able to accomplish a particular goal > >(vote/combat/etc) as well (note this concession below) as a NL deck. If > >the NL Rush deck has a problem, how will a 4CL fare? > So you seem to be saying that a Rush deck is not a good counter to a Malk > S&B deck, no matter whether you're playing with limits or not. So what's > the differnce? I plan on trying the above, and we'll see how I do. But > if I lose and a NL Rush deck would have done the same, what have I proven? That's not what I said. I said that the NL deck would have some hard work. If this implies otherwise, what is meant is that it can be done with effort. No deck should have an "instant kill" effect. As (I believe) McClure has said, with a Malkavian S&B as your predator, you don't worry about your prey. It is work. Work doesn't mean likely failure. Now that I'm less ambiguous, relook at my assertion... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960110155532.342Q-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > > >How many of each are you going to have in your deck? And how are they > >going to reliably come up? Assuming four of each (too maximize chances) > >there is a roughly 85% chance that you will not get all four in the first > >15 cards of a 60 card deck. > > Do you mean that you won't get 1 copy each of all 4? Or do you mean that > you won't get any copy of any of them? Show your work, please 8). I mean one copy of each: I.e. 44/60 * 43/59 *...*29/45 + 48/60 *...* 33/45 + 52/60 *...* 37/45 + 56/60 *...* 41/45 + Duplication of any of them (several more lines equaling out to ~10%) > Plus 2nd Tradition, but the Prince can be expensive (except of course > Volker/Rake) Which is what seduction is for. > >> There exists far,far more intercept than stealth. I suggest Masika > >> with a flame thrower. Of course, Protean offers 2 more types of > >> stealth cards, but this still does not equal the amount of intercept. > > > >Unfortunately, S&B is ready to go from the get go. Auspex needs to > >build. By the time you could get out Masika with a flamethrower (15 > >pool!) and any of your permanent intercept, you should be dead. > > Only if the Rush deck is the prey. Otherwise, there should be enough time > to get a little intercept out there, plus you should have enough > Rush/rush-like stuff to knock off a Malk or two before then. But you can't have it both ways. You can't be both an intercept deck and a rush deck and do both of them well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> >Peace be with you, >MS&B is just one fascet of the debate against CL. Limiting my choices of >deck (concept) is very important to me. Yes, a robust 4CL Rush deck would >disprove the Malk assertion. Not quite. Rush is a Brujah/Nossie/Gangrel defense to S&B. You'd need (at least) one for each. However, Ventrue and, if Concealed Weapon isn't fixed, Toreador have to use Bleed Bounce instead, which is a different kettle of fish. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Mark Havener wrote: > In article <4dh8kf$n...@hermes.louisville.edu>, > James R. McClure Jr.<jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu wrote: > >>Some arguments I have read say "Why an artificial 4-card limit?" > >>Artificial? *All* the rules are artificial, in that they were > >>constructed; they didn't just fall from the sky. Why not a 4-card limit > >Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that > >Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any > >card limits. The idea was that the card set would be self limiting (you get > >what you pay for), so having lots of one specific card wouldn't degenerate. > >CL is "artificial" in that it goes totally against the design of the game. > Well, Fortunately (for my argument), Magic was designed to be fully > playable without any card limits also. Even though CL "goes against the > design" of Tragic as well, you don't see people complaining that the 4CL > in Magic is "artificial". Though Magic is *more* broken than V:TES under > NL, that doesn't mean that V:TES wouldn't be better with a CL. (To continue) Unfortunately (for your arguement), the fact that Magic was also designed without limits in mind doesn't help you. As I have stated before when this point came up, Magic was being played with 4CL for some time before Jyhad was created. Richard Garfield was well aware of card limits in games before he made Jyhad. As he has stated, he didn't expect Magic to go off like it did. He thought that people would have a limited supply of cards, that they'd ante, etc.. He knew better when Jyhad was made. [Basicly, he says the preference for NL v CL's "feel" is a matter of taste. If nothing else, we can agree to disagree.] Agreed. :) > BTW, I took the "Pepsi Challenge" with my play group tonight, and tried a > slightly altered version of your Cel/Pot Rush deck. I wanted to pit it > against the worst (according to many anti-limit critics) deck in 4CL--the > Malk S&B deck. So I took one off of a Web page (thanks > Sea...@Psinet.net.au), and modified it to make it even nastier (for > example, adding Thoughts Betrayed from DS in case combat ensued, and a > Sengir Dagger and Ivory Bow, to go with the TBs--Rush this!). In the > first game of the evening, I played the Malks, and proceeded to walk > through the other 3 Methuselahs (no one else ousted his prey but me!). > It was nasty, as expected. I think that the TB works, but drop the Sengir Dagger/Ivory Bow. I made a quick Malk S&B recently for a new player to see/play. It had Disguised Flamethrowers for its combat defense (ow!), and it helped immensely, but the unique nature of Ivory Bow/Sengir Dagger weakens their use. > Then I played the Rush deck that I had built, and took my place as the > Malk's prey (giving the deck to a volunteer--a guy who plays Malks quite > often). It was like he hit a brick wall. Every time he brought out a > vamp, it got sent back in. He did not have much fun that game. My deck > would have done even better if his predator had been mine (a Nosferatu > deck that did considerably less damage with each bleed that *did* get > through). I will be testing the deck a few more times over the next few > weeks, but in the first trial, it seems to be able to hold its own pretty > well against Malk S&B. I will post my Rush deck in a seperate message. I'd like to see the deck. Thanks. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: : Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix : them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is : more elegant. elegant? Elegant? Simpler, yes; but more ELEGANT? When 90%+ of the cards in jyhad are _not_ broken, (and therefore need no limits) How can you call blanket card limits 'more elegant'? That's like suspending an entire baseball team because the pitcher threw a spitball... Giving an entire class extra homework because two kids mouthed off to the teacher... Arresting you because your neighbor three doors down is a crook. Fix what's broken, not what ain't. Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, Mark Havener wrote: [Discussion on "Crying Wolf" about Malk S&B] > I don't know about his group, but we don't have a problem with Malk S&B. > And we hardly have to "gang up" against it. This is, of course, after I > showed them all what a single deck can do to Malks (my "Anson and his > Brujah Friends" deck; and LionRAR's Gangrel Intercept deck seems to hold > its own against them alright also). My deck wasn't specifically designed > to destroy Malks, but it is definitely strengthened when they are on the > table! Like when I Malk Dementia his Duane and then Golconda his butt. > Yum! Or MD his Ozmo, Minion Tap him to 1 blood, and then send him into > Trapped combat against my Prey (the Prey usually elects not to take the > bleed). Anyone want to diablarize? I'm not blocking! Even without > Anson out, stealing Ozmo and sending him in to bleed my prey is a good > thing, as it's a no-lose situation. At the very least, he's out of my > hair for a little while. I particularly liked stealing the Malk IC > member from my Predator. Note that this isn't just a "Malk-Nuke" deck, > but a deck that stands well on it's own (having an estimated 60/40 win/loss > ratio when either Anson doesn't come out or there are no Malks on the > table); however, if there *are* Malks out there, this deck actually > increases in strength. Any deck that stands well on its own will do well if you throw in, say 4 clan hosers. A Brujah Rush deck can be screwed by 4 Brujah Frenzy placed at the right times. The deck doesn't exactly fit the cake. How would the deck do _without_ the Malk dementia's. It's not a pure Malk-Nuke deck, but who isn't hurt by their clan screws? > Aside from MD's though, which are admittedly a Malk-specific card, I also > like Archon Investigations, which I have used to before to burn, for > example, Democritus (a highlight in my Jyhad career ;) ). At the very > least, just the threat of them in your prey's hand tends to slow down the > bleed modifications. If you are playing with V:tES cards, yes. If not, I am pretty sure you won't have it. If you mix them, I can gauge my risk by looking at the back of your cards in hand. [States Lack of DS reason for Rush assertations] > >My original question was, > >"Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" > >There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. > > So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working > to dispel). IMHO 4CL works well to slow down "selfish vote" decks (sure, > you can throw in other PAs to push votes, but it's far *better* to only > put in KRCs and a few Conservative Agitations), and Malk S&B decks aren't > any more of a problem than Gangrel "Intercept&Burn" (which seem to give > me the most problem). Show me a game where the moment a Gangrel hits the table, everyone decides to gang up on him. > And 4CL does this with one simple house rule, as > opposed to multiple house rules and/or a limited list. If you can't come > up with a good way to counter a deck, IMHO it's because you haven't tried > hard enough (just from reading your posts, I can tell that you are all > *smart* enough, you just don't seem to be giving it a chance). I've played CL. I was able to counter Malk S&B, but only with Malk Screws, and otherwise with table-help. It should be possible for every clan to have a counter-strategy that won't leave them only reacting to their predator. They ought to have a decent shot at a victory point and be robust enough to play well without Malk S&B as its predator. This isn't the case under even 4CL, and as others have asserted, 8CL and 10% are virtual NL. Since they _all_ require the Golden Tenets, why add limits to the list. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Jan 1996, NCascone wrote: > In article <4d1akh$a...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane > Travis) writes: [How intercept occurs more under CL] > Well, maybe instead of putting out a house rule crippling voting, NL > players should think about putting more intercept into their decks . . . Style difference really. A NL deck does not have only intercept to go on when dealing with any particular strategy. It could go for reactionary politics, Rush, multiple-Haven Uncovered, etc.. He is basicly saying that in NL, you don't need to have the intercept unless you want to make an intercept deck, but under CL, intercept becomes much more vital. [Snipped to point where voting discussion begins...] > >Yes. Voting is the _one_ time during a Jyhad game where it is not only > >acceptable, it is _expected_ that you will attempt to make deals and come > >to aggreements in an attempt to pass/defeat a vote. It is written into > >the rules that way, _deliberately_ so by the designer of the game. All > >other actions (bleeding included, before the Rules Team changed the > >meaning of the (D) symbol) are intended to be aimed at your prey _only_. > > > >Voting is (originally) the only thing that can affect someone other than > >your prey; therefore, voting is the only thing that should involve anyone > >other than your prey in determining the success/failure of a given > action. > > This is an opinion that Mr. McClure also evinced in another part of this > string, andone with which I disagree vehemently. Well, however any of us feel about the above, he is correct. Jyhad originally was designed that way. I'm still not sure whether that was a good thing or not. > I play mutli-way > expressly for the enjoyment of the diplomacy involved, and not just during > votes. I don't know what the rules team did to the (D) symbol, but most > of our multi-way games involve _lots_ of deal-making, whining, promises > (broken and kept), and all that. Trying to limit diplomacy to "only > during votes" seems like an attempt to rob the game of a lot of its > flavor. Diplomacy isn't an issue in this thread. _Of_course_ you ought to do wheeling and dealing to get ahead in the game. "Hey, grandprey, if you don't do this, I won't put _ANY_ pressure on your predator...", etc. But I believe that we (NL camp) feel that it is wrong to have to have an immediate table action to stop certain decks _whenever_ they appear. When playing Diplomacy, for example, the whole table doesn't say, "Let's get Germany before we are eaten up." That kind of language doesn't appear until it looks like a particular country is getting ahead, and shouldn't happen just when you find out that Germany is playing. It is the same thing for Malk S&B. If the deck is doing well and appears to be a threat to the table, yes the table should deal with it. If the prey of the S&B can offer a deal to someone for help, that makes sense. But the table should not feel threatened when the S&B deck appears. [Discussion of decks under CL/NL] > Well, under CL, most decks need more than one trick. Moving the deck from > CL to NL means the deck will need to pare d Perhaps you can continue this later, for some reason it doesn't finish. [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> >>>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. >>> >>>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >>>to dispel). >> >>A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat >>involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). > > Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A >little creativity will get you Grenades. Peace T.J., What does Animalism have to do with thrown things ("I hurl my Wolf Companion at you.")? Grenades require that I spend actions equiping. >>Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that >>Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any >>card limits. > >So was Magic. Yes, it was, but some of the fundamental postulates of Magic (wild environment) were flawed and that is why NL Magic does not work. Jyhad was designed/built after the flawed postulates were uncovered and that was taken into account. RG/WotC didn't want to have to resort to another arbitrary card limit and restricted list. They wanted a game strong enough to stand on its own with a card set balanced enough to allow a "wild" environment. They very nearly succeeded (the Golden Tenants are necessary). Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <4d2sau$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >Also, please note: while 4CL may be too restrictive for the Rush deck, >perhaps 8CL or 15% would allow it to work. This is a question that can be >resolved _in_play_; CL fans should get on it. I am. Been there, done that. (I've played with 4cl, 6cl, and NL). Rush decks are viable under 6-card, although they get pretty stereotyped. Deflection-based bleed defense (another essential) is not reliable with less than 8, although of course you can get lucky.

In article <4d7ll5$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >>Yes, but under the cited problem deck we are looking at, who cares if you >>intercept one of the vampires. The one that gets through will be pushed >>to the teeth. > >Like I said in a previous message in this string, I haven't seen the >weenie-vote-deck under CL yet. I'll build one and play it at my next >opportunity. To me, this sounds more like "what could happen" than "what >actually happens in play". I've done weenie vote in 4cl. It's pretty strong at first, but the trick is to limit intercepts to the aggressive votes. There aren't a lot, so just a moderate amount of intercept (which is nearly ubiquitous under 4cl) can shut it down. If the initial prey isn't using carded intercept, that prey is probably done for, but clearing the table is out of the question.

On 18 Jan 1996 05:06:36 -0500, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) said: ... NCascone> Obviously she does have an enhanced effect in NL[...] ^^ CL, you mean. //Petri

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118142908.13741O-100000@blackjack>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jan 1996, Mark Havener wrote: > >[Discussion by James McClure, NCascone, and others on "elegance"] > > >You concede that NL works with the 2 Golden Tenets of Jyhad (No repeat >actions and no vote push). Sure, I trust you guys on that. :) >You also say that CL works with its one >rule. We both agree on the first point, but CL does not work to stop the >Weenie Vote Push deck. In my explicit example in another thread, I >showed this. Even with 4CL, the Weenie Vote Deck _DECIMATES_ 5 NL >decks. In _any_ environment you _need_ a no vote push rule. Play the >deck I posted and find out. Just don't let anyone else know what you are >playing until the third turn (if they haven't figured it out yet). I don't need to play that deck...I have a weenie vote deck. In 3-4 player games, it works wonderfully. In games with more players, it gets bogged down as more of your vamps get contested by multiple methuselahs and more players get their own voters out, making you work harder to get yours passed. Then there's the intercepting of your weenies' votes. If the play group you are in lets you get that engine going, they deserve what they get. >> As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to adopt >> new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted list" >> (depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ours who use >> CL won't have to change our play environment at all. THAT'S why CL is >> more elegant. > >True NL doesn't use a restricted list. This list comes from the Duelist >Convocation, which I think nearly everyone agrees, can't come up with a >decent set of rules for Jyhad to save their lives. ;) Which is why I said "either/or"...just trying to cover all the bases, just in case some groups DO play DC rules. :) >As for not having to change your environment at all, what happen's when >the first KRC and Majesty and Hospitality and WwEF and this and that and >the other "degenerate" (I use this term with reservation) cards get >brothers and sisters. At that point you have a de-facto 8CL for those >cards. The more that come, the more you will experience the "lightning >bolt" effect. Well, IMHO it;s a mistake to "fix" a problem that hasn't happened yet. I don't see WOTC coming up with that many expansions for V:TES (if past experience is any indication), so IMHO it's quite probable that the "lightning boly" effect will never materialize. OTOH there will always be broken cards (see Heidelburg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, Thoughts Betrayed for DS examples), so the "Golden Tenets" (or list of restricted cards, if you play that way) will have to continue to grow. I've said it before and I'll say it again: whether you prefer CL or NL is really just a matter of taste. For every deck "proven" under CL, you'll come up with 3 more that you say "won't work". Sorry, I don't have that much time. ;) And it's quite possible that a deck that relies exclusively on 1 or 2 cards to work ISN'T viable under 4CL. OTOH, those decks are a matter of taste also; I'd consider them too boring to play with or against. I'm willing to agree to disagree on this issue. -Elfholme P.S. BTW, I *LIKE* Brujah Cel/Pot Rush under 4CL... -- ****************************************************************************** This bit of wisdom has been brought to you by: Mark Havener Lord of elfh...@netcom.com Wood Elf King (and Jyhad player extraordinaire!) ******************************************************************************

T.J. Hull (t...@nwlink.com) wrote: : "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> : >>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. : >> : >>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working : >>to dispel). : > : >A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat : >involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). : Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A : little creativity will get you Grenades. Let's take an analogy of wheels. I want to be able to take one wheel and make a unicycle, 2 wheels and make a bike, 3 wheels and make a tricycle, 4 wheels and make a car, 6 wheels and make an ATV, or 18 wheels and make a tractor-trailer. All will get me where I want to go, but all have trade-offs between number of passengers, gas consumption, cargo, driver protection in case of crash, etc. Your response to this desire is: "So you are limited to two wheels - get creative and make a motorcycle! It will still get you where you want to go..." Yes, it will, sort of. But why should I be limited to the options available for motorcycles? To bring it back to the comment you made, why should it be _necessary_ to add animalism to make a deck concept work when all the components already exist under a different discipline? In fact, I should be able to make an ANI 'pitch deck' and put it up against a POT 'pitch deck' and see who comes out on top - not be forced to rely on some bastard hybrid of the two... : >Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that : >Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any : >card limits. : So was Magic. Magic was first, and made a helluva lot of mistakes - the primary one being that the designer cound not conceive of people spending thousands of dollars on gaming cards. The card limits were inherent in the rarity of cards - better cards were made rarer in the (mistaken) belief that no person would have more than one, or at most two of them. As I'm sure you know, this assumption was quickly proven false and external limits had to be enforced. [ quoted text not captured ]

NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >In article <4d3ecd$b...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, >Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix >them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is >more elegant. I can see where you guys are coming from with the "Keep it Simple" school of elegance. However, let me analyze this a step further : The NL "Golden Rule" school of fixing broken rules : 1) No repeat actions on untaps; 2) No more than 1 vote push; Two things. Each fixes a class of problems rather than a specific card. No matter how many "lightning bolt" style cards WotC decides to put in future expansions, these classes of problems remain fixed. The problem - what to do when WotC blows it and releases a card allowing for a brand new abuse - TB may be of this ilk. So, the two rules changes may have to grow. The CL camp likes to think that it has one rule to fix the problem. One is simpler than two, of course. However, I point out that you've essentially got a 270+ card long restricted list. One could say that this is a very complicated rule :) As for expansions causing things to get more complicated, this is gaurenteed to happen, given the much talked about example of the Lightning Bolt from MtG. >>The vote pushing problem is a separate issue. I'll choose to play the game >>as Jyhad was originally written (a meth may play _a_ PA for a vote), and >>happily ignore VtES and the RT :) > >Can't find this. Quote, please? Uhh, I don't have my Jyhad rules manual here at work, but if you own one, read the sentence about playing PA cards for votes. Oh, one thing on the economics of the game that I haven't seen mentioned yet. A card limit makes commons pretty much worthless in trading. Sure, this can result in a player giving away his 5th through 10th dupes of a card. However, when's the last time you gave someone a number of commons for a rare in Magic? They've got all the commons, who needs 4? If you're a new player, you've got no options to get a neat rare for flavor, other than give up one of your own rares. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118114214.13741A-100000@blackjack>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >The Battle Royal: A Weenie 4CL Vote Push Deck vs. Five Other NL Decks > >I was playing Jyhad one night with an experiment in mind. I had played >with vote pushing before, but had never seen it actually done to the >edge. Would it still work under 4CL? See for yourself. Only one of the opponent decks you mentioned uses intercept (the Gangrel), and that deck's intercept requires permanents. In my group, under 4-card limits, the game had basically degenerated into Tremere and Malkavians. However, the Malks the locals preferred had intercept as well as S&B. When I pulled out a weenie vote deck, it really went to town. But after a few weeks, the other players realized I only had 16 aggressive votes. If those were intercepted, I couldn't get anything done. So that's what they did. The deck's winning potential dropped to something less than the Tremere - still decent, but not a killer.

On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:56:54 +0200, Sco...@javanet.com (Scott A DiBerardino) said: Scott> However, on the CL side, I've become disgusted with the NL Scott> environment because once players (new ones) got over their Scott> magic-mindset, the decks and play got extremely *boring*. A Scott> deck made out of (essentially) four to six cards just gets Scott> boring after a couple turns. Funny, we've always played NL here in Helsinki and we've never had any problems with it. The decks people play here are *not* boring, I think most conform to a 6cl or 10% limit -- but not because of a mindless blanket rule, but because usually you don't need that many duplicate cards. Mind the "usually" there, because some decks really do need a ton of a specific card to work -- rush decks need lots of BRs, Tremere combat decks need lots of Thefts, etc. Over-specialized decks are very vulnerable if their "main trick" doesn't work. Hate to say it, but I think your problem is more with unimaginative players than with the rules. :-/ //Petri

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >>In article <4d3ecd$b...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, >>>The vote pushing problem is a separate issue. I'll choose to play the game >>>as Jyhad was originally written (a meth may play _a_ PA for a vote), and >>>happily ignore VtES and the RT :) >> >>Can't find this. Quote, please? >Uhh, I don't have my Jyhad rules manual here at work, but if you own one, read >the sentence about playing PA cards for votes. Alan Kwan has done the best (and the original, I believe) disection of the voting rules in the original rulebook. Reprinted her without permission :-) ----- In article <3o3pra$q...@ask.cs.cornell.edu>, Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: Warning: article disputes official rulings [...] Could it be possible that it was intended that each Methselah can get only one vote from Political cards during each vote? Let's try to see if this interpretation (3) contradicts with the preceeding statement: Assumption: Each Methselah can get only one vote from Political cards during each vote. Statement: "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the other Methselahs for votes." Combine: "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the other Methselahs for votes, but each Methselah can play only one such card." - interpretation (3) It reads alright. The plural in "cards", under this interpretation, refer to a total of a plural number of cards being used by a plural number of Methselahs. Back to the first statement: "A political card always provides one vote for the Methselah playing it." "A politcal card" providing one vote. Not "each" political card. So interpretation (3) does not contradict here, either. One possible paraphase (according to WotC rules-editing standards): "A Methselah gets one vote by playing a political card." This may well be what the sentence intended to say, without the "each" overtone. If the limitation of only one political card being useable by each Methselah was intended, this would explain the use of the term "any of the _other_ Methselah", because of the (albeit not totally correct) assumption that the calling Methselah has already played one card. This interpretation would also balance the fact that (as suggested by some of the net.personality; unofficial) only one of each type of reaction (such as Dread Gaze and Surprise Influence) can be used during a vote, while multiple political action cards can be used. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu ----- -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <4dlr58$r...@meaddata.lexis-nexis.com>, Hunter Johnson <jhun...@meaddata.com> wrote: >In article <4dlm4g$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >> >>If that is true (CL goes some way toward fixing problems caused by busted >>cards), then 1CL should be the ultimate way to play. No broken card can >>ever be a problem. This is also extremely elegant (see your last sentence). > >Peace, James: > >I have to disagree with your statement that 1CL would be the ultimate >way to play. 1CL is merely the penultimate. 0CL would be the ultimte >way to play (if CL goes some way toward...). Damn, someone beat me to it... ;) -Elfholme [ quoted text not captured ]

<jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> >>>Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that >>>Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without >>>any card limits. > >>So was Magic. >Yes, it was, but some of the fundamental postulates of Magic (wild >environment) were flawed and that is why NL Magic does not work. >Jyhad was designed/built after the flawed postulates were uncovered >and that was taken into account. RG/WotC didn't want to have to resort >to another arbitrary card limit and restricted list. They wanted a >game strong enough to stand on its own with a card set balanced enough >to allow a "wild" environment. They very nearly succeeded (the Golden >Tenants are necessary). To be more precise, Magic WAS designed with a card limit. Cards were supposed to be limited by availability - no group was expected to get more than 2000 cards, which is about 10 of each common. So there was not supposed to be any way to build seriously degenerate decks - the cards wouldn't be there. When they discovered individuals were buying thousands of cards, they threw on the 4cl to attempt to simulate the originally planned-for situation. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

>>to dispel). > >> > >>A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat > >>involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). > > > > Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A > >little creativity will get you Grenades. > > Canine Hordes is the only ANI strike card. Wolf Companion and Murder of > Crows do not benefit from the additional strike them of a pitch deck.> > A Kitchen Sink deck, or pitch deck as someone termed, or what I call a frisbee > deck, runs in it's simplest form on pot/cel. Brujah are the obvious choice. > To add animalism, we would like Brujah with ANI, or even ani.. > > Brujah with ani: Don Cruez. That's it. And it's not even superior. > > Other clans have few more to contribute with all three skills. Angus (Gangrel) > Lucretia, Harrod and Tiberius (Nosferatu) are some of the few. So even > before we touch the library our crypt is full of 10 cost and IC vamps. Not > a good idea. And you can't run a skill off 4 Master:Skill cards, so that's > out. All this work and what do we get out of it? 4 Canine hordes. Big deal. > This deck just can't work under 4CL. > > >>Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems that > >>Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any > >>card limits. > > > >So was Magic. > > > I think JRM was saying that Magic made WotC realize how to design a game > that worked without card limits. If he wasn't, then I am. :) > > gnfnrf > > > > > >

Alan Eisinger (eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu) wrote: : >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> : > : >>>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. : >>> : >>>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working : >>>to dispel). : >> : >>A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat : >>involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). : > : > Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A : >little creativity will get you Grenades. : Canine Hordes is the only ANI strike card. Wolf Companion and Murder of : Crows do not benefit from the additional strike them of a pitch deck.> : A Kitchen Sink deck, or pitch deck as someone termed, or what I call a frisbee : deck, runs in it's simplest form on pot/cel. Brujah are the obvious choice. : To add animalism, we would like Brujah with ANI, or even ani.. Don't forget Aid from Bats (admittedly, not much more, but it is an ani Strike Card). -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118151416.14041B-100000@blackjack>, [ quoted text not captured ] Uh, I don't think you understood the point of the above. I wasn't saying that "Anson and his Brujah Friends" was a Rush deck at all. I was just mentioning how I had shown the group that playing Malks wasn't always a good idea. I never said the deck I used in the above example was a Rush deck...it wasn't designed to be a Rush deck. It had a different theme entirely, actually (Two masters is a big part of the theme, BTW). I built a Cel/Pot Rush deck based on one of James' design (and modified, adding in V:TES and DS cards). I already posted it to the newsgroup once; I'll <sigh> repost it if I get some more free time to do so. >> Aside from MD's though, which are admittedly a Malk-specific card, I also >> like Archon Investigations, which I have used to before to burn, for >> example, Democritus (a highlight in my Jyhad career ;) ). At the very >> least, just the threat of them in your prey's hand tends to slow down the >> bleed modifications. > >If you are playing with V:tES cards, yes. If not, I am pretty sure you >won't have it. If you mix them, I can gauge my risk by looking at the >back of your cards in hand. I guess, but since my deck is at least 40% V:TES, I'm not sure how realistic it is to gauge your risk by looking at the back of my cards, since I will pretty much always have V:TES cards in hand. And non-use of V:TES cards was not a requirement of making a workable Cel/Pot Rush deck in 4CL. While I respect everyone's choice as to whether or not to buy V:TES, ignoring a good portion of the cards when making a statement like "such-and-such strategy doesn't work in a CL environment" is pretty weak. >[States Lack of DS reason for Rush assertations] > >> >My original question was, >> >"Are there any CL deck ideas/concepts/themes which will _not_ work under NL?" >> >There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. >> >> So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >> to dispel). IMHO 4CL works well to slow down "selfish vote" decks (sure, >> you can throw in other PAs to push votes, but it's far *better* to only >> put in KRCs and a few Conservative Agitations), and Malk S&B decks aren't >> any more of a problem than Gangrel "Intercept&Burn" (which seem to give >> me the most problem). > >Show me a game where the moment a Gangrel hits the table, everyone >decides to gang up on him. Heh...come on over to our Tuesday night games. If there're no Malks out, Gangrel are the next targets for the table (right LionRAR?)...that is, if their not ganging up on me... >> And 4CL does this with one simple house rule, as >> opposed to multiple house rules and/or a limited list. If you can't come >> up with a good way to counter a deck, IMHO it's because you haven't tried >> hard enough (just from reading your posts, I can tell that you are all >> *smart* enough, you just don't seem to be giving it a chance). > >I've played CL. I was able to counter Malk S&B, but only with Malk >Screws, and otherwise with table-help. It should be possible for every >clan to have a counter-strategy that won't leave them only reacting to >their predator. They ought to have a decent shot at a victory point and >be robust enough to play well without Malk S&B as its predator. This >isn't the case under even 4CL, and as others have asserted, 8CL and 10% >are virtual NL. Since they _all_ require the Golden Tenets, why add >limits to the list. If by "Golden Tenets", you are referring to the two main house rules that groups use (no repeat actions, and no vote push), then that's exactly the point. In our 4CL games, we DON'T use those house rules; in fact, the only house rule we use is the 4CL. So we aren't ADDING 4CL to a "list"...4CL IS the list. I played under NL also (when the game first came out). Malk S&B is a problem in either environment, and repeat action cards (Freak Drives, Majesties) and vote pushing are also (obviously for the latter, since most of the NCL folks concede that house rules governing repeats and pushes are necessary to make the game work). Like I explained to James McClure earlier, it's largely a matter of taste. I would rather use a single house rule (4CL) that adequately fixes the problem than multiple rules. The problem with using your house rules is that as more expansions come out, the house rules list you use will continue to grow, while those of us that use 4CL will be able to play just like we always have. This is especially problematic for newer players entering the play group, IMHO. [ quoted text not captured ]

elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) writes: >Well, IMHO it;s a mistake to "fix" a problem that hasn't happened yet. I >don't see WOTC coming up with that many expansions for V:TES (if past >experience is any indication), so IMHO it's quite probable that the >"lightning boly" effect will never materialize. OTOH there will always There are two expansions scheduled for release this year: Ancient Hearts and The Sabbat. Schedules haven't alwys been met :-), but there they are. Expect a lightning bolt. >be broken cards (see Heidelburg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, Thoughts >Betrayed for DS examples), so the "Golden Tenets" (or list of restricted >cards, if you play that way) will have to continue to grow. Yes, until WotC desides to put in a few hours proofing the cards before they're released. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4dp22u$p...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >>NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <4d3ecd$b...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, > >>>>The vote pushing problem is a separate issue. I'll choose to play the game >>>>as Jyhad was originally written (a meth may play _a_ PA for a vote), and >>>>happily ignore VtES and the RT :) >>> >>>Can't find this. Quote, please? > > >Alan Kwan has done the best (and the original, I believe) disection of the >voting rules in the original rulebook. Reprinted her without permission :-) <Alan's "disection" deleted> While that is all very interesting (I always wanted to be a lawyer), it is a) against the spirit of the voting rules (reading the rules to the letter is fine if you're a lawyer, but in a game, after the wording on a rule has been clarified as being incorrect, don't you think we should ignore the original text?), and b) is totally irrelevant to those of us playing V:TES. From the section on PAs in the V:TES rulebook: "Any Methuselah can burn extra political cards for extra votes. Each burned political card is worth one vote." (V:TES Rulebook, p. 26) I'm not saying that you shouldn't change the rules on political actions in your group as a house rule. That's fine. Just don't try to justify it based on a typo in the original rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>>Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix >>>them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is >>>more elegant. >> >>That last sentence really bothers me. Elegant: /adj/ marked by or displaying >>elegance. Elegance: _1a._ grace and refinement in appearance, movement, or >>manners. _b._ tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. _2a._ >>grace and restraint of style. _b._ scientific precision and exactness. _3._ >>something elegant or luxurious. I assume that you are using definition #2 >>for "elegant." How can you say a limit on every card, not just the problem >>ones, is "restrained of style" or "precise/exact"? This is one of the big >>problems I have with CL. It arbitrarily limits cards which aren't broken >>(even in large numbers). Why limit all the cards when only a handful are >>broken/problem cards? Since when are "sledgehammer solutions" elegant? > >If I may interject a couple things here: "Elegant" in reference to game >design usually refers to the most important rule of thumb--KISS (Keep It >Simple, Stupid). If a single rule can be made that adequately solves a >game problem or loophole (or even better, a group of problems, as in this >case), it is better to use it than to use 2-3 rules >(even if the 2-3 rules might solve the problem a little better--a very >arguable point in the case of Jyhad/V:TES). A simple card limit rule is >more "elegant" in this case because it fixes the problem of the "broken" >cards with a single rule. If you play NL, you need either 2 houserules >(no repeat sactins, and no vote pushing), or a list of restricted cards, >to make the game work. And neither of these NL "fixes" address the >problems with the new cards (I know you don't use DS James, but many of >us do). Peace Mark, Still quacks like a sledghammer solution to me. I still say elegant, with regards to rules, entails being precise (addressing the specific problem), which CL doesn't do. If lots of rules were a problem, I doubt that any of us would be playing TCG (where every card is a rule). As a side question, to the NLers out there, how many of you (if any) use "restricted" lists? >As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to adopt >new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted list" >(depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ours who use >CL won't have to change our play environment at all. THAT'S why CL is >more elegant. Or, of course, WotC could put a ounce of prevention (playtest) to prevent a pound of cure (house rule). [ quoted text not captured ]

<sorry, no attributions, I am responding to a response that seems to have left them off> >> >>Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems >that >> >>Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any >> >>card limits. >> > >> >So was Magic. >> > >> I think JRM was saying that Magic made WotC realize how to design a game >> that worked without card limits. If he wasn't, then I am. :) >> >> gnfnrf If that was what he (and you also) was saying, then he should think twice before saying something like that. Jyhad (as written) does NOT work without card limits. If you choose to change the rules of the game (a la "Golden Tenets), then you might be playing a game that works without card limits, but you are not (strictly speaking) playing Jyhad/V:TES. The game is broken (as has been amply shown, by members of both "CL/NCL" camps); now, whether you use "card limits" or "house rules" to fix it is a matter of taste. However, don't tell me that Jyhad "works" as written, because it has some big problems. The problems just aren't as big as Magic's. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com>, Mark Havener <elfh...@netcom.com> wrote: JRM wrote:> >>> >>Unfortunately (for your argument), Jyhad was designed with the problems >>that >>> >>Tragic exposed in mind. It was designed to be fully playable without any >>> >>card limits. Somebody else wrote (TJ Hull maybe?): >>> >So was Magic. I wrote: >>> I think JRM was saying that Magic made WotC realize how to design a game >>> that worked without card limits. If he wasn't, then I am. :) >>> >>> gnfnrf > >If that was what he (and you also) was saying, then he should think twice >before saying something like that. Jyhad (as written) does NOT work without >card limits. If you choose to change the rules of the game (a la "Golden >Tenets), then you might be playing a game that works without card limits, >but you are not (strictly speaking) playing Jyhad/V:TES. The game is >broken (as has been amply shown, by members of both "CL/NCL" camps); now, >whether you use "card limits" or "house rules" to fix it is a matter of >taste. However, don't tell me that Jyhad "works" as written, because it >has some big problems. The problems just aren't as big as Magic's. > Jyhad is not the perfect no limit CCG. It is, however, pretty damn close. A heck of a lot closer than Magic. WotC did a fundamentally sound job creating a cardset and game mechanic that could be played without a blanket limit. They didn't quite get there, but came pretty close. Those of us who live by the TGR (Two Golden Rules) have just taken the last step towards making a real balanced no-limit play enviroment. gnfnrf

You can clear a table of 4 people and under with a 4cl vote push, Any more people at the table you might have a problem though. Errol T.

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118134147.13741I-100000@blackjack>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: : On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Scott A DiBerardino wrote: : : > I've been following the CL vs NL debate for awhile. I've tried both. I've : > tried *really* restricted play (4CL plus no duplicate Masters!), and I've : > tried no-holds-barred NL with an extensive collection. I had fun both : > ways, but... : > : > On the NL side, I can understand and agree all the logical arguments : > against card limites, particularly how it affects the level of power of : > permanents in the game. To me, this is the strongest argument. : > : > However, on the CL side, I've become disgusted with the NL environment : > because once players (new ones) got over their magic-mindset, the decks : > and play got extremely *boring*. A deck made out of (essentially) four to : > six cards just gets boring after a couple turns. : : This situation is not a result of the mindset in NL construction, but of : the players in those game. I would be interested in seeing some of those : decks work. I.e., would they qualify as robust or are they : One-Trick-Ponies who die as a result of a single card. Well, yes, usually they're OTPs but this is hardly a problem for them... the "hose card" for that deck is unlikely to come up in an envrionment with such focused decks. Incidentally, the worst offending OTP was an all-weenie vote deck with plenty of praxis seizures and autarkis persecutions. He bored everyone to death :) : In my own decks, they tend to be very varied. As an example, one I've : already posted ("Sowing Dissension's Seeds"), has a number of Majesty (6 : or 8, I can't remember :), 4 or 6 Bloodhunts, 3 or 4 Dramatic Upheavel, : and hardly anything else with more than 2 copies. That's why I think my compromise (reprinted below) is a good basis for a more balanced play environment. I'm hoping it filters out dull OTPs without restricting *interesting* decks unreasonably. : > I think the main difference between the two camps is that CL players are : > looking for a good *game*, while NL players are looking for a good gaming : > *environment*. I have to admit that each individual *game* under CL was : > more fun, but that NL opened up more possibilities... but games were often : > lopsided and dull. : : I think that everyone is looking for both. The NL camp wants to have : fun, just like anyone else, and the CL camp want a fair environment, like : anyone else. : : Yes, one can make effective and _dull_ NL decks. But this is a personal : choice. One can make decks that are just as effective but not dull. NL : does not mean OTP. Unfortunately, around here it does. :) This just underscores what I meant about one solution being to find a good play group. But with Vampire/Jyhad making a comeback, I don't have a means to litmus test every potential opponent, so it can be good to have some kind of common ground to erect a workable game environment from. When among good friends, I feel free to play NL. At my store, I hear calls for CL... : > I've considered my own feelings on this subject for weeks now, and the : > only compromise (and I have to admit, I feel one is necessary) is: : > well, either play with no limits and avoid "boring" players (a problem in : > that often one finds this out too late), or play with some loose limits : > (6CL, 10% whatever) but allow one or two cards to "break the rule"... just : > name your transgressing card (usually Rush), and away you go! It's an idea : > anyway, mainly to promote within-game variety. : : A good compromise... Me, I'm a stodgy, old purist ... :) I certainly understand this, but even your purist self plays with card errata, yes? : > Just had to let out my recent thoughts. You may return to your pointless : > bickering. :) : : Bicker bicker bicker... :) : : "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial : @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ : # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # : $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ : # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# : @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ -scott "Lord God, war is a beautiful thing, but I want to fight for my own pleasure and not because my adversary eats meat on Friday." -- Monsieur de Saint-Savin, _The_Island_of_the_Day_Before_

James R. McClure Jr. (jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu) wrote: : elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: : >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: : >>Or, of course, WotC could put a ounce of prevention (playtest) to prevent : >>a pound of cure (house rule). : > : >Oh c'mon James...as jaded as you seem to be about WOTC in general and : >V:TES in particular, I know you don't really expect this to happen! : >So why even add it to your post? Let's try to be realistic, at least. : >There will always be broken cards. : Peace Mark, : Oh, come on, yourself. Shouldn't we, as consumers, expect quality in : the products we buy? Or have we as a nation become so disillusioned : with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the : predominant attitude? I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask : for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. : Nil carborundum illigitimi, : James R. McClure Jr. : The OS/2 Apostle : <insert disclaimer here> Disclaimer: I have never playtested a game. As much as I think they could use more playtesting on these cards to avoid some OBVIOUS mistakes and problems, I agree that there will always be at least a few cards that do not come out as intended. Even in MTG, where WotC puts most of its resources, especially playtesters, there are problem cards. It is only by releasing "weak" sets such as Fallen Empires and Homelands that they have curbed the problem--no cards are too powerful, although most cards are too weak. And cards that do have errors on them--most people decide that the card was useless anyway and aren't bothered by there being a mistake. Things were different back with Legends, AN and AQ. DS right now is like they were; it has its fair share of powerful cards, some overly so. But I'd rather have a set like that where a few cards are overpowered and there is a mistake or two than to have a set that is so bad that most people don't care whether a card is wrong or not; and (sorry for the continuing Magic references to those not caring to hear them) to believe whether this is true, find a Magic player and see if they give half a wit about whether or not any of the cards in Fallen Empires is broken; the set is too weak, and therefore, they don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4e0je8$1...@texas.nwlink.com>, T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: [Kitchen Sink deck viability under 4cl discussion snipped] >>What does Animalism have to do with thrown things ("I hurl my Wolf >>Companion at you.")? Grenades require that I spend actions equiping. > > Please read the card texts for the cards, "Murder of Crows", "Aid >from Bats", and "Canine Horde". These are all combat cards which >provide ranged strikes, which is the function you want. > Murder of Crows does not belong in this category, it is not a strike card and therefore doesn't benefit from the add'l strikes the cel in the frisbee deck is granting. My own ommision of Aid from Bats in a previous post in this thread, BTW, I claim an excuse for. It ain't on the spoiler list. <Shane?> And you miss the point of a frisbee deck if you start using Canine horde to strike, which is that it is FUN to throw many large objects at your opponents. A deck built around a not-entirely gameplay based theme that is still viable adds to the variety of decks in the play enviroment, many of which cannot work under 4cl (yes, back to this again). Wait! I've got it! The Wolf Companion is there to go fetch your sewer lid after you throw it! :) gnfnrf

In article <4drnd0$l...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: >>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >>>>Fixing broken cards is a must, or why play? The question is _how_ to fix >>>>them: overall limits, or individual house rules/card limits. To me, CL is >>>>more elegant. >Peace Mark, > >Still quacks like a sledghammer solution to me. I still say elegant, with >regards to rules, entails being precise (addressing the specific problem), >which CL doesn't do. If lots of rules were a problem, I doubt that any >of us would be playing TCG (where every card is a rule). Semantics. In regards to games, the only definition for elegant I have seen is what I posted earlier, and an elegant rule is a rule that applies the KISS principle. A list of house rules (2 now, but more added with each new expansion) is much messier than a simple limit. One reason I dislike Magic is the necessity of remembering a bunch of rules that were never in the rulebook (in this case, a specific list of limited cards, which, to me, is just slightly more annoying than a list of house rules). This is just a matter of taste. No way is really *better* than the other. >>As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to adopt >>new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted list" >>(depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ours who use >>CL won't have to change our play environment at all. THAT'S why CL is >>more elegant. > >Or, of course, WotC could put a ounce of prevention (playtest) to prevent >a pound of cure (house rule). Oh c'mon James...as jaded as you seem to be about WOTC in general and V:TES in particular, I know you don't really expect this to happen! So why even add it to your post? Let's try to be realistic, at least. There will always be broken cards. -Elfholme [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> >>>>>There are NL i/c/t which don't work under CL. >>>> >>>>So name one, besides Cel/Pot Rush (a myth that I and others are working >>>>to dispel). >>> >>>A "Kitchen Sink" deck. That is, a deck who's primary purpose is combat >>>involving thrown objects (Sewer Lids, Cars, Gates). >> >> Gee, if you add ANI you suddenly have a bunch more similar strikes. A >>little creativity will get you Grenades. > >Peace T.J., > >What does Animalism have to do with thrown things ("I hurl my Wolf >Companion at you.")? Grenades require that I spend actions equiping. Please read the card texts for the cards, "Murder of Crows", "Aid from Bats", and "Canine Horde". These are all combat cards which provide ranged strikes, which is the function you want. I can think of a few cards which will allow you to use a grenade w/o taking an equip action. Can you? TJH

In article <4e04uk$9...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: >>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>Or, of course, WotC could put a ounce of prevention (playtest) to prevent >>>a pound of cure (house rule). >> >>Oh c'mon James...as jaded as you seem to be about WOTC in general and >>V:TES in particular, I know you don't really expect this to happen! >>So why even add it to your post? Let's try to be realistic, at least. >>There will always be broken cards. > >Oh, come on, yourself. Shouldn't we, as consumers, expect quality in >the products we buy? Or have we as a nation become so disillusioned >with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the >predominant attitude? I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask >for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. I actually agree with you. I just don't think you should plan on your house rules list staying the same size based on expected improved playtesting. I don't think you really expect the playtesting to get any better, so that line just rings hollowly with me. No playtesting is perfect, so there will always be cards that intelligent players can exploit to warp the gaming environment (so called "broken" cards). I think there is quite a bit of "quality" to Jyhad/V:TES (and I think you do too), otherwise I wouldn't be playing it. It's not perfect though, and probably never will be. Maybe instead of "realistic" I should have written "honest with ourselves"? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Peace Mark, > > Yeah! we agree. I don't plan house rules (they are decided when a situation > comes along). Given that WotC has apparently chosen "so what" over > customer satisfaction, I doubt that I'll ever have to worry about the > expansions breaking the game. I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I > expect that problem cards will be avoided through exhaustive playtesting. > When over a dozen players look a a card (Thoughts Betrayed) and recognize > it as broken, that shows me that someone isn't doing their job properly. > I am being honest with myself. I won't spend money on a shoddy product > nor one from a company which turns its back on its established customers. > > > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle > > <insert disclaimer here> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your right. When we saw Toms set of DS at Slugathon as a prerelease, there were 5 regulars from our group there and we all spotted at least a few of the broken cards. This should happen with thought and in play, not by a quick read and immediate WOW! that gross. REF

> > Wait! I've got it! The Wolf Companion is there to go fetch your sewer > lid after you throw it! :) > > gnfnrf > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` ROFLOL! >

In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com>, elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) writes: >I'm not saying that you shouldn't change the rules on political actions >in your group as a house rule. That's fine. Just don't try to justify it >based on a typo in the original rulebook. I suspect it's not just a typo. A) It was not changed in the "corrected" (2nd version) of the Jyhad rules. B) The all-vote deck is a hell of a big hole. I find it hard to believe it slipped through playtesting. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <ovkohs0...@lk-hp-33.hut.fi>, Petri....@hut.fi (Petri Wessman) writes: >Funny, we've always played NL here in Helsinki and we've never had any >problems with it. The decks people play here are *not* boring, I think >most conform to a 6cl or 10% limit -- but not because of a mindless >blanket rule, but because usually you don't need that many duplicate >cards. Mind the "usually" there, because some decks really do need a >ton of a specific card to work -- rush decks need lots of BRs, Tremere >combat decks need lots of Thefts, etc. > >Over-specialized decks are very vulnerable if their "main trick" >doesn't work. > >Hate to say it, but I think your problem is more with unimaginative >players than with the rules. :-/ You're probably right; but since I can't force players to be more imaginative except by asking for CL, that's how I do it. I think 6CL is probably plenty.

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >Oh, come on, yourself. Shouldn't we, as consumers, expect quality in >the products we buy? Or have we as a nation become so disillusioned >with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the >predominant attitude? I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask >for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. It's quite realistic to ask for such, and that's exactly what will happen: more playtesting. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <4e04uk$9...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >Oh, come on, yourself. Shouldn't we, as consumers, expect quality in >the products we buy? Or have we as a nation become so disillusioned >with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the >predominant attitude? I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask >for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. > > Ask away, just don't expect it. Naturally I expect quality in the products I buy, but if I get poor service after a while, I realize that a particular vendor has poor service. WotC has amply proved themselves on this point. They're not going to adequately playtest anything they put out, no matter what game you're thinking of. Whether that's through incapacity or laziness is not the issue. You yourself aren't buying VTES/DS because of the choices they have made, isn't that right?

Mark Havener <elfh...@netcom.com> wrote: >Then Jyhad was created (again, designed to be played without card limits), and >even though it did a better job of standing without limits, it still doesn't >quite work. Some external limits need to be placed on some cards (if not >all). Agreed. >Whether these limits are effected through "Golden Tenets" (which are muddling >with the game mechanics a lot more than a 4 or 6 card limit does), Not agreed. First, the vote pushing GT is simply the way the game was originally written. I don't consider ignoring a misguided Rules Team ruling to be muddling at all :) The "no repeat actions" GT affects only several cards, seems to be a logical clarification, and only really thumps decks that are trying to exploit the hole in the rules. On the other hand, a blanket card limit affects every card in the game, and works against any number of non-abusive deck designs. Remember, deck construction limits are as much a rule of the game as any other. If you want to use the 4CL house rule to change the deck construction mechanics, fine. But don't try to tell me that this is somehow less of a rules change than disallowing repeat actions. >through a list of cards that are "restricted" to a certain number in the >deck, or through a blanket limit doesn't really matter. Which method you >use is just a matter of taste. I'd agree with that. It's all a matter of taste. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

In article <4dl63c$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: [Regarding Carlotta's Use as a Permanent Regrowth ala Magic] > Obviously she does have an enhanced effect in NL, but the point I was > responding to was that she gives an unlimited supply of whatever card you > want; even if you have 15 of a card in your 80-card library, your chances > are pretty slim of drawing one out of your library on any given draw of > one card. But after it is drawn, _for_the_rest_of_the_game_ you can draw that card into your hand. In NL, this is not as big of a deal. You can put as many cards in as you think you may need. In CL, this is Phenomenal. Yes, it can be argued that in NL you no longer have to wait for that draw. The major point for CL, however, is that everyone else is still playing CL, while you are effectively playing NL AND being able to put the card into your hand as you need it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4do877$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >Yes, it was, but some of the fundamental postulates of Magic (wild >environment) were flawed and that is why NL Magic does not work. >Jyhad was designed/built after the flawed postulates were uncovered >and that was taken into account. RG/WotC didn't want to have to resort >to another arbitrary card limit and restricted list. They wanted a >game strong enough to stand on its own with a card set balanced enough >to allow a "wild" environment. They very nearly succeeded (the Golden >Tenants are necessary). > > Come on, James, you don't really believe that WotC is capable of playtesting and printing a game, post-MtG or not, that achieves that. Like it or not, they blew it. The GT's aren't enough; DS has at least 3 more cards that need help. Don't give WotC more credit than they deserve.

In article <4do4u7$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Been there, done that. (I've played with 4cl, 6cl, and NL). Rush decks >are viable under 6-card, although they get pretty stereotyped. >Deflection-based bleed defense (another essential) is not reliable with >less than 8, although of course you can get lucky. You're right about the rush deck, we've seen a good one for 6CL and I think mine would work under 4CL. Please post (public or via e-mail) your deflection deck; I'd love to see it and try to make it work under 6CL (or less) . . . thanks.

In article <4e4aep$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: : >with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the : > I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask : >for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. : : It's quite realistic to ask for such, and that's exactly what will happen: : more playtesting. : : : Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for : aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Well, I do hope that is the case. Sometime close to 7 months ago (or longer) we got in touch with WoTC about playtesting for VtES. We got back the forms and sent them in immediately. We never got a response. We called and sent email and were told that we would be on the playtesting squad, and promptly heard nothing again. Now, I understand that WoTC is a busy group, and when my group got in touch it was deep in the thick of the VtES planning, but if you really are interested in getting more playtesting done, your company needs to use the people willing to do it. A dedicated weekly group of 6, playing since the dawn of the game (first preshipment time) caould help out in the playtesting a lot. I hope this isn't coming off the wrong way. We are not angry or upset, rather bewildered that there seemed to be a lack of desire on WoTC's part to seriously take advantage of a playtesting group. We could understand if we didn't meet the desired qualifications, or if you just weren't doing playtesting at the time, or if we had been told that. But that wasn't what we were told, so to us it just looked like someone dropped the ball, or didn't care. I do hope you are serious about increasing playtesting. It will do wonders for the stability of a great game. Players won't offer to playtest if they don't care about the game and it's growth. And a dedicated fan base is worth it's weight in gold to a well designed ccg. stephen beaulieu hi...@mail.utexas.edu

In article <4dovep$9...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >However, let me analyze this a step further : >(repetition of the Golden Tenets) > >The problem - what to do when WotC blows it and releases a card allowing for >a >brand new abuse - TB may be of this ilk. So, the two rules changes may have >to >grow. Make that _will_ have to grow, and I'll agree. >The CL camp likes to think that it has one rule to fix the problem. One is >simpler than two, of course. > >However, I point out that you've essentially got a 270+ card long restricted >list. One could say that this is a very complicated rule :) Nope. This is splitting hairs; a semantic gyration up with which I will not put 8). >>>The vote pushing problem is a separate issue. I'll choose to play the game >>>as Jyhad was originally written (a meth may play _a_ PA for a vote), and >>>happily ignore VtES and the RT :) >> >Uhh, I don't have my Jyhad rules manual here at work, but if you own one, >read >the sentence about playing PA cards for votes. I don't have the VTES rules, but the Jyhad rules say: "Additional political cards (note the plural) may be used by any of the other Methuselahs for votes." This gives rise to yet a third interpretation: the acting Meth can only get the 1 vote on the card being moved; everyone _else_ gets to play as many votes as they want! What do you think of that?

In article <4do5d3$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118114214.13741A-100000@blackjack>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > > >The Battle Royal: A Weenie 4CL Vote Push Deck vs. Five Other NL Decks > > > >I was playing Jyhad one night with an experiment in mind. I had played > >with vote pushing before, but had never seen it actually done to the > >edge. Would it still work under 4CL? See for yourself. > > Only one of the opponent decks you mentioned uses intercept (the Gangrel), > and that deck's intercept requires permanents. Actually, two of the decks were intercept heavy. All of the deck at the table were chosen by me as decks that would stand an excellent chance against the deck. Prey: A permanent intercept deck (only needing +1, really) with lots of untap ability in the form of cat's guidance, homonculous, Freak Drive, The Beast Lord, etc. I felt that its untap would keep it going. Grand Prey: A temporary intercept and haven uncovered Cel/Tha deck. It doesn't go big on intercept because it only wants to block at +1/+2. When a S&B comes around it deflects/ Havens them. In this game, I felt the direct combat and light intercept would help. Great Grand Prey: A Rush & Politics deck. The rush should kill the weenies. The Politics should make the pushing harder. Grand Predator: A "Screw" Deck. It attempts to screw typical strategies and clans. It includes a large number of anti-voting cards, and due to the potpouri of weenies from all the clans, the anti clan cards can always hit that deck. Predator: A Presence Vote Deck. It easily gets the votes out. It still didn't have enough. I guess my whole point is that I _tried_ to throw a good selection of decks against it (to simulate a typical game) but I warped my selection and their placement to make things more difficult for the Weenie Vote deck to win. The table didn't really get the idea until the third turn, and then the table decided to go after it en masse. They torped (I think) five vampires, all princes, but it didn't matter. I think that the deck showed how w/o Vote Push limitations, any environment is a broken environment. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4dm8b1$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>Yes, a robust 4CL Rush deck >would >>disprove the Malk assertion. > >Not quite. Rush is a Brujah/Nossie/Gangrel defense to S&B. You'd need >(at least) one for each. However, Ventrue and, if Concealed Weapon isn't >fixed, Toreador have to use Bleed Bounce instead, which is a different >kettle of fish. Sure it would. The "assertion" referred to was that MS&B has no robust natural enemy under CL. The existence of 1 RNE to MS&B (acronym-o-rama!) would (and has, IMO) disprove that assertion. You are now asking for more than one; in fact, you want 1 MS&B RNE for Nosferatu and Gangrel now, as well. I'm sure it's doable, but as far as I'm concerned, the MS&B RNE issue is settled; at least the NL crowd hasn't responded to 2 4CL-legal Brujah cel/pot decks posted in the last month.

In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com>, elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) writes: >Then I played the Rush deck that I had built, and took my place as the >Malk's prey (giving the deck to a volunteer--a guy who plays Malks quite >often). It was like he hit a brick wall. Every time he brought out a >vamp, it got sent back in. He did not have much fun that game. My deck >would have done even better if his predator had been mine (a Nosferatu >deck that did considerably less damage with each bleed that *did* get >through). I will be testing the deck a few more times over the next few >weeks, but in the first trial, it seems to be able to hold its own pretty >well against Malk S&B. I will post my Rush deck in a seperate message. Who won? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4dm0ug$d...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >When 90%+ of the cards in jyhad are _not_ broken, (and therefore need no >limits) How can you call blanket card limits 'more elegant'? That's like >suspending an entire baseball team because the pitcher threw a spitball... >Giving an entire class extra homework because two kids mouthed off to the >teacher... Arresting you because your neighbor three doors down is a crook. > > What do _you_ mean by "elegant"?

In article <4dlm4g$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >If that is true (CL goes some way toward fixing problems caused by busted >cards), then 1CL should be the ultimate way to play. No broken card can >ever be a problem. This is also extremely elegant (see your last sentence). Now, James, let's not get snippy 8| . . . the above doesn't deserve a response and I thought was a bit below the level of discourse we've reached . . .

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118134147.13741I-100000@blackjack>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >Yes, one can make effective and _dull_ NL decks. But this is a personal >choice. One can make decks that are just as effective but not dull. NL >does not mean OTP. But NL _allows_ OTP's, which are all but impossible under severe CL. The deck you posted was legal under 6CL (or 10%); CL's that reduce the possibilities of OTP's.

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118142908.13741O-100000@blackjack>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to adopt >> new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted list" >> (depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ours who use >> CL won't have to change our play environment at all. THAT'S why CL is >> more elegant. > >True NL doesn't use a restricted list. This list comes from the Duelist >Convocation, which I think nearly everyone agrees, can't come up with a >decent set of rules for Jyhad to save their lives. ;) No no, NL will have problems with broken cards/actions as long as WotC keeps screwing up. See the discussions on Thoughts Betrayed, Toreador Grand Ball, and now Heidelberg Castle. The "restricted list" referred to is not the DC list, which as you say everyone knows is a waste. The "list" is that which NL players will have to come up with to fix all the busted cards.

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118144822.13741R-100000@blackjack>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >That would take out one facet of the NL arguement. It would not address >deck construction options, new player competition, the need for CL to use >the same fixes NL has to work (the Golden Tenets), the "Lightning Bolt" >effect, and Carlotta Giovanni. To continue with the Golden Tenets >arguement, under CL w/o the Golden Tenets, degenerate decks can be made. >Under NL w/ the Golden Tenets, degenerate decks can not be made. I'm >sure others would be happy to add to this list. Deck construction options: to me, a matter of taste. Do you like to be able to construct OTP's? Do you like decks that have a tighter focus? These are questions that have no right answer. New players: most feel more comfortable with CL, despite the convincing arguments of NL players. I'm not sure what I think about this, except that it's a lot more fun to introduce new players with less-focused decks, since the games (again, to me) are more varied and interesting. Golden Tenets: multi-actions are not a problem under CL, IME. Still working on weenie votes, hope to get that deck via e-mail soon and try it out myself. "Lighting bolt effect": I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Do you mean the effect of having 4 copies each of cards that have similar effects? Again, this really only hurts low $ players if there is: a common or uncommon card such that it's effects are matched only by other cards that are rare. Got an example? Carlotta: same effect whether in NL or CL, maybe more effective in CL, but not a real big issue IMO. NL under the Golden Tenets may not be degenerate, but with the existence of OTP's, it's (value alert!) less interesting.

In article <4do41s$c...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>be broken cards (see Heidelburg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, Thoughts >>Betrayed for DS examples), so the "Golden Tenets" (or list of restricted >>cards, if you play that way) will have to continue to grow. > >Yes, until WotC desides to put in a few hours proofing the cards before >they're released. > > And your estimate of the chances of their doing that, based on their previous performance . . . ?

In article <4e5pbf$k...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >Remember, deck construction limits are as much a rule of the game as any >other. If you want to use the 4CL house rule to change the deck construction >mechanics, fine. But don't try to tell me that this is somehow less of a >rules change than disallowing repeat actions. OK, but what about the upcoming fixes for the new broken cards? And what about when the next 2 expansions come out, with even more broken cards? I'd rather play a severe CL that fixes the whole mess (assuming no-vote-push was RG's original intent, which, even if untrue, at least fixes the problem) than be exposed to NL decks that exploit screwed-up cards until WotC gets around to making a decision that fixes them.

NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: : In article <4dlm4g$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." : <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Au contraire... James has performed a perfectly common debating tactic, called 'reductio ad absurdium'. This involves showing that the proposition the opponent puts forward (in this case, your definition of elegant) is absurd when taken to its inevitable consequences. Sorry if you don't like it, but I don't see it as snippy at all... merely smart. You attempted to redefine the terms (another good debating tactic, BTW...) and he countered. Why are you now claiming moral high ground? Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: : tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] (Pardon the tardiness or many of my responses lately, especially in the CL/NCL debate. My server has been feeding me articles on a 24-48 hour+ delay for the last while... :-( Elegant is another one of those 'eye of the beholder' words (obviously) in which many different people can have widelt differing opinions. As for me, however, I perceive elegance in things which are: precise (rather than general), understated (rather than overplayed), sleek, and use only as much force/effort/action/thought as necessary. Examples: - An equation which takes three boards of calculations to come to a conclusion is not as elegant as an equation which takes only 15 lines. - Two martial artists fighting can be elegant, as they (theoretically) apply the minimum necessary force at precisely defined locations to achieve the desired result. Two guys bare-knuckle fighting in the corner of a bar is (usually) not elegant, _even though_ the result is the same: one guy wins and the other loses. - If one person in a classroom is having trouble with binomial equations, it is not an 'elegant' solution to assign extra homework for everyone. This solution targets not only those who are a problem, but also those who aren't. As a result, those who _are_ having difficulty _still_ may not get the attention they need. Elegance comes _through_ hard work, not by avoiding it. Fred Astaire looks elegant when he dances because he has put in many hours practicing, trying things out, knowing what works and what doesn't. Similarly for the Martial Artists - they can only achieve their elegance through knowledge and practice. It is far easier to say 'everybody do questions XX on page X' than to look and determine who really needs the help. The 3-board equation _works_, and still solves the problem, but it is usually a 'first pass'; it is a basis from one works to _achieve_ elegance, not elegance itself. How does this apply to the CL/NCL debate? In this way: The 4CL is indeed 'simpler' than targetted solutions; as a 'first pass' it does the job acceptably with a minimum of fuss, much in the same way that breaking a table over someone's head will cause them to lose consciousness - effective, but not elegant. The specific House Rules on broken cards are an effort to try and apply force _only where necessary_, and not as a blanket solution. While they do work (at least, some combination of them usually does the trick) they fall down where the 'simplicity' factor kicks in. There is no denying that it _is_ more difficult to remember many rules than to remember one; it is also more difficult to do something well than to do it poorly, but that _in and of itself_ is not a reason for doing it poorly. The 'Golden Tenets' are (so far) the ultimate in elegance. They look at an overall _class_ of problems and fix them in a way that is, while a little sloppier than targetted rules, acceptable to all. As for simplicity, two rules are not significantly more difficult to remember than one and they pass this test as well. Given, people will say that there are cards which are still broken which are not fixed by these two rules. This means that the cycle will have to start again - but hopefully not from scratch. Jut because a specific vehicular design doesn't work, the engineers don't go back and reinvent the wheel! They start from where it last _did_ work. The 'Golden Tenets' are the last place where things did work; no blanket limits were necessary and every card was accounted for. The new cards will probably go through (are going through, even as we watch!) the same discussion processes which brought about the Golden Tenets. If that results in adding another blanket rule to the GTs to cover a class of cards, or even if it results in a specific ruling to fix a specific broken card - it is still better than a table over the head. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: > It's a fair argument. Do you mind if I take a stab at it? >1. We change the rules by limiting offensive untaps; hooray! We're >safe, although we've lost a number of non-degenerate deck designs and >are arguable no longer playing Jyhad (by severely altering the rule >structure). Non-degenerate? Untap-bleed is degenerate. >2. After we lose the Bleed deck, a weenie voting deck starts kicking Left out 'untap' here ^ Non-degenerate Bleed decks are not affected by lack of offensive untap. >our collective butt. Using the same principles, we take care of that >one too (no vote pushing). >3. Alright, the uncooperative WoTC produced the highly degenerate card >Thoughts Betrayed. We develop house rules to hamstring it. >4. This whole S:CE thing is really starting to piss us off, so let's >make them all cost a blood to use. The added cost for S:CE (and other untaps) was developed (by people other than myself) as an alternative method for dealing with offensive {and sometimes with defensive) untaps - viewed by such groups as breaking the laws of resource management. This is basically an alternative to 1. >5. Gee, the last time that Malkavian bled me, I lost *five* pool! Oh, the >humanity. Let's take care of that too! > Eventually, the game once known as Jyhad degrades into Go Fish with >pretty pictures. May I point out that only the last has not *yet* been >mentioned on the newsgroup within the past week or so. It is never mentioned. Never will be. A basic strategy, employed most easily by a particular clan, cannot be viewed as unbalancing, even by rulemongering zealots :-) > This solution is not elegant, requires the printing of an >additional rulebook, and will eventually produce a barren game which >has little resemblance to the one I currently enjoy. WotC already has printed a new rulebook to "fix" some of the errors perceived in the first printing of VtES (definition of Active Region), as well as printing the VtES rules to "fix" perceived error in the "corrected" Jyhad rulebook, and printing the "corrected" Jyhad rulebook in the first place. Left untended, degenerate play will eventually yeild alienation between players who feel cheated out of a structure for tournament play, choosing to play the game in a well-structured environment, the way it was designed to be played - rather than the degenerate-deck-wins-again environment of sanctioned tournaments. This alienation will eventually produce a barren game which has no market and no support. > BTW, I for one am not entirely opposed to the new DC rules, and plan >to try them. I may add Force of Will to the list [please see the above >argument ;-) ]. Any comments, and has anyone tried these yet? Do you mean FoW as two actions, or FoW as part of an infinite cycle? (The 'two actions' official explanation being merely annoying, while the infinite combo (requiring a mix of Jyhad and DS) being something which would be fixed by rule 1.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) wrote: >NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: >: In article <4dlm4g$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." >: <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >: >If that is true (CL goes some way toward fixing problems caused by busted >: >cards), then 1CL should be the ultimate way to play. No broken card can >: >ever be a problem. This is also extremely elegant (see your last >: sentence). >Au contraire... James has performed a perfectly common debating tactic, >called 'reductio ad absurdium'. This involves showing that the >proposition the opponent puts forward (in this case, your definition of >elegant) is absurd when taken to its inevitable consequences. > >Sorry if you don't like it, but I don't see it as snippy at all... merely >smart. You attempted to redefine the terms (another good debating >tactic, BTW...) and he countered. Why are you now claiming moral high >ground? It's a fair argument. Do you mind if I take a stab at it? 1. We change the rules by limiting offensive untaps; hooray! We're safe, although we've lost a number of non-degenerate deck designs and are arguable no longer playing Jyhad (by severely altering the rule structure). 2. After we lose the Bleed deck, a weenie voting deck starts kicking our collective butt. Using the same principles, we take care of that one too (no vote pushing). 3. Alright, the uncooperative WoTC produced the highly degenerate card Thoughts Betrayed. We develop house rules to hamstring it. 4. This whole S:CE thing is really starting to piss us off, so let's make them all cost a blood to use. 5. Gee, the last time that Malkavian bled me, I lost *five* pool! Oh, the humanity. Let's take care of that too! Eventually, the game once known as Jyhad degrades into Go Fish with pretty pictures. May I point out that only the last has not *yet* been mentioned on the newsgroup within the past week or so. This solution is not elegant, requires the printing of an additional rulebook, and will eventually produce a barren game which has little resemblance to the one I currently enjoy. BTW, I for one am not entirely opposed to the new DC rules, and plan to try them. I may add Force of Will to the list [please see the above argument ;-) ]. Any comments, and has anyone tried these yet? TJH

eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) wrote: >In article <4e0je8$1...@texas.nwlink.com>, T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >Murder of Crows does not belong in this category, it is not a strike card >and therefore doesn't benefit from the add'l strikes the cel in the frisbee >deck is granting. You can use the other cards at the same time; it's like a constant additional strike. Four strikes a round sounds pretty good to me. >And you miss the point of a frisbee deck if you start using Canine horde >to strike, which is that it is FUN to throw many large objects at your >opponents. So is 1R, press, 2R, press, 4R, press, (etc.). These decks are fun whether one uses the Animalism strikes or not. I don't think I'm missing the point. > A deck built around a not-entirely gameplay based theme that >is still viable adds to the variety of decks in the play enviroment, many >of which cannot work under 4cl (yes, back to this again). Would these cards make a 4cl ranged strike card deck possible? Was that not the goal here? >Wait! I've got it! The Wolf Companion is there to go fetch your sewer >lid after you throw it! :-) -TJH

In article <4e4sf8$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Since you asked...I had trouble with my Ravnos/Gangrel prey in that game (Cel/Pot Rush isn't that good against Fortitude combat)...I believe my prey actually won (can't remember exactly). The point of the exercise was that a Cel/Pot Rush deck would be viable under a 4CL...even with a Malk predator. in the previous game, the same Malk deck ran through the whole table (as expected). In the second game--brick wall. I *was* weakened though (had something like 6 pool when the Malk died), and my new Nosferatu predator went through me. He basically had too many vamps for me to torporize them all before he bled me out. I also played the C/P Rush deck again this last Tuesday. Yes, the experiment continues! In fact, I've found I kinda like the deck. In the first game (4 players), it killed every other Methuselah. In the second game (5 players), I had a little problem, because I didn't draw any of the Princes (there are 4 in the Crypt, if you missed the deck when I posted it...useful for putting Bloodhunts out, and defense against vote decks) until late in the game (at one point I had 8 vamps out--Nick, Angel, Lupo, Uma Hatch, Dre, Yuri, Bianca, and Constanza (finally! she was the last one I brought out))...the deck still won (took out 3 of the four other Methuselahs). I'll continue to play it, and I will see how it does. I think it will continue to have a little problem with Fortitude/Protean decks, but we'll see. My predator in the second game above was using Toreador, and he got out a Flamethrower on one of his vamps (with Sup. Cel!) EARLY, so it was a pretty good exercise in avoiding the Agg. damage ("I dodge your first strike, and Blur to dodge your second and third strikes..."). ;) -ELfholme -- ****************************************************************************** This bit of wisdom has been brought to you by: Mark Havener Lord of elfh...@netcom.com Wood Elf King (and Jyhad player extraordinaire!) ******************************************************************************

Would you play under 2 card restriction? Errol T.

In article <ovkohs0...@lk-hp-33.hut.fi>, Petri....@hut.fi wrote: : On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:56:54 +0200, Sco...@javanet.com (Scott A DiBerardino) said: : : Scott> However, on the CL side, I've become disgusted with the NL : Scott> environment because once players (new ones) got over their : Scott> magic-mindset, the decks and play got extremely *boring*. A : Scott> deck made out of (essentially) four to six cards just gets : Scott> boring after a couple turns. : : Funny, we've always played NL here in Helsinki and we've never had any : problems with it. The decks people play here are *not* boring, I think : most conform to a 6cl or 10% limit -- but not because of a mindless : blanket rule, but because usually you don't need that many duplicate : cards. Mind the "usually" there, because some decks really do need a : ton of a specific card to work -- rush decks need lots of BRs, Tremere : combat decks need lots of Thefts, etc. : : Over-specialized decks are very vulnerable if their "main trick" : doesn't work. : : Hate to say it, but I think your problem is more with unimaginative : players than with the rules. :-/ : : //Petri You hit it right on the head: I don't have a problem with the rules, just the way a lot of people "take advantage" of them. I don't want to waste my time "finding out" that the people I play with are wieners... I come from a rather large play environment (over two dozen vampire players) and I don't get to play often enough to be satisfied with an "oh well" if some dork's OTP ruins the evening for me. :( I realise this isn't a critique of NL per se, this problem is not one that CL permits, and is a key difference in my mind. Basically, CL has problems theoretically, and NL has problems practically. IMHO, of course. This is difficult to argue, since I agree with NL completely in a logical sense, but I always seem to have more fun with CL. [shrug] BTW, most agreeable NL decks would work fine under my compromise (CL with one or two cards allowed to break the limit). -scott // sco...@javanet.com, no strings attached "The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power" --Aneurin Bevan

In article <hippo-24019...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu>, hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: >In article <4e4aep$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R >Wylie) wrote: >: >with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the >: > I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask >: >for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. >: >: It's quite realistic to ask for such, and that's exactly what will happen: >: more playtesting. >: >: >: Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative >for >: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Though I was born in New York and not Missouri, you'll have to show me. I don't think WotC has done a very good job on MtG, Jyhad/VtES, or the DC. Sorry. (description of his offer to have his group playtest VtES snipped, as well as the grisly details of WotC's unresponsiveness to the offer) >I do hope you are serious about increasing playtesting. It will do >wonders for the stability of a great game. Players won't offer to playtest >if they don't care about the game and it's growth. And a dedicated fan >base is worth it's weight in gold to a well designed ccg. Dig it. Players interested in a well-supported CCG published by a company that knows what it's doing should try On the Edge, Legend of the 5 Rings, or Shadowfist. All these deserve more than a passing look, and they're published by companies that know how to make rulings, answer questions, and in general take care of their customers. They have a lot to teach WotC.

In article <4e4sen$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com>, elfh...@netcom.com (Mark >Havener) writes: > >>I'm not saying that you shouldn't change the rules on political actions >>in your group as a house rule. That's fine. Just don't try to justify >it >>based on a typo in the original rulebook. > >I suspect it's not just a typo. A) It was not changed in the "corrected" >(2nd version) of the Jyhad rules. Eh-heh. So you don't think WOTC is capable of making the same error twice? What about the ruling on Rotschrek (incorrect ruling printed twice int the Duellist)? How about the fact that it WS changed in V:TES? Obviously, they finally spotted their bad wording. >B) The all-vote deck is a hell of a big >hole. I find it hard to believe it slipped through playtesting. Playtesting? What playtesting? ;) "Repeat Actions" isn't a big enough hole for you? ;) -Elfholme [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4e8ikc$4...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: > >: What do _you_ mean by "elegant"? > >Elegant is another one of those 'eye of the beholder' words (obviously) >in which many different people can have widelt differing opinions. As >for me, however, I perceive elegance in things which are: precise (rather >than general), understated (rather than overplayed), sleek, and use only >as much force/effort/action/thought as necessary. Sounds like a pretty good definition, though I would put more weight one the points 2 and 4 (understated and requiring only as much thought as necessary), less on the first (precision, as I'm not sure how much importance it has in this context, and it seems to interfere with point 4 in most cases), and much less on the third (mostly because "sleek" means very little to me when talking about a game...you haven't defined it, and I don't think the definition in this context is intuitive at all). >Examples: >- An equation which takes three boards of calculations to come to a > conclusion is not as elegant as an equation which takes only 15 lines. An argument against a list of house rules... >- If one person in a classroom is having trouble with binomial equations, > it is not an 'elegant' solution to assign extra homework for everyone. > This solution targets not only those who are a problem, but also those > who aren't. As a result, those who _are_ having difficulty _still_ may > not get the attention they need. An argument against a card limit... I won't try to debate the arguments above (though I might point out that if several of the students in the class were having problems, it *might* be more appropriate to assign extra homework to the class...particularly if you only have a certain amount of time to allocate to each student). The question is, which is more important to you. You, obviously, favor that answers be precise rather than use the minimum thought necessary. I favor the latter. My group plays in a room provided by a game store, and anyone is invited to stop by and play with us. It is much easier for "drop-ins" if we play with as few house rules as possible. <discussion of elegance coming through hard work deleted> I'm not sure which side has put more "hard work" into their fix...but I'll tell you this: if I started seeing a game as work, then I'd stop playing. "Hard work" implies that you are striving against something. I hardly think playing a game over and over (even if you are trying new things constantly) is "hard work". Again, if you see the game as hard work, maybe you should find something more pleasurable to spend your free time on. >How does this apply to the CL/NCL debate? In this way: > >The 4CL is indeed 'simpler' than targetted solutions; as a 'first pass' >it does the job acceptably with a minimum of fuss, much in the same way >that breaking a table over someone's head will cause them to lose >consciousness - effective, but not elegant. As more and more expansions come out for V:TES, your list of house rules will be forced to grow (broken cards are inevitable...they are a problem with every game, not just games produced by WOTC...though they are more of a problem in some games than others). Eventually, I will reach the point where I'd *rather* have a table broken over my head than remember a bunch of rules that essentially create a different game. Whatever you think about CL, it should be apparent that they change the rules of the game a lot less than inventing new rules. This will become even more apparent as more house rules become necessary to make a NL environment work. >The specific House Rules on broken cards are an effort to try and apply >force _only where necessary_, and not as a blanket solution. While they >do work (at least, some combination of them usually does the trick) they >fall down where the 'simplicity' factor kicks in. There is no denying >that it _is_ more difficult to remember many rules than to remember one; >it is also more difficult to do something well than to do it poorly, but >that _in and of itself_ is not a reason for doing it poorly. Well/poorly, that's a matter of opinion, and I don't think it's relevant here (I think the CL solution fixes V:TES' problems just as well as the Golden Tenets). It's also more difficult to wring stones for juice than oranges, but is that a good reason to drink "stone juice" each morning instead of orange juice? No. >The 'Golden Tenets' are (so far) the ultimate in elegance. They look at >an overall _class_ of problems and fix them in a way that is, while a >little sloppier than targetted rules, acceptable to all. As for >simplicity, two rules are not significantly more difficult to remember >than one and they pass this test as well. This is not true, even by your definition. Since you haven't assigned "weights" to your four "factors" of elegance, a fix that is better in one factor (precision) but worse in another (level of thought/work necessary) is no better than the fix you are comparing it to. >Given, people will say that there are cards which are still broken which >are not fixed by these two rules. This means that the cycle will have to >start again - but hopefully not from scratch. Jut because a specific >vehicular design doesn't work, the engineers don't go back and reinvent >the wheel! They start from where it last _did_ work. The 'Golden Tenets' >are the last place where things did work; no blanket limits were necessary >and every card was accounted for. Exactly my point. Your list of rules to fix the problem will continue to grow and get more and more complicated, while mine stays the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4e85t3$s...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: >: In article <4dlm4g$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." >: <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >: >If that is true (CL goes some way toward fixing problems caused by busted >: >cards), then 1CL should be the ultimate way to play. No broken card can >: >ever be a problem. This is also extremely elegant (see your last >: sentence). > >: Now, James, let's not get snippy 8| . . . the above doesn't deserve a >: response and I thought was a bit below the level of discourse we've >: reached . . . > >Au contraire... James has performed a perfectly common debating tactic, >called 'reductio ad absurdium'. This involves showing that the >proposition the opponent puts forward (in this case, your definition of >elegant) is absurd when taken to its inevitable consequences. I understand the reduction to absurdity; it requires the consequences of the opponent's proposition be inevitable, or at least likely. This "1CL" is neither, therefore James' assertion (to me) was outside the bounds of fair debate. I understand making a joke, but I thought this response seemed a bit heated.

In article <4e8kfn$o...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: >Would you play under 2 card restriction? I'm not sure who this is directed towards, but I'll give an answer. No, I don't think I would. 4CL is pretty much regarded (AFAIK) as the most restrictive CL environment that is viable (and there's even a lot of discussion as to that, but if 4CL isn't viable, then 2CL sure as HECK isn't). 4CL fixes the broken aspects of the game adequately, IME...there is no need to go further and limit the number more than that. [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: ><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >>Oh, come on, yourself. Shouldn't we, as consumers, expect quality in >>the products we buy? Or have we as a nation become so disillusioned >>with the idea of producing a quality product that "so what" is the >>predominant attitude? I don't believe that it is unrealistic to ask >>for more playtesting to prevent broken cards. > >Ask away, just don't expect it. Naturally I expect quality in the >products I buy, but if I get poor service after a while, I realize that a >particular vendor has poor service. WotC has amply proved themselves on >this point. They're not going to adequately playtest anything they put >out, no matter what game you're thinking of. Whether that's through >incapacity or laziness is not the issue. You yourself aren't buying >VTES/DS because of the choices they have made, isn't that right? Peace be with you, That is correct. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <4e620g$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <4e5fp4$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com > (CurtAdams) writes: > > >I'm not exactly sure what you mean by mechanics here, but the two "Golden > >Rules" have little effect other than to bar two very specific types of > >clearly abusive decks. > > Actually, in addition to barring the degenerate decks, the GT's limit the > effectiveness of untapping and voting in non-denegerate decks as well. > This makes both of those actions less effective in the overall > environment; a collateral effect that is more objectionable, to me, than > playing with a loose (5 or 6) or even tight (4) CL. One doesn't have to untap and do nothing. The GT's limit makes an untapper deck have to be diverse (something I would think that the CL-camp would like). Rather than being able to call 2 votes with the same vampire, you might get a gun, call a vote, and then Force of Will to bleed at a bonus. Following that, Movement of the Slow Body, Rapid Healing, Restoration. This (or something similar) has happened a number of times in our games under the GTs. Also common is the blocked KRC, Majesty, Presence bleed. What do you want to do? Vote and Vote? Bleed and bleed? This is possible, but even in CL (especially lose ones), this can approach degeneracy. When it doesn't hit degeneracy it is only because it is of slight order of magnitude less. > >Tight card limits quite profoundly alter the game, > >not just by the advantages to S&B, but also by heavy emphasis on > intercept > >and permanents and the downgrading of most disciplines. > > The change is just different, not better or worse. IME, it leads to more > contestation of permanent retainers and locations, which means more play > decisions to make. But it also limits _choice_. It is a different, and in the terms you presented, it is a difference of tast, but outside of your statements, it means a limit to what a person can choose to create. > >It also alters > >deck construction from a focus on frequency tuning and opponent matching > >to a substitute hunt and largely squelches trading between different > >rarities. > > I'm not sure what you mean by opponent matching. If you're trying to make > a very focused deck, CL deck construction can become a substitute hunt; > then you get to do the frequency tuning you referred to. Frequency tuning means to weigh in the advantages and disadvantages of having 8 Deflections versus 3 Deflections and 5 Telepathic Misdirections, or 6 Bum's Rush vs. 1 Bum's Rush and 5 Haven Uncovered. CL greatly bogs this down because the limit has to approach something (4, 6, 10%) and can never exceed it. > OTOH, if you're > trying to make a Swiss army knife deck, things get a lot more interesting. > You get to try Rush with Intercept, or Voting with Bleeding, or Bounce > and Bruise, or whatever. You get lots of different choices, even in > mono-Clan decks. I find deck construction lots more challenging under CL > than under NL. All of those decks are decks that occur frequently in a NL environment. This is not something unique to CL (that is, to find mixed strategy). Rush with Intercept would be a hard challenge in any environment (IMHO Good intercept, as opposed to light intercept, is often not helped by attempting to be a viable rush deck too). I have two Rush/Vote decks, One Vote/Bleed, etc... etc... Your basic arguement (hinted at in this thread, seen in others) about a viable CL deck not being viable in NL hinges on the fact that you can make the above decks in CL and you wouldn't see them in NL because those decks would be eaten up by the "focused" decks. I don't see this at all. In NL, decks that try to mix strategies in a manner that compliments that opposing strategy tend to be more robust. Decks in NL that have no "focus" per se (that is, they aren't what you call a conventional bleed/combat/vote/whatever deck), but have some kind of honed plan can be made and be viable. As you said, making a Swiss army knife deck can make things more interesting. In NL, it can be done, be viable in its environment, and is a very challenging exercise. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4e8h7d$j...@texas.nwlink.com>, "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: [commentary on the Kitchen Sink deck - use of animalism cards to achieve goals] > Would these cards make a 4cl ranged strike card deck possible? Was > that not the goal here? No. The idea was to make a deck that would consist of thrown objects. I would include the Grenade you suggested, but everything else I would say doesn't fit. If the goal were to make a ranged damage deck, simply make a gun deck. Anyone can do that under even tight CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ScottD-2501...@206.150.72.13>, Sco...@javanet.com (Scott A DiBerardino) wrote: > In article <ovkohs0...@lk-hp-33.hut.fi>, Petri....@hut.fi wrote: > : Hate to say it, but I think your problem is more with unimaginative > : players than with the rules. :-/ > [comments on not wanting to play with wienies, degenerate decks, and OTPs] > I realise this isn't a critique of NL per se, this problem is not one that > CL permits, and is a key difference in my mind. CL is degenerate unless one plays without vote pushing (or some kind of vote holdback (as TOM suggested earlier)); it is semi-degenerate with repeat actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4e8ikc$4...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: (discussion of elegance snipped) >The new cards will probably go through (are going through, even as we >watch!) the same discussion processes which brought about the Golden >Tenets. If that results in adding another blanket rule to the GTs to >cover a class of cards, or even if it results in a specific ruling to fix >a specific broken card - it is still better than a table over the head. :-) OK, CL's are a table over the head. To me, GT's that know they'll have to expand are like Archie Andrews' car: patched together, needing more and more repairs, always in danger of breaking down. Bottom line -- I don't want to have to suffer through a deck built with 10 Thoughts Betrayed because the card is busted and no one "official" has gotten around to making up a new GT. Breaking a table over someone's head is faster, and it lets you get on with what you were doing before you had to do it. I never heard of the GT's before I ggot online, and not many of the people I play with have net access. CL's work better, faster, and clearer than 2 or 3 or 5 or however many "Golden" tenets. This is all completely subjective, anyway 8).

>eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) wrote: [pot/cel pitch deck viability under 4cl discussion snipped] > >>Murder of Crows does not belong in this category, it is not a strike card >>and therefore doesn't benefit from the add'l strikes the cel in the frisbee >>deck is granting. > > You can use the other cards at the same time; it's like a constant >additional strike. Four strikes a round sounds pretty good to me. The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based than ncl. > >>And you miss the point of a frisbee deck if you start using Canine horde >>to strike, which is that it is FUN to throw many large objects at your >>opponents. > > So is 1R, press, 2R, press, 4R, press, (etc.). These decks are fun >whether one uses the Animalism strikes or not. I don't think I'm >missing the point. > >> A deck built around a not-entirely gameplay based theme that >>is still viable adds to the variety of decks in the play enviroment, many >>of which cannot work under 4cl (yes, back to this again). > > Would these cards make a 4cl ranged strike card deck possible? Was >that not the goal here? "ranged strike card deck" is a gameplay based theme. Note that I say "not entirely gameplay based." Aside from the problems with a pot/cel/ani crypt, which I addressed earlier, in non-gameplay related terms, sicing a wolf or dog on someone is NOT the same thing as throwing a car at them. Thus while AFB and CH can be in a possibly viable ranged strike deck, they cannot be in a pitch deck, which is the original proposition of a non-deck under 4cl. > gnfnrf >

In article <4e53qv$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > Deck construction options: to me, a matter of taste. Do you like to be > able to construct OTP's? Do you like decks that have a tighter focus? > These are questions that have no right answer. I don't like to construct OTPs, _but_ I _do_ feel that if I really wanted to make them, I should be able to. I feel that there is nothing wrong with the OTP. They may be strong in their trick, but it is usually easy for any number of diverse decks to derail the OTP from its course. I like decks with a focus, whether it is tight or broad. I also like decks with no real "focus", but an idea that is kind of fun (The "Kitchen Sink" deck comes to mind, or my own "CDC" deck based on Vampiric Disease and Atlanta). Unfortunately, tight CL cause these decks to be unmakable. Broad CL (10%) tend to be so close to NL that I wonder why they are clung to (especially w/o the Golden Tenets (read: Broken Game)). > New players: most feel more comfortable with CL, despite the convincing > arguments of NL players. I'm not sure what I think about this, except > that it's a lot more fun to introduce new players with less-focused decks, > since the games (again, to me) are more varied and interesting. I somewhat disagree. I have taught a large number of people (a whole new batch recently). Of them all, only one player wasn't convinced of NL. I think that the "comfort" that you are familiar with in new players comes from their drawing upon previous CCG experience. As for the kind of decks that I teach people on, I tend to like to teach simple (NOTE: Not the AWFUL basic game in V:tES) concepts one at a time (I think Jyhad is a game that this is easy in). To accomplish this means, I have them play the _tightest_ focus decks I have... at first, to get them familiar with the concept of combinations and their importance. After playing two or three different tight decks, I have them play a broader deck, to show them that one need not have such a narrow focus, and that one can be equally viable with broad goals. Finally, I help them create a deck from my stock (given time), based on what they like. In a more time-short environment, I try to give them one or two simple decks - one tight, the other broad, to give the impression of the above. In all cases, the games are varied and interesting (though somewhat less than if the players were more experienced, and playing them same decks). > Golden Tenets: multi-actions are not a problem under CL, IME. Still > working on weenie votes, hope to get that deck via e-mail soon and try it > out myself. Tell us the results... :) Hope you enjoy my deck. > "Lighting bolt effect": I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Do you > mean the effect of having 4 copies each of cards that have similar > effects? Again, this really only hurts low $ players if there is: a > common or uncommon card such that it's effects are matched only by other > cards that are rare. Got an example? This is not a $ arguement. This is an arguement about the effect of more cards destroying the CL environment. I.e., if 4CL works but 8CL doesn't, what happens as more cards are made that duplicate the effects of other "fragile" cards. When a third similar card comes out, now a defacto 12CL becomes created. This has been termed the Lightning Bolt effect because of Magic, with its Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning, Incinerate, Ball Lightning cards. They are (nearly) all different styles of card (summoning, instant, sorcery), but their basic effect is similar. As more KRCs and Freak Drives and whatevers come out, CL will lose their viability. Especially given WotC's wonderful playtesting ability. > Carlotta: same effect whether in NL or CL, maybe more effective in CL, but > not a real big issue IMO. In NL, Carlotata is effective, but in CL she is extraordinary. She can certainly be intercepted, rushed, etc., but in a CL environment, being able to have access to a theoretically infinite amount of cards is far better than having absolute access to 4. In NL, this is far offset by the fact that, up to deck size, you can have as many of whatever you want in your deck. > NL under the Golden Tenets may not be degenerate, but with the existence > of OTP's, it's (value alert!) less interesting. I feel that I play some decent decks, and that most of the people that I play with do as well. I would like to see some NL OTPs to see what would happen in my environment. I (currently) don't expect that much. Anyone, please e-mail me or post ... Thanks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ScottD-2201...@206.150.72.38>, Sco...@javanet.com (Scott A DiBerardino) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118134147.13741I-100000@blackjack>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: [Discussion of NL as an environment where One Trick Ponies are encouraged.] > : > : This situation is not a result of the mindset in NL construction, but of > : the players in those game. I would be interested in seeing some of those > : decks work. I.e., would they qualify as robust or are they > : One-Trick-Ponies who die as a result of a single card. > > Well, yes, usually they're OTPs but this is hardly a problem for them... > the "hose card" for that deck is unlikely to come up in an envrionment > with such focused decks. Incidentally, the worst offending OTP was an > all-weenie vote deck with plenty of praxis seizures and autarkis > persecutions. He bored everyone to death :) I guess I have to say I disagree about the frequency of the "hose card". By single card above, that does not mean _only_ one card, but that the playing of a single card (from any of the set of such cards) causes the deck to fail. I'm hard pressed to come up with examples, because for some reason, I can't think of a OTP right now. Help, anyone? > : In my own decks, they tend to be very varied. As an example, one I've > : already posted ("Sowing Dissension's Seeds"), has a number of Majesty (6 > : or 8, I can't remember :), 4 or 6 Bloodhunts, 3 or 4 Dramatic Upheavel, > : and hardly anything else with more than 2 copies. > > That's why I think my compromise (reprinted below) is a good basis for a > more balanced play environment. I'm hoping it filters out dull OTPs > without restricting *interesting* decks unreasonably. The compromise (snipped below) of playing CL with NL on some cards is really no different than playing with a large restricted list in a NL environment. IMHO, this solution is merely half-a-step from NL. If you prefer playing CL, fine. If you prefer playing with NL, fine. But, if you would prefer the compromise solution, you need to ask yourself, "Why am I not taking that half step?" If it is because you feel NL rewards dull decks, fix that problem and play pure NL. If it is because you think CL reward certain deck types, fix that problem and play CL. This system (the compromise) does hold some merit, but for myself, I find that the compromise is not necessary, and play NL. For those on the other side of the fence, they will likely feel that the decision to play some cards NL is relatively arbitrary and difficult to keep track of (who, after all, decides which cards are NL. Who keeps track of which are played that way). [CL vs NL discussion of game environment vs game] > : Yes, one can make effective and _dull_ NL decks. But this is a personal > : choice. One can make decks that are just as effective but not dull. NL > : does not mean OTP. > > Unfortunately, around here it does. :) Sorry. :( Around here, there are dull, effective decks. But, I have not seen any of these dull decks be any more effective than fun decks. The difference is that the dull decks are... dull. That's it. _Far_ more decks are interesting rather than dull, and they become more so as the players gain more experience. Maybe the NL decks in your area are OTP because NL deck construction faces more difficult choices. Under these choices, it is often far easier to make a deck that does only one thing, and does it well, than to make a robust deck. > This just underscores what I meant about one solution being to find a good > play group. But with Vampire/Jyhad making a comeback, I don't have a means > to litmus test every potential opponent, so it can be good to have some > kind of common ground to erect a workable game environment from. When > among good friends, I feel free to play NL. At my store, I hear calls for > CL... As a NLer, I'm sorry to hear that (though I can see some CLers smiling :). Usually, when I try to convert people that play CL, I tell them about the Golden Tenets (something I feel is necessary whether you play CL or NL). To back up this statement I show them a degenerate deck in the tightest common CL environment I have seen, 4CL. This is typically the "Weenie Vote Push". Repeat actions _are_ more of a problem in NL, but I feel they are still a lesser evil in CL (especially as you approach 10%). I then argue how non-degenerate untap can be done with the GT. My typical final arguements are how it is impossible to make a degenerate deck in NL(I have _never_ seen one with the Golden Tenets, and it has been a long standing challenge that no one has ever answered). Why play CL? I have converted and not converted many to my line of thinking. (Please don't think I do this with everyone I meet who plays CL. If I were to go to your game store and be told that you play CL, I would likely respond, "Well, I only have NL decks, can I play with it anyway?" After playing (whether I play my NL deck or not), if anyone brings the subject up, I'll debate with them, but I try not to push my opinions down anyone's throat. Except here. ;) > : > I've considered my own feelings on this subject for weeks now, and the > : > only compromise (and I have to admit, I feel one is necessary) is: > : > well, either play with no limits and avoid "boring" players (a problem in > : > that often one finds this out too late), or play with some loose limits > : > (6CL, 10% whatever) but allow one or two cards to "break the rule"... just > : > name your transgressing card (usually Rush), and away you go! It's an idea > : > anyway, mainly to promote within-game variety. > : > : A good compromise... Me, I'm a stodgy, old purist ... :) > > I certainly understand this, but even your purist self plays with card > errata, yes? Only misprints and what we feel cards (like Rotschreck) should mean. Other than that, the Golden Tenets are good enough for me, though I think certain cards (see my opinions on LSJ's house rules list) ought to be redone. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4ec5i4$k...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: >>>Murder of Crows does not belong in this category, it is not a strike card >>>and therefore doesn't benefit from the add'l strikes the cel in the frisbee >>>deck is granting. >> >> You can use the other cards at the same time; it's like a constant >>additional strike. Four strikes a round sounds pretty good to me. > >The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent >that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your >opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with >several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, >and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based >than ncl. Actually, no matter what environment you are in, Murder of Crows is better than "a strike card that you opponent doesn't know is coming" that does 1R (and IMHO it's better than 2R also, but that's just my opinion), because the Murder of Crows damage can't be dodged. Not a particularly good example of "4cl being more permanent-based than ncl". Yes, you have to equip them, but if you're playing Gangrel, who's going to block the equip? And if you're in a game witha speedy predator (like Malks), you'll probably have trouble getting into combat anyway, so the strike card (whether it's MOC or a 1R strike) will probably just end up discarded anyway. A minor point in this discussion, which basically centers around: "A deck that is based on one or two cards is hurt under tight card limits (4CL)". Under 6CL or 10%, this thrown object deck shouldn't be hurt at all. With Gates, Lids, Cars, and Grenades, you should have plenty of options under 6CL (probably under 4CL also, but someone else is going to have to test that deck out...I prefer combat to be up-close and personal ;)), especially since you are going to have to put presses and maneuvers in your deck as well anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960126160033.695D-100000@pentandria>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >In article <4e620g$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com >(NCascone) wrote: > >> In article <4e5fp4$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com >> (CurtAdams) writes: >> >> >I'm not exactly sure what you mean by mechanics here, but the two "Golden >> >Rules" have little effect other than to bar two very specific types of >> >clearly abusive decks. > >> >Tight card limits quite profoundly alter the game, >> >not just by the advantages to S&B, but also by heavy emphasis on >> intercept >> >and permanents and the downgrading of most disciplines. >> >> The change is just different, not better or worse. IME, it leads to more >> contestation of permanent retainers and locations, which means more play >> decisions to make. > >But it also limits _choice_. It is a different, and in the terms you >presented, it is a difference of tast, but outside of your statements, it >means a limit to what a person can choose to create. And your option limits _choice_ as well. If I want to make a repeater vote or bleed deck, I can make it under 4CL; it won't be as good as it would be under NL, because there won't be an endless stream of untaps, but I can make one. IME, this deck can be annoying, (especially Freaky-Majestic-Bleed), but it isn't unstoppable, because once those 4 Freak Drives and 4 Majesties are gone, they're gone. And bleeding for more than 3 is very risky nowadays, so the bleeding tends to be slower. I can't make this deck under a GT environment, because the "theme" isn't even allowed, because it couldn't be contained. Same thing with a weenie vote deck. IME this deck is not NEARLY the monster it is made out to be (gets bogged down with more than 4 players) as long as you are playing 4CL. Give this guy a Gangrel prey (one Raven Spy gives +1 intercept forever...) or a Tremere one (Justine is GREAT against weenies) and this deck is history. Sure, I could *make* this deck in a GT environment, but it isn't viable. Both options limit choices on what type of decks can be played. 4CL just limits the more boring ones (decks which depend on one or two cards to work). [ quoted text not captured ]

Mark Havener <elfh...@netcom.com> wrote: >Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: > >>>>Murder of Crows does not belong in this category, it is not a strike card >>>>and therefore doesn't benefit from the add'l strikes the cel in the frisbee >>>>deck is granting. >>> >>> You can use the other cards at the same time; it's like a constant >>>additional strike. Four strikes a round sounds pretty good to me. >> >>The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent >>that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your >>opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with >>several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, >>and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based >>than ncl. > >Actually, no matter what environment you are in, Murder of Crows is >better than "a strike card that you opponent doesn't know is coming" that >does 1R (and IMHO it's better than 2R also, but that's just my opinion), >because the Murder of Crows damage can't be dodged. Not a particularly >good example of "4cl being more permanent-based than ncl". Yes, you have You say "MoC is good in this deck." I say "MoC is not." MoC is a permanent. You play under 4cl, I don't. To make a 4cl pitch deck, one needs to resort to permanents (as you say.) Under ncl, you don't. Why is this not a good example of 4cl being more permanent based than ncl. >to equip them, but if you're playing Gangrel, who's going to block the Wait a minute. Who said anything about gangrel? This was a pot/cel (ani) deck under discussion. Guess how many gangrel have pot/cel/ani? Angus is it, and neither the pot or cel is superior. The only other gangrel with cel at all is Stanislava. Don't change the deck being discussed when your position starts to erode. >tight card limits (4CL)". Under 6CL or 10%, this thrown object deck >shouldn't be hurt at all. With Gates, Lids, Cars, and Grenades, you >should have plenty of options under 6CL (probably under 4CL also, but >someone else is going to have to test that deck out...I prefer >combat to be up-close and personal ;)), especially since you are going to >have to put presses and maneuvers in your deck as well anyway. > Under 6cl, a pitch deck is probably borderline workable (without ani.) Under 4cl, I don't think so. You are right about the maneuvers and presses, though TSL does give you a press and TG a maneuver.> gnfnrf

Using a Mask of 1000 Faces, I unlurk and leap into the argument... T.J. Hull (t...@nwlink.com) wrote: : eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) wrote: : >In article <4e0je8$1...@texas.nwlink.com>, T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: : >And you miss the point of a frisbee deck if you start using Canine horde : >to strike, which is that it is FUN to throw many large objects at your : >opponents. : So is 1R, press, 2R, press, 4R, press, (etc.). These decks are fun : whether one uses the Animalism strikes or not. I don't think I'm : missing the point. Ahem. Fun? I wonder, just a bit, if you have played a frisbee deck (around here, the "fun in the sun" deck)? A 2 damage gate with a manoeuvre is kinda fun, but a 3 damage sewer lid with a press is big fun, especially in threes. A pissweak 1 damage canine horde or 1 damage bat just isn't the same (or a fraction as effective, needless to say). Our definitions of fun vary wildly, methinks. Torn off signposts are fun. (1 damage hand strikes are not fun). Blurs are fun. (1 strike a round is not fun). All IMHO, natch. : > A deck built around a not-entirely gameplay based theme that : >is still viable adds to the variety of decks in the play enviroment, many : >of which cannot work under 4cl (yes, back to this again). : Would these cards make a 4cl ranged strike card deck possible? Was : that not the goal here? I didn't think so. I thought the goal was to show you poor deluded 4CL folks that your 4CL is weak and pathetic, because you can't do a good deck based on Thrown Gate, Thrown Sewer Lid and Well Aimed Car in 4CL. (Ob smiley: :-) If that was necessary, shame on you for having no sense of humour). (Waits for laughter to die down). Seriously, folks, if you have not played a Brujah pitch deck, you haven't had fun yet. Get 14 or 15 sewer lids and gates (each, total c.30), about 15 additional strike cards, 7 or 8 Flashes, 8 or 10 Bum's Rushes, and a few Psyches to wriggle around S:CE. Add the odd Pot/Cel master card, and Tastes of Vitae, and go to town. The 4CL folks will have a heart attack, and call it a One Trick Pony, but you can tell them to get a dog up 'em. Almost all commons, by the way, and the rares aren't strictly necessary. (I was considering saying something like, "No 4CL deck is this much fun", but it'd turn into yet another endless 4CL argument, and I'm sick of the topic). : :-) -TJH Yours, Kevin Lowe, (Brisbane, Australia).

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960126160033.695D-100000@pentandria>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >(discussion of what to do after untapping in no-multi-actions snipped) >> >Tight card limits quite profoundly alter the game, >> >not just by the advantages to S&B, but also by heavy emphasis on >> intercept >> >and permanents and the downgrading of most disciplines. >> >> The change is just different, not better or worse. IME, it leads to more >> contestation of permanent retainers and locations, which means more play >> decisions to make. > >But it also limits _choice_. It is a different, and in the terms you >presented, it is a difference of tast, but outside of your statements, it >means a limit to what a person can choose to create. Obviously. I don't want to go around this mulberry bush again. CL's prevent OTP's, the most objectionable form of deck (IME), and the most prevalent under NL (again, IME). >> I'm not sure what you mean by opponent matching. If you're trying to make >> a very focused deck, CL deck construction can become a substitute hunt; >> then you get to do the frequency tuning you referred to. > >(explains frequency tuning) I understand frequency tuning; you still get to do it under CL. Plus, under CL there is some impetus to make the smallest deck that you think won't run out (since the really big decks lower your chances of getting the precise cards you want). NL has no such downward pressure on deck size, since you can always work by percentage, no matter how large your deck. BTW, I asked what you meant by "opponent matching", I'm really interested to find out. >Your basic arguement (hinted at in this thread, seen in others) about a >viable CL deck not being viable in NL hinges on the fact that you can >make the above decks in CL and you wouldn't see them in NL because those >decks would be eaten up by the "focused" decks. I don't see this at >all. In NL, decks that try to mix strategies in a manner that >compliments that opposing strategy tend to be more robust. (snip to end) But they're still beaten by OTP's whose key card or deck-style isn't present. As you might have guessed, I've played under NL and been hosed by irritating OTP decks. I'd just as soon not repeat the experience; CL's are a clear, simple way to ensure it. Let's face it, in any given group if CCGers, one or more is going to be a hosehead who thinks it's really fun, neat, and cool to make the VtES equivalent of a Lighting Bolt deck. I'd rather nip their doofy plans in the bud by playing under a CL. I submit this; your robust NL deck can still be beaten by the most unimaginative OTP that you can't counter. That is _no_fun_, any way you slice it; plus, it doesn't reward your hard work in putting together an interesting, well-balanced NL deck. Where _do_ you play, anyway?

In article <4ec5i4$k...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: >The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent >that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your >opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with >several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, >and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based >than ncl. Well, that's a good reason to play CL; more cards become more useful . . . isn't that diversity?

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960124114817.2148D-100000@blackwolf>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >In article <4do5d3$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com >(CurtAdams) wrote: > >> In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118114214.13741A-100000@blackjack>, The >> Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> >I was playing Jyhad one night with an experiment in mind. I had >played >> >with vote pushing before, but had never seen it actually done to the >> >edge. Would it still work under 4CL? See for yourself. >> >> Only one of the opponent decks you mentioned uses intercept (the Gangrel), >> and that deck's intercept requires permanents. > >Actually, two of the decks were intercept heavy. All of the deck at the >table were chosen by me as decks that would stand an excellent chance >against the deck. All your decks do indeed attack resources for a weenie vote deck. Several attack its vampire resource and several its ability to pass votes. However none attack the resource most critical to a 4cl weenie voter - the supply of aggressive votes in its deck. There's only 4 KRC, 4 CA, 4 Sabbat Threats, 4 Parity Shift and (maybe) 4 Domain Challenge. If you can intercept a fair number of those the weenie voter won't get anywhere, regardless of the # of vampires or princes it's got. With 4cl decks with lots of intercept and little combat are quite viable (extremely good, actually). Normally they'd frequently get their faces beaten in. With 4cl, however card-based combat doesn't work- (almost) everybody need permanents to fight. Anybody without a gun can be intercepted with impunity (Gangrel is the only exception). This is a very good strategy because the copious intercept allows you to deny your neighbors the permanents they need to fight effectively. This is precisely the situation that evolved in my group with 4cl - the majority of decks were Malks or Tremere, packing 1/4 or so intercept cards. Such decks can easily intercept enough aggressive votes to make any 4cl vote deck helpless. >Prey: A permanent intercept deck (only needing +1, really) with lots of >untap ability in the form of cat's guidance, homonculous, Freak Drive, >The Beast Lord, etc. I felt that its untap would keep it going. Too permanent dependent for a speed deck like weenie rush. By the time you've gotten a homonculous and a Raven the weenie voter will have its prey on the ropes. It should certainly get a few weenies, but by then it's too late. >Grand Prey: A temporary intercept and haven uncovered Cel/Tha deck. It >doesn't go big on intercept because it only wants to block at +1/+2. >When a S&B comes around it deflects/ Havens them. In this game, I felt >the direct combat and light intercept would help. Again, a deck attacking the ready vampire resource. A reasonable attack, but not the resource a 4cl vote deck is short of. >Great Grand Prey: A Rush & Politics deck. The rush should kill the >weenies. The Politics should make the pushing harder. Rush combat is generally short on enter combat resources. You need a lot of Rush to handle any kind of weenie. A "mad rush" deck with over 15 rush cards could probably handle it but such decks aren't robust in general play (and not even legal, 4-card). Worse, weenie decks can generally afford to retrieve torporized vampires. >Predator: A Presence Vote Deck. It easily gets the votes out. It still >didn't have enough. To be expected. >I guess my whole point is that I _tried_ to throw a good selection of >decks against it (to simulate a typical game) but I warped my selection >and their placement to make things more difficult for the Weenie Vote >deck to win. The table didn't really get the idea until the third turn, >and then the table decided to go after it en masse. They torped (I >think) five vampires, all princes, but it didn't matter. > >I think that Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4e53q4$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >No no, NL will have problems with broken cards/actions as long as WotC >keeps screwing up. See the discussions on Thoughts Betrayed, Toreador >Grand Ball, and now Heidelberg Castle. The "restricted list" referred to >is not the DC list, which as you say everyone knows is a waste. The >"list" is that which NL players will have to come up with to fix all the >busted cards. Card limits only help with certain types of broken cards (non-permanents, generally). Heidelberg Castle, as a unique, obviously isn't affected. 4 Grand Balls is quite enough (unless you have 6 Toreador) - more only allow you to deal with intercept. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4e53ng$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >But NL _allows_ OTP's, which are all but impossible under severe CL. The >deck you posted was legal under 6CL (or 10%); CL's that reduce the >possibilities of OTP's. CL allow OTPs: what could be more of a one-trick pony than a Malk pure S&B deck? Several intercept-combat OTPs are also viable under card limits: Tremere intercept, gun intercept (sometimes) and Gangrel intercept (with Garous). (the Gangrel do have real problems with S&B, but they do as well as any inausipicious clan can.) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: -> In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960118142908.13741O-100000@blackjack>, The -> Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: -> ->>> As new expansions come out, the NL playgroups will either have to ->>> adopt new house rules to fix problems, or add to their "restricted ->>> list" (depending upon which "fix" they use). OTOH, the groups like ->>> ours who use CL won't have to change our play environment at all. ->>> THAT'S why CL is more elegant. ->> ->>True NL doesn't use a restricted list. This list comes from the Duelist ->>Convocation, which I think nearly everyone agrees, can't come up with ->>a decent set of rules for Jyhad to save their lives. ;) -> -> No no, NL will have problems with broken cards/actions as long as WotC -> keeps screwing up. See the discussions on Thoughts Betrayed, Toreador -> Grand Ball, and now Heidelberg Castle. The "restricted list" referred -> to is not the DC list, which as you say everyone knows is a waste. The -> "list" is that which NL players will have to come up with to fix all -> the busted cards. I think people should play however they want to play. However I want to point out that a 4CL doesn't "fix" Heidelburg Castle (until the DT fixed it with the latest errata). Until the recent errata, Heidelburg Castle is just as broken under 4CL as under NL (if not more so, since equipment is more important in 4CL). 4CL doesn't fix any problem card that remains in play (i.e. not discarded when played). If Heidelburg Castle hadn't been errata'ed, would 4CL groups have banned the card? --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <4ega00$9...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: >Mark Havener <elfh...@netcom.com> wrote: >>Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: >>> >>>The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent >>>that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your >>>opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with >>>several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, >>>and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based >>>than ncl. >> >>Actually, no matter what environment you are in, Murder of Crows is >>better than "a strike card that you opponent doesn't know is coming" that >>does 1R (and IMHO it's better than 2R also, but that's just my opinion), >>because the Murder of Crows damage can't be dodged. Not a particularly >>good example of "4cl being more permanent-based than ncl". Yes, you have > >You say "MoC is good in this deck." I say "MoC is not." MoC is a permanent. >You play under 4cl, I don't. To make a 4cl pitch deck, one needs to resort >to permanents (as you say.) Under ncl, you don't. Why is this not a good >example of 4cl being more permanent based than ncl. Um, I NEVER said MoC is good in a pitch deck. I was assuming we had thrown that idea out the window already. I was jumping in to dispute the idea that MoC is a good example of 4CL being more permanent-based than NCL, because MoC is better than those throwaway strikes that you were comparing it to, no matter which environment you play in. >>to equip them, but if you're playing Gangrel, who's going to block the > >Wait a minute. Who said anything about gangrel? This was a pot/cel (ani) >deck under discussion. Guess how many gangrel have pot/cel/ani? Angus is it, >and neither the pot or cel is superior. The only other gangrel with cel at >all is Stanislava. Don't change the deck being discussed when your position >starts to erode. Again, please check to see who is posting when you reply to their post. I have never stated the position that a "pitch" deck is workable in 4CL; that was someone else. I'm really not sure whether or not a pitch deck would work in 4CL. I was trying to debate whether MoC was a good example of 4CL being more permanent-based. In fact, I'm not even necessarily saying that 4CL *isn't* more permanent-based; I just don't think MoC is a good example of this. Sorry if this wasn't clear before. >>tight card limits (4CL)". Under 6CL or 10%, this thrown object deck >>shouldn't be hurt at all. With Gates, Lids, Cars, and Grenades, you >>should have plenty of options under 6CL (probably under 4CL also, but >>someone else is going to have to test that deck out...I prefer >>combat to be up-close and personal ;)), especially since you are going to >>have to put presses and maneuvers in your deck as well anyway. >> The above is the first time *I* started talking about the pitch deck. I *think* it'd be workable under 4CL (again, I am assuming that we do *not* use MoC or Wolves...sorry if that wasn't clear), but I'm not about to test it (I prefer to fight up close). >Under 6cl, a pitch deck is probably borderline workable (without ani.) >Under 4cl, I don't think so. You are right about the maneuvers and presses, >though TSL does give you a press and TG a maneuver.> Has someone posted one of these decks here? I haven't totally been following this thread (sorry), but I'd like to see one, to see what it looks like, what the card numbers are, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >Murder of Crows is useful anyway. Many cards no longer function as useful >parts of deck with tight card limits (e.g. the thrown stuff, most carded >maneuvers, most carded dodges, many votes, etc.) I'm not aware of any >card that sees use in 4cl that disappears NL. Perhaps "Deal with the Devil". -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ban the Bomb: Make the world safe for conventional warfare!

Eric Pettersen (pe...@homer.ucsf.edu) wrote: : ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: : -> No no, NL will have problems with broken cards/actions as long as WotC : -> keeps screwing up. See the discussions on Thoughts Betrayed, Toreador : -> Grand Ball, and now Heidelberg Castle. The "restricted list" referred : -> to is not the DC list, which as you say everyone knows is a waste. The : -> "list" is that which NL players will have to come up with to fix all : -> the busted cards. : I think people should play however they want to play. However I want to : point out that a 4CL doesn't "fix" Heidelburg Castle (until the DT fixed : it with the latest errata). Until the recent errata, Heidelburg Castle is : just as broken under 4CL as under NL (if not more so, since equipment is : more important in 4CL). 4CL doesn't fix any problem card that remains in : play (i.e. not discarded when played). : If Heidelburg Castle hadn't been errata'ed, would 4CL groups have banned : the card? Of course not... that would have been the start down the slippery slope to a whole lotta house rules they had to remember... Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com>, elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: > In article <4ec5i4$k...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, > Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: > >The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent > >that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your > >opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with > >several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, > >and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based > >than ncl. > Actually, no matter what environment you are in, Murder of Crows is > better than "a strike card that you opponent doesn't know is coming" that > does 1R (and IMHO it's better than 2R also, but that's just my opinion), > because the Murder of Crows damage can't be dodged. Not a particularly > good example of "4cl being more permanent-based than ncl". In the context (snipped), it actually was a good example. In the context, there really weren't enough ranged, non-gun attacks to do what someone assumed (incorrectly) the goal was. In a CL environment, the Murder are a necessity for this kind of deck. Thus, a good example of 4cl being more permanent based than ncl. Do realize that this is not a negative, but a difference in flavor, where as many would argue back and forth that other issues are actually negative. [ quoted text not captured ]

NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: : In article <4e85t3$s...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane : Travis) writes: : >Au contraire... James has performed a perfectly common debating tactic, : >called 'reductio ad absurdium'. This involves showing that the : >proposition the opponent puts forward (in this case, your definition of : >elegant) is absurd when taken to its inevitable consequences. : I understand the reduction to absurdity; it requires the consequences of : the opponent's proposition be inevitable, or at least likely. This "1CL" : is neither, therefore James' assertion (to me) was outside the bounds of : fair debate. I understand making a joke, but I thought this response : seemed a bit heated. (Again I apologize for the tardiness in response time - the original article was posted friday and showed up at my site Tuesday. rassenfracknnetworkserver...) If I understand your point of view correctly (And I think I do, given the number of times it has been re-iterated on this thread): No Limits = bad. Broken cards rule. 8CL = hardly better than NCL wrt broken cards. 6CL = Limiting, but not limiting enough. 4CL = Seems to limit broken cards enough so no problems occur... . . . 1CL = Must be the perfect solution! See where the inevetable part comes in? When narrowing down options from NL -> 4CL, the question _must_ be, "Why stop at four? What is magical about that number?" James takes this question and answers... just not in a way that you like or appreciate. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4eikit$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960126160033.695D-100000@pentandria>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: [Response to deck construction under tight CL creating more intercept/perms] > >But it also limits _choice_. It is a different, and in the terms you > >presented, it is a difference of tast, but outside of your statements, it > >means a limit to what a person can choose to create. > Obviously. I don't want to go around this mulberry bush again. CL's > prevent OTP's, the most objectionable form of deck (IME), and the most > prevalent under NL (again, IME). As you said in another thread, if a OTP deck isn't winning all the time, who cares? One, OTPs are not a threat in a NL environment, if one uses the Golden Tenets (or some other means of stopping abuse of vote pushes current ruling and offensive untap). Two, OTPs exist in CL (see 4CL Malk, 4CL Rush attempt). [>>Frequency tuning] > I understand frequency tuning; you still get to do it under CL. Of course, but you have more control. To be explicit, in a S&B deck, you can choose to discard your depth of cards (i.e., equivalent numbers of varied stealth action modifiers) in return for a specific effect (9 faceless night and 3 of each other). The end result: less likelihood for higher stealth, more likelihood of the "tapping" effect. > Plus, > under CL there is some impetus to make the smallest deck that you think > won't run out (since the really big decks lower your chances of getting > the precise cards you want). Deck size is really not to important an arguement here, as long as one observes typical max/min deck size. In a CL environment, decks tend to be more permanent based. Every permanent deck I have seen tends to be smaller. This, while an interesting note, isn't really a factor in the CL/NL debate. > NL has no such downward pressure on deck > size, since you can always work by percentage, no matter how large your > deck. BTW, I asked what you meant by "opponent matching", I'm really > interested to find out. I think this statement somehow got misattributed to me, but to me opponent matching means making a deck that is robust enough to handle a large number of situations. This is really vague, and I don't think it means what the person who said it (?) originally meant, but... :/ > >Your basic arguement (hinted at in this thread, seen in others) about a > >viable CL deck not being viable in NL hinges on the fact that you can > >make the above decks in CL and you wouldn't see them in NL because those > >decks would be eaten up by the "focused" decks. I don't see this at > >all. In NL, decks that try to mix strategies in a manner that > >compliments that opposing strategy tend to be more robust. (snip to end) > But they're still beaten by OTP's whose key card or deck-style isn't > present. As you might have guessed, I've played under NL and been hosed > by irritating OTP decks. I'd just as soon not repeat the experience; CL's > are a clear, simple way to ensure it. I've never seen this. I have played since the _day_ Jyhad was released, and while some decks I have might not ever be able to handle a specific deck (explicit example: I have a Fortitude based combat deck that _never_ stands a chance against a Tremere Combat deck. I am working to correct this...), I have yet to see a OTP or other "degenerate" deck ever be something that needs a specific key card to be beaten. Rather, a set of key cards tend to blow them out of the water. Please, post or mail a deck or deck idea so I can see how I feel my decks would handle it. > Let's face it, in any given group if CCGers, one or more is going to be a > hosehead who thinks it's really fun, neat, and cool to make the VtES > equivalent of a Lighting Bolt deck. I'd rather nip their doofy plans in > the bud by playing under a CL. Of course. But, as I've said before, I have _never_ seen a deck that is penultimate under NL/GT. > I submit this; your robust NL deck can still be beaten by the most > unimaginative OTP that you can't counter. That is _no_fun_, any way you > slice it; plus, it doesn't reward your hard work in putting together an > interesting, well-balanced NL deck. Where _do_ you play, anyway? I play in a large number of different playing groups. I started a Jyhad League in my area, introduced the game to friends, play it in a weekly CCG group (which oftentimes has more than 100 people attending) in which new people may appear out of the blue, I play with a core group of fanatics, and when I go home on breaks I play with a number of people who have played since the game began. I have played 10%CL, 6CL, and NL. I have played with weenies and people who pull apart decks when they feel the deck is good enough. I repeat again, I have _never_ seen a "degenerate" deck in NL/GT. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4elsv3$n...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) wrote: > CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: > >Murder of Crows is useful anyway. Many cards no longer function as useful > >parts of deck with tight card limits (e.g. the thrown stuff, most carded > >maneuvers, most carded dodges, many votes, etc.) I'm not aware of any > >card that sees use in 4cl that disappears NL. > Perhaps "Deal with the Devil". Nope. I use it in a heavily permanent based deck for a quick clear of cards once I am set up. In article <4elv55$f...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > Also, > Concealed Weapon (after you've stocked up with four Disguised Weapons). > To a lesser extent, other walpaper cards, like chainsaw, after you > stock four of the superior card (shotgun). Well, with errata (chainsaw being a melee, concealed weapon being disciplineless) those cards are used in NL. Any _real_ "wallpaper" card would probobaly only appear in a CL environment after all the similar duplicating cards are used. [ quoted text not captured ]

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>Murder of Crows is useful anyway. Many cards no longer function as useful >>parts of deck with tight card limits (e.g. the thrown stuff, most carded >>maneuvers, most carded dodges, many votes, etc.) I'm not aware of any >>card that sees use in 4cl that disappears NL. >Perhaps "Deal with the Devil". Also, Concealed Weapon (after you've stocked up with four Disguised Weapons). To a lesser extent, other walpaper cards, like chainsaw, after you stock four of the superior card (shotgun). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec

Mark Havener <elfh...@netcom.com> wrote: >Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: >>Mark Havener <elfh...@netcom.com> wrote: >>>Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>The question is whether you want to use up a slot in a deck with a permanent >>>>that must be equiped and only does 1R each round, or a strike card that your >>>>opponent doesn't know is coming that does 1 or 2R and can be combined with >>>>several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, >>>>and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent based >>>>than ncl. >>> >>>Actually, no matter what environment you are in, Murder of Crows is >>>better than "a strike card that you opponent doesn't know is coming" that >>>does 1R (and IMHO it's better than 2R also, but that's just my opinion), >>>because the Murder of Crows damage can't be dodged. Not a particularly >>>good example of "4cl being more permanent-based than ncl". Yes, you have >> >>You say "MoC is good in this deck." I say "MoC is not." MoC is a permanent. >>You play under 4cl, I don't. To make a 4cl pitch deck, one needs to resort >>to permanents (as you say.) Under ncl, you don't. Why is this not a good >>example of 4cl being more permanent based than ncl. > >Um, I NEVER said MoC is good in a pitch deck. I was assuming we had >thrown that idea out the window already. I was jumping in to dispute the >idea that MoC is a good example of 4CL being more permanent-based than >NCL, because MoC is better than those throwaway strikes that you were >comparing it to, no matter which environment you play in. > The original reason for discussing MoC was that it would become an option in a pitch deck if you added ani. This is the position I thought you were defending two messages ago ( the "MoC is better than..." above.) MoC is a good card, i agree. But if you want to make a pitch deck (consider it, for the moment, to be ranged damage w/o equipment) in 4cl, you need to add things like MoC. In ncl you don't. The 4cl ranged damage w/o equipment deck is more permanent oriented than the ncl one. That is where I was coming from. I do hold, however, that the primary disadvantage of MoC is not that it might be blocked, as you refute below, but that you need to take a turn to equip it. I know, ani has defensive untaps, but now we are talking about Gangrel intercept, not pitch/rush. >>>to equip them, but if you're playing Gangrel, who's going to block the >> >>Wait a minute. Who said anything about gangrel? This was a pot/cel (ani) >>deck under discussion. Guess how many gangrel have pot/cel/ani? Angus is it, >>and neither the pot or cel is superior. The only other gangrel with cel at >>all is Stanislava. Don't change the deck being discussed when your position >>starts to erode. > >Again, please check to see who is posting when you reply to their post. >I have never stated the position that a "pitch" deck is workable in 4CL; >that was someone else. I'm really not sure whether or not a pitch deck >would work in 4CL. I was trying to debate whether MoC was a good example >of 4CL being more permanent-based. In fact, I'm not even necessarily >saying that 4CL *isn't* more permanent-based; I just don't think MoC is a >good example of this. Sorry if this wasn't clear before. You entered the debate in a fashion such that I thought you were defending the 4cl pitch deck. I believe it was TJH who first suggested that ani was a viable tactic to make 4cl pitch funcional, now that I think about it. Any comments? > >>>tight card limits (4CL)". Under 6CL or 10%, this thrown object deck >>>shouldn't be hurt at all. With Gates, Lids, Cars, and Grenades, you >>>should have plenty of options under 6CL (probably under 4CL also, but >>>someone else is going to have to test that deck out...I prefer >>>combat to be up-close and personal ;)), especially since you are going to >>>have to put presses and maneuvers in your deck as well anyway. >>> > >The above is the first time *I* started talking about the pitch deck. I >*think* it'd be workable under 4CL (again, I am assuming that we do *not* >use MoC or Wolves...sorry if that wasn't clear), but I'm not about to >test it (I prefer to fight up close). OK. Communications failure sorted out. 4cl pure pitch=no. 4cl pitch & perm ranged damage/animals=maybe. > >>Under 6cl, a pitch deck is probably borderline workable (without ani.) >>Under 4cl, I don't think so. You are right about the maneuvers and presses, >>though TSL does give you a press and TG a maneuver.> > >Has someone posted one of these decks here? I haven't totally been >following this thread (sorry), but I'd like to see one, to see what it >looks like, what the card numbers are, etc. > My frisbee deck of old consisted of about 1/4 flashes, blurs, and nimble feet, maybee sideslips too, then it had a bunch of Bum's Rushes and 20 TSLs. (Thus the "frisbee" idea.) I also had maybe 6 TGs and 6 WACs. The crypt was a range of Brujah, and the rest of the library was useful stuff in general to try to make it more robust. I know it is an OTP, but is a fun OTP. Sorry I don't have the actual numbers, but I don't have it around right now. I will post it in a couple of days if anyone cares. The big problem with it is that it runs out of steam after going through an average number of combats to oust 2 prey (and defend from the pred). It can also be hosed by Storm Sewers, IG and fortitude. But that's not the point. I also had a more balanced pitch deck for a while, I will see if I can find it's cardlist.> gnfnrf

In article <4ekjhh$p...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, > >I think people should play however they want to play. Agreed. >However I want to >point out that a 4CL doesn't "fix" Heidelburg Castle (until the DT fixed >it with the latest errata). Until the recent errata, Heidelburg Castle is >just as broken under 4CL as under NL (if not more so, since equipment is >more important in 4CL). 4CL doesn't fix any problem card that remains in >play (i.e. not discarded when played). > >If Heidelburg Castle hadn't been errata'ed, would 4CL groups have banned >the card? Fornately, Heidelburg Castle WAS errata'd, so this point is purely hypothetical, but *my* group had no plans to ban the card, no. Put it in every deck so that it's be contested and never used? Maybe. ;) I know it's naive, but I'm trusting WOTC to errata cards with problems as large as HC had. It's a unique location. There are ways to get rid of it, steal it, or contest it; so while it's an annoying card, it's not THAT bad. Not nearly as bad as offensive TB, for example. In fact, I'd consider Horrific Countenance more unbalancing than HC... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4eiklc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >In article <4ec5i4$k...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, >eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: > >>several others. Under 4cl, the Murder of Crows is probably a good idea, >>and I point out that this is an instance of 4cl being more permanent >>based than ncl. > >Well, that's a good reason to play CL; more cards become more useful . . . >isn't that diversity? Murder of Crows is useful anyway. Many cards no longer function as useful parts of deck with tight card limits (e.g. the thrown stuff, most carded maneuvers, most carded dodges, many votes, etc.) I'm not aware of any card that sees use in 4cl that disappears NL. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >We haven't even addressed what CL is "best", mostly we've been discussing >_any_ CL vs. NL. In my mind, the "best" CL would allow a wide range of >deck choices, but eliminate (to the extent possible) OTP's and degenerate >decks (aka "stable strategies"). This means that the CL would have to be >loose enough to create an enemy for the MS&B (TTBOMK, the current reigning >stable strategy that isn't the subject of a GT (yet)), but tight enough to >keep other stable strategies from forming. The current reigning stable strategy under 4CL. Certainly not under NL. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4eld3t$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >CL allow OTPs: what could be more of a one-trick pony than a Malk pure S&B >deck? Several intercept-combat OTPs are also viable under card limits: >Tremere intercept, gun intercept (sometimes) and Gangrel intercept (with >Garous). (the Gangrel do have real problems with S&B, but they do as well >as any inausipicious clan can.) Guess this depends on your definition of OTP. Sure, the MS&B is a prime example of a OTP under CL. I don't see the others as OTP's. Weenie Voting is a OTP, also available under CL. Any deck with more than (oh, let's see, I'll just pick a number that's reasonable . . .) 15% of any one card/card effect, I'd say, is a good candidate for OTP status. What do you think?

In article <4eld2u$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Card limits only help with certain types of broken cards (non-permanents, >generally). Heidelberg Castle, as a unique, obviously isn't affected. 4 >Grand Balls is quite enough (unless you have 6 Toreador) - more only allow >you to deal with intercept. But the fewer there are in a deck, the less likely they are to show up in the first place. Sure, the cards are still broken, but under CL you don't have to worry about fighting a deck with 10 Thoughts Betrayed or enough Grand Balls to make sure 1 comes up in the opening hand . . .

In article <4env56$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > We haven't even addressed what CL is "best", mostly we've been discussing > _any_ CL vs. NL. In my mind, the "best" CL would allow a wide range of > deck choices, but eliminate (to the extent possible) OTP's and degenerate > decks (aka "stable strategies"). One will never be able to get rid of OTP without dropping to a 2CL, as even a good Malk S&B can be made 3CL (given that you have access to the rares). Would CLs that eliminate the viability of "degenerate" decks and make OTPs not an issue be a good solution? I.e., an environment where no deck can be made that is penultimate? I suggest an infinite-CL, with Golden Tenets and your own house rules list (no different than a list from the DTR, really). It's worked for me for over a year. > This means that the CL would have to be > loose enough to create an enemy for the MS&B (TTBOMK, the current reigning > stable strategy that isn't the subject of a GT (yet)), but tight enough to > keep other stable strategies from forming. What does the last phrase mean? Do you want to stop stable strategies from forming or degenerate strategies from forming (I think you mean the latter, but would like clarification)? > IMO, 4 is too tight; while the Rush deck worked, it wasn't quite robust > enough to have a good chance of winning on its own; therefore, there were > pressures against its construction. But, as I recall, this is the first > time I've really discussed in depth my personal preferences regarding the > size of a CL. Time for a new thread? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4em642$7...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >If I understand your point of view correctly (And I think I do, given the >number of times it has been re-iterated on this thread): > >No Limits = bad. Broken cards rule. >8CL = hardly better than NCL wrt broken cards. >6CL = Limiting, but not limiting enough. >4CL = Seems to limit broken cards enough so no problems occur... >. >. >. >1CL = Must be the perfect solution! > >See where the inevetable part comes in? When narrowing down options from >NL -> 4CL, the question _must_ be, "Why stop at four? What is magical >about that number?" James takes this question and answers... just not in >a way that you like or appreciate. Well, actually, I have to say I've been moving toward 6CL, especially after seeing James' famed MS&B-killing Brujah Rush deck (had exactly 1 card at frequency 7, otherwise 6CL-legal). I think the inevitability was in James' mind, and the reduction to absurdity was more to make a rhetorical point than anything else. We haven't even addressed what CL is "best", mostly we've been discussing _any_ CL vs. NL. In my mind, the "best" CL would allow a wide range of deck choices, but eliminate (to the extent possible) OTP's and degenerate decks (aka "stable strategies"). This means that the CL would have to be loose enough to create an enemy for the MS&B (TTBOMK, the current reigning stable strategy that isn't the subject of a GT (yet)), but tight enough to keep other stable strategies from forming. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960131112330.5824C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> We haven't even addressed what CL is "best", mostly we've been discussing >> _any_ CL vs. NL. In my mind, the "best" CL would allow a wide range of >> deck choices, but eliminate (to the extent possible) OTP's and degenerate >> decks (aka "stable strategies"). > >One will never be able to get rid of OTP without dropping to a 2CL, as >even a good Malk S&B can be made 3CL (given that you have access to the >rares). IME, MS&B and WV are the only degenerate OTP's I've seen for 4CL (and MS&B is borderline; I'm still working on a robust rush deck, which I'm sure I can make under 4CL). Please not my parenthetical phrase "to the extent possible". Eliminating the vast bulk of OTP's is worth the CL to me. >Would CLs that eliminate the viability of "degenerate" decks and make >OTPs not an issue be a good solution? I.e., an environment where no deck >can be made that is penultimate? I suggest an infinite-CL, with Golden >Tenets and your own house rules list (no different than a list from the >DTR, really). It's worked for me for over a year. In what was way does 2GT "make OTP's not an issue"? To me, the truth is quite the opposite. >> This means that the CL would have to be >> loose enough to create an enemy for the MS&B (TTBOMK, the current reigning >> stable strategy that isn't the subject of a GT (yet)), but tight enough to >> keep other stable strategies from forming. > >What does the last phrase mean? Do you want to stop stable strategies >from forming or degenerate strategies from forming (I think you mean the >latter, but would like clarification)? I mean both. Obviously, no one likes the possibility of degenerate decks; that's what the 2GT is all about. Additionally, since a stable strategy (degenerate or not) will tend to ruin the game (by forcing decks to either copy it or deal with it), they are also to be avoided. I think that's why the new cards in VtES deal so harshly with heightened bleed; plus-Bleed decks were becoming stable strategies.

Mark Havener (elfh...@netcom.com) wrote: : Fornately, Heidelburg Castle WAS errata'd, so this point is purely : hypothetical, but *my* group had no plans to ban the card, no. Put it in : every deck so that it's be contested and never used? Maybe. ;) I know : it's naive, but I'm trusting WOTC to errata cards with problems as large : as HC had. It's a unique location. There are ways to get rid of it, : steal it, or contest it; so while it's an annoying card, it's not THAT : bad. Not nearly as bad as offensive TB, for example. In fact, I'd : consider Horrific Countenance more unbalancing than HC... Horrific Countenance also costs four blood. It's powerful, sure, but the cost is impressive too. A vamp could use it twice perhaps. If it was an obfuscate card it would be much worse, but most decks that use protean aren't going to be bleeding for that much, so it's not all powerful. -- Modest, industrious, benevolent, temperate: is that how you would have men? Good men? But to me that seems only the ideal slave, the slave of the future. Modesty, industiousness, bevevolence, temperance are just so many hinderances to a sovereign disposition, great inventiveness, heroic purposefullness, noble being-for-oneself. --Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power" /------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | You don't get what you deserve, | Good people are good because they | | You get what you take. | are not strong enought to be evil.| |-----------------------------------+------------------------------------| | Conflicts between right and wrong | 'Conscience' is nothing more than | | are a sickness of the mind. | the fear of being caught. | \------------------------------------------------------------------------/

In article <4env56$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >IMO, 4 is too tight; while the Rush deck worked, it wasn't quite robust >enough to have a good chance of winning on its own; Interesting. I haven't found that to be the case at all. The 4CL Cel/Pot Rush deck that I built based on James' deck has been doing very well, against a variety of decks (including Malk S&B). It has problems getting VPs when its prey is For/Prot combat (Gangrel and Ravnos), but otherwise it's very successful. Over the last 3 weeks I have played 6 games (in two different playing groups) with it. In the two games I lost, my first prey was Gangrel/Ravnos, and in the second game (last night), I had this prey down to one pool when my predator ousted us both with a KRC vote (he convinced the player with the IC-member to vote with him...go figger). I had a good shot at that game. Of the other three games, my deck ousted ALL the other players in two of them, one after another. In one game I burned 5 vampires in combat, including one IC member! I've always liked the Brujah more than the other clans, but usually switched decks quite often. I find myself reluctant to play without this deck though. Thanks for the inspiration, James! I've gotten a couple of requests to re-post the deck by people who missed it the first time, so I will do so in a separate post. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com> elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) writes: >Not all-powerful, no, but that wasn't what I was saying. It's more >powerful than HC (a unique location that can be used once per turn to >move stuff around is far from "all-powerful", IMHO). Have you played >against a Gangrel deck that includes their IC member yet? Automatic 3 >bleed, with Dominate (Sup., I believe), and a 4 cost is nothing for her. >Thank goodness I pack Anarch Investigations... How is HC more powerful than Day Op? 4 blood vs. 0 blood and with MoTSB and RH you get +2 blood over what you had before your unblockable action. Gangrel with protean are likely to have fortitude.

In article <4epbk3$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960131112330.5824C-100000@pentode>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >One will never be able to get rid of OTP without dropping to a 2CL, as > >even a good Malk S&B can be made 3CL (given that you have access to the > >rares). > IME, MS&B and WV are the only degenerate OTP's I've seen for 4CL (and MS&B > is borderline; I'm still working on a robust rush deck, which I'm sure I > can make under 4CL). Please not my parenthetical phrase "to the extent > possible". Eliminating the vast bulk of OTP's is worth the CL to me. In 4cl, MS&B and WV may be extremely good decks, but in NL/GT, who really cares if one makes these decks. They are not more likely to win than any other. If OTPs are effectively made into a deck no more powerful than any other, why try to eliminate them? Boredom when playing one? Well, yes, a OTP will be boring to play and play against. But as a OTP is not any better than any other deck, one eventually (usually quickly) matures into playing decks that are not only more fun (i.e., not a OTP), but just as reliable. > >Would CLs that eliminate the viability of "degenerate" decks and make > >OTPs not an issue be a good solution? I.e., an environment where no deck > >can be made that is penultimate? I suggest an infinite-CL, with Golden > >Tenets and your own house rules list (no different than a list from the > >DTR, really). It's worked for me for over a year. > In what was way does 2GT "make OTP's not an issue"? To me, the truth is > quite the opposite. Read the above. > >> This means that the CL would have to be > >> loose enough to create an enemy for the MS&B (TTBOMK, the current reigning > >> stable strategy that isn't the subject of a GT (yet)), but tight enough to > >> keep other stable strategies from forming. > >What does the last phrase mean? Do you want to stop stable strategies > >from forming or degenerate strategies from forming (I think you mean the > >latter, but would like clarification)? > I mean both. Obviously, no one likes the possibility of degenerate decks; > that's what the 2GT is all about. Additionally, since a stable strategy > (degenerate or not) will tend to ruin the game (by forcing decks to either > copy it or deal with it), they are also to be avoided. I think that's why > the new cards in VtES deal so harshly with heightened bleed; plus-Bleed > decks were becoming stable strategies. What is wrong with a new stable strategy. As more cards come, the game will continue to evolve, and if new stable strategies don't come into existence, I will be disappointed. These strategies must be carefully constructed so as not to upset the balance of what can and cannot be played, but they also need to not be pushovers. Given that R. Garfield has less of a hand in this game than he once did (and given WotC's record on this game), I am leery of what might happen if they do try to introduce another major strategy, but I would love it if they pull it off. If you mean stable as "unshakable", I agree. No strategy should be unshakable. I mean stable as being consistent and reliable. In this manner, I feel that stability is a huge necessity. As for the new V:tES anti-bleed cards, I think they were poorly conceived, and ill-written (with the exception of Elder Intervention), but that is another story... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4eoqmn$c...@nntp.msstate.edu>, Harry Smith <hsm...@garfield.msms.doe.k12.ms.us> wrote: >Mark Havener (elfh...@netcom.com) wrote: > >: Fornately, Heidelburg Castle WAS errata'd, so this point is purely >: hypothetical, but *my* group had no plans to ban the card, no. Put it in >: every deck so that it's be contested and never used? Maybe. ;) I know >: it's naive, but I'm trusting WOTC to errata cards with problems as large >: as HC had. It's a unique location. There are ways to get rid of it, >: steal it, or contest it; so while it's an annoying card, it's not THAT >: bad. Not nearly as bad as offensive TB, for example. In fact, I'd >: consider Horrific Countenance more unbalancing than HC... > >Horrific Countenance also costs four blood. It's powerful, sure, but the >cost is impressive too. A vamp could use it twice perhaps. If it was an >obfuscate card it would be much worse, but most decks that use protean >aren't going to be bleeding for that much, so it's not all powerful. Not all-powerful, no, but that wasn't what I was saying. It's more powerful than HC (a unique location that can be used once per turn to move stuff around is far from "all-powerful", IMHO). Have you played against a Gangrel deck that includes their IC member yet? Automatic 3 bleed, with Dominate (Sup., I believe), and a 4 cost is nothing for her. Thank goodness I pack Anarch Investigations... -Elfholme [ quoted text not captured ]

> In article <dhoffman.1...@cris.com>, dhof...@cris.com (Daniel > Hoffman) writes: > > > > >How is HC more powerful than Day Op? 4 blood vs. 0 blood and with MoTSB > and > >RH you get +2 blood over what you had before your unblockable action. > >Gangrel > >with protean are likely to have fortitude > > and if you throw fame in, you'll be begging to get to go to torpor :-) > > ~Biomechanoid ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Its not, but remember that movement of the slow body is not a V:tes card and newbies won't have it. Personally I like the card and compare it to Body of Sun. Not used often, but can be very worthwhile when used. REF

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960201154319.7658G-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >In 4cl, MS&B and WV may be extremely good decks, but in NL/GT, who really >cares if one makes these decks. They are not more likely to win than any >other. If OTPs are effectively made into a deck no more powerful than >any other, why try to eliminate them? Boredom when playing one? Well, >yes, a OTP will be boring to play and play against. But as a OTP is not >any better than any other deck, one eventually (usually quickly) matures >into playing decks that are not only more fun (i.e., not a OTP), but just >as reliable. I just disagree with this. If a strong OTP hits the table (e.g., the Carlotta deck you discussed in a previous post), and there's no counter to it in that particular circle of decks, it'll win. Hey, I've been saying that if a OTP doesn't win a lot it's not a "problem". It's still boring to play against, and I'd rather play OnTE or L5R. Don't forget, for some of us Jyhad/VtES isn't the only game in town . . . >> I mean both. Obviously, no one likes the possibility of degenerate decks; >> that's what the 2GT is all about. Additionally, since a stable strategy >> (degenerate or not) will tend to ruin the game (by forcing decks to either >> copy it or deal with it), they are also to be avoided. I think that's why >> the new cards in VtES deal so harshly with heightened bleed; plus-Bleed >> decks were becoming stable strategies. > >What is wrong with a new stable strategy. As more cards come, the game >will continue to evolve, and if new stable strategies don't come into >existence, I will be disappointed. These strategies must be carefully >constructed so as not to upset the balance of what can and cannot be >played, but they also need to not be pushovers. Given that R. Garfield >has less of a hand in this game than he once did (and given WotC's record >on this game), I am leery of what might happen if they do try to >introduce another major strategy, but I would love it if they pull it off. You don't understand what I mean by a stable strategy. I don't mean a "major strategy", I mean a strategy that wins so often that everyone is either playing it or playing its counter-strategy, hoping to defeat it. An example would be the first-turn-win strategy in unlimited MtG or what Deadly Inspiration does to OnTE. A stable strategy finishes a CCG, because unless you make a house rule against that deck or introduce some other way of stopping people from playing it, there's no competitiveness left.

In article <4etob2$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960201154319.7658G-100000@pentode>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: [>> OTPs not being a big deal in NL/GT (WV & MS&B example)] > I just disagree with this. If a strong OTP hits the table (e.g., the > Carlotta deck you discussed in a previous post), and there's no counter to > it in that particular circle of decks, it'll win. Hey, I've been saying > that if a OTP doesn't win a lot it's not a "problem". It's still boring > to play against, and I'd rather play OnTE or L5R. Don't forget, for some > of us Jyhad/VtES isn't the only game in town . . . Of course, I play INWO and Magic, but Jyhad is my personal favorite. I've tried a number of others, but not been too impressed. That Carlotta deck was neat. It was also getting torn to bits by a Brujah Rush deck, despite the fact that Carlotta was grabbing a Brujah Frenzy every turn. I could see that deck being destroyed by combat/politics, weenie bleed, massive rush, Gangrel Rush, Toreador Guns, Tremere Block and Burn, and a number of other strategies. Please give me a smattering of OTPs to think about. I haven't seen one that makes me think too much about them in NL/GT. [>>>Stable strategies as a bad thing. Clarified below...] > >What is wrong with a new stable strategy. As more cards come, the game > >will continue to evolve, and if new stable strategies don't come into > >existence, I will be disappointed. These strategies must be carefully > >constructed so as not to upset the balance of what can and cannot be > >played, but they also need to not be pushovers. Given that R. Garfield > >has less of a hand in this game than he once did (and given WotC's record > >on this game), I am leery of what might happen if they do try to > >introduce another major strategy, but I would love it if they pull it > off. > You don't understand what I mean by a stable strategy. I don't mean a > "major strategy", I mean a strategy that wins so often that everyone is > either playing it or playing its counter-strategy, hoping to defeat it. > An example would be the first-turn-win strategy in unlimited MtG or what > Deadly Inspiration does to OnTE. A stable strategy finishes a CCG, > because unless you make a house rule against that deck or introduce some > other way of stopping people from playing it, there's no competitiveness > left. I would call your "stable" strategy a degeneracy that slipped by game designers. I have never seen such a strategy in NL/GT. In my mind, the three major strategies are ones that need to be answered. You cannot play a very good deck if you don't have them in mind. The best example to this is the hostile vote deck at a table where no one is prepared for politics. Vote after vote will pass unblocked, leaving the hostile vote deck to defend against combat (most likely with majesty/elysium). I have seen the same thing happen at a table when no one was playing strong bleed defense (bleeding decks had died in frequency at that time, and most were playing politics or combat). Similarly with combat. I think (perhaps incorrectly?) that you don't want to see any new strategies that a deck must have some answer to to be built. I don't see this as a problem. A new player from outside the area had built an impressive blood gain and vampire recruit deck. It had minimal obfuscate, auspex, celerity, and dominate. It played with most of the clans. It had never lost. Typically it had so much blood that it couldn't be stopped. After playing it for the first time, many of the people altered their decks. More blood gain was put in their decks (frankly because his numerous methods of blood gain had never been tried successfully), several people made more location hosing decks (robust against most decks), and the environment changed. After that first game, he wins as frequently with that deck as anyone else's deck does. The point? His aggressive blood gain strategy altered the environment we played in. It was a new strategy for us, as we had never seen blood gain accomplished in that manner. As a result, many people altered their decks. Others didn't. Even when he plays that deck with decks who haven't changed, just knowing what is going to happen is enough for the prey or predator to deal with him. His OTP is not a win-machine. It won that first game because it surprised us, and we didn't have a proper strategy in mind with the decks we had at the table. With the same decks, and without altering the prey/predator relationship, it would be a very different game. His win was from surprise, not OTPness. I started rambling towards the end (all apologies), but my basic statements in regards to OTPs are this: Make them in NL/GT. They are not win-machines. I have never seen a win-machine in this environment, and challenge anyone to make one. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960202155855.1834D-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > my basic >statements in regards to OTPs are this: Make them in NL/GT. They are >not win-machines. I have never seen a win-machine in this environment, >and challenge anyone to make one. > > I'm afraid we're stuck here. I haven't played NL in some time, so I can't recall what the decks were that turned me off to it. Maybe someone else (if anyone's still reading this thread) can post a OTP or two?

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > Many cards no longer function as useful >parts of deck with tight card limits (e.g. the thrown stuff, most carded >maneuvers, most carded dodges, many votes, etc.) I'm not aware of any >card that sees use in 4cl that disappears NL. Curt, Would you mind posting a partial list of the cards that become useless in 4cl, which are still useful in NL? Thanks, TJH

There seems to be alot of talk about a certain deck that is unplayable under CL; the kitchen sink deck. I would just like to post a deck that fits (Although loosely, I have to admit)this plan. This deck is 88 cards big (Excluding Vamps) this seems a fairly averege size for a combat deck in a game that doesn't utilise deck limits This concept uses brujah and nosferatu vamps. Potence for damage, celerity for control of combat, animalism for a bit of damage and abit of control, but mainly defense COMBAT: 42 in skill cards Potence 4 Thrown Sewerlid 4 thrown Gate } (Three obvious choices) 4 well aimed Car 4 Mighty grapple (for presses) Animalism: (1 skill card) 2 Canine Horde (You *WILL* need to get rid of those pesky magnums) 4 Aid from bats (Mainly for control - press and manouver - and then chuck from range with additional strikes) 2 Murder of crows (for a little extra damage to P*~s people off) Celerity:(2 Skill Cards) 4 Nimble feet (Blurs will probably be wasted with this deck, press comes in nice too) 4 Flash (the best manouver/press card in the game) Equipment & Non skill cards: 2 Fake out (A few extra manouvers for those Nos's) 4 IR goggles 2 flak jackets 1 Heidelburg castle DEFENSE (untaps & Intercept) 16 Animalism: 2 Raven Spy 2 cats guidance 2 Rats warning Non-skill / Equipment 4 Wakes 4 Sports bikes 1 KRGC 1 Evening Star BLOOD BACK: 12 2 Hunting Grounds 1 Inbase diskotek Frankfurt 4 Blood doll 3 5th tradition: hospitality 2 4th tradition: accounting RUSH: 10 4 Bums rush (Especially good with manouver) 4 Haven uncovered 2 blood hunt STEALTH 8 including skill card (to help bring out equipment, and to allow bums rushes through with out loosing the manouver) 1 obfuscate skill card 1 labyrinth 4 cloak the gathering (use with those Brujah) 2 lost in crowds (Incase some nasty bugger of an auspex user tries to enhanced senses you) Vampires:(P=potence, C=Celerity, A=animalism, O=Obfuscate) capitals for superior - there may be some inconsistancies 'cos I'm not sure) Spec = special ability that is useful (However slightly) Name Blood Skills of use notes: Sheldon, LotC 9 P,A,O,c Justicar Nicklaus Vermulen 7 P,a,o Prince, Spec. Tusk Talebearer 8 p,a,O spec. <Not sure of name> 5 p,a,o,c spec. Aggripina 4 p, O Koko 2 p, Don Cruez 10 P,a, C Justicar Anvil 6 P, C Volker, Puppet Prince 5 p, C Prince Hector sosa 4 P, Lupo 2 p, Gaspare Giovanni 6 P, c Spec.

In article <4f56bu$80g...@leeds.ac.uk>, [ quoted text not captured ] Just another thought: add 2 grenades to make it up to 90 cards.

GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: >There seems to be alot of talk about a certain deck that is unplayable >under CL; the kitchen sink deck. I would just like to post a deck that fits >(Although loosely, I have to admit)this plan. >This deck is 88 cards big (Excluding Vamps) >this seems a fairly averege size for a combat deck in a game that doesn't >utilise deck limits >This concept uses brujah and nosferatu vamps. Potence for damage, celerity >for control of combat, animalism for a bit of damage and abit of control, >but mainly defense This isn't going to be very effective. The maximum damage-dealing capacity is inadequate to deal with more than one opponent, particularly in the slow blood-gain environment favored by 4-card. >COMBAT: 42 in skill cards >Potence > 4 Thrown Sewerlid 12 points, max > 4 thrown Gate } (Three obvious choices) 8 points, max > 4 well aimed Car 16 points, max > 4 Mighty grapple (for presses) >Animalism: (1 skill card) > 2 Canine Horde (You *WILL* need to get rid of those pesky > magnums) You will, but CH won't do it in a deck that has only 1 vamp with superior Animalism > 4 Aid from bats (Mainly for control - press and manouver - and > then chuck from range with additional strikes) 4 points Max - and you're not going to see that press much, either. > 2 Murder of crows (for a little extra damage to P*~s people off) You've got a total of 40 point ranged damage dealing ability, apart from the Crows. Even if your opponents lie down and let you beat on them, that would only get 2 Meths. Plus nearly half of your damage is coming from those hard-to-use Cars. You've only 8 presses and 10 maneuvers in the deck under normal circumstances - Cars are going to stay in your hand, mostly. Realistically, your opponents will have some maneuvers, presses, dodges, damage prevention, etc - and you're not going to get anything like your maximum. >Celerity:(2 Skill Cards) > 4 Nimble feet (Blurs will probably be wasted with this deck, press > comes in nice too) > 4 Flash (the best manouver/press card in the game) Equipment & Non skill cards: > 2 Fake out (A few extra manouvers for those Nos's) > 4 IR goggles > 2 flak jackets > 1 Heidelburg castle >DEFENSE (untaps & Intercept) 16 >Animalism: > 2 Raven Spy > 2 cats guidance > 2 Rats warning >Non-skill / Equipment > 4 Wakes > 4 Sports bikes 4 boxes worth of Sports Bikes. The trackmarks of 4-card. However, you have substantial Rush. I'd think you wouldn't need 7 permanent intercept cards. > 1 KRGC > 1 Evening Star >BLOOD BACK: 12 > 2 Hunting Grounds > 1 Inbase diskotek Frankfurt > 4 Blood doll > 3 5th tradition: hospitality > 2 4th tradition: accounting >RUSH: 10 > 4 Bums rush (Especially good with manouver) > 4 Haven uncovered > 2 blood hunt >STEALTH 8 including skill card >(to help bring out equipment, and to allow bums rushes through with out >losing the manouver) >1 obfuscate skill card >1 labyrinth >4 cloak the gathering (use with those Brujah) >2 lost in crowds (Incase some nasty bugger of an auspex user tries to enhanced senses you) >Vampires:(P=potence, C=Celerity, A=animalism, O=Obfuscate) >capitals for superior - there may be some inconsistancies 'cos I'm not >sure) Spec = special ability that is useful (However slightly) >Name Blood Skills of use notes: >Sheldon, LotC 9 P,A,O,c Justicar >Nicklaus Vermulen 7 P,a,o Prince, Spec. >Tusk Talebearer 8 p,a,O spec. ><Not sure of name> 5 p,a,o,c spec. >Aggripina 4 p, O >Koko 2 p, >Don Cruez 10 P,a, C Justicar >Anvil 6 P, C >Volker, Puppet Prince 5 p, C Prince >Hector sosa 4 P, >Lupo 2 p, Gaspare Giovanni 6 P, c Spec. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4env56$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: > >Well, actually, I have to say I've been moving toward 6CL, especially >after seeing James' famed MS&B-killing Brujah Rush deck (had exactly 1 >card at frequency 7, otherwise 6CL-legal). 6CL is recognizably Jyhad, as rush combat and Dominate deflection enter the picture, so all clans have some defense vs. S&B. Dominate deflection, however, is shaky with less than 10%. A problem shared by all moderate card limits is that they don't fix weenie vote, although they do restrain offensive untaps. >We haven't even addressed what CL is "best", mostly we've been discussing >_any_ CL vs. NL. In my mind, the "best" CL would allow a wide range of >deck choices, but eliminate (to the extent possible) OTP's and degenerate >decks (aka "stable strategies"). Can you give a definition for OTP? You and I seem to differ on this. >This means that the CL would have to be >loose enough to create an enemy for the MS&B (TTBOMK, the current reigning >stable strategy that isn't the subject of a GT (yet)), but tight enough to >keep other stable strategies from forming. Minor terminology point - A stable strategy is one that can only be beaten by a similar strategy, so everybody ends up playing it. Degenerate decks may or may not lead to stable strategies - Malk S&B and endless untap can lead to a stable strategies, but weenie vote can't (if there are 3 weenie voters at a 4-player table, my bet for winner is the other player, even if it's a Nossie deck :-) Heavy intercept under 4-card seems a stable strategy, although not degenerate. >IMO, 4 is too tight; while the Rush deck worked, it wasn't quite robust >enough to have a good chance of winning on its own; therefore, there were >pressures against its construction. But, as I recall, this is the first >time I've really discussed in depth my personal preferences regarding the >size of a CL. Time for a new thread? Probably, but I'm lazy about starting new threads :-) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4enotu$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >In article <4eld3t$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com >(CurtAdams) writes: > >>CL allow OTPs: what could be more of a one-trick pony than a Malk pure >S&B >>deck? Several intercept-combat OTPs are also viable under card limits: >>Tremere intercept, gun intercept (sometimes) and Gangrel intercept (with >>Garous). (the Gangrel do have real problems with S&B, but they do as >>well as any inausipicious clan can.) > >Guess this depends on your definition of OTP. Sure, the MS&B is a prime >example of a OTP under CL. I don't see the others as OTP's. Tremere intercept : +intercept, 1st round diddle or gun, press, nuke. Gangrel: +intercept, Claw, Fortitude Gun: +intercept, gun, additional strike Plus gain blood in all cases, of course. I've seen these decks that do nothing else. The combos are somewhat longer than the Malk, so they are somewhat less reliable. Nonetheless, if they don't do anything else (and often they don't), I'd call them OTP. How would this differ from your definition? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4evfuk$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >I'm afraid we're stuck here. I haven't played NL in some time, so I can't >recall what the decks were that turned me off to it. Maybe someone else >(if anyone's still reading this thread) can post a OTP or two? Well, this is as OT a P as I've got (not particularly effective, however): "Feeling a little under the Weather" This deck's primary goal is to exhaust the blood of opposing minions. Combat: (30 cards) 1 Blood Fury 1 Fast Reaction 1 Flak Jacket 1 IR Goggles 15 Movement of the Mind (This is the highest number of any single card I've got in any of my decks) 1 Saturday Night Special 1 Taste of Vitae 11 Theft of Vitae 8 Weather Control Bleed: (7 cards) 1 Kine Dominance 1 Laptop Computer 2 Pulse of the Canaille 2 Bonding 1 Conditioning Defense: (15 cards) 3 Deflection 6 Obedience (for those times I don't want to fight) 1 Tremere Justicar 1 Rumour of Gehenna (a bribe) 4 WwEF Enter Combat: (15) 2 Bum's Rush 3 Deflection 3 Enhanced Senses 1 Haven Uncovered 3 Spirit's Touch 3 Sports Bike Drain Blood: (7 cards) 2 Charnas the Imp 1 Smiling Jack 1 Society of Leopold 3 Vampiric Disease Blood Management: (13 cards) 2 Academic Hunting Grounds 1 Arcane Library 5 Blood Doll 4 Minion Tap 1 Powerbase: Chicago Assorted Masters: (3 cards) 1 Auspex 1 Sudden Reversal 1 Thaumaturgy 90 cards, 11 Rares (more than I'd like, but all the drain blood cards are rare) Crypt: Astrid Thomas Cardano Cassandra Ignatius Justine Lazarus x2 Mariel, Lady Thunder Merrill Molitor Sabine Lafitte Sarah Cobbler Ulugh Beg Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

>>There seems to be alot of talk about a certain deck that is unplayable >>under CL; the kitchen sink deck. I would just like to post a deck that >fits >>(Although loosely, I have to admit)this plan. > >>This deck is 88 cards big (Excluding Vamps) >>this seems a fairly averege size for a combat deck in a game that doesn't > >>utilise deck limits > >>This concept uses brujah and nosferatu vamps. Potence for damage, >celerity >>for control of combat, animalism for a bit of damage and abit of control, > >>but mainly defense > >This isn't going to be very effective. The maximum damage-dealing >capacity is inadequate to deal with more than one opponent, particularly >in the slow blood-gain environment favored by 4-card. > I thought the kitchen sink deck was supposed to be a "fun Deck" to play. when I played it I found all but fortitude decks willing to enter combat with it, and your vamps can remain on lots of blood which is nice, so a bit of extra bleed capabilities and one of two things happen - you beat up the Vampires or you bleed them for lots and they die.

>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >> Many cards no longer function as useful >>parts of deck with tight card limits (e.g. the thrown stuff, most carded >>maneuvers, most carded dodges, many votes, etc.) I'm not aware of any >>card that sees use in 4cl that disappears NL. > >Curt, Tell me one card that becomes useless in 4 CL that isn't a wallpaper card already. In your post above you state carded dodges, amoungst others. How can you get a dodge otherwise if you don't use dodge cards? As for the thrown stuff and the manouvers - have you ever tried using these together? one thing that I allways seem to find about NL is that apart from one or two cards in the deck, you may as well be playing 4CL anyway. okay, that one card may be a crucial card to the deck concept, but there are normally other ways around things: for example I will quote from two decks that I have seen posted up here. The first was gangrel and had 6 and 4 of the two "claws" cards. how about instead putting in a dawn Operation and a couple of skins of night? okay, there is one more card, but with a trap the dawn op could be lethal! The second example that I have seen is a Ventrue majesty bleed deck - this deck had about 10 majesties in it from what I can remember - now apart from the fact that this deck would piss off your prey and make for a quick and dull game, the idea behind the deck can still be managed by including gangrel and a few protean, dominate and presence skill cards and you find yourself with access to better untaps than majesties in eath control - and form of mist is just amazing! (I have actuall had a go at playing this deck, and it seems to do alright, but it does make for a boring game. You also mention some vote cards that become useless, but apart from conjunctator motion I can't think of many completely usless vote card. The only problem I can find is with the so called weenie vote deck that presumably can't work when limited to 4 KRC's.

In article <4fj055$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Time for a new thread? > >Probably, but I'm lazy about starting new threads :-) > > I'm not. I'll open with a 6CL. Seems like most robust NL decks play within that, for the most part. What do you think?

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: >I'm not. >I'll open with a 6CL. Seems like most robust NL decks play within that, >for the most part. What do you think? First, while I'm not sure exactly what "robust" means to you, I'd assume that its something like "non-OTPs that do well." And I'd say that by that meaning, 10%CL covers just slightly more then 6CL. In most cases I haven't used 10% of a card, unless I really needed it and it was extemely useful (such as Undead Strength in a Po deck). Most of the times I float around 6 or so of the improtant cards.. but that may be more my thinking the variety (if fairly consistent) will do better then a deck with less variety, plus its more interesting to play. Plus with 10 % you fixz the percentage not to a particular number. With numberic limits, if I'm playing a large deck (80 or so) 6cl is harder on me then on someone playing 60 or less. In general, I would bet that if you apply a xCL (where x is some specific # 4/6 whaterver), its in your best interest to shrink the size of your deck (much like in MtG). In some cases It might be better to run a tiny deck... and with 6cl you could potential make a semi-OTP with a real small deck. Granted, you deck would have to be non card intensive, else you could easily run out of cards, but it could probably be done. -CT -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

In article <4gg413$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > I'll open with a 6CL. Seems like most robust NL decks play within that, > for the most part. What do you think? As most know, I'm opposed to CL, but for those that think it is the way to go, here's my two cents. Most NL decks (by robust, you seem to mean not robust (able to handle multiple situations), but varied (no OTP)) seem to fit at about 10% (round up). When my original group started playing CL, we at first played one way (#CL), and then came to 10% because It seemed just as workable, and there really weren't any decks we were making with more than that. Eventually we move to NL, because we realized (you, of course, disagree :), that playing 10% is nearly the same as playing NL. After reading some resources on the net and trying them out, we've stayed NL. In CL, 10% seems to give enough of a limitation to stop a number of players complaints and yet gives a wide variety of playing options. Beware though, most people I know who play 10% move over to NL... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Seems to me 10% would be more complicated to verify than a flat CL; you'd have to count the deck, then count the cards that were present in "suspicious" numbers. Also, I wonder what the optimum CL is for handling the GT problems without the need for the GT's. Seems like 6CL would handle the multi-action problem. After my experience with the WVD, I don't think even the GT on voting is sufficient . . .

>In article <4gg413$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com >(NCascone) wrote: > >> I'll open with a 6CL. Seems like most robust NL decks play within that, >> for the most part. What do you think? I think that would break any deck that attempts to combine two skills that are not naturally combined by any clan. I'd submit my Celerity/Thaumaturgy deck as an example, but I don't have the list of cards here. -- Richard Braakman The purpose of censorship is not to restrict what you can say. The purpose of censorship is to restrict what I can hear.

>I'll open with a 6CL. Seems like most robust NL decks play within that, >for the most part. What do you think? We play with a 4cl with a 1 unique and 1 vampire limit as well. There are good - if somewhat contentious - reasons for this approach in our view. Seeya, Pete "I'll just say my secret magic word..."

On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Super Ted wrote: > We play with a 4cl with a 1 unique and 1 vampire limit as well. There are > good - if somewhat contentious - reasons for this approach in our view. I have seen this idea (that of a one-card limit for uniques) quite often among card limits camps. As an opponent of card limits in general, I am surprised at how often this 1CL is used by numerous CL camps. What is the purpose of a Unique 1CL? It changes the flavor of the game, yes. But does it make it better (in a CL environment)? I can't see how it would be beneficial. Richard Garfield's rules on contesting were a stroke of genius (as others have said), and the self-limiting nature of unique cards seems to overweigh a need for a _further_ limit. Arguements could be made for a game-realism model, but where do they lead? The cards on the table are the cards that are having to deal with a state of existance. Having more than one Carlotta, for example, in your crypt is not the same as having more than one Carlotta out on the table. For them both to be out on the table (say, without contesting), is to say that there are two "twins" with exactly the same name, powers, etc.. This would not be realistic. Having more than one Carlotta in your crypt (or uncontrolled region) is saying that you, as a Methuselah, are investing that much more energy and resources to Carlotta. You are that much more interested in controlling her. It does not mean that you will somehow get more than one up. As for game considerations, having multiples of the same unique card allow you to make more plans is your deck. A Unique 1CL tends to make Jyhad far more based on luck than on planning. Any responses from Unique 1CL proponents is appreciated. Of course, everyone can play how they want, and you may enjoy it better that way, but how is it better? Any opponents to Unique 1CL from the CL crowd? Thanks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960304141133.724C-100000@pentode>, [ quoted text not captured ] Hello, The idea behind playing a one card unique limit is that there is only one of these places (using as an example a unique location) in the world. Therefore we take the view that as there is only one place, only one card to represent the location should be placed in each deck. I can obviously see the slight discrepancy here: each Methuselah might place one in his/her deck. This then is where the contesting aspect of the game comes into play. The same logic applies to the vampires. Each vampire is unique so why have more than one in each deck? That then is the crux of our argument. I can understand why people dislike it but as a house rule we find that it works well. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4hhgoo$86k...@leeds.ac.uk>, CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (Super Ted) writes: > Hello, > > The idea behind playing a one card unique limit is that there is only one of > these places (using as an example a unique location) in the world. > > Therefore we take the view that as there is only one place, only one card to > represent the location should be placed in each deck. I can obviously see > the slight discrepancy here: each Methuselah might place one in his/her > deck. This then is where the contesting aspect of the game comes into play. > > The same logic applies to the vampires. Each vampire is unique so why have > more than one in each deck? > > That then is the crux of our argument. I can understand why people dislike > it but as a house rule we find that it works well. > But.... In the game world of Jyhad, when you put more than 1 of a unique card in your deck, that doesn't mean that you actually own 2, in fact, having 1 of a unique card in your deck doesn't mean that you own it. Having a unique card in your deckmeans that you, as a Methuselah, have tabs on it, and may be able to wrangle your self into control of it. Having 2 or more means that you have more information on taking it over, and are more likely to do so. The weaknes of this, both in game terms and out, is that you are potentially going to get a hand glut - or rather, invest so much time in the conquering of the Barrens that you are short on other sinister plans. If, however, you get really bothered by someone up and starting a fire in the Art Museum, and then some other Methuselah (or GASP, the same one) slap down the Art Museum - just remember that the Art Museum is a place, if smashed it can be rebuilt, and who's to say that some enterprising vampire didn't save the paintings while the sinister kindred responsible for the flames fanned the flames of the now empty shell of the art museum? Basically, each card in your deck does not represent an actual thing it represents the mad plottings of a Methuselah. In short, cards aren't real until they are made real, by putting them in play. Until they join the ranks of what really is, they are just things that could be. And will you say that some things that "might happen" can't be twice as likely as other stuff from similar straights? > Pete > > "I'll just say my secret magic word..." Ritaxis -- "Every message you leave on this answering machine, teaches YOU shaolin kung fu."

My thoughts on Unique card limits... Arguments that a unique card represents the only existing version of the item, and therefore should have a CL of one per deck is kind of odd. My reasoning is that a card (unique or otherwise) represents a resource or tool for the Methuselah. If Bob the Methuselah stacks his deck with four Powerbase:Chicago, it doesn't mean that he literally has four cities of Chicago in his deck, but that he has invested more of his resources to insure access to Chicago. If he deals himself a hand with all four of the unique card, maybe he should learn to diversify his resources a bit. If he brings a unique card in play and it gets burned and he brings a duplicate out, he found a new way to gain access to it. It's a bloody game. Worry less about literal interpretations of the cards on reality.