Fixed (?) Voting Deck

Ok, here's my second attempt at a voting deck. I decided to forego all defense, and stick with only presence. People don't (yet!) play many cards to hose majesty here, so it should survive combat. The main idea is to call votes or bleed with PRE vamps, get blocked and majesty to untap, then do the other option. Once I've gone through twice with all of my larger vamps, I can run back through with the pre ones. The Misdirection could also be key if you think your prey has no untap. Anyway, I'm not really sure how this will fare, and am looking for advice. -Jasper Presence VAMPIRE Alexandra Toreador 11 PRE, IC, +2 bleed, (un)tap tor. Anson Toreador 8 PRE, prince, 2 master Delilah Easton Toreador 2 pre Arika Ventrue 11 PRE, IC, +2 bleed, hose locations Timothy Crowley Ventrue 7 PRE, prince Violette Prentiss Ventrue 4 PRE Gideon Fontaine Ventrue 3 PRE 2 Rake Brujah 6 PRE, prince, +1 ventrue hand Vasilis, Traitor Brujah 2 pre Antoinette DuChamp Caitiff 1 pre Igo the Hungry Caitiff 1 pre, , noisy hunting MASTER: 12 Elysium 2 Information Highway Toreador HG Brujah HG Ventrue HG 3 Blood Doll 3 Misdirection POLITICAL: 27 2 Banishment 4 Camarilla Exemplary 5 Praxis Seizure 16 Kindred Resources Contested PRESENCE: 41 5 Legal Manipulation 5 Aire of Elation 20 Majesty 3 Voter Captivation 2 Disarming Presence 6 Bewitching Oration -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: : Ok, here's my second attempt at a voting deck. I decided to forego all : defense, and stick with only presence. People don't (yet!) play many : cards to hose majesty here, so it should survive combat. [snip] : 16 Kindred Resources Contested [snip] : 20 Majesty No offense intended, but it seems to me that if you're going to play with 20 majesty and 16 KRC, you might as well go all the way and make it a weenie presence vote deck. Play with as many as 20 small vamps, all of whom at least have presence, superior is also good; make it more like 10-20 bewitching orations; even more Praxis Seizures, and go to town. (It can be a very very effective deck. It's hard to screw badly; intercept with lots of untaps can be annoying but you can out-vamp just about anyone. If you do this, it may change your group's tendency toward using big vampires. ;-) Josh besides, twenty majesty's gotta be overkill in just about anything that's not a weenie deck...

In article <6gtan2$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: >Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: >: Ok, here's my second attempt at a voting deck. I decided to forego all >: defense, and stick with only presence. People don't (yet!) play many >: cards to hose majesty here, so it should survive combat. > >No offense intended, but it seems to me that if you're going to play >with 20 majesty and 16 KRC, you might as well go all the way and make >it a weenie presence vote deck. Play with as many as 20 small vamps, >all of whom at least have presence, superior is also good; make it >more like 10-20 bewitching orations; even more Praxis Seizures, and >go to town. (It can be a very very effective deck. It's hard to screw >badly; intercept with lots of untaps can be annoying but you can out-vamp >just about anyone. If you do this, it may change your group's tendency >toward using big vampires. ;-) Perhaps you're right. I've kind of leaned that was as it is, but figured I'd run out of really small vamps with PRE, and that the titled ones were were worth it, since they were only a bit bigger, and had votes. >Josh > >besides, twenty majesty's gotta be overkill in just about anything that's >not a weenie deck... Really? I was planning on using 4-5 a turn... I figure it's hard to add too much if people don't play Immortal Grapple (I'm the only one that does here), since they're damn easy to get rid of. I figure even a deck without all weenies could use lots, since the bigger vampires will quite probably end up using 2 a turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: [re: weenie presence vote deck] : Perhaps you're right. I've kind of leaned that was as it is, but figured : I'd run out of really small vamps with PRE, and that the titled ones were : were worth it, since they were only a bit bigger, and had votes. Well, the titled ones aren't so bad in some cases, but you gain a whole lot in speed by using only the little guys. If I were going to play a deck along these lines, I'd use a fair number of Presence master skill cards; maybe 5-7 in a 90 card deck. There are at least two 1-cap vamps with inferior presence (Igo, Antoinette Duchamp), a bunch of 2-caps, and probably even more 3-caps, although you might want to just use the 1s, 2s, and Gideon Fontaine (PRE at 3). Steve "I bled someone for 14 pool in one turn because of a Misdirection" Wampler won Praxis: Ithaca with a deck that was somewhat along these lines except that his was weenie presence bleed instead of weenie presence vote. This deck also makes very effective use of Info Highway. ;-) : >besides, twenty majesty's gotta be overkill in just about anything that's : >not a weenie deck... : Really? I was planning on using 4-5 a turn... I figure it's hard to : add too much if people don't play Immortal Grapple (I'm the only : one that does here), since they're damn easy to get rid of. I figure : even a deck without all weenies could use lots, since the bigger vampires : will quite probably end up using 2 a turn. Well, it could happen I guess. I think we're thinking of very different situations here. In my playgroup, no one will be blocking much of anything unless they're an intercept deck or something. And if they're not an intercept deck but happen to have some vamps up who could block, they're certainly not going to be intercepting votes at +1 stealth. So when I play a vote deck, I only rarely use even 1 majesty a turn just by doing actions; I use them when the omnipresent combat decks Bum Rush me on my way to the forum. (And the Skins of Steel. Damn Immortal Grapples.) But anyway, it sounds like what you're envisioning is a situation where your prey is a fairly heavy-blocking deck. In which case you could indeed go through the Majesties pretty well. But around here twenty would be an awful lot, because half the time you couldn't even play them due to Immortal Grapple, and the rest of the time people wouldn't be all that likely to be blocking you. Josh purveyor of bad ideas

In article <6gujur$2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: >Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: [snip] >But anyway, it sounds like what you're envisioning is a situation where >your prey is a fairly heavy-blocking deck. In which case you could >indeed go through the Majesties pretty well. But around here twenty >would be an awful lot, because half the time you couldn't even play >them due to Immortal Grapple, and the rest of the time people wouldn't >be all that likely to be blocking you. You're right more or less. Intercept decks happen often enough I can fairly well expect to be next to one. Still, 20 probably is too much, since I don't have a good way to deal with them if they aren't blocked, and then the votes/bleed won't flow. My tactic in such a case would be to try to bleed some, which should work ok because people rarely play a deck that fully taps out (except perhaps for me). I suspect I should reduce the majesty somewhat, and put some telepathic misdirection back in. How much majesty do you suggest, and what should I put in instead? I'm really curious, because no one plays an effective vote deck locally. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: > : Ok, here's my second attempt at a voting deck. I decided to forego all > : defense, and stick with only presence. People don't (yet!) play many > : cards to hose majesty here, so it should survive combat. > > [snip] > > : 16 Kindred Resources Contested > > [snip] > > : 20 Majesty > [snip snip] How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, or are me and my gaming group just out in left field? Scott Halvorson halv...@cptc.wisc.edu

Scott Halvorson wrote: [snip eg. of vote deck 20 magesties and 12 KRCs] > > > How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My > gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many > Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played > with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, > or are me and my gaming group just out in left field? > > Scott Halvorson > halv...@cptc.wisc.edu Our playgroup plays 4Cl, although I prefer a no Limits environment. For the most part it was not in an effort to stop nasty decks containing 20 of any card, rather to stem of the boredom generated by such decks, and force some members of our playgroup to get a bit more creative. 4CL is not a perfect way to encourage things (as I have tried in vain to convince the rest of our playgroup) but we still have loads of fun, and we certianly have a wider range of cards being played now. I don't like the arbitrary restriction of 4CL but then I never built decks containing 20 of any card anyway. Karl

In article <353400...@cptc.wisc.edu>, halv...@cptc.wisc.edu wrote: > > : 16 Kindred Resources Contested > > : 20 Majesty > > > [snip snip] > > How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My > gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many > Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played > with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, > or are me and my gaming group just out in left field? I have played with 5 completely different groups in the last few years, and all but 1 played with card limits. Anywhere from 1 to 6. Mostly to prevent boredom. How much fun can it be to say "I call KRC, again."?? There are other reasons to play limits. All of the best arguments against limits are on Mark Langsdorf's page reachable from: http://www.ddg.com/ethan/austin.html Carpe Noctem. Lasombra 1jbt...@unixstew.tstc.edu http://unixstew.tstc.edu/~1jbt2197/vtes.htm -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Scott Halverson wrote: "How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, or are me and my gaming group just out in left field?" As you seem to be fairly new to this group, you would have no way to know that the No Limit/Card Limit thread is one of the most common threads that comes up around here (although there hasn't been one for a while). Yes, some people play with Card Limits (CL, ususaly 4CL), but the game was designed to have no limits on any cards in the deck, and card limits certainly do not fix the game in any way. Don't get me wrong--if you like using card limits, go to town and have a fine time, but the game was designed specifically to _not_ have card limits, and with them it is a really different game than was intended. Yes, card limits of some sort prevent people from using multiples of the more severe cards in the set (like KRC and Majesty, for instance), but it also prevents them from using multiples of the basic building blocks of the game, like Bum's Rush, Bewitching Oration, and Cats Guidance, and without unlimited access to cards like these, many, many decks simply cannot compete against decks like Malkavian Stealth and Bleed (which is ususally the main reason that people decide that 4CL is needed in the first place...). Under 4CL, you can't build a reliable Bum's Rush combat deck, but a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed deck is completely unhindered, so it will dominate play. With the advent of Sabbat, and the "pretty much the same but slightly different" cards in the set, 4CL is pretty much a non issue, as you can effectively have 8 of any card you want (like 4 Bum's Rush and 4 Ambush; 4 Deflection and 4 Redirection; ect), but by sticking to the 4CL, you manage to miss out on the subtle yet important differences between, say, Skin of Steel and Superior Mettle. Under 4CL, you just use 4 of each. Under NL, you might use 8 of one and none of the other, or 6 and 2. The possibilites are endless. There are _many_ well written articles about why 4CL is a bad idea archived on Mark and Judith's excellent Jyhad Page (and far fewer about why 4Cl is a good idea...), so rather than going on here, I encourage you to check them out. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "They mostly come at night. Mostly." -Newt

In article <353400...@cptc.wisc.edu>, Scott Halvorson <halv...@cptc.wisc.edu> wrote: > >How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My >gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many >Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played >with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, >or are me and my gaming group just out in left field? Mostly out in left field I think. I find that the game is actually more balanced, and you see more variety in decks, without a card limit (the game wasn't broken like it's predecesor). For example, this deck doesn't sweep the table clean at all. I built it, tried it, and got my ass whupped. Badly. I managed to weaken my prey so that he was easier for my predator after I was ousted, but that was about it. Plenty of good articles in the past from people who can say it better than I if you look around a bit. If anything people seem not for play balance (as you suggest), but for variety. IMHO you actually get less variety, since having many of a given card isn't neccesarily better (the right mix is the key), and some decks just aren't possible with 4CL (e.g. a grave robbing deck). Anyway, I'm guessing (I could easily be wrong, but this seems to be a trend among people I've met) that you haven't actually tried NCL (no card limit), and simply carried the 4CL over from magic (an entirely different game, which badly needed it when the rule was made). Give NCL a shot, it really is better. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <353400...@cptc.wisc.edu>, halv...@cptc.wisc.edu wrote: > > [snip snip] > > How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My > gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many > Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played > with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, > or are me and my gaming group just out in left field? > > Scott Halvorson > halv...@cptc.wisc.edu Well, I have never played with card limits and the 20 or more people I've played against over the last year, also do not use CL. I hope that I naver have to either. Dave M. [ quoted text not captured ]

Scott Halvorson <halv...@cptc.wisc.edu> writes: >Joshua Duffin wrote: >> Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: >> : Ok, here's my second attempt at a voting deck. I decided to forego all >> : defense, and stick with only presence. People don't (yet!) play many >> : cards to hose majesty here, so it should survive combat. >> >> [snip] >> >> : 16 Kindred Resources Contested >> [snip] >> : 20 Majesty >[snip snip] >How many people in Jyhad-land play with the 4 card limit rule? My >gaming group swears by it in every deck we build. Decks with this many >Majesties and KRC's will wipe the table clean, so we have always played >with the card limit. Are there any other players who feel the same way, >or are me and my gaming group just out in left field? We've played NL almost since the game came out (we switched to 4CL for about a month in early 1995, but discussion on this group convinced us otherwise). I've played decks with a stack of KRCs, as above, and it wasn't that bad - I probably won less than my share of games with it. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not whether you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | win or lose, it's where Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | you place the blame.

Jasper Phillips wrote: > In article <6gujur$2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, > Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: > >Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: > > [snip] > > >But anyway, it sounds like what you're envisioning is a situation where > >your prey is a fairly heavy-blocking deck. In which case you could > >indeed go through the Majesties pretty well. But around here twenty > >would be an awful lot, because half the time you couldn't even play > >them due to Immortal Grapple, and the rest of the time people wouldn't > >be all that likely to be blocking you. > > You're right more or less. Intercept decks happen often enough I > can fairly well expect to be next to one. Still, 20 probably is too much, > since I don't have a good way to deal with them if they aren't blocked, > and then the votes/bleed won't flow. My tactic in such a case would be > to try to bleed some, which should work ok because people rarely play > a deck that fully taps out (except perhaps for me). > > I suspect I should reduce the majesty somewhat, and put some > telepathic misdirection back in. How much majesty do you suggest, > and what should I put in instead? I'm really curious, because no > one plays an effective vote deck locally. > > -- > /\ Jasper Phillips > /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz > j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. > * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--` Keeping in mind his environment, it is not too much. He says that his group likes to block everything. In that case he will need them. I would also recomend Change of Target if the group makes heavy use of WWEF. And combined with Misdirection, Change of Target is a real hoser.

Jasper Phillips (phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: : You're right more or less. Intercept decks happen often enough I : can fairly well expect to be next to one. Still, 20 probably is too much, : since I don't have a good way to deal with them if they aren't blocked, : and then the votes/bleed won't flow. My tactic in such a case would be : to try to bleed some, which should work ok because people rarely play : a deck that fully taps out (except perhaps for me). : I suspect I should reduce the majesty somewhat, and put some : telepathic misdirection back in. How much majesty do you suggest, : and what should I put in instead? I'm really curious, because no : one plays an effective vote deck locally. In our local fairly combat-heavy environment, I often play something like 8 majesty/12 Skin of Steel in an 80-card pre/for vote deck. 20 anti-combat cards may not be that excessive; it's just that having them all be Majesties may get you in trouble. (It would around here. ;-) And by its nature, Majesty is only needed once per fight, and at superior tends to be less necessary later in the turn (because your opponents are tapped and you're not). So it's a very card-efficient anti-combat card. Which is why it's so popular, of course. (Lately Earth Meld has been making a local comeback as the even more efficient cousin, annoying people left and right in Peter's all-Protean deck...) I might play say 16 Majesty and put in 4 telepathic misdirection; I don't recall exactly how many cards are in your deck, but if it's 80 I think that might be about right. You might want to try playing some Mind Numbs if you have them; one person played a tap and bleed presence deck here a while back, and it worked fairly well. Should fit into a vote/bleed strategy decently at least. But if you can, I still think you should make the weenie-presence-vote deck. ;-) Josh full of bad advice

In article <353547BD...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver <michae...@lmco.com> wrote: > > Keeping in mind his environment, it is not too much. He says that his >group likes to block everything. In that case he will need them. I would >also recomend Change of Target if the group makes heavy use of WWEF. >And combined with Misdirection, Change of Target is a real hoser. Well, the real problem is I don't _have_ that much majesty -- and I sure could have used it (helps to deal with non-potence bruise and bleed). Anyway, I've always wanted to use Change of Target, and this just might be a good deck for it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6h3oo8$o...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: > >In our local fairly combat-heavy environment, I often play something >like 8 majesty/12 Skin of Steel in an 80-card pre/for vote deck. 20 >anti-combat cards may not be that excessive; it's just that having them >all be Majesties may get you in trouble. (It would around here. ;-) >And by its nature, Majesty is only needed once per fight, and at >superior tends to be less necessary later in the turn (because your >opponents are tapped and you're not). So it's a very card-efficient >anti-combat card. Which is why it's so popular, of course. (Lately >Earth Meld has been making a local comeback as the even more efficient >cousin, annoying people left and right in Peter's all-Protean deck...) Yah, My failure with this deck is making me want to try a Protean voting deck, although I'd need to get some more Form of Mist. >I might play say 16 Majesty and put in 4 telepathic misdirection; I >don't recall exactly how many cards are in your deck, but if it's 80 >I think that might be about right. Theoretically I actually went down to 16 (I only have 10, I could mix in some of the other S:CE now that I have Sabbat I guess), and I could probably have used telepathic mis., although I'd originally passed on it since I was planning on simply tapping everyone out every turn. >You might want to try playing some Mind Numbs if you have them; one >person played a tap and bleed presence deck here a while back, and it >worked fairly well. Should fit into a vote/bleed strategy decently >at least. Yah, I did end up working those in, although I haven't tried them yet. >But if you can, I still think you should make the weenie-presence-vote >deck. ;-) I just may, with the newer Sabbat vampires... >Josh > >full of bad advice It's the best kind. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

I find the people who cry the loudest for card limits in Jyhad are just the worst players (no offense). As with most things in life, if you have too much of a good thing, it can kill you. When a player has muliples of a single card it simply means he has less of something else. Find out what that something is and figure out a way to exploit it. Or talk to you fellow disgruntled Methuselahs and team up on the bastard. That should teach him a lesson. If someone is pure stealth/bleed, they don't have intercept or politics. If someone is all combat, they don't have bleed or politics. If someone is all politics, they can't fight or block. In short, stop shedding tears and start fighting back! Badger

In article <353A46...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote: >I find the people who cry the loudest for card limits in Jyhad are just >the worst players (no offense). As with most things in life, if you >have too much of a good thing, it can kill you. When a player has >muliples of a single card it simply means he has less of something >else. Find out what that something is and figure out a way to exploit >it. Or talk to you fellow disgruntled Methuselahs and team up on the >bastard. That should teach him a lesson. Ummm, I don't really see it quite that way. They are simply the most inexperienced Jyhad players in my experience. People have so much experience with neccesary card limits from other games that they assume it's neccesary, and throw out knee jerk arguments for it. They tend to learn quickly though I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

The BO states that a vampire pays one blood to attempt a political action. Are cardless Politics, like a vote to Burn the Elysium, considered a political action? Raille. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6he6g5$dl7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rai...@mich.com wrote: > > The BO states that a vampire pays one blood to attempt a political action. > Are cardless Politics, like a vote to Burn the Elysium, considered a political > action? Yes. The only votes that are not political actions are BloodHunt votes. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team [ quoted text not captured ]

rai...@mich.com wrote: > The BO states that a vampire pays one blood to attempt a political > action. > Are cardless Politics, like a vote to Burn the Elysium, considered a > political > action? > > Raille. Yep. By card text. Michael Beer

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, perhaps "worst" isn't the word I was looking for, but I think your and my points are on the same target. What I meant is don't focus on the fact your enemy has 20 Wakes or 20 Majesties. Think instead that said person has no stealth or no politics. Whatever the case may be, Jyhad is balanced enough that one deck type cannot dominate for long. Badger

In article <353D34...@buffnet.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] It's not that we are actually all that bad either. I've been playing Jyhad since like a week or two after it came out. Our group play with limits just so we don't have to worry about the cheese so much. I mean that I only have so many psycks, and if someone has 10 Maj, and 10 Form of Mist, then I'm going to lose. Sure I can try and put minion attack cards, i.e. B.Rush, but that only go's so far. It also makes for a much more enjoyable game. With 5 players (our usual group.) that's a max deck of 90 cards. Sure you could put in 10 copies of 9 cards and make sure you get what you want, and more than likely win. But with a deck with 2 of one card, 3 of another, and 4 of another one, and so on then the deck is much more veried. God forbide that you actually have to take some time and think about what will go in to fill the other spaces, but it does happen. If I wanted to continue to play a game with a small deck size and and lots'o cheese I would play Rage. Well just my $.50 worth, (It's a little long for $.02) Sea Ya Umbradomo, KM² [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6hm3ed$5q6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <umbr...@rocketmail.com> wrote: [Badger & Jasper Phillips agree on card limits bad] >It's not that we are actually all that bad either. I've been playing Jyhad >since like a week or two after it came out. Our group play with limits just >so we don't have to worry about the cheese so much. I mean that I only have >so many psycks, and if someone has 10 Maj, and 10 Form of Mist, then I'm >going to lose. Sure I can try and put minion attack cards, i.e. B.Rush, but >that only go's so far. It also makes for a much more enjoyable game. I'm slightly confused. Where's the cheese in no-limits play? If someone's packing heavy Strike: Combat Ends, you can (a) Immortal Grapple [the preferred hoser], (b) Psyche!/Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction, or (c) avoid getting into combat. The key to no-limits play is to strike at the weak points. There are always weak points in a no-limits deck. Either you pack lots of what you need, in which case you're vulnerable to what you left out, or you've packed a little of everything, in which case what you need isn't reliably available. > With 5 players (our usual group.) that's a max deck of 90 cards. Sure you >could put in 10 copies of 9 cards and make sure you get what you want, and >more than likely win. But with a deck with 2 of one card, 3 of another, and 4 >of another one, and so on then the deck is much more veried. God forbide that >you actually have to take some time and think about what will go in to fill >the other spaces, but it does happen. The most effective decks have the smallest amount of discrete card types in them, and maximize the amount of copies of these. An archetypal Brujah deck, for example, features: 15xBum's Rush 15xTorn Signpost 15xFlash 15xImmortal Grapple 15xBlur 15xMasters 3x(Potence, Celerity, Hunting Ground, Blood Doll, Info H'way) This is nice and reliable. It's also strongly vulnerable to vote and stealth bleed, especially weenie variants thereon. That's 5 distinct card types (not counting masters). >If I wanted to continue to play a game with a small deck size and and lots'o >cheese I would play Rage. Well, other folx have pointed out that Sabbat brings no-limit V:tES and card-limit V:tES quite a bit closer, except that decisions that are strategic/tactically based in no-limit (8 Skin of Steel? 6 SoS and 2 Superior Mettle?) become automatic in limit (4 of each). The effect of this is to quash the subtle difference between similar cards, and that robs the game of much of its flavor. I'm not going to explore the limit v. no-limit debate in greater depth than this -- it's been hashed out thoroughly in the past, and arguments on both sides have been archived on the web. gomi

> > > >I find the people who cry the loudest for card limits in Jyhad are just > > > >the worst players (no offense). As with most things in life, if you > > > >have too much of a good thing, it can kill you. When a player has > > > >muliples of a single card it simply means he has less of something > > > >else. Find out what that something is and figure out a way to exploit > > > >it. Or talk to you fellow disgruntled Methuselahs and team up on the > > > >bastard. That should teach him a lesson. > > > > > > Ummm, I don't really see it quite that way. They are simply the most > > > inexperienced Jyhad players in my experience. People have so much > > > experience with neccesary card limits from other games that they > > > assume it's neccesary, and throw out knee jerk arguments for it. > > > They tend to learn quickly though I think. > > > > > > > Ok, perhaps "worst" isn't the word I was looking for, but I think your > > and my points are on the same target. What I meant is don't focus on > > the fact your enemy has 20 Wakes or 20 Majesties. Think instead that > > said person has no stealth or no politics. Whatever the case may be, > > Jyhad is balanced enough that one deck type cannot dominate for long. > > It's not that we are actually all that bad either. I've been playing Jyhad > since like a week or two after it came out. Our group play with limits just > so we don't have to worry about the cheese so much. I mean that I only have > so many psycks, and if someone has 10 Maj, and 10 Form of Mist, then I'm > going to lose. Sure I can try and put minion attack cards, i.e. B.Rush, but > that only go's so far. It also makes for a much more enjoyable game. > > With 5 players (our usual group.) that's a max deck of 90 cards. Sure you > could put in 10 copies of 9 cards and make sure you get what you want, and > more than likely win. But with a deck with 2 of one card, 3 of another, and 4 > of another one, and so on then the deck is much more veried. God forbide that > you actually have to take some time and think about what will go in to fill > the other spaces, but it does happen. > The point is, though, a deck with 10 copies of 9 cards each is going to lose pretty often. There are just so many situations in Jyhad that you have to deal with: bad crypt draw, rush defense, vote defense, bleed defense, Corruption, minion degradation (as seen in Vicissitude and, to a lesser degree, Dementation and Quietus), nasty locations, contestation... The list goes on and on. The best decks have a little of defense for almost anything. You know... maybe you add a Recruitment in case a situation comes up where you desperately need Muaziz, or you add 2 Arsons to take out an Elysium if necessary, an SR to kill a crucial Giant's Blood or Vulnerability, a couple of Wakes to stop unstealthed bleeds. The list goes on and on here as well. And so, it's good to be diverse. At the same time, it's obvious that many strategies are hosed by a 4 CL or even a 6 CL. Corruption can't work. With 4CL, you'll maybe get a small vampire if you draw them all at the beginning. Potence combat, in general, only survives because of Immortal Grapple, because it uses too many cards per strike to deal with S:CE any other way. On the other hand, a good Gangrel deck should be able to laugh at the average Majesty deck. You *will* run out of Majesties, and Haven Uncovereds, even if burned as soon as possible, can get you a good 3 attacks per turn. If you're going to play 4 CL, you might as well just check everyone's deck for S&B and give all victory points to the person who uses the most variations of Kine Dominance, GtU, Scouting Mission, Bonding, Threats, Foreshadowing Destruction, Conditioning, and Command of the Beast. Maybe give special allowance for the Malkavian who realizes that Pulse of the Canaille is also available via in-clan discipline. NCL gives the possibility of a combat deck, which needs many multiples of Bum's Rush and Ambush, to do well in a game. In fact, when you really look at it, the deck which is hurt most by 4 CL (besides Corruption which is not viable at all) is the combat deck. Sure, the voting decks use Majesty, but there's still Staredown and Catatonic Fear, not to mention disciplineless dodges and then for the Ventrue, plenty of instances of damage prevention. The combat deck still must rely on Bum's Rush, Ambush, and Haven Uncovered (it's generally counter-productive to put more than 5 Havens in a deck, which is why I don't mention them as being necessary in excess of card limit). Combat decks, however, are by far not the most powerful decks at tournaments. The usual winners are stealth bleed (which is amazingly easy to do under 4 CL), and occasionally big vamp vote/bleed. The big vamp decks may use 10 Majesties, but they could do almost just as well with 4 Majesty, 4 Catatonic Fear, and 2 Staredown. The only thing it would do to require the above (4 of each useful card, instead of 8 of one card and 2 of another, or whatever), would be to reduce creativity. No longer do you have the Gangrel wondering "Do I need the maneuver from Claws of the Dead, or the press from Wolf Claws? Or should I plan on damage prevention and use Bone Spur?" Instead, the Gangrel says, "All right! Sabbat came out, so now I can use 12 Claws instead of 8. 4 of each." -Chris ...Religion is the opiate of the people. [ quoted text not captured ]

I've been playing Jyhad > since like a week or two after it came out. Our group play with limits just > so we don't have to worry about the cheese so much. I mean that I only have > so many psycks, and if someone has 10 Maj, and 10 Form of Mist, then I'm > going to lose. Sure I can try and put minion attack cards, i.e. B.Rush, but > that only go's so far. It also makes for a much more enjoyable game. Sure, I agree with all that. But i think the only argument is about whether Jyhad tournaments NEED card limits. I say no. Anyone dumb enough to play a 75% majesty deck is going to get killed in a tournament. But a tournament-quality combat deck HAS to have loads of IGs or TBs and Rush cards. > > With 5 players (our usual group.) that's a max deck of 90 cards. Sure you > could put in 10 copies of 9 cards and make sure you get what you want, and > more than likely win. But with a deck with 2 of one card, 3 of another, and 4 > of another one, and so on then the deck is much more veried. God forbide that > you actually have to take some time and think about what will go in to fill > the other spaces, but it does happen. > > If I wanted to continue to play a game with a small deck size and and lots'o > cheese I would play Rage. OI!!!! LAY OFF RAGE!!!! GRREAT GAME! And it has an expansion coming out in a fortnight, which is more than can be said for Jyhad. sigh. Legbiter, also known as Rends-the-Treehuggers. Now where did i put that wedge of Wensleydale .......

I agree, Jyhad is balanced enough that if you load a deck to heavily one way it weakens that deck in antoher area. If you make huge decks them you statistically reduce the chance of getting the cards you want.The entire objective here is strategy, in both the building of a deck and the useage of such. Not only does the inherent limitations of a one sided deck become apparent in a game when all you do is one action (bleed for instance) but the other players that might be your victims in a few minutes dont appreciate the fact that you have just killed you 3rd prey by bleeding them for 11 and hey "I'm gonna be his prey in a second". I personally attempt to quell the largest threat at the table (short term) and screw my prey in the process (long term). Our group uses no limits (cards or total decks size). Do what you want, its always a trade-off. - C umbr...@rocketmail.com wrote: > In article <353D34...@buffnet.net>, > badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote: > > > > Jasper Phillips wrote: > > > > > > In article <353A46...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote: > > > >I find the people who cry the loudest for card limits in Jyhad are just > > > >the worst players (no offense). As with most things in life, if you > > > >have too much of a good thing, it can kill you. When a player has > > > >muliples of a single card it simply means he has less of something > > > >else. Find out what that something is and figure out a way to exploit > > > >it. Or talk to you fellow disgruntled Methuselahs and team up on the > > > >bastard. That should teach him a lesson. > > > > > > Ummm, I don't really see it quite that way. They are simply the most > > > inexperienced Jyhad players in my experience. People have so much > > > experience with neccesary card limits from other games that they > > > assume it's neccesary, and throw out knee jerk arguments for it. > > > They tend to learn quickly though I think. > > > > > > -- > > > /\ Jasper Phillips > > > /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz > > > j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. > > > * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--` > > > > Ok, perhaps "worst" isn't the word I was looking for, but I think your > > and my points are on the same target. What I meant is don't focus on > > the fact your enemy has 20 Wakes or 20 Majesties. Think instead that > > said person has no stealth or no politics. Whatever the case may be, > > Jyhad is balanced enough that one deck type cannot dominate for long. > > > > Badger > > > > It's not that we are actually all that bad either. I've been playing Jyhad > since like a week or two after it came out. Our group play with limits just > so we don't have to worry about the cheese so much. I mean that I only have > so many psycks, and if someone has 10 Maj, and 10 Form of Mist, then I'm > going to lose. Sure I can try and put minion attack cards, i.e. B.Rush, but > that only go's so far. It also makes for a much more enjoyable game. > > With 5 players (our usual group.) that's a max deck of 90 cards. Sure you > could put in 10 copies of 9 cards and make sure you get what you want, and > more than likely win. But with a deck with 2 of one card, 3 of another, and 4 > of another one, and so on then the deck is much more veried. God forbide that > you actually have to take some time and think about what will go in to fill > the other spaces, but it does happen. > > If I wanted to continue to play a game with a small deck size and and lots'o > cheese I would play Rage. > > Well just my $.50 worth, (It's a little long for $.02) > Sea Ya > Umbradomo, KM² > [ quoted text not captured ]

Stated perfectly berger !!! [ quoted text not captured ]

How do you keep new players? Any player that is relatively new to the game is simply going to be intimidated if you pull out a deck with 8 IG or whatever rare is your card of choice. Most of the groups that I have played with that used card limits used them to encourage the players with 20 of every card to play decks that would be competitive with the decks of players who only had access to 3 or 4 of any particular card. Another reason many people play with card limits is that they don't know about NRA. Without the No Repeat Actions tournament rule, certain deck types will always dominate. Any PRO/dom deck or PRE deck that can take unlimited actions until they succeed will be more effective than a deck that cannot afford to tap out every turn. Anyway, how do you keep new players?????

In article <OT3YsUzb9GA.314@uppubnews03>, Jeffrey Thompson <j_...@email.msn.com> wrote: >How do you keep new players? > >Any player that is relatively new to the game is simply going to be >intimidated >if you pull out a deck with 8 IG or whatever rare is your card of choice. I disagree, competent players won't, especially if you show them how to deal with it. It also helps to let them play some of the more experienced players decks at first, or just help them building a deck (simple advice, like "this deck will" have card flow problems, can help alot). >Most of the groups that I have played with that used card limits used them >to encourage the players with 20 of every card to play decks that would be >competitive with the decks of players who only had access to 3 or 4 of any >particular card. Yah, that can be true to an extent. I tend to play with players who have access to large groups of cards, and trade (in general less cards should just mean you have less potential strategies to play, and having friends with lots of cards tends to make it easy to borrow/trade for the commons you need). Certainly this is helped a bit by the fact that the original set is so cheap. >Another reason many people play with card limits is that they don't know >about NRA. Without the No Repeat Actions tournament rule, certain deck >types will always dominate. Any PRO/dom deck or PRE deck that can take >unlimited actions until they succeed will be more effective than a deck that >cannot afford to tap out every turn. True. People that I've talked to immediatly understand those are bad things though, and think the fix is fairly obvious. >Anyway, how do you keep new players????? Sell them dirt cheap boxes. Sad to say, but nothing like opening tons of packs to feed an adicts habit. ;-) Seriously though, I find the best thing to just to help them learn how to play the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeffery Thompson wrote: "Any player that is relatively new to the game is simply going to be intimidated if you pull out a deck with 8 IG or whatever rare is your card of choice." But they are going to be just as intimidated by a CL based Malkavian S+B deck. The card limits don't keep new players from being intimidated by seasoned players with a million cards. If you don't want to intimidate new players, either let them learn how to play with decks you have built, or handycap yourself with a goofy deck design. Once they consistently kill your goofy deck, start using a better one. Teaching people to play with card limits for the purposes of making the game nicer will accomplish little more than encourage them to all figure out how to play S+B decks, which is fine, but there are countless other deck strategies that are effective with no card limits that are completely hamstrung by card limits. "Most of the groups that I have played with that used card limits used them to encourage the players with 20 of every card to play decks that would be competitive with the decks of players who only had access to 3 or 4 of any particular card." At this point in time, there is really no reason for people to not have access to close to an infinte number of Jyhad cards. Our group just purchased 13 boxes of boosters from the Edge Man in CA for less than 5 bucks a box. Heck, I bought a $5.00 box of boosters just to pull out 36 rares and give away the commons (you generally need multiples of commons, not rares) to the new folks. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Ok, perhaps "worst" isn't the word I was looking for, but I think your > and my points are on the same target. What I meant is don't focus on > the fact your enemy has 20 Wakes or 20 Majesties. Think instead that > said person has no stealth or no politics. Whatever the case may be, > Jyhad is balanced enough that one deck type cannot dominate for long. > > Badger It seems to me that we are concerned by entirely different matters. When you write "Jyhad is balanced enough that one deck type cannot dominate for long.", you assume that we card-limit babies are worried about losing to stronger decks. It is not necessarily so. If my prey or predator has 20 Wakes or 20 Majesties, and I decide to beat him with stealth or politics, I'm in for a dull & extremely boring evening (IMHO). So your suggestion doesn't solve my problem at all. Now why play under 4-card limits? It is a rather easy way to limit some "automatic" combinations (Thoughts Betrayed + Torn Signpost + Pulled Fangs, for instance, gets pretty tiring after a while). Does it limit the decks we play? Of course it does. Is this a bad thing? It depends. Sometimes, yes (Temptation decks can be difficult to build if you only had 1 box of AH, for instance). Sometimes, no. I believe that it is very profitable and interesting to build decks under such a constraint. And you don't get stuck when you get a prey or predator who happens to have exactly the deck he needs against you (as in your example, Badger). Oh yes, I forgot: we have a hell of a good time playing with these baby-decks. I guess that makes it worth it? L-R PS: I'd like to add we do not consider ourselves to be "unexperienced" players. Our first game of Jyhad occured 72 hours after the French release of the original set. (ever played a sealed-deck tournament with one starter and three boosters? It was just great.)