Perhaps it's time to limit individual cards to 4 each library/crypt.
Cons
- Lots of decks need to be revised, but still fixable.
- Wrecks certain decks (tupdogs(some will judge this as a pro ), Orun/Aye)
- Eliminates a rule that kinda made Vtes special.
- Wrecks the super Animalism combat combo (Aid of Bats + Carrion Crows).
- Makes combat decks a lot more challenging.
Pro's
- No need to ban power cards.
- Tones down Imbueds (don't know this actually, I don't know imbueds)
- Tones down Turbo decks (the ones that rely on just freak drive).
- Tones down power cards such as Conditioning, Govern the unaligned, Immortal Grapple.
- Tones down pool bloating (slightly)
- Easier to balance (Mister Peal?)
- Everyone suddenly has a lot of spare cards, opening a potential card pool to new players.
- Easier for new players to build competitive decks as they don't need 10+ of super card X.
- More card diversity in decks.
Special notes
- Does not solve bounce card issues.
You can still play nearly all decks in revised form, there are plenty of alternative cards (though weaker) available to replace the power cards. Some decks need to be more creative (sticks) and thus less boring
Decks utilising Anarch Converts now have to use some other turn anarch cards, plenty out there tbh.
Some design ideas that really required a lot of copies of card X can be solved or rethought through card design in future sets. Or simply state on a card that you can have max 10 of this card in a deck, but I think everyone agrees this is an ugly design idea.
*hands over topic to community*
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> Cons
> - Lots of decks need to be revised, but still fixable.
> - Wrecks certain decks (tupdogs(some will judge this as a pro ), Orun/Aye)
> - Eliminates a rule that kinda made Vtes special.
> - Wrecks the super Animalism combat combo (Aid of Bats + Carrion Crows).
> - Makes combat decks a lot more challenging.
>
Overpowering stealth-bleed to the point that it destroys games and players have to be pressured socially not to play it, because stealth-bleed is in no essential way impeded by 4CL while dozens of other strategies are torpedoed into oblivion. Decks with an option for light, consistent stealth from their one available card, which they could play 6-8 copies of, don't have an option to replace it. Decks with a key action card that was designed knowing it could be used many times don't have an option to replace it.
I invite you to research the history of the fundamentally hideous 4CL proposal, every time it's been discussed and proposed. It wrecks V:TES.
This topic was discussed like 100 times already. It generally will dumb the game down, when you switch in most straightforward deck concepts (stealth-bleed) some cards for it's alternatives and drop most interesting concepts.
And in general it's kind of not cool, when you are putting the cards in the deck not because they belong there, but because you've reached limit on better ones. MTG don't work without it, cause power level of it's cards is all over the place, but VtES is mostly fine in this regard.
Also, it helps as a commercial tool, both to players and manufacturers - if the player only needs 3-4 cards to complete play set, then you'll need to move all playable cards to rare/ultrarare slots, or you'll not make any sales.
NC Russia
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > GreyB wrote:
> > Perhaps it's time to restrict individual cards to max 4 each in a library/crypt.
> >
> Look, just no. 4CL is a fundamentally awful idea, because it empowers stealth-bleed (which has a plethora of alternatives), while hurting dozens of other strategies because they don't have alternatives, have been designed without alternatives, and have been intended to work without alternatives.
>
> Bloodline disciplines with restricted card sets were designed knowing that their actions, modifiers, reactions etc. can be stacked up in decks. Anarch three-ways were designed knowing the same. The Red Question, clearly designed to make Anarchs much more playable, was designed knowing that you could toss a load into a deck to kick start the deck if you wanted. Camarilla vote decks get 4 extra copies of Parity Shift in a deck for pool destruction, and non-Camarilla vote decks don't get to compensate for that by playing more copies of Kine Resources Contested. Dominate based decks have the option of Deflection, Redirection, and Murmur, while Auspex decks can only play Telepathic Misdirection.
>
> It has been a terrible idea every time it's been suggested since 1994, and will continue to be so.
>
> > GreyB wrote:
> > Stuff that breaks with a card limit like Orun/Aye and suchlike just need to be designed away in new sets.
> >
> Since the game has been getting roughly 20-25 library cards a year, it would take an inordinate amount of time to fix all the problems that are introduced. Of course, since stealth-bleed dominating the game is the result that's happened in more or less any group that's played 4CL - except where they then exert social pressure on people to not play strong decks! - it's likely the game wouldn't last long enough to fix the swathes of problems introduced.
>
> It really is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea.
>
I get what you're saying, I just don't think "the bad situation" you sketch is that bad.
Concerning bounce cards, yes, Dominate will for sure gain a huge card availability advantage over other disciplines, but I don't think it matters much compared to the situation we have now. Bounce cards still need to be addressed in my opinion, a card limit won't fix that. It will however fix a lot of other issues.
A card limit will certainly be a game changer, but I don't think that's a bad thing and I don't think it will make any cards or disciplines more powerful than they are now, if anything, the more powerful disciplines will get toned down.
I can also think up of a lot of issues with a card limit and current cards and I have some personal dislikes towards the idea as well, nothing though that can't be designed away and it would only require 2 cards. It would solve a lot of hard to fix issues in a grander scheme though and that's what I am after. Break down problems to more manageable chunks and a card limit would achieve that.
Yes it was a bad (a really really bad) idea back in 94, but 1500+ cards later it could actually work, just have to look at it from a bigger perspective. Give it some more thought and try not to focus too much on individual cases (unless you see a real problem that's not already a problem right now).
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> I get what you're saying, I just don't think "the bad situation" you sketch is that bad.
>
That you didn't even address it in your proposal - despite the fact that it has come up in every single discussion of 4CL ever - suggests that you shouldn't be anywhere near as casual about rejecting the problem that has been encountered when it's been tried.
> GreyB wrote:
> Concerning bounce cards, yes, Dominate will for sure gain a huge card availability advantage over other disciplines, but I don't think it matters much compared to the situation we have now.
>
Because letting stealth-bleed run rampant over everyone and everything is exactly the situation we have now? Stealth-bleed is playable right now, but it is beatable - which is what the situation should be. Why is it beatable? Because other decks still work. The outcome with 4CL is that almost every deck strategy is hurt in a potentially significant way, but the troubles that stealth bleed faces are almost entirely inconsequential in comparison. Sometimes it bleeds for 4 or 5 instead of 6, whoop-de-doo. By comparison, other deck styles just simply cannot function because you've just said they can't include the cards they're supposed to include, that the designers intended they include, and that they've included for years.
> GreyB wrote:
> A card limit will certainly be a game changer,
>
Well, I guess destroying the game is one form of changing it.
> GreyB wrote:
> but I don't think that's a bad thing and I don't think it will make any cards or disciplines more powerful than they are now, if anything, the more powerful disciplines will get toned down.
>
You are wildly, wildly, wildly wrong. Dominate under 4CL doesn't have a hard time bleeding the shit out of everyone. Pretty much every other strategy is much worse than it is now.
Your proposal is bad. It will remain bad even if you pretend that somehow 4CL makes Dominate worse, even when all the evidence when people have tried it is that it makes Dominate wildly better. It doesn't tone Dominate down, even remotely. That's why it's a bad a proposal.
> GreyB wrote:
> Yes it was a bad (a really really bad) idea back in 94, but 1500+ cards later it could actually work, just have to look at it from a bigger perspective.
>
I am looking at it from the bigger perspective. Those 1500+ cards were designed for this environment. Those 1500+ cards expect to be able to be used on their own in multiiple copies, or in small quantities, or in a mix of the two. Whole strategies have been designed, in this bigger picture, knowing that that can happen. In the bigger picture, any strategy with a usable tool on one or two cards can build an offensive or defensive strategy around it - which is completely intentional, in the bigger picture - which 4CL completely destroys.
The bigger picture shows that the 4CL proposal remains horrifyingly awful garbage.
> GreyB wrote:
> Give it some more thought and try not to focus too much on individual cases (unless you see a real problem that's not already a problem right now).
>
Making stealth-bleed run rampant is a real problem that's not a problem right now. This isn't "Dominate is good" (which it is), this is "stealth-bleed can up-end tables like it's 1994, and all the counter options have just been hosed".
Games are played with individual cases. They are not played with bullshit nonsense about somehow making stealth-bleed worse when you've done nothing to hamstring stealth-bleed and everything to hamstring everyone else.
4CL is bad for the game. It's bad for the game in the bigger picture. It's bad for the game in individual cases. You are proposing something bad, hand-waving away the horrifying problems you introduce, and pretending it is isn't bad. It's just awful.
The staple cards tend to be mostly commons so they are cheap to acquire.
Sure, you can build ridiculously expensive trick decks but mostly you'll do way better with sticking with commons.
A very solid feature of the game from day 1.
And it has always been a popular thing with the people I've demoed the game to.
Finnish Politics!
Most important part, hear it from guy, who write ton of posts about problems of the game - the state of the game is still good - game is still fun, plenty of strategies is available, community is healthy e t.s.
Very few even commercially supported ccg can show this.
It's not a time to make fundamental changes - in complex systems it's impossible to predict results of it, and, when the system is in a fine spot, usually changes are to the worse.
Start with banning conditioning
NC Russia
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> That you didn't even address it in your proposal - despite the fact that it has come up in every single discussion of 4CL ever - suggests that you shouldn't be anywhere near as casual about rejecting the problem that has been encountered when it's been tried.
>
First of all, I don't reject any problems, I just state they're not insurmountable. Second, yeah... my apologies, I haven't seen any discussion about 4CL, my bad.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Because letting stealth-bleed run rampant over everyone and everything is exactly the situation we have now? Stealth-bleed is playable right now, but it is beatable - which is what the situation should be. Why is it beatable? Because other decks still work. The outcome with 4CL is that almost every deck strategy is hurt in a potentially significant way, but the troubles that stealth bleed faces are almost entirely inconsequential in comparison. Sometimes it bleeds for 4 or 5 instead of 6, whoop-de-doo. By comparison, other deck styles just simply cannot function because you've just said they can't include the cards they're supposed to include, that the designers intended they include, and that they've included for years.
>
I completely agree. I just don't think the problems are insurmountable and need to be addressed anyway. Which is easier with 4CL.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Your proposal is bad. It will remain bad even if you pretend that somehow 4CL makes Dominate worse, even when all the evidence when people have tried it is that it makes Dominate wildly better. It doesn't tone Dominate down, even remotely. That's why it's a bad a proposal.
>
I don't pretend. It DOES make Dominate worse, it just so happens it makes other disciplines more worse. 4CL is not the means to tone down stealth bleed decks, it's a means to more easily balance the game. You still HAVE to balance the game, but can now do it without banning cards.
I am not saying 4CL is THE answer to all problems, it MIGHT be a step in the right direction.
Obviously opinions diverge.
> ... hand-waving away the horrifying problems you introduce, and pretending it is isn't bad. It's just awful.
>
I do no such thing, you're attributing bad behavior to my character to draw attention away from what I am actually saying. In fact I acknowledge most if not all problems, I merely think they can be solved and the forum is a tool to discuss this.
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> In fact I acknowledge most if not all problems, I merely think they can be solved and the forum is a tool to discuss this.
>
To make a potence combat deck work, it'll need 8 Immortal Grapple and 8 Torn Signpost. There are no other cards that offer the same effects. This type of deck is severely hampered under 4CL and probably is not competitive anymore. How do you solve this problem?
When I started, the players who introduced me to the game were playing with a 4 cards limit. Needless to say that my uncompetitive Corruption deck was not viable. Combat decks were crap (4 Immortal Grapple? I play with 12 combat ends, good luck!) The whole thing was crap.
Anyway, the game wasn't designed with a card limit in mind, so no, it isn't a good idea to introduce card limit. It was already done in the past with some house rules, with awful results as I said, and heavily discussed before.
Anyway, what is the point you're trying to fix?
> GreyB wrote:
> Cons
> - Lots of decks need to be revised, but still fixable.
> - Wrecks certain decks (tupdogs(some will judge this as a pro ), Orun/Aye)
> - Eliminates a rule that kinda made Vtes special.
> - Wrecks the super Animalism combat combo (Aid of Bats + Carrion Crows).
> - Makes combat decks a lot more challenging.
>
It turns plenty of decks in non-viable decks I'd say, and completely wrecks combat decks (Only 4 Concealed Weapons? Only 4 Grapple? Only 4 Aid from Bats?)
> GreyB wrote:
> Pro's
> - No need to ban power cards.
> - Tones down Imbueds (don't know this actually, I don't know imbueds)
> - Tones down Turbo decks (the ones that rely on just freak drive).
> - Tones down power cards such as Conditioning, Govern the unaligned, Immortal Grapple.
> - Tones down pool bloating (slightly)
> - Easier to balance (Mister Peal?)
> - Everyone suddenly has a lot of spare cards, opening a potential card pool to new players.
> - Easier for new players to build competitive decks as they don't need 10+ of super card X.
> - More card diversity in decks.
>
4 Protect thine Own or 4 Return to Innocence would still be overpowered. Dramatic Upheaval would steal have the same "vp sniping" problem. Banning of cards has nothing to do with the number of copies you can include.
I'm surprised that you think it would tone down Imbued if you don't know what you're talking about :/
Toning down Immortal Grapple is an awful idea. Even CEL/POT with 4 Immortal Grapple and 4 Psyche! would be screwn by combat ends.
It won't make things easier to balance. As I said, the whole game was designed to include unlimited copies of a card from the start.
The card pool requirement seems artificial. If you manage to find 4 Aid from Bats, you'll surely be able to find 10 more. And if you need 4 Enkil Cog, it will be as hard as before.
So yes, it would have impact on dominate decks (though limited), but at the cost of ruining plenty of other decks, and the game in general. It doesn't seem a good path to follow (once again, it has already been considered before).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> ankha wrote:
> When I started, the players who introduced me to the game were playing with a 4 cards limit. Needless to say that my uncompetitive Corruption deck was not viable. Combat decks were crap (4 Immortal Grapple? I play with 12 combat ends, good luck!) The whole thing was crap.
> Anyway, the game wasn't designed with a card limit in mind, so no, it isn't a good idea to introduce card limit. It was already done in the past with some house rules, with awful results as I said, and heavily discussed before.
>
True, just introducing 4CL without adding cards to balance things out is a bad idea. However it's possible to introduce it in a set where you balance the problems out. CE is a great example as with 4CL there won't be enough CE busters. I envision (for example) adding 1 card each to celerity and potence that works against CE, or perhaps a non-discipline CE buster.
Point is, with 4CL this is manageable, problems are more easy to oversee and solve. I know the game is designed with limitless cards in mind, but I do see a potential to introduce a card limit and that it would solve some problems without requiring further bans or even retooling.
> ankha wrote:
> It turns plenty of decks in non-viable decks I'd say, and completely wrecks combat decks (Only 4 Concealed Weapons? Only 4 Grapple? Only 4 Aid from Bats?)
>
I cannot dispute this, though I still see a way to design this away. It wouldn't probably take that many card designs. Could start to compile a list of what cards would be needed, though I already sense the sentiment towards 4CL is a bigger obstacle than possibilities.
> ankha wrote:
> 4 Protect thine Own or 4 Return to Innocence would still be overpowered. Dramatic Upheaval would steal have the same "vp sniping" problem. Banning of cards has nothing to do with the number of copies you can include.
>
Whoops, I only meant "further" bans. You know, the posts calling for bans of "conditioning", "govern the unaligned". This whole topic was meant as an alternative to those possibilities.
> ankha wrote:
> I'm surprised that you think it would tone down Imbued if you don't know what you're talking about :/
>
Yeah doh, just had a look at a couple of decks, 4CL does nothing to tone down imbueds.
> ankha wrote:
> Toning down Immortal Grapple is an awful idea. Even CEL/POT with 4 Immortal Grapple and 4 Psyche! would be screwn by combat ends.
>
As I mentioned before, can be designed away, but also have to say; I know some decks lean heavily on IG or Psyche, just as some decks lean heavily on 10+ copies of card XYZ. Balance and playtime problems in Vtes can mostly be homed in on the fact that you can include 10+ copies of a card.
- Ashur's (liquidation)
- Freakdrive turbo
- Consangeous boon bloat
- govern/conditioning
There's a thin line between strategies based on just a couple of cards and rule abuse.
> ankha wrote:
> The card pool requirement seems artificial. If you manage to find 4 Aid from Bats, you'll surely be able to find 10 more. And if you need 4 Enkil Cog, it will be as hard as before.
>
I currently don't have spares. If 4CL is introduced, I suddenly have many spares to give away to new players. New players that probably wouldn't even consider browsing e-bay and spend hours in buying a deck together. And thats just me. It might be the little bump to start the momentum of getting more players. Perhaps too positive thinking from my side.
> ankha wrote:
> So yes, it would have impact on dominate decks (though limited), but at the cost of ruining plenty of other decks, and the game in general. It doesn't seem a good path to follow (once again, it has already been considered before).
>
Has it ever been considered alongside releasing a balancing set? Or was the general consensus that it's too much of an effort without even looking at what the effort would be? Just from the top of my head, most issues can be solved with 10-20 card designs, add 10-20 cards for issues I can't think of right now and we have a 40 card set.
Again, I really think the only thing holding back 4CL is the sentiment towards it. And to be fair, it's a just sentiment. I also like the unrestricted card limit. But objectively it does solve some issues, creates more deck/card diversity and makes the game easier to balance.
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> Again, I really think the only thing holding back 4CL is the sentiment towards it. And to be fair, it's a just sentiment. I also like the unrestricted card limit.
>
It's experience, not sentiment that causes people to object to a 4 card limit.
No unique card limits is one of VTES' strengths and unique selling points. You're only limited by your imagination — more so now that proxies are becoming more common place.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> GreyB wrote:
> Just from the top of my head, most issues can be solved with 10-20 card designs, add 10-20 cards for issues I can't think of right now and we have a 40 card set.
>
It'll take way more than a 40-card set. Take a look at the TWDA and all the decks that include 4+ cards other than dominate/Ashur's/Freak Drive et al. It'd be more like a 500-card set.
> GreyB wrote:
> True, just introducing 4CL without adding cards to balance things out is a bad idea. However it's possible to introduce it in a set where you balance the problems out. CE is a great example as with 4CL there won't be enough CE busters. I envision (for example) adding 1 card each to celerity and potence that works against CE, or perhaps a non-discipline CE buster.
>
So your plan is to randomly mess up the game, and then frantically try to patch the holes that you have just created. Or we could, you know, not break things in the first place, so we don't have to fix them.
> GreyB wrote:
> *hands over topic to community*
>
*hands it back and says* why dont you and your play group try it out and report back.
Prince of Dallas
Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas
August 13, 2022
I've played in at least one group with card limits and maybe another at some point. Or, maybe, I'm just remembering that the only(?) tournament I ever played as a Gen Con scheduled event had 6cl for certain cards.
The benefits are really a matter of perception, not any improvement in the card pool. Sure, I enjoy playing with them just as without them because doing something different in deck construction interests me. But, the play is warped, with whatever is readily available dominating.
What really fixes the enjoyment of groups isn't messing with the rules, it's a social contract of peer pressuring away strategies, decks, cards they don't like.
If trying to argue for card availability, I've never found it hard to get commons. Sure, I could use a lot more Villeins, but, you know, the TCG model is one where players don't always have everything. If the game goes to POD or you proxy stuff up or whatever, availability is meaningless.
Ignoring e-sets, which I've played against but don't have the same sense of as printed sets, the game plays better than it ever has in my experience. I don't argue for changing the game to make the play of it better but rather different. CCGs thrive on variety. That Malk94 has always been a high functioning deck is sad, not because I don't like it as actually I quite enjoy playing Malk stealth bleed, but because it shows a game that doesn't go through as much innovation as other CCGs. That Eyes of Argus or Bowl of Convergence can just shut down light stealth bleed is not the end of the world because not every deck plays those cards (or No Secrets or ...); metagaming is something CCG players are supposed to do, even if it means putting Mercy for Seth into a deck for ... reasons. Still, as much as removing those cards may not make for better play, it would make for more enjoyable play for me, where removing Into Thin Air, et al, to rebalance stealth/intercept at lower levels would be important as part of this grand plan to make the game more fun ... for me.
There are a few plays that are miserable. I see a number of events decks being posted, whether TWD or someThing else. That's a tedious play experience. But, there will always be tedious play experiences. What burns me out on CCGs more than anything else is when people stop building and playing new decks, not that they build obnoxious decks some of the time.
The issue with a huge card pool is that "good cards squeeze out bad". In Magic, in block constructed play, you will see things you would not in standard, modern, legacy, or vintage. It's why limited play of CCGs is so often an attraction, including for some people with V:TES, where the most common argument for doing a draft is "you see plays you never see in contructed", and I have sympathy for that, though I still don't enjoy V:TES limited even as much as I enjoy Magic limited, and I don't particularly enjoy playing Magic.
Card pool rotation addresses issues that simple card pool expansion doesn't.
But, whatever, if V:TES got reprinted with all published cards, including e-sets, printed, that's much better than the current state. Fixing the game isn't as much about whether Conditioning is OP but about whether you can get new players, which is far more about simplifying the experience. If you handed people Jyhad and had them play, with all of the original card text (well, maybe not all of the original card text), where you get crazy stealth bleed against free Majesty, that's probably a far more marketable game than one with thousands of card choices and a better balance of strategies.
I know I'm rambling, but, as evidence of what I just said, when I play Jyhad demo decks, I'm amazed by how much faster and more active the game is, and remember that playing in that sort of environment is quite fun.
So, while I'll play with CL and build decks with CL for my own enjoyment, I don't find anything remotely compelling about the idea, where the argument for change or rebalance is to me an argument for transitioning the card pool to increase fluidity of environment.
I've done limited set decks (those who read my blog would know which ones) and am well aware of how certain things are missing from supposed core sets, including such things as a skill card for every discipline (Third has a lot of good things in its card pool, but, man, is the set easy to hate for so many reasons, including how it treats Obtenebration). Yet, if you have the time and inclination, try playing a game with only cards printed in Jyhad some time and see if you get an experience akin to what I get.
Traveller Card Game
> ICL wrote:
> Yet, if you have the time and inclination, try playing a game with only cards printed in Jyhad some time and see if you get an experience akin to what I get.
>
Designers of a new sets need to ambush Garfield, put a gun to his head, and make him to remember, for what purpose each card was put into the original game. Some knowledge was lost during the following years...
NC Russia
In addition to all the points made above there are plenty of cards that simply does not work with a card limit (Choir, Shattering Crescendo stand out).
The game is not built for a card limit I see absolutely no upside in introducing one.