Coming back to the game

Hi All Just joined the forum. Over the weekend I and a group of friends got together for the first time in a long, long time and had a couple of five player games. We had a great time and have since decided to meet up more frequently. I can see that proxy cards are now acceptable since the game was discontinued and there's a few resources for building decks and printing cards. I found Amaranth which seems great, but if there are any other recommendations out there please let me know I've been looking through this site (vekn) and I've downloaded the updated rules, but there's one thing that my group are resisting on. We always played with a 4-card duplicate limit in our decks. I'm pretty sure this was a hang up from our early play days and was probably ported over from Magic, but looking at Decks and the way the game is played it really seems like this limit was fairly arbitrary. A couple of the guys are up for doing away with it but some are resisting, arguing that it would be too easy to build power decks without limits. Anyone want to provide any general comments on this? My response is that getting rid of the arbitrary limit would allow a much bigger variety of decks, open us up to more clans and styles of play, while keeping it means that only a few types of play are actually viable. Also, any worry about someone filling up on overly powerful cards are balanced by deck size limits and vampire generations (something that we were fairly lax on) Any suggestions or discussion welcome! Des

Card limits enable some strategies to be more efficient than others. For instance, there are lots of stealth cards in Obsfuscate, making stealth easy to obtain with card limits, and a lot of different Dominate bleed actions and action modifiers. This makes stealth-bleed decks just as effective as they would be with unlimited choice. Other decks do not have the same breadth of options. How could you build a Temptation deck with only 4 Temptations? How do you counter Strike: Combat Ends in a combat deck? Immortal Grapple, Psyche!, etc. Presence has many ways to end combat, far outnumbering the counters available in a card limit environment, making combat even less effective. Card limits don't prevent power creep; card limits prevent entire deck options from existing. You actually make the game less interesting and less versatile with card limits because fewer decks can be effective.

While kschaefer is right to an extent, you won't hear anyone suggesting the grouping rule be revoked because it limits deck options, even though that is exactly what it does. And then the question arises: Why are there so many +stealth cards in Obfuscate and +bleed cards in Dominate, and S:CE cards in Presence, but the ways to counter S:CE are limited to Immortal Grapple in Potence and Psyche! in Celerity and Telepathic Tracking in Auspex. Why does Temptation use 'counters' but every other Serpentis card uses 'corruption counters' to achieve a similar effect? Why do these two things not interact *and* overlap in a non-synergistic way? (It's because this game is old and the design team(s) at the time were operating in an environment where there weren't that many good examples of successful CCG design and formatting. Magic was successful despite the odds, and was surviving on power-creep and unintentionally broken cards, YuGiOh was unashamed of it's ludicrous power-creep, and Pokemon had the 8 year old demographic to sustain it and multi-media to sustain it, design didn't matter. Every other CCG was dead or dying.) The problem with card limits is really one of functional duplicates and similar cards. There are only 3 Animalism cards that give +bleed: Deep Song, Adhocracy, and Tier of Souls. There is only 1 Army of Rats, and nothing else in Animalism really comes close to doing what it does to my knowledge. Card limits would require players to take those mediocre and lame cards out of their shoe-boxes, and to weigh them against each other, and put them into decks. But do players want to do that? Probably not. Even though players' decks would probably be more varied because each player would include different but functionally similar cards. And Black Chantry and Co. could support a move to card limits by printing cards that were functionally similar but different in key ways (beyond having an increased blood cost or a different inferior/superior option.) But they probably won't do that. And yes, any card limit imposed will ultimately be arbitrary - the same way starting with 30 pool instead of 35 was arbitrary or having 4 starting uncontrolled vampires instead of 5 or 6 was arbitrary. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

Welcome back! > Anyone want to provide any general comments on this? My response is that getting rid of the arbitrary limit would allow a much bigger variety of decks, open us up to more clans and styles of play, while keeping it means that only a few types of play are actually viable. Also, any worry about someone filling up on overly powerful cards are balanced by deck size limits and vampire generations (something that we were fairly lax on) > You're spot on. There's really no reason, I feel, not to play standard constructed tournament rules even on casual. The most 'broken' archetypes will be better than most even with the 4 card limit, or any limit for that matter. There is no single card in the game that would be unreasonable to spam at 60 copies. If you actually try it out, practice will most likely prove this pretty quickly. You'll find balance issues with limited card amounts too, don't you? Proxy printing with Amaranth is an excellent addition to the game. I whole heartedly recommend it. It added to my VtES experience a lot when introduced. And I've been playing this game for over a decade. I'm not saying that limited wouldn't be fun, if you're having fun. I'm just saying that keeping up to house rules just for the sake of it even if the world wide community has found standard formats even more fun might prevent you guys from having even MORE fun. TWDA is a great example of how the game hasn't been broken even on the highest levels of cheesing and major tournament levels, despite the unlimited card amounts. How's this: let each of you print out a tournament winning deck of their choice from 2018 or 2017, play a game, and see if you had fun or not! "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

The freedom of deck building is the best part of the game. If it had a 4 of limit i would quit in a second.

> desmondkenny wrote: > A couple of the guys are up for doing away with it but some are resisting, arguing that it would be too easy to build power decks without limits. > You can always tell them that decks have been built without limit for 25 years and yet, it has never been broken. But it all depends on what you call a "power deck". Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> desmondkenny wrote: > Anyone want to provide any general comments on this? My response is that getting rid of the arbitrary limit would allow a much bigger variety of decks, open us up to more clans and styles of play, while keeping it means that only a few types of play are actually viable. > The unlimited library card rule is major part of VTES' unique charm. It is quite interesting how it has not broken the game. It is also a testament to the game itself that there is no singular "best strategy" despite the lack of limit. I think its because the actions you can perform in a game are limited by your minions, and there are some other important limits such as the limit of specific playable action modifiers and reactions during an action (can only play one specific action modifier or reaction per action). You cannot play 20 conditionings on one bleed. The grouping rule I would rather keep in place, as I think it would be too easy to create optimized crypts per decktype without the grouping rule. This would push most crypt compositions out of the meta and we would be seeing same vampires over and over. So the grouping rule actually promotes versatility because you are forced to make choices in deckbuilding. For example, I'm currently working on a Setite vote deck. I have to make a choice whether I want to play Sarrasine or Neferu. I can't just slap them both into same crypt which would be an obvious choice if we had no grouping rule. So because of grouping, there is actually two distinctly different decks instead of just one in this example. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Just forget the card limits. Doesn't really matter especially if you proxy. Proxying has become acceptable, for official tournaments. But it'll end sooner or later now that the game is back in print. No one will ever stop you from proxying all you want for your casual games... Finnish Politics!

If they would make everything print on demand I would pay for new cards as opposed to proxy but Im okay with proxies in the mean time. Its good for the health of the game in the short term. As for card limits Ive played magic and there it at least limits deck costs. Only $500 for a good deck as opposed to $1000.... Yeah I'll stick with vtes.

Most of the best cards in the game are commons so the lack of card limits doesn't really make it more expensive, quite the contrary, it might make it more expensive since you would then need to get all the rare alternatives to the commons that do same thing slightly differently.

I should clarify I'm not against VTES having no card-copy limit. I actually think it is a testament to the game's core mechanics / structure that it can have no card-copy limits AND the instant draw-replace cycling rule, and still not be 'broken' (the closest thing might be the Una Freak Drive combo?) I would say experiment with card limits. Do 5-ofs, 6-ofs, 7-ofs, etc. But my prediction is that once you remove the card limit, you'll find entire swaths of cards being completely abandoned (becoming wall-paper) for cards that are strictly better or more general use. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it brings me to the point I was making earlier: Why do people argue against implementing a card-copy limit but won't advocate removing the grouping rule? Let's look at BloodArtist's response and tweak it a little. > BloodArtist wrote: > The card-copy limit I would rather keep in place, as I think it would be too easy to create optimized libraries per decktype without the card-copy limit rule. This would push most library cards out of the meta and we would be seeing same library cards over and over. So the card-copy limit rule actually promotes versatility because you are forced to make choices in deckbuilding. For example, I'm currently working on a Setite vote deck. I have to make a choice whether I want to play Awe or Bewitching Oration or Perfect Paragon or Business Pressure. I can't just slap x8 Bewitching Oration into same library which would be an obvious choice if we had no card-copy limit rule. So because of card-copy limits, there is actually several distinctly different decks instead of just one in this example. > Other arguments are also weak IMO: > AceFranklin wrote: > As for card limits Ive played magic and there it at least limits deck costs. Only $500 for a good deck as opposed to $1000.... Yeah I'll stick with vtes. > That's entirely due to Magic's business model of intentionally producing "chase rares". Magic isn't even engaged in power-creep, they've moved on to power-jog. It's a blatant money grab tactic. However, VTES has also had individual cards with ridiculous prices in the past due to limited print-runs and secondary market demand. > Lonkka wrote: > Just forget card limits. > Doesn't even offer pros or cons or reasons why. I imagine if he did it would be "because that's the way it has been for 25 years" (which is apparently called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy - suitable for an immortal, no?) > Ankha wrote: > You can always tell them that decks have been built without limit for 25 years and yet, it has never been broken. But it all depends on what you call a "power deck". > This goes back to the core structure and mechanics of the game, as well as the card-design which was pretty tame during the WW era, with a few exceptions here and there. It's often held as a strength of the game that you can still use Jyhad cards and be competitive. But that's a testament to the general power-level of the initial set and the subsequent WotC sets. The vast majority of cards WW put out were pretty weak by comparison. I think it's evident that VEKN / Black Chantry has put out some pretty powerful cards compared to what WW was doing, and that this increase in power-level was generally welcomed and well received by the community. > Klatial wrote: > Most of the best cards in the game are commons so the lack of card limits doesn't really make it more expensive, quite the contrary, it might make it more expensive since you would then need to get all the rare alternatives to the commons that do same thing slightly differently. > In a world where the contents of the packs not randomized and are known beforehand, as Black Chantry's print-on-demand is currently doing, there is no rarity among cards. Some cards may be more or less powerful in certain situations, but everyone has the exact same odds of getting the exact same cards. Which should make the expense easily calculable (and arguably less expensive) for buyers, since they're no longer praying you'll get the copies of the card you need. Card limits would also prevent you from buying 4x Keepers of Tradition Bundle No.1 just so you can get the 8x copies of Deep Song you need for your Animalism deck (and thus ending up with 8x copies of some random vampire you don't need that many copies of.) As far as cards that do the same thing slightly differently, that's the best thing about these kinds of card games IMO. Having cards that encapsulate different ideas and themes and execute on that in unique ways within the game, that result in different options for play. --- But DesmondKenny, you should do whatever your group thinks will result in the most fun and such, as Kraus suggests. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> Doesn't even offer pros or cons or reasons why. I imagine if he did it would be "because that's the way it has been for 25 years" (which is apparently called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy - suitable for an immortal, no?) > I have one for you: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's actually as simple as that, really. There is no possible way to avoid wallpaper and failed card designs from time to time. VtES' system is good for what it tries to accomplish. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Thank you all so much for your responses. I've been messaging the guys and they've come around We were all Vampire role-players when Jyhad was first released and a lot of the cards we play with are from the first printing. I think a big part of the reason we put the limit in place was not only as a hangover from M:TG, but because of the free easy ability of a couple of players to constantly wake, block and strike:combat ends pretty freely making it difficult to tackle them. Of course, with being able to print cards, tackling this anyways wouldn't be a problem. But having a card limit in place does limit deck builds. A large part of their reluctance is because this was simply how we played over the years when we did manage to get together, and why change it, but with the possibility of printing cards that changes things a lot. In terms of power gaming, I suppose I would look at a card like Ahrimane's Demesne or Entombment (just some of the great cards I was unaware of) - I mean, rushing ready vampire's with cards like that is scary - but, they are both 'balanced' I suppose by the high blood cost - itself difficult when getting in to combat - and one requires both long range and a second round of combat But even those kind of cards aside, some of the guys weren't sure about having 14 Kine Resources contested in a single deck (as was in one of the tournament lists) I suppose we'll start playing with deck builds and try it out on our next meet. I think just being able to build some lists that we've always wanted to build will be fun enough to convince them finally (I'll steer clear of sticking 10 Ahrimane's Demesne's in my deck just to not be a that guy!) Thanks all again

> desmondkenny wrote: > In terms of power gaming, I suppose I would look at a card like Ahrimane's Demesne or Entombment (just some of the great cards I was unaware of) - I mean, rushing ready vampire's with cards like that is scary - but, they are both 'balanced' I suppose by the high blood cost - itself difficult when getting in to combat - and one requires both long range and a second round of combat > Second round combat effects are unreliable at best, but Entombments good. The expense, the fact that you're still taking damage from the opponent's hit, that fact that it's dodgeable, foiled by S:CE, etc. It's not weak, but it doesn't always hit its mark either. > desmondkenny wrote: > But even those kind of cards aside, some of the guys weren't sure about having 14 Kine Resources contested in a single deck (as was in one of the tournament lists) > Sure, but decks like that can be foiled by Delaying Tactics, which prevents any vampire controlled by the Methuselah from calling the same vote this turn on top of canceling the current referendum. It's an extremely common vote defense mechanism. So, all KRCs is often a weakness. But each vote has the chance to be blocked, how much stealth did the deck have? If it had a lot, how did it pass votes? With push With titles? I say these things to provoke your analysis because every tournament winning deck is weak against something. The deck excelled on that day in that metagame. In your group, it may not fair as well. When looking at the TWD and seeing how decks are constructed, you'll discover that there's no one right answer for any deck type. A lot of playing depends on your style and the decks around you.

> In terms of power gaming, I suppose I would look at a card like Ahrimane's Demesne or Entombment (just some of the great cards I was unaware of) - I mean, rushing ready vampire's with cards like that is scary - but, they are both 'balanced' I suppose by the high blood cost - itself difficult when getting in to combat - and one requires both long range and a second round of combat > If you want to look at power gaming, do not start with combat. It is the least efficient part of the game because it does not directly affect your prey's pool. The power gaming discipline of the game is Dominate with Govern the Unaligned, Conditioning and Deflection.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > In terms of power gaming, I suppose I would look at a card like Ahrimane's Demesne or Entombment (just some of the great cards I was unaware of) - I mean, rushing ready vampire's with cards like that is scary - but, they are both 'balanced' I suppose by the high blood cost - itself difficult when getting in to combat - and one requires both long range and a second round of combat > > > If you want to look at power gaming, do not start with combat. It is the least efficient part of the game because it does not directly affect your prey's pool. The power gaming discipline of the game is Dominate with Govern the Unaligned, Conditioning and Deflection. > All of the most efficient cards fall in here. Deflection is the most efficient way to redirect a bleed. Conditioning is the most efficient bleed pump. Govern is the most efficient card that either bleeds or moves pool to uncontrolled minions as you choose (so its pool or acceleration). Something I noticed after KoT was out awhile (so possibly after HttB) was the more cards that served multiple functions, such as Eyes of Argus/Sense the Savage Way, or Deep Song, or Govern, the better the deck flowed and the more reliably it played. It seems obvious to nearly all players that this is a thing, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be stated. Also, voting with is strictly better than without, because Voter Captivation is too effective at refilling minions and gaining pool to not mention it, and Awe let's you put enough votes behind almost anything that isn't getting DTd if you're already running titled vamps.

> desmondkenny wrote: > I think a big part of the reason we put the limit in place was not only as a hangover from M:TG, but because of the free easy ability of a couple of players to constantly wake, block and strike:combat ends pretty freely making it difficult to tackle them. > Just need more stealth in the opposing deck. Or a way to take care of strike: combat end (S:CE), like Immortal Grapple or Psyche! etc. > desmondkenny wrote: > But even those kind of cards aside, some of the guys weren't sure about having 14 Kine Resources contested in a single deck (as was in one of the tournament lists) > 14 ain't even all THAT many. Such focused decks can be MURDER and often the focused ones are. Try it and you'll see that especially in a feebly toolboxy "I'm all over the place and not focused at all" deck environment. Doesn't need to be that 14 KRCs deck, 20 copies of Kindred Spirits or 20 copies of Govern the Unaligned (or whatever) would be a solid choice too. Even the deck you mentioned about (constant waking, blocking and combat ending) sounds pretty much like a rather focused a deck. Not necessarily a very good one as the mechanism you told just (tries to) keeps it in the game but is there anything to go forward with and oust preys? Casual games with such decks can drag on and on for hours and the winner of such game isn't necessarily a good game. Once you get the hang of the game rules, try to play even the casual games with the 2 hour time limit used for tournaments (used for a very good reason). Finnish Politics!

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > Lonkka wrote: > > Just forget card limits. > > > Doesn't even offer pros or cons or reasons why. I imagine if he did it would be "because that's the way it has been for 25 years" (which is apparently called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy - suitable for an immortal, no?) > *facepalm* Some of us might not have time in hand to devote to forum presence... Luckily we have you with your unlimited hands on experience in the game to type the forum full of lengthy responses! Finnish Politics!

> LivesByProxy wrote: > But my prediction is that once you remove the card limit, you'll find entire swaths of cards being completely abandoned (becoming wall-paper) for cards that are strictly better or more general use. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it brings me to the point I was making earlier: > I think you got this entirely backwards. No card limit actually allows more cards to be used than implementing a card limit. Think of very common cards that have basically no monetary value on their own: cards like torn signpost, conditioning, blood doll etc. If a card limit X was implemented, you could only put up to X cards into your deck. This would mean that every other such card you own would be useless. In a TCG-model with randomized boosters, this would mean that when you open booster you would have very high chance of opening garbage that has no use and no monetary value. In VTES, those cards can still find use since they can be used in large numbers in some decks. Back when I was still opening boosters, opening a VTES booster was much more interesting than opening a magic booster because I was much much more likely to find something actually usable. (In magic I gave up buying booster products a long time ago since its waste of money in every sense of the word. I only buy singleton cards from secondhand sellers). In a Living Card Game-model (fixed contents), you only buy bundles that you need, ensuring you most likely won't end up with useless card you have no use for. On the other hand, having a no card limit along with LCG-style boosters is a great boon for the manufacturer since it instills a need to buy more bundles than you would with a card limit if you want to build certain decks. If there was a limit, you would only buy the minimum amount of bundles necessary to get that card limit X amount. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I will say this once only. Everyone, make sure this topic will have neither presumptious argumentative accusations, nor lashing towards a person instead of post contents from here on. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Hi Des, thats great that you and your group of friends are enjoying the game again. Its definitely a very good time to return, since Black Chantry Productions has the game back in print ! I wanted to share some thoughts, because your concerns reminded me of my own "struggle" moving from 4 card limit to no card limit. When we started playing competitively back in 1995 the organizers in Austria decided to go with a 4 card limit. Since there was no repeat action ruling at that time, players could use cards to tap all your vampires and then go bleed you 5 times with 1 vampire. This was kinda "broken" and thus the card limit was used. (Ventrue bleed was still crazy powerful with 4x misdirection, 4x majesty and 4x freak drive though) But then the first European Championship came along, and since it was the first big international event, we had to get rid of our local 4 card limit rule. I remember i wasnt happy about it. You are getting thrown off your comfort zone, all the experience you accumulated with deckbuilding and the meta felt kinda lost. There are still playgroups out there that use a 4 card limit house rule, or some players making 4 card limit decks and take them to tournaments, even with good success. My advice would be: First and foremost you should have fun playing, and if that takes away your friends fun, you probably shouldnt force the no card limit rule onto them. (logical reasoning usually wont help much if you they feel bad about it). Maybe you can agree that some of you play with their beloved 4 card limit and some try to experiment with no card limit. For example i hold on to the 4 card limit a long time, with just a few exceptions like playing 6 copies of certain cards to stay competitive enough. best wishes, and keep bleeding Martin Weinmayer

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I should clarify I'm not against VTES having no card-copy limit. I actually think it is a testament to the game's core mechanics / structure that it can have no card-copy limits AND the instant draw-replace cycling rule, and still not be 'broken' (the closest thing might be the Una Freak Drive combo?) > Una/Freak Drive is a combo deck. Like all combo decks in VTES, there's a greater chance of the deck spinning its wheels and flaming out than actually working. I would not consider it even close to broken. > I would say experiment with card limits. Do 5-ofs, 6-ofs, 7-ofs, etc. But my prediction is that once you remove the card limit, you'll find entire swaths of cards being completely abandoned (becoming wall-paper) for cards that are strictly better or more general use. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it brings me to the point I was making earlier: > > Why do people argue against implementing a card-copy limit but won't advocate removing the grouping rule? > It boils down to this: library cards were deliberately designed without a card limit in mind to keep the design space for library cards wide open. The grouping rule was deliberately introduced later to expand the design space for crypt cards. I don't think I need to explain that library cards and crypt cards function very differently, and that's why no restrictions on library cards but restrictions on crypt cards achieves the same purpose: expanded design space. Because of no restrictions on library cards, one can have a deck with 12 cards that limit hand strikes. Because of the grouping rule, including both Arika and Keith Moody in every deck ever is impossible. One may question why only one card limiting hand strikes exists in Potence where obfuscate has many + stealth cards. The answer is because Immortal Grapple does not say "Opposing minion can't dodge and Strike: Combat Ends." It has a paragraph of text that is very confusing to a player unless that player knows how the card works. It's best to have just one card of this type, so when the player sees the pretty picture of 2 vampires fighting each other, they know "Hey, I can counter Strike: Combat Ends with this. Let me add 12 of them." Compare that with cards that say simply "+1 stealth," and that's why so many types of stealth cards exist in obfuscate. > > Lonkka wrote: > > Just forget card limits. > > > Doesn't even offer pros or cons or reasons why. I imagine if he did it would be "because that's the way it has been for 25 years" (which is apparently called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy - suitable for an immortal, no?) > I have heard this constantly, from many different people on this forum, that saying "VTES has been this way for 25 years" is a fallacious argument against changing something in the game. No, it is not. If VTES was being overhauled into something not resembling the Jyhad set released in 1994, okay, this is a fallacious argument. The fact is, the game is pretty much the same game it was in 1994, and there is no indication this is changing anytime soon. The reason why is precisely because the game has functioned just fine for 25 years while essentially building upon that first set released in 1994, which was desingned with no card limits for library cards and a tiny by comparison crypt selection (hence why the grouping rule was instituted later as crypt options expanded).

> angrynewb wrote: > Hi Des, > > thats great that you and your group of friends are enjoying the game again. Its definitely a very good time to return, since Black Chantry Productions has the game back in print ! > > I wanted to share some thoughts, because your concerns reminded me of my own "struggle" moving from 4 card limit to no card limit. > > When we started playing competitively back in 1995 the organizers in Austria decided to go with a 4 card limit. Since there was no repeat action ruling at that time, players could use cards to tap all your vampires and then go bleed you 5 times with 1 vampire. This was kinda "broken" and thus the card limit was used. (Ventrue bleed was still crazy powerful with 4x misdirection, 4x majesty and 4x freak drive though) > > But then the first European Championship came along, and since it was the first big international event, we had to get rid of our local 4 card limit rule. > I remember i wasnt happy about it. You are getting thrown off your comfort zone, all the experience you accumulated with deckbuilding and the meta felt kinda lost. > > There are still playgroups out there that use a 4 card limit house rule, or some players making 4 card limit decks and take them to tournaments, even with good success. > > My advice would be: > First and foremost you should have fun playing, and if that takes away your friends fun, you probably shouldnt force the no card limit rule onto them. (logical reasoning usually wont help much if you they feel bad about it). Maybe you can agree that some of you play with their beloved 4 card limit and some try to experiment with no card limit. > For example i hold on to the 4 card limit a long time, with just a few exceptions like playing 6 copies of certain cards to stay competitive enough. > > best wishes, and keep bleeding > > Martin Weinmayer > Fun should be the point. I would say reasonably that an 8 card limit for several decks, if the OPs playgroup backsteps on the issue, isn't nearly as terrible. Akunanse No Secrets, Many !Ventrue builds that use 8caps as 1/4 of the deck, Toolboxy tremere, and many more. Of course, substantially more decks become strong at 10 copies of Govern, but if they insist on a card limit, 8 is less crippling than 4.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I have heard this constantly, from many different people on this forum, that saying "VTES has been this way for 25 years" is a fallacious argument against changing something in the game. No, it is not. > www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > I think you got this entirely backwards. No card limit actually allows more cards to be used than implementing a card limit. > > Think of very common cards that have basically no monetary value on their own: cards like torn signpost, conditioning, blood doll etc. If a card limit X was implemented, you could only put up to X cards into your deck. This would mean that every other such card you own would be useless. In a TCG-model with randomized boosters, this would mean that when you open booster you would have very high chance of opening garbage that has no use and no monetary value. In VTES, those cards can still find use since they can be used in large numbers in some decks. > > In a Living Card Game-model (fixed contents), you only buy bundles that you need, ensuring you most likely won't end up with useless card you have no use for. On the other hand, having a no card limit along with LCG-style boosters is a great boon for the manufacturer since it instills a need to buy more bundles than you would with a card limit if you want to build certain decks. If there was a limit, you would only buy the minimum amount of bundles necessary to get that card limit X amount. > About the card copy limits: If there was a limit of X per each unique card, you would have to use more unique game components (i.e. different cards) from your collection. What VTES has currently is that the majority of your collection - your unique game components - goes unused. I guess you would have to make a value judgement. Which would you prefer? That more of your unique game components are relevant? Or that more of the same game components are relevant because there is no arbitrary card limit? If you're building a 80 card deck - that's 80 game pieces being used, but when 10 of those 80 are the same card, you're necessarily seeing less unique game pieces than if there were only 4 of those, and 4 of another, and 2 of another. Just look through your own collection. How many copies of TSP do you have? Now how many other Potence cards do you have that are sitting in a binder or shoe-box or are glued to walls because it's better to just play 10 TSP? If we agree that in any card game there are going to be better and worse cards, then it should stand to reason that the 'worse cards' will not get played when players can take infinity copies of the 'better cards' and use those. An arbitrary card limit forces players to use more of their unique game pieces from their collection. That's why card limits where introduced in Magic way back when - because without them every Red deck had 30+ Lightning Bolts and every other card like it was simply out-classed and not used. And regarding Living Card Games, the general consensus is that 'forcing' the consumers to buy 3 Core Sets just to get the actual game is a dick move on the part of FFG. Not that it isn't lucrative or a smart business practice from a profit perspective, but that it is lame that a 'Core Set' is basically incomplete and upon getting 3 copies you're left with a bunch of game pieces you can't use and have no need for. It also goes against the ethos of the LCG model - low monetary barrier to entry i.e. this isn't a money pit like Magic. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > It boils down to this: library cards were deliberately designed without a card limit in mind to keep the design space for library cards wide open. > How? I don't understand how card-copy limits relates to keeping design space open. The design space of a game is a limited by the game's mechanics and terms. If what you're saying was true, or at least executed in practice, I would think we would have more cards that do a wider variety of things and more cards that do similar things with interesting differences. But if we look at Potence for example, or Auspex, or Obfuscate especially, we see so many cards doing the exact same thing with very little variation or consequence. Despite all of this open design space supposedly allowed by the lack of card-copy limits, 80% of most Potence cards aren't used because they're a worse version of TSP. Sorry, I don't see how the lack of card-copy limits keeps design space open. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > It boils down to this: library cards were deliberately designed without a card limit in mind to keep the design space for library cards wide open. > > > How? I don't understand how card-copy limits relates to keeping design space open. > Without card limits, only one card that limits to hand strikes (immortal grapple) and one card that restarts combat (psyche) was needed in Jyhad to make combat a difinitive archetype separate from other archetypes. With card limits, multiple cards limiting to hand strikes/restarting combat would have been needed for the combat archetype to exist. This would have introduced “design lag,” where design space is taken up by analogous cards. In the days of Jyhad, this means that Cat Burglary, Distraction, Thrown Gate, and Rampage would not have had the design space available if 4 other Immortal Grapple/Psyche analogues needed to be included in the set. Therefore, card limits would have sacrificed design space in potence and celerity. This is why card limits were not hard coded into VTES. > The design space of a game is a limited by the game's mechanics and terms. If what you're saying was true, or at least executed in practice, I would think we would have more cards that do a wider variety of things and more cards that do similar things with interesting differences. But if we look at Potence for example, or Auspex, or Obfuscate especially, we see so many cards doing the exact same thing with very little variation or consequence. Despite all of this open design space supposedly allowed by the lack of card-copy limits, 80% of most Potence cards aren't used because they're a worse version of TSP. > This may be true at the highest level of VTES, where people know that Torn Signpost + Immortal Grapple is a strong combination. This is not true in the vaccum in which people green to the game find themselves in. These people are free to start a play group and make a Cat Burglary deck and see what happens. They could not if Cat Burglary did not exist but for the need of Psyche analogues in Celerity to buttress the combat archetype in the context of card limits. >

Also, Potence does very little other that red cards and cards that give standing +strength, if you're using cards that are even somewhat efficient. You could say Potence as a primary component will rely on either TSP or supplant it in part with PS/HM or innate strength on minions and combo it with Immortal Grapple, probably spicing it up with Disarms, Slams, and Lids. Potence could use the ability to maybe vote, but it's good at hitting hard and grappling. In short, there have been suboptimal cards printed quite liberally in the past, but a handful are playable, and while another grapple could've been printed and that design space essentially duplicated, it wasn't. It doesn't fit the business model, isn't great for the current game compared to other things that could be done, and such things would add nothing to the game but getting around an arbitrarily extant rule that 25 years of (what is implied to be insubstantial) the games evolution have made not relevant as an option. I don't think the OP was asking about what parts of the rulebook one person didn't like, but I hope their questions have been answered as to ways to show how arbitrary card limits are.

I have said before, and say again, if your playgroup is dead set on 4 card limit, just make a Malk 94 deck and sweep every table until they admit that card limits are bad. (with malk 94 you have access 5 different bleed modifiers, at least 4 different bleed actions without having to look at outferiors of bloodlien discplines or discipleneless cards, 5 different bounce cards and 4 different wakes, and more different stealth cards than you really need).

> Klaital wrote: > I have said before, and say again, if your playgroup is dead set on 4 card limit, just make a Malk 94 deck and sweep every table until they admit that card limits are bad. (with malk 94 you have access 5 different bleed modifiers, at least 4 different bleed actions without having to look at outferiors of bloodlien discplines or discipleneless cards, 5 different bounce cards and 4 different wakes, and more different stealth cards than you really need). > Also leverage. Not all disciplineless are useless, leverage and Command 'O Beast throw off math. Malk '94 and lawfirm can eat tables alive with that sort of limit.