Question 'bout Talbot Chainsaw
francoi...@my-deja.com
That is, can I add some kind of damage just like the others melee
weapon?
Thanx.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
LSJ
>
> Is the Talbot Chainsaw a melee weapon? Or just a "Unique weapon"?
> That is, can I add some kind of damage just like the others melee
> weapon?
It is not a melee weapon, since it doesn't say "melee weapon".
You can add damage to it with, say, Mass Reality, since it
boosts all your weapons. You could not increase its damage with
Lucky Blow, however, since Lucky Blow is only usable with a
hand strike or melee weapon strike.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Mike Ooi
LSJ wrote in message <39AFA6C3...@white-wolf.com>...
>It is not a melee weapon, since it doesn't say "melee weapon".
>You can add damage to it with, say, Mass Reality, since it
>boosts all your weapons. You could not increase its damage with
>Lucky Blow, however, since Lucky Blow is only usable with a
>hand strike or melee weapon strike.
So a situation in which Werewolf Pack could have become marginally useful
(aka Talbot's and Ambrosius combo) has been officially nixed.
Apparently, the WerePaper Pack Activist Garoup needs to hire a better
lobbyist...
James Coupe
<sh...@texas.net> writes
>Apparently, the WerePaper Pack Activist Garoup needs to hire a better
>lobbyist...
Werewolf Pack was an astoundingly bad card. I am surprised someone ever
thought of it, to be honest.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
"Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful
they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why
it's possible I could get by."
akais...@my-deja.com
Ouch... I think "the card say so" is a weak argumentation...V-tes and
Jyhad are so filled of misprints that some thinking is a must.
Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the
Talbot's is not ?
LSJ is the V-tes rep. nevertheless...
Akaisuisei
James Coupe
>Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the
>Talbot's is not ?
Neither Talbot's Chainsaw nor Chainsaw were melee weapons. It certainly
seems intentional. Were one or the other to be a melee weapon, it would
be possible to argue for a mis-print.
Derek Ray
>Ouch... I think "the card say so" is a weak argumentation...V-tes and
>Jyhad are so filled of misprints that some thinking is a must.
>Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the
>Talbot's is not ?
Gas-Powered Chainsaw, released in SABBAT, not V:TES or Jyhad,
shouldn't be a melee weapon either. No matter how hard you hit
someone with a chainsaw, it's the chain rotating that does the damage,
so it shouldn't benefit from any strenght bonuses. As James Coupe
said, neither Talbot's nor the original Chainsaw were listed as melee
weapons - and probably for good reason.
"The card says so" is the very basis of any CCG, by the way. If
there's no good reason to alter what the card says, then it shouldn't
be changed. Even though Gas-Powered Chainsaw ought to be a non-melee
weapon, it doesn't significantly affect the game that someone can play
Torn Signpost and strike with it for 5 -- so nothing gets changed.
-- Derek
Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
John Whelan
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 01:22:43 GMT, akais...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Ouch... I think "the card say so" is a weak argumentation...V-tes and
> >Jyhad are so filled of misprints that some thinking is a must.
> >Look at the "Gas Powered Chainsaw", it's a melee weapon, so why the
> >Talbot's is not ?
>
> Gas-Powered Chainsaw, released in SABBAT, not V:TES or Jyhad,
> shouldn't be a melee weapon either. No matter how hard you hit
> someone with a chainsaw, it's the chain rotating that does the damage,
> so it shouldn't benefit from any strenght bonuses. As James Coupe
> said, neither Talbot's nor the original Chainsaw were listed as melee
> weapons - and probably for good reason.
I agree that the original 2 are not melee weapons, and were printed that
way intentionally, and should stay that way 'cause "fixing" them is not
worth the confusion and extra errata. However, I think that the
designation of "melee weapon" on "gas powered chainsaw" is a good thing,
and, in retrospect, probably would have been a good thing on Chainsaw &
Talbots as well (both being rather underpowered).
The fact that all the chainsaws (including "gas powered") are not based on
hand damage (unlike almost all other melee weapons since the V:tES
revisions) limits them very much. Thus, you cannot use any chainsaw in
combo with Fists of Death, or Torn Signpost, or inherent hand damage
bonuses, or Ritual Challenge, or Depravity. Sure, with Gas-Powered you
can manage a "Lucky Blow" or with Potence you could play Undead Strength
and potentially boost it indefinitely with Increased Strength, but your
options are far more limited than with Hand-Damage-based weapons.
A chainsaw is a very heavy weapon, and it depends on some pressure as well
as its rotation. It would be odd, I think, to argue that strength is
COMPLETELY irrelevant to its effective use in hand to hand
combat. Strength is merely LESS relevant than it would be for a bastard
sword. Such a situation is simulated by having both weapons designated as
"melee", but only the bastard sword based on hand-damage.
In the original Jyhad set, Bastard Swords and similar melee weapons were
not based on hand-damage, and could only benefit from those strength
bonuses that effected melee weapons. Therefore, the designers decided
that Chainsaws were not melee weapons at all, in order to simulate the
lesser effect of strength. Then the V:tES set further boosted melee
weapons by basing them on hand damage, leaving the poor chainsaws far
behind. The Sabbat set finally allowed the GP chainsaw to catch up a
little bit by designating it a "melee weapon" but not basing it on hand
damage.
> "The card says so" is the very basis of any CCG, by the way. If
> there's no good reason to alter what the card says, then it shouldn't
> be changed. Even though Gas-Powered Chainsaw ought to be a non-melee
> weapon, it doesn't significantly affect the game that someone can play
> Torn Signpost and strike with it for 5 -- so nothing gets changed.
Well, actually you CAN'T do that, because Torn Signpost do not boost melee
weapons unless they are based on hand damage. Other things that you
cannot do are strike more than once in a combat (apparently the things run
out of gas REAL fast). Compare a bastard sword (which costs the same).
You can continue to strike with it on subsequent rounds, and it benefits
from multiple strikes as well. The Gas-Powered Chainsaw needed to be a
melee weapon, if only so it would not COMPLETELY suck in comparison with a
bastard sword. As it is, the GCP is better only if you are certain you
will not have any hand damage, additional strikes, or additional rounds of
combat.
Incidentally, Talbots chainsaw DOES benefit from multiple strike per
round, which might seem odd for a chainsaw. But it is hard to complain of
lack of realism when dealing with an obviously supernatural artifact.
-- John Whelan
jan_chr...@my-deja.com
> Apparently, the WerePaper Pack Activist Garoup
needs to hire a better
> lobbyist...
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd
like to know what (house) rules people use to
make cards like Werewolf Pack or Dartmoor
interesting.
can...@my-deja.com
instead. Dartmoor we use as is.
Is anyone using house rules for Oxford University, Ravnos Cache, Grand
Tempel of Set?
Mark & Kathy ShaneWood
Mike Ooi <sh...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:agus5.335056$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com...
> >> I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd
> >> like to know what (house) rules people use to
> >> make cards like Werewolf Pack or Dartmoor
> >> interesting.
>
> >Tempel of Set?
>
> our Austin Expansion cards.
>
Hrm... I use Submachine Guns for proxies...
I'd just like to defend Grand Temple Of Set. It's pretty much like any
other card that you need to defend. Yes, it's a target, but as part of a
deck with decent intercept (which is hard to do with "pure" Setites, but
_easy_ with aus/pre or aus/obf, which crosses over with Setites well) it's a
nice toy. Influence your prey's vampires? Especially the one with all that
cool _stuff_ on it? Valuable.
It's certainly not in the same wallpaper category as Oxford U....
Mark Shanewood
Prince of Minneapolis
(who _likes_ stealing vampires)
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In article <s9s4rssn5skkjduel...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
><lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Talbot's is FAR from underpowered - rather, it's horribly overpowered,
>
>I would say that it's far from overpowered because:
Well, overpowered with limitations, if that makes any sense. Once you
solve
>>you have to figure out how to
>>apply the damage on every one of your untaps.
this problem, you are in possession of one of the nastiest weapons in
the game - and it comes with a built-in Rush.
It's not BROKEN, just very, very good.
>and would cite a noted Jyhad player who declared that, when it was in
>play:
>
>>you are on a slow spiral to
>>oblivion
Well, you ARE. The 30-Arms Dealer deck, for example, will eventually
run out of Arms Dealers to apply the damage to. I have a version that
uses multiple Restorations to drop blood back into the vampires, and
eventually I will run out of Restorations. I have another version
that uses Embraced Tremere and the Chantry (the "yo-yo" method), but
eventually either you'll run out of blood, pool, or Embraces (when
people get tired of watching you bounce, and intercept their hunt).
But just because you're on the way down doesn't mean you can't make
sure everyone else goes with you, and then you come back up (by
eventually killing the bearer of Talbot's with its own damage). =)
The only deck that avoids this is the Ambrosius deck, and that
requires an awful lot of Ambrosius to make sure you get him BEFORE you
get the Chainsaw. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure there's any
way to fish through your library and locate a retainer, so it really
depends entirely on luck of the draw.
legb...@my-deja.com
Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool back by
Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO. IME Ravnos cache works
OK too, so does Acquired Ventrue assets. i've never had the guts to build
a Grand Temple deck but i think that might turn out to be quite a good
card in a Tzimisce/Setite or possibly Setite/!Toreador intercept/combat
deck deck [with the Goth band].
As for the Werewolf pack, it's true they are shit in constructed deck but
they make nice blockers in sealed deck, and dartmoor is MARGINALLY
worthwhile in a Tier of Souls kinda deck.
cantila
We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well.
IME Ravnos cache works
> OK too,
How's so? It's only worth it if you spend more than 4 pool on weapons
and even then you still risk someone burning it before. While it's not
totally useless, I don't think it's worth including in deck.
Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one is
useless!
so does Acquired Ventrue assets. i've never had the guts to build
> a Grand Temple deck but i think that might turn out to be quite a good
> card in a Tzimisce/Setite or possibly Setite/!Toreador
intercept/combat
> deck deck [with the Goth band].
Well even if you have intercept to block and all I think it's still a
bit too risky and a very expensive tactic. Both prey and predator would
be interested in burning the temple, hard to have enough of minions to
block them both.
>
> As for the Werewolf pack, it's true they are shit in constructed deck
but
> they make nice blockers in sealed deck, and dartmoor is MARGINALLY
> worthwhile in a Tier of Souls kinda deck.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> > Oxford University is quite good really. Use it to vote-push your
> weenie
> > Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool back by
> > Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO.
>
> We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well.
Interesting, another reason not to play with a cl. It creates
wallpaper cards
> IME Ravnos cache works
> > OK too,
>
> How's so? It's only worth it if you spend more than 4 pool on weapons
> and even then you still risk someone burning it before. While it's not
> totally useless, I don't think it's worth including in deck.
Combine it with Mass Reallity, and it becomes quite scary
> Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one
is
> useless!
Unless you use it as the basis for a Goodnight Sweet Prince/Possession
deck, where you Goodnight Sweet Prince your own crypt and then using
superior necromancy, pull the vampire into your ready region for free.
Hope this helps.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
cantila
X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote:
>
>
> > > Oxford University is quite good really. Use it to vote-push your
> > weenie
> > > Brujah to positions of power. Then get all the pool back by
> > > Consanguineous Boons. No house rule required, IMO.
> >
> > We have a 4 CL in my playgroup so that wouldn't work too well.
>
> Interesting, another reason not to play with a cl. It creates
> wallpaper cards
But CL also make you use cards you normally wouldn't, and prevents real
dull and boring strategies based on very few cards. I'd say that
without CL, you naturally have even more wallpaper cards.
>
> > IME Ravnos cache works
> > > OK too,
> >
> > How's so? It's only worth it if you spend more than 4 pool on
weapons
> > and even then you still risk someone burning it before. While it's
not
> > totally useless, I don't think it's worth including in deck.
>
> Combine it with Mass Reallity, and it becomes quite scary
Well I could use a Horrid Reality instead, or Castle Heidelburg (that
has other good uses too), or simply pay for the equipment like normally
(only if you equip a whole lot it's worth it, and as I said you risk to
have it burned before so).
>
> > Came to think of another card too, Goodnight Sweet Prince...that one
> is
> > useless!
>
> Unless you use it as the basis for a Goodnight Sweet Prince/Possession
> deck, where you Goodnight Sweet Prince your own crypt and then using
> superior necromancy, pull the vampire into your ready region for free.
Hmm that was a new one =) I never thought about using it on your own
ccrypt. It does make some strange deck though, requiring ravnos with
necromancy and then mix in some camarilla princes...not sure it's worth
that heh. But ok, it could be fun to try out =P
Derek Ray
wrote:
>But CL also make you use cards you normally wouldn't, and prevents real
>dull and boring strategies based on very few cards. I'd say that
>without CL, you naturally have even more wallpaper cards.
Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the
available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple
discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for
V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the
one you just mentioned.
Simply put, however, if someone wishes to be dull, let them - they
only hurt themselves. One-trick pony decks tend to die when someone
counters the trick. A deck with 20 Governs and 20 Lost in Crowds
tends to fail miserably when you quit blocking it, or if you start
bouncing bleeds, or if you start using 2nd Tradition or Enhanced
Senses.. you get the idea. Or if you Rush it and beat up its
vampires.
cantila
Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we
meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will
play and thus make a counterstrategy for a 20 Governs deck for example.
We also allow repeated actions since we have a CL. There cna be tons of
arguments for and against, but I think every playgroup should be
allowed to play as they think is the best. Nobody in our playgroup has
ever wanted a change and there's another playgroup in the city next to
ours that also play by the same houserules as we do. That totals about
25 people. We're all happy about how it's now. I think a great benefit
with CL is that you know how many cards you need to collect as well.
For example there's no point in getting more than 4 of a rare, so if
someone gets a 5th he'll trade it away, which allows the newbies to get
a chance to trade for some nice cards. And I think it feels just
generally good to have a limit as to how many cards you need to
collect, or worry about getitng played. The major point is that anyone
can win with a deck based on only a few cards, I think it's a quite
lame tactic to be frank. It doesn't require much of skill and makes the
game really boring for the others. As I said, since people change their
decks constantly here you cannot really counter it either, because if
you try to and he's changed thedeck, your own deck might not be all
that good anymore.
And I think also that you should make a deck as you feel like playing
it, and not contruct one only because "you have to counter someone
else's", how fun is that?
There's arguments that with a CL you can still get around it by using 4
Rampage and 4 Arson for example, that has the same effect. Well while
this is true, they're not exactly the same, Rampage requires potence
for example, and if you try go Earth Meld and Majesty combo it's the
same thign. It DOES affect your deck negatively to have to throw in a
lot of skill cards ot make the combo work etc. Most importantly
however, is that of the truly great cards, there's no similar cards
(like immortal grapple) so for these you can only have 4. Same goes
with Temptation of Greater Power etc etc. But as I said, every
playgroup should go for what they feel is thebest. This is what we feel
is the best solution for us.
My 2 cents,
cantila
cantila
I forgot to say that we have two exceptions to the 4 CL rule. With
skill cards and the card Corruption we have no CL. As for Corruption I
think it's obvious why, and as for the skill cards, we figured that you
usually only use more than 4 of a skill card if you want to include a
discipline that very few of your vampires has, and it meaks it a lot
more fun to be able to try out Gangrels with Serpentis for example.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In article <4ucarsk9pjlke7mf8...@4ax.com>,
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again,...
>> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the
>> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple
>> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for
>> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the
>> one you just mentioned.
>Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we
>meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will
So does ours. We build, rebuild, and throw out weekly.
>play and thus make a counterstrategy for a 20 Governs deck for example.
each deck should have a counter for bleed, vote, and combat. If you
choose not to include such a counter in your deck, then you shouldn't
be surprised if you get rolled by a deck type. Some people (myself
included) take that risk in some decks. But if you have a counter for
bleed decks, what does it matter what bleed cards they use?
>We also allow repeated actions since we have a CL. There cna be tons of
>arguments for and against, but I think every playgroup should be
>allowed to play as they think is the best. Nobody in our playgroup has
Nobody will ever try to force you to play in any way you don't want
to. However, I will happily try to convince you that you are missing
out on the full enjoyment of the game by playing with a CL.
>ever wanted a change and there's another playgroup in the city next to
>ours that also play by the same houserules as we do. That totals about
>25 people. We're all happy about how it's now. I think a great benefit
And that's 25 people who, if they ever happen to show up to a
tournament, will be violently surprised by the difference in decks and
deck styles, and may choose never to show up to a tournament. I will
GUARANTEE some of those people would be just as happy with NCL, once
they fully understood the whole situation.
>collect, or worry about getitng played. The major point is that anyone
>can win with a deck based on only a few cards, I think it's a quite
>lame tactic to be frank. It doesn't require much of skill and makes the
Again, look at the archived discussions - the actual facts are
opposite to what you are stating here. I won't go through it all
again, but suffice it to say that NCL does not preclude skill - far
from it, since now the trick is not to put too MANY of the same cards
in and screw yourself.
>game really boring for the others. As I said, since people change their
>decks constantly here you cannot really counter it either, because if
>you try to and he's changed thedeck, your own deck might not be all
>that good anymore.
It's a skill in deck-building you acquire - to make your deck
functional against enough varied types. Right now, your decks are all
functional against each other because nobody can do *anything*
consistently, so everyone has a "toolbox" - some bleed, some combat,
some intercept, probably some vote too.
>There's arguments that with a CL you can still get around it by using 4
>Rampage and 4 Arson for example, that has the same effect. Well while
It would be mindless to include as many as 4 of either card in any
deck. Someone who wants to look at a handful of Arson with no
locations on the table is free to, of course.
>this is true, they're not exactly the same, Rampage requires potence
>for example, and if you try go Earth Meld and Majesty combo it's the
>same thign. It DOES affect your deck negatively to have to throw in a
However, it's very easy to use 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations,
4 Propaganda, 4 Media Influence, 4 Enchant Kindred, and 4
Intimidation, all of which are +bleed cards at inferior Presence.
It's also easy to use 4 Govern, 4 Scouting Mission, 4 Condition, 4
Threats, 4 Bonding, 4 Lost in Crowds, 4 Faceless Night, 4 Cloak the
Gathering, and 4 Spying Mission with the Malkavians.
And if you want, you can use 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown, and 4 Catatonic
Fear, for 12 S:CE cards. Or 4 Earth Meld, 4 Rapid Change, 4 Form of
Mist, for another 12. Card limits are easily bypassable.
AGAIN, please go read the archive before posting arguments.
>with Temptation of Greater Power etc etc. But as I said, every
>playgroup should go for what they feel is thebest. This is what we feel
>is the best solution for us.
Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post
arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up
again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed
for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS. And the
discussions here will assume a no-card-limit environment, and playing
under NCL will help you understand the points of view better. Not to
mention that frankly, you'll end up having more fun.
In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding.
Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have
said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again
unnecessarily? =)
cantila
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:01:07 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4ucarsk9pjlke7mf8...@4ax.com>,
> > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Again,...
>
> >> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through
the
> >> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple
> >> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate
for
> >> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including
the
> >> one you just mentioned.
I really don't have time for that, and I've sene most arguments on
other sites anyway.
>
> >Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we
> >meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will
>
> So does ours. We build, rebuild, and throw out weekly.
So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties and I throw in 15 Psyches,
then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other
deck next time.
>
> >play and thus make a counterstrategy for a 20 Governs deck for
example.
>
> each deck should have a counter for bleed, vote, and combat. If you
> choose not to include such a counter in your deck, then you shouldn't
> be surprised if you get rolled by a deck type. Some people (myself
> included) take that risk in some decks. But if you have a counter for
> bleed decks, what does it matter what bleed cards they use?
The 20 Governs were just an example that you gave and that I picked up.
A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power,
cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example
is Immortal Grapple, do I really have to explain this further to make
you understand? ;-) There's plenty of cards that you want to have more
than 4 of and where there are no other similar cards providing the same
effect like the various bleed cards.
>
> >We also allow repeated actions since we have a CL. There cna be tons
of
> >arguments for and against, but I think every playgroup should be
> >allowed to play as they think is the best. Nobody in our playgroup
has
>
> Nobody will ever try to force you to play in any way you don't want
> to. However, I will happily try to convince you that you are missing
> out on the full enjoyment of the game by playing with a CL.
And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that
fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course.
Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where
people with the most money can make the best decks. Not everyone has
enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties...
>
> >ever wanted a change and there's another playgroup in the city next
to
> >ours that also play by the same houserules as we do. That totals
about
> >25 people. We're all happy about how it's now. I think a great
benefit
>
> And that's 25 people who, if they ever happen to show up to a
> tournament, will be violently surprised by the difference in decks and
> deck styles, and may choose never to show up to a tournament. I will
> GUARANTEE some of those people would be just as happy with NCL, once
> they fully understood the whole situation.
>
Thing is that we're in Swedne and there's no official VKEN tournamnets
here. Some of us has played in tournaments at gaming convents and I
assume they played by the official rules, since these people never
suggested we use no CL obviously they didn't like that playstyle
better. There IS a reason as to why the rule of no repeated actions was
made for example, to prevent the real cheesy strategies. And that's
what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :) For example, all combat decks
I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is
that? Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use
other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully
replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that
might be something you can't afford.
> >collect, or worry about getitng played. The major point is that
anyone
> >can win with a deck based on only a few cards, I think it's a quite
> >lame tactic to be frank. It doesn't require much of skill and makes
the
>
> Again, look at the archived discussions - the actual facts are
> opposite to what you are stating here. I won't go through it all
> again, but suffice it to say that NCL does not preclude skill - far
> from it, since now the trick is not to put too MANY of the same cards
> in and screw yourself.
>
> >game really boring for the others. As I said, since people change
their
> >decks constantly here you cannot really counter it either, because if
> >you try to and he's changed thedeck, your own deck might not be all
> >that good anymore.
>
> It's a skill in deck-building you acquire - to make your deck
> functional against enough varied types. Right now, your decks are all
> functional against each other because nobody can do *anything*
> consistently, so everyone has a "toolbox" - some bleed, some combat,
> some intercept, probably some vote too.
You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you
say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick
the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a
dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. But the point with CL is not
to prevent stealth or bleed decks, that's obviosuly an important
flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based
around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of
Pander). The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP
deck, but that's like saying you should fight violence (which is bad)
with violence... (which funnily enough is what the arguments about gun
laws in USA basically is about, but that's another story).
If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw
in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10
IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? And just
because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less
efficient against other types of decks. I also think that CL forces a
more variety of card use, so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do
else, at least not as often.
>
> >There's arguments that with a CL you can still get around it by
using 4
> >Rampage and 4 Arson for example, that has the same effect. Well while
>
> It would be mindless to include as many as 4 of either card in any
> deck. Someone who wants to look at a handful of Arson with no
> locations on the table is free to, of course.
This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL
does punish you (in this case you get punished by being forces to have
potence), so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this
kind of card.
>
> >this is true, they're not exactly the same, Rampage requires potence
> >for example, and if you try go Earth Meld and Majesty combo it's the
> >same thign. It DOES affect your deck negatively to have to throw in a
>
> However, it's very easy to use 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations,
> 4 Propaganda, 4 Media Influence, 4 Enchant Kindred, and 4
> Intimidation, all of which are +bleed cards at inferior Presence.
Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM
gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead
of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent
soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card.
And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in
quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to
buy for.
>
> It's also easy to use 4 Govern, 4 Scouting Mission, 4 Condition, 4
> Threats, 4 Bonding, 4 Lost in Crowds, 4 Faceless Night, 4 Cloak the
> Gathering, and 4 Spying Mission with the Malkavians.
>
> And if you want, you can use 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown, and 4 Catatonic
> Fear, for 12 S:CE cards. Or 4 Earth Meld, 4 Rapid Change, 4 Form of
> Mist, for another 12. Card limits are easily bypassable.
>
> AGAIN, please go read the archive before posting arguments.
>
> >with Temptation of Greater Power etc etc. But as I said, every
> >playgroup should go for what they feel is thebest. This is what we
feel
> >is the best solution for us.
>
> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post
> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up
> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed
> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS.
You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has
been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL. Like the no
repeat action tenet (that we don't use).
And the
> discussions here will assume a no-card-limit environment, and playing
> under NCL will help you understand the points of view better. Not to
> mention that frankly, you'll end up having more fun.
I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
Legacy of Pander. It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the
player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and
then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new
decks).
>
> In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding.
> Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have
> said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again
> unnecessarily? =)
As I said, I don't have the time, and you enedn't reply if you don't
want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're
happy in our group why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love
the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken,
why fix it?
I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need
ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied...if you have 8 IG's you
could always have one more. If you have 4 now, then you know there's no
point to try get more. I think CL really helps to make people try out
different clans. I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players
here has a few clans that they almost always play. Of our 25 people
nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to
that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah
deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had
to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck
really effective. Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare
card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy
rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... I have most
cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare
card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either. Yet I
spent a LOT of money on this game, at least $750 in total.
>
> -- Derek
> Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
>
Darkelf
> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through the
> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple
> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate for
> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including the
> one you just mentioned.
>
> only hurt themselves. One-trick pony decks tend to die when someone
> counters the trick. A deck with 20 Governs and 20 Lost in Crowds
> tends to fail miserably when you quit blocking it, or if you start
> bouncing bleeds, or if you start using 2nd Tradition or Enhanced
> Senses.. you get the idea. Or if you Rush it and beat up its
> vampires.
>
> Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
>
I think that as cantila, I have never been into an actual discussion about
card limits, and sincerely, I don´t think that because other people have
expressed their opinions widely about CL in the past, we (me and cantila and
whoever wants to, for example) just should read the archives and never
express our own opinions.
I have read some articles in favor and against CL and I have my own opinions
that may want to share with all of you on the newsgroup, and I appreciatte
and have a lot of interest in cantila (and everybody) opinions, in fact, he
made me even more confident in my CL preference.
A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the
availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we
have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a
hard thing to do. Thus, the CL makes you not to worry of getting million
copies of a single card, you just care to get the CL and that´s all. That
way I can modify my decks many, many times, even if I have only 3 inmortal
grapples, or 4 Torn Signpost, or a couple Scorpion Sting (I can see a
powerful Gangrel deck with 8-10 Scorpion stings, I have never seen 4 of
those together). And myself, as cantila, didn´t spend few money on this
game.
>
> It's a skill in deck-building you acquire - to make your deck
> functional against enough varied types. Right now, your decks are all
> functional against each other because nobody can do *anything*
> consistently, so everyone has a "toolbox" - some bleed, some combat,
> some intercept, probably some vote too.
>
What?? I can´t believe that you have ever discussed about this before. So
that´s your opinion on decks that use CL, decks that just can´t do anything
"consistently". Well, if you think that cantila and his 25 group of people
know nothing about playing with NCL with this affirmation you state that
know even less of playing with CL. Here we have made up tons of decks that
do many things very consistently, and not just the easy Malk deck full of
stealth and bleed, many other decks that had a specific objective and did
their job fairly well. And more important of all, we had made many, many
decks that also do MANY things and very consistently. It´s also very
interesting and effective to play with decks that can bleed, hit hard in
combat and do politics. Why not? What do you do around there? You just play
with bleed only decks, political only decks and combat only decks? My
friend, how boring that must be.
>> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post
>> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up
>> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed
>> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS.
>
Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in
your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able
to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no
cards to use. How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8
times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card. I would need to
get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable
one). Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy
my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order
a couple boxes to Potomac distribution, you sure don´t care about having 10
or 20 DO, because you just have them, but I think that if we want to get
more and more people onto this awesome game we should not let the game rely
on having many of copies of hard to find cards, because then people would
need to invest more money and more time, and what we try here is to have fun
and enjoy ourselves.
Well, having said that, I have to state that as my preference stays with CL,
I for sure do not think that people who play with NCL are not getting the
"real taste of the game" or are doing cheesy strategies, they just enjoy
playing in a different way than I do, and if I ever have a chance to play
with them I will try to beat them with my Card Limited deck just to see how
different they are, and if I get creamed all the time, I´ll still be happy
and will try to improve my deck construction skill and my playing skill. And
if I get enough cards in my collection I will make up a NCL deck to play
with them.
Let´s have fun and enjoy this great game
Darkelf
James Coupe
6...@student.luth.se> writes
>So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties
Which could be (mostly) done with 4 Majesties, 4 Catatonic Fears and 4
Staredowns.
>and I throw in 15 Psyches,
>then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other
>deck next time.
Variable.
If you aren't certain of being able to kill someone in one round,
Psyches will provide useful backup to go in again (say you find damage
prevention a problem).
If you want to cycle more combat cards, 1 Pysche! will let you go for
another few combat cards.
If you want to press, it's useful.
If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful.
>And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that
>fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course.
>Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where
>people with the most money can make the best decks.
You need to read all the previous posts on xCL, because you're not
saying anything that hasn't been said before.
Who wins in a situation where I have 27 Bewitching Orations and 1 Awe,
and the money player has 500 Bewitching Orations and 5 Awe?
Oh look, the rich player has more of a rare card.
>Not everyone has
>enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties...
So play an entirely different deck that doesn't care about Majesty. If
you just avoid combat altogether, his 20 Majesties are pointless.
>And that's
>what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :)
You need to read previous arguments on this, you're not saying anything
new.
Malkavian Stealth and Bleed is not hampered at all under CL.
It is hampered under NL, because you can defend against it better.
Fact.
>For example, all combat decks
>I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone,
Look harder.
>how fun is
>that?
Plenty fun. Not everyone is playing those decks, and you have all sorts
of things you can do.
What would you do? Deny people access to 12 copies of IG when you can
still have 12 sources of Combat Ends in a deck (Majesty, Staredown,
Catatonic Fear).
Personally, I'd rather not try and play a combat deck and have someone
play 12 S:CE against me. How fun is that?
>Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use
>other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully
>replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that
>might be something you can't afford.
A lot of people find Increased Strength a very playable alternative.
>You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you
>say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick
>the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a
>dedicated stealth deck, which is all true.
You cannot make any other deck as dedicated.
People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it
doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop
cheese.
If that's why you're playing with xCL, you haven't examined the
situation clearly enough.
> But the point with CL is not
>to prevent stealth or bleed decks,
You said it was about no "cheesy stuff". Malk S&B often features under
a definition of such.
>that's obviosuly an important
>flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based
>around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of
>Pander).
Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are
defeatable, and have holes to be exploited. Except, under xCL, you are
not allowed to have enough of those counters. You're not allowed all
your S:CE counters because you can't have enough IG. You're not allowed
enough vote counters, because you can't have enough Delaying Tactics.
You're not allowed enough bleed bounces, because you can only have 8 in
Dominate and only 4 in Auspex. Auspex, under NCL, has a very good bleed
defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot,
because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs.
>The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
>Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP
>deck,
You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against any
vote deck.
Building a specific counter deck is a pointless exercise. You need a
good amount of defence against a deck, along with a decent deck as well.
You can defend against politics, you can defend against bleed, you can
defend against combat. If you don't, you'll be dead, CL or no CL.
>If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw
>in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10
>IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned?
No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what NL
means.
There are plenty of other viable defences against many other sorts of
combat decks, and S:CE won't work against all of them. Leather Jacket
won't work against all of them. Flak Jacket won't work against all of
them. Dodge won't work against all of them. You put in what is right
for your deck. And 10 Leather Jackets would be a bloody stupid choice
for such a deck.
>And just
>because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less
>efficient against other types of decks.
You surely put combat defence in an xCL deck? Do you just stand there
not being able to defend at all?
>I also think that CL forces a
>more variety of card use,
That's the point of it. It doesn't force no "cheesy stuff".
>so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do
>else, at least not as often.
That might be because the cards are bad cards, or inappropriate to your
deck.
You try and argue against NL, but say you'd put 10 Leather Jackets in
the above deck. It's an utterly stupid thing to do, and no serious NL
player would even think of doing such. The idea of maxing out on one or
two cards always seems to come from the anti-NL camp, and not from
people with NL experience.
<4 Rampage - 4 Arson>
>This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL
>does punish you
Erm, what?
>(in this case you get punished by being forces to have
>potence),
>so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this
>kind of card.
Indeed. If you don't need 8 of a kind of card, you're unlikely to put
that many in under NL.
NL simply allows you access to the cards you do want. It doesn't force
you to take 10 of them, like you seem to be suggesting.
>Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM
>gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead
>of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent
>soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card.
Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop
the cards being powerful.
Most cards in the game are balanced, currently.
>And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in
>quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to
>buy for.
There are other ways around S:CE, and you can suit your deck to whatever
your resources allow, for instance, playing a political deck instead.
Going and buying a few boxes of Jyhad (which are cheap) is one way to
get a half-dozen Immortal Grapple.
>You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has
>been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL.
No, errata exists to balance cards regardless of number in a deck.
>Like the no
>repeat action tenet (that we don't use).
That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak Drives
in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon
you.
>I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
>Legacy of Pander.
It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten. Playing
Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives
you a good chance against many vote decks. Vote lock isn't solely
generated via Legacy of Pander, you know?
If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's 10
Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in the
game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of Praxis
Seizures make the game any more "fun"?
>It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the
>player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and
>then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new
>decks).
If a deck has no way to defend itself against politics, it will die when
it sits next to politics. If a deck has no way to defend itself against
bleed, it will die when it sits next to bleed. If a deck has no way to
defend itself against combat, it will die when it sits next to combat.
These are facts.
You should consider what defences your deck has when you build it.
So, you know you're not going to sit next to 10 Legacy of Pander. Do
you put no vote defence in? Vote lock can be achieved via other means.
If you need to "prepare yourself" against a specific deck, you are
playing badly - and the reason you need xCL to balance decks is because
you're playing badly, not because NL is broken. It sounds like you're
not putting *any* vote defence in at all. LoP can be badly screwed by
generic vote defence, and if you don't put any of that in, well, that's
your own fault, not the fault of NL or LoP. Or another vote deck.
>> In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding.
>> Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU have
>> said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again
>> unnecessarily? =)
>
>As I said, I don't have the time,
If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should anyone
else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments that
have gone before you, with nothing new to add?
>and you enedn't reply if you don't
>want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're
>happy in our group
Please, be happy in your group. If you can't be bothered to show people
here the common decency of reading up on a debate before trying to sound
clever in it, don't bother. You just go over old ground and introduce
nothing new at all, which helps no-one.
>why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love
>the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken,
>why fix it?
What do you do if I sit down with a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed deck?
4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it, with
a decent deck still there. That is broken.
What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's very
different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been ever
since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES. "We don't abuse card limits in
our group, so they're alright." That just doesn't stand up. Card
limits can be abused. NL has no abusive decks, to my mind, as the
situation currently stands, even though some decks - LoP and ToGP are
causing people some grief at the moment. ToGP will do nothing against
massive blood gain, really.
>I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need
>ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied
Once you get beyond a stupid number for a deck, you're satisfied. You
might also want to have several decks on the go at once, so you can lend
them to people, so you can't share cards between decks.
>I think CL really helps to make people try out
>different clans.
Erm, what?
You can play as many clans as you want under NL.
> I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players
>here has a few clans that they almost always play.
Look harder - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL
debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, search
for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that have
been refuted a hundred times before.
A lot of people have favourite clans, but I've seen people try all sorts
of things.
And there is *nothing* making people shift clans by the presence or
absence of card limits.
>Of our 25 people
>nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to
>that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah
>deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had
>to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck
>really effective.
It takes very little expense or effort to get a lot of IGs. Buy a
couple of boxes of Jyhad. Put up a few notices on a trading site.
What's that, half an hour's work?
> Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare
>card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy
>rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards...
Oh, but 4 is *that* much different to 5. Right.
How do you cope with the new player who wants to put more presence vote
modifiers in his deck but can't, because he only owns 1 Awe but you own
5? But he has 10 Bewitching Orations and you won't let him. And the
rich player doesn't win? Yeah, right.
> I have most
>cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare
>card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either.
So, you have 3 Awes, newbie player doesn't. Shucks, I guess he just
can't play an effective politics deck - which he could if you'd let him
put more than 4 Bewitching Orations in. But, for some reason, you
decide to punish him for not being rich, where NL said "Yep, we're cool
with you playing 10 of that common card, instead of 4 common and 4
rare".
And NL has shown time and time again that decks with many, many commons
in them do very well indeed. If you *want* to play a deck with mostly
rares, you can do that too - but a common deck won't fall down just
because it's common. It'll fall down because it's badly made.
Xian
"cantila" wrote:
> I really don't have time for that, and I've sene most arguments on
> other sites anyway.
Argh. I start reading again after about a year, and the first thing I see
(almost) is a CL thread? ...sigh...
I'm going to try to make this concise, yet pointed, so that we can cut this
thread to a minimum.
> The 20 Governs were just an example that you gave and that I picked up.
> A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power,
> cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example
> is Immortal Grapple, do I really have to explain this further to make
> you understand? ;-) There's plenty of cards that you want to have more
> than 4 of and where there are no other similar cards providing the same
> effect like the various bleed cards.
This is the difference in CL versus NCL mentalities. CL thinks that it's bad
to be able to play IG more than X times, and NCL thinks it's a crime that
there either isn't any redundancy, or that you *can't* play something more
than X times.
> And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that
> fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course.
A good portion (dare I say majority?) of the people here started out playing
or were vociferously in favor (Peter?) of CL at one point. Pretty much every
one of those people has changed their mind after playing NCL for a while.
> Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where
> people with the most money can make the best decks. Not everyone has
> enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties...
Okay, maybe the problem is not that IG is rare, but that Majesty is uncommon?
You're attacking the problem from the wrong end with CLs. Anyone can make a
really good Malkavian S&B deck with *just* commons. Even under 4CL. What you
can't do is make any number of good combat decks or a wide variety of really
weird decks. For example, the 7+ Raptor deck wouldn't work...
http://www.waste.org/~xian/geek/jyhad/freak/raptor.html
> For example, all combat decks
> I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is
> that? Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use
It depends on what you're playing for, and how you define "fun." I often play
to amuse myself with weird combinations, but I still try to win. For lots of
people, winning is "fun." The object of the game *is* to win. The purpose of
the game is to have fun, otherwise, you probably shouldn't be playing in the
first place...but the two should be compatible. It seems that under CL,
there's pressure to have "fun" at the cost of attempting to win the game
through a common strategy.
> other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully
> replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that
> might be something you can't afford.
You're missing the point again. If I *want* to play a deck with 60 TS and
nothing else, with just weenies with Potence, then I should be able to do it.
I won't win a whole lot, but don't you think that I should learn that on my
own? I'll be easy prey for a long time until I get a clue, or someone that's
tired of me being a quick Victory Point will tell me.
> You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you
> say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick
> the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a
> dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. But the point with CL is not
I think the point was that if you're *not* playing an S&B deck, you end up
playing with a little bit of everything...if you play S&B, you're fine. If
you play anything else, you have to include intercept or votes, because
they're your best defense against S&B, because you can't build a good combat
deck that can deal with it...
> If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw
> in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10
> IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? And just
You shouldn't. That would be silly. You should include a couple of maneuvers
(say 4 or 5) and have the remaining strikes be S:CE.
> because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less
> efficient against other types of decks. I also think that CL forces a
What other decks do you need to use S:CE against? Gangrel? Perhaps...though
maneuvers generally work okay too...
> more variety of card use, so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do
> else, at least not as often.
And what if the other cards don't have the effect you're looking for? What if
I want to build a Setite deck based around getting into combat and stealing
blood? Serpentis & Celerity? Can't do it under CL...
> As I said, I don't have the time, and you enedn't reply if you don't
> want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're
> happy in our group why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love
> the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken,
> why fix it?
If you're happy with it in your group, no one is trying to force you to change
it. Just please, please, please don't try to convince the newsgroup that it
is the best way to play, or that playing NCL is bad or cheesy or wrong. Most
of the discussion here is based on tournament play, or working towards
tournament play, so the offical rules are discussed. Please feel free to post
decks or whatever, and mention that you play with a CL, and people will take
that into account when reviewing them...
> I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need
> ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied...if you have 8 IG's you
> could always have one more. If you have 4 now, then you know there's no
I think 8 IG is about the most I'd ever need...
> point to try get more. I think CL really helps to make people try out
> different clans. I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players
> here has a few clans that they almost always play. Of our 25 people
People tend to gravitate toward clans that have discipline combinations they
like. Not that this is always a good idea. In my case, for instance, I
happen to really like Thaumaturgy. This causes me endless amounts of pain
trying to get a Tremere deck to work. I should actually go back and tweak my
decks before playing this weekend, but I probably won't have the time...
Anyway, most of the players on this newsgroup have experimented with most or
all of the clans, and have had the time to decide which clans/discipline
combinations best fit their play style.
> nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to
> that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah
> deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had
> to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck
> really effective. Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare
Nah. Jyhad cards are cheap. Not to mention, if you have 25 players (I wish
we had that many...) the collective pool should be big enough that you can
trade amongst yourselves a whole lot. If you really wanted 12 IG for the
week, you could surely find enough or do temporary trades or something...
Xian -- resurrected jack-booted thug
www.waste.org/~xian/jyhad/
James Coupe
writes
>A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the
>availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we
>have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a
>hard thing to do.
Rare cards aren't inherently more powerful. You don't need rare cards
to compete.
Rare cards offer, nine times out of ten, more "powerful" but more
"corner-case" cards.
>What?? I can´t believe that you have ever discussed about this before. So
>that´s your opinion on decks that use CL, decks that just can´t do anything
>"consistently". Well, if you think that cantila and his 25 group of people
>know nothing about playing with NCL with this affirmation you state that
>know even less of playing with CL.
How are you stopping me playing 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown and 4 Catatonic
Fear? You don't have enough sources of anti-S:CE.
>Here we have made up tons of decks that
>do many things very consistently,
Not by NL standards.
>Why not? What do you do around there? You just play
>with bleed only decks, political only decks and combat only decks? My
>friend, how boring that must be.
And you assert that we know nothing of xCL. *sigh*
>Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in
>your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able
>to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no
>cards to use.
You can play NL with as many cards as you want. Indeed, many of the
best NL decks have less than 6 copies of many cards.
You don't need more or different cards for NL. That's the point.
>How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8
>times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card.
You don't.
You look at the cards you have and you make a deck around them.
>I would need to
>get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable
>one).
Why? You could borrow them from a friend. You could buy a few from
someone. You could choose to play with proxies in a friendly game. You
could buy some boxes of Jyhad, and get a few in there. You could play
Jyhad On-Line.
> Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy
>my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order
>a couple boxes to Potomac distribution,
You don't need to order a couple of boxes "each week", at all. A couple
of boxes of Jyhad is plenty to make a workable deck.
Just because you don't have the cards to make the NL deck you really,
really want to doesn't mean you shouldn't play NL. It just means you
have to temper your dreams with reality. You can't play a deck with
cards you don't have, even under xCL. It's no different.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In article <pkscrssn1rss8260b...@4ax.com>,
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
AGAIN,
>> Again,...
>> >> Please go back through dejanews (www.deja.com) and search through
>the
>> >> available archives for "card limits". There have been multiple
>> >> discussions regarding whether or not a card limit is appropriate
>for
>> >> V:TES, and all of your questions will be answered there, including
>the
>> >> one you just mentioned.
>
>I really don't have time for that, and I've sene most arguments on
>other sites anyway.
No, you haven't, because you keep quoting incorrect arguments and
putting forth weak reasons that have already been answered. If you
wish to be deliberately obtuse, that's fine, but I'd advise not
mentioning too much about card limits then.
>> >Yes but my in my playgroup we play with new decks almost everytime we
>> >meet up. So it's totally impossible to predict what the others will
>>
>> So does ours. We build, rebuild, and throw out weekly.
>
>So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties and I throw in 15 Psyches,
>then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other
>deck next time.
You're not SUPPOSED to know what kind of deck the person is playing.
If someone has 15 Majesties, what are they going to do if they never
get into combat? They'll be able to do NOTHING, that's what. NCL
enforces itself. A deck with 15 Majesties in it is expecting to sit
next to a bunch of people trying to beat it up. If you don't block
them, they'll just hand jam on Majesty and end up bleeding for 1 in a
vain attempt to get you to let them cycle their hand.
This is also a good answer to a stealth bleeder.
>The 20 Governs were just an example that you gave and that I picked up.
>A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power,
>cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another example
*sigh* You know, I played against Legbiter's Temptation of Greater
Power deck multiple times recently. It's a good deck. It is NOT the
be-all end-all of decks. There are numerous ways to defeat it. It is
a very strong card, but if you think the deck is boring, all I can say
is that you've never really seen it played. There are a lot of things
it has to do BESIDES use "temptation of greater power" just to make
itself go.
>is Immortal Grapple, do I really have to explain this further to make
>you understand? ;-) There's plenty of cards that you want to have more
>than 4 of and where there are no other similar cards providing the same
>effect like the various bleed cards.
Which is exactly the argument for no-card-limits. Immortal Grapple, a
rare, is worthless against Fake Out, a common card, since you cannot
IG someone at long range. If you notice, IG decks are not winning
tournaments left and right. They aren't even doing -that- well. Is
it because perhaps that 12 IG's isn't any guarantee of victory, and
card limits are just holdovers from the Magic days? Hmm.. COULD BE.
>> Nobody will ever try to force you to play in any way you don't want
>> to. However, I will happily try to convince you that you are missing
>> out on the full enjoyment of the game by playing with a CL.
>
>And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for that
Wrong. I tried it, and it was boring. I couldn't ever make a deck
that did what I thought it would, because it was always drawing up
something OTHER than what I needed right then. The thought of
producing a 3-card combo more than once or twice was a laugher. It
was basically a toolbox that bled a little, fought a little,
intercepted a little, and had some combat defense too. Which is
boring when everyone else's deck does the same thing, and reduces the
game to luck of the draw.
>fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course.
I have, oddly enough, 4 Fists of Death. Not that having 20 would do
me any good, since I can't think of a single reason to put 20 Fists of
Death in a deck. Can you? Of course not. I can't think of a reason
to put any more than 8 in a deck, myself. That only lets me play 8
combats. Do you think there will be more than 8 combats in a game?
>Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where
>people with the most money can make the best decks. Not everyone has
>enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties...
First, you don't need IG to beat Majesty decks. There are plenty of
other ways to beat a deck with 20 Majesties, and if you build your
deck well and play well, you won't even have to worry about a deck
showing up with 20. You won't even have to specifically allow for a
deck with 20 Majesties - it can be a COMPLETE SURPRISE to you, and if
you've built your deck properly you won't have a problem.
Second, you can build a perfectly adequate deck with nothing more than
common and uncommon cards from Jyhad. You can sweep a table with it,
in fact. Against all the other horrible, horrible "NCL" decks. This
has been SHOWN, REPEATEDLY, in the archive I attempted to get you to
read..
>> And that's 25 people who, if they ever happen to show up to a
>> tournament, will be violently surprised by the difference in decks and
>> deck styles, and may choose never to show up to a tournament. I will
>> GUARANTEE some of those people would be just as happy with NCL, once
>> they fully understood the whole situation.
>
>Thing is that we're in Swedne and there's no official VKEN tournamnets
>here. Some of us has played in tournaments at gaming convents and I
Ah, so there ARE tournaments, since some of you have played at
conventions right? What if others wanted to play?
>assume they played by the official rules, since these people never
>suggested we use no CL obviously they didn't like that playstyle
>better. There IS a reason as to why the rule of no repeated actions was
>made for example, to prevent the real cheesy strategies. And that's
>what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :) For example, all combat decks
You are, of course, very wrong. You would know this if you had read
the archive. NCL is not about cheesy stuff, it's about INCREASING the
variety of decks you can build, since you don't have to end up just
filling in slots randomly in your deck.
>I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is
>that? Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use
You should keep looking then, because there was just an Assamite deck
posted here recently. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a
TS/IG deck put out here for public review. I can't remember the last
time I played a deck with Torn Signpost in it, and I play a LOT of
combat decks. Probably a couple months ago. The TS/IG set is just
one way to do combat.
>other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully
>replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that
>might be something you can't afford.
With a 4CL, the guy with all the rare cards still wins, because he can
get the rare cards (Catatonic Fear, Staredown) that do things he
wants, and the poor players are stuck with just 4 Majesties.
If you're curious, I have 1 Catatonic Fear.
>You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you
>say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick
>the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make a
>dedicated stealth deck, which is all true. But the point with CL is not
But you said you were trying to prevent boring decks? I don't know, a
deck with 24 Presence bleed cards in it is still a deck with 24 bleed
cards, whether they're all Social Charms or they're 4 of each. "Oh
no, sometimes he's going to gain a pool while bleeding me, or maybe
sometimes he'll only bleed me for 2 instead of 3! Maybe sometimes it
will tap a minion too!" Sorry, it's just the same damn thing.
>to prevent stealth or bleed decks, that's obviosuly an important
>flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based
>around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy of
>Pander). The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
And in addition to "preventing" these decks, it also prevents a great
deal of variety that could otherwise be had.
>Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP
>deck, but that's like saying you should fight violence (which is bad)
>with violence... (which funnily enough is what the arguments about gun
>laws in USA basically is about, but that's another story).
The LoP deck does as well as it does because Rob Treasure is playing
it and he is a very skilled player, not because it is inherently
broken. It has a number of weaknesses, which he takes great pains to
play around. Not the least of these weaknesses is... +1 intercept.
Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are
actually a threat. Or if a Rush deck had been sitting near him. What
if a fast bleed deck was behind him? What if some voters were
influenced out early on, so he couldn't gain vote lock? All of these
things could be problems for his deck, and all are fairly common
strategies to see in a tournament.
>If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to throw
>in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with 10
>IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned? And just
If you are worried about IG, I suggest throwing in 10 Fake Outs
instead. Nice, common card, you should have about 20-30 sitting
around easily. Of course, then you will get killed by a gun deck, but
these are the little tradeoffs you make when building a deck. S:CE
beats guns, and loses to IG, which loses to guns with maneuvers.
See the rock-paper-scissors here? This is balanced, as opposed to
letting someone use 12 S:CE strikes just because they have a bunch of
rare cards that S:CE as well, and the poor guy who can't afford Sabbat
can only use 4 Majesties.
>This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the CL
>does punish you (in this case you get punished by being forces to have
>potence), so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this
>kind of card.
But your examples were all wrong. Below, I show 4 ways you can easily
get around a CL and produce a deck that, if I were to play it in your
group, you would LOUDLY decry as boring and cheesy. So a CL does not
prevent cheesy decks.
>> However, it's very easy to use 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations,
>> 4 Propaganda, 4 Media Influence, 4 Enchant Kindred, and 4
>> Intimidation, all of which are +bleed cards at inferior Presence.
>
>Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM
I don't think someone who has just put the 12 cheapest Presence
vampires in his crypt is going to care about what the superior is of
each card. He's just going to bleed you every turn, and if you block,
play one of his 12 S:CE cards, or maybe a Dodge instead for variety.
Since you can't have more than 4 Deflections, or 4 Telepathic
Misdirections, you can't just bounce his bleeds and are going to have
to block him over and over. But since he ends combat so much, you're
never going to hurt his vampires, and eventually he will oust you. If
he adds 4 Misdirections and 4 Mind Numbs as well, he will oust you
VERY quickly, as you won't even be blocking very much. With only 4
Wakes and 4 Forced Awakenings in your deck, you are at a severe
disadvantage, unless of course you play the Gangrel... but wait,
that's what CL was supposed to prevent, having to be one specific
thing to stop a specific deck! Oh shit, CL doesn't do that after all,
does it?
>gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's instead
>of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent
>soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare) card.
There just aren't that many "power rares" in V:TES. Temptation of
Greater Power is strong, but it requires an enormous amount of work to
make go. Legacy of Pander is strong, but sit it next to an intercept
deck or a good combat deck and it will explode gloriously. Immortal
Grapple is strong, but Fake Out will keep you out of range.
>And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in
>quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money to
>buy for.
OK, repeat after me: You Do Not Need IG To Defeat an S:CE Deck.
You only need that many IGs if you want to beat it up with Potence.
But to avoid being ousted by the deck, it's enormously simpler and
doesn't require any rare cards at all.
Please name me a strategy that you NEED a rare card to beat?
>> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post
>> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up
>> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed
>> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS.
>
>You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has
>been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL. Like the no
>repeat action tenet (that we don't use).
One extra rule, "no repeat actions", is not "numerous". And 4
Majesties is just as painful to deal with as 12, when a player bleeds
you, untaps when you block, and bleeds you again. Just because it
only happens 4 times in a game doesn't make it any better.
>I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
>Legacy of Pander. It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the
>player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and
>then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new
>decks).
of course, if you add defense against votes to your deck, what do you
care how many vote cards he has in his hand? What if your defense is
just bringing out vampires with titles? What if you intercept any
votes you don't like? What if what if what if... See, the CL just
blinds you to strategies and counterstrategies. It doesn't encourage
you to REALLY think.
>As I said, I don't have the time, and you enedn't reply if you don't
>want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're
I will not permit you to disseminate incorrect information
unchallenged. Therefore, I will respond.
>happy in our group why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love
>the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken,
>why fix it?
CL is, however, broken, as much as you'd like to think otherwise.
>I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you need
>ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied...if you have 8 IG's you
This is, of course, not true. I am MORE than satisfied with the vast
majority of my collection, including the number of rares I have.
There are only a few cards I wish I had more of, and those are the
ones I only have 1 or 2 of.
>could always have one more. If you have 4 now, then you know there's no
>point to try get more. I think CL really helps to make people try out
>different clans. I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players
>here has a few clans that they almost always play. Of our 25 people
This statement is violently incorrect, and I can't imagine where you
EVER got that perception from. Most everyone who posts here plays
MULTIPLE types of decks, some not even based on any specific clan.
Who exactly were you thinking of when you said "Majority"?
>nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to
>that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful Brujah
>deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you had
>to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck
>really effective. Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare
And if you do this often enough, people will begin to habitually
include maneuvers in their decks instead of S:CE, and your powerful
Brujah deck will kill nobody, and fold miserably. And so you will
move on to another deck, perhaps a Tremere deck. And then other
people will remove their maneuvers and put in Dodges. And eventually,
nobody has ANY idea what anyone else is going to be playing at any
given point in time, which is what the game is supposed to be like,
and you can quit worrying about IG specifically and just concentrate
on combat in general.
I'm beginning to think that y'all have a good bit of knowledge of what
other people are playing before the game starts, frankly - meaning
that your card limits are not providing the variety you claim they
are.
>card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy
>rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards... I have most
funny, I haven't spent any more than you have and I have a -lot- of
rares. Not 5-10 of all cards, certainly, but enough for most every
deck I care to build. And I build a LOT of decks. But oddly enough,
some of my best ones are based on common cards...
Derek Ray
<darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> wrote:
>I think that as cantila, I have never been into an actual discussion about
>card limits, and sincerely, I don´t think that because other people have
>expressed their opinions widely about CL in the past, we (me and cantila and
>whoever wants to, for example) just should read the archives and never
>express our own opinions.
No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to
people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over
assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the
arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to
the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first,
nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where
things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said
before.
>A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important, is the
>availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and here we
No... actually, it's not important. Just because your group can't get
that many cards is no reason to impose card limits on the game. If
anything, the lack of availability would serve as an INHERENT card
limit, as almost nobody would be able to get the "tons of rare cards"
you so seem to fear.
>have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card is a
>hard thing to do. Thus, the CL makes you not to worry of getting million
You are both focussing on rares, when you shouldn't be. An effective
NCL deck will normally use more than 4 copies of a COMMON card, and
use the rare cards as the occasional alternative.
The effective difference between a vote deck that has 10 Bewitching
Orations and a vote deck that has 4 BO and 6 Awe is minimal.
Actually, the guy with Awe has to worry a lot more about blood on his
vampires, because to provide an equivalent effect to BO, he needs to
spend 2 blood whereas BO is free. Which deck is better? Neither.
Actually, the BO deck is probably better off. And Awe is a VERY good
rare card.
However, under a CL, the guy with 4 BO and 4 Awe is going to roll over
the poor bugger who can only play with 4 BO because of card limits.
>copies of a single card, you just care to get the CL and that´s all. That
>way I can modify my decks many, many times, even if I have only 3 inmortal
I'm failing to see how having only 4 of every card makes you somehow
"more able" to modify a deck than having as many as you want of every
card. With more cards, you have more options - it's basic math.
>grapples, or 4 Torn Signpost, or a couple Scorpion Sting (I can see a
>powerful Gangrel deck with 8-10 Scorpion stings, I have never seen 4 of
>those together). And myself, as cantila, didn´t spend few money on this
They're uncommon, NOT rare, from Ancient Hearts. I bought one box of
Ancient Hearts. I have about 6 Scorpion Stings. The box cost me $75.
This is really not that much money.
>>> Which is why I'd like you to go read the archive, because if you post
>>> arguments in favor of a CL, the whole silly debate will just start up
>>> again. The official rules are NO CARD LIMITS. The game was designed
>>> for NO CARD LIMITS. The tournament rules are NO CARD LIMITS.
>
>Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so stuck in
>your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to be able
It's because we've beaten to death all your arguments before,
disproven them, and demonstrated that NCL is actually better for the
game. It's silly because every CL player will always jump in railing
mindlessly and repeating the arguments OVER AND OVER AND OVER that
have been answered long, long ago. If you haven't got something new
to say, PLEASE DON'T. It sends some of us off into long rambling
discourse, much like my response to cantila.
>to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you have no
>cards to use. How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8
>times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card. I would need to
Put 8 Dawn Ops in a deck around here and you'll be sitting and looking
at them in your hand, because people will quit blocking you if their
deck can't handle aggravated damage. CL players always focus on the
rares. It's not the rares that matter. I only own 5 Dawn Ops myself.
This has always been enough for my decks. What MATTERS is finding a
way, and oddly enough it's usually via common cards, to give your
Gangrel an action that's worth blocking - and THEN you can drop Dawn
Op on it.
>get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very valuable
>one). Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t destroy
>my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week you order
>a couple boxes to Potomac distribution, you sure don´t care about having 10
which I don't. As I said to cantila, I've spent almost exactly as
much as he has. And I'm certainly on an even footing with any Mr.
Suitcase who has 20 of each rare.
>or 20 DO, because you just have them, but I think that if we want to get
>more and more people onto this awesome game we should not let the game rely
>on having many of copies of hard to find cards, because then people would
>need to invest more money and more time, and what we try here is to have fun
>and enjoy ourselves.
Of course, those of us who don't have many copies of hard-to-find
cards and have NO trouble playing under NCL with people who DO have
many copies consider this all to be so much bunk. I haven't done a
whole lot of trading at all. I bought a bunch of boxes of Jyhad a
couple years ago, and over the course of the past two years i've
bought two boxes of Dark Sovereigns, two boxes of Sabbat, and one box
of Ancient Hearts. Oh, and one box of V:TES starters.
If you think this is a lot of cards or a lot of money... I think you
are well overdue for another "think." Well, actually, it IS a lot of
Jyhad, but that's easily the LEAST amount I've spent, believe it or
not.
Darkelf
about
> >card limits, and sincerely, I don´t think that because other people have
> >expressed their opinions widely about CL in the past, we (me and cantila
and
> >whoever wants to, for example) just should read the archives and never
> >express our own opinions.
>
> No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to
> people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over
> assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the
> arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to
> the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first,
> nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where
> things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said
> before.
>
> disproven them, and demonstrated that NCL is actually better for the
> game. It's silly because every CL player will always jump in railing
> mindlessly and repeating the arguments OVER AND OVER AND OVER that
> have been answered long, long ago. If you haven't got something new
> to say, PLEASE DON'T. It sends some of us off into long rambling
> discourse, much like my response to cantila.
>
Oh!, sorry my lord. So it pisses you off (and you have also included
everyone elses in the newsgroup, :o)) to have to listen to people that think
different than you do. Why the heck you keep answering us? If you gett
pissed about this forget about this conversation and let the people that
want to talk about something do it. You DONT have to read what we write, and
we can write here WHATEVER we want about this game, and have the same right
as you do, Derek. As far as I know this is a public forum in wich NOONE can
tell you what you should or shouldn´t write in it (as long as it discusses
something about it´s subject).
And if you get pissed listening to people that think different than you do I
don´t know why you live in a democratic country (ups, sorry, you may live in
Libia or Irak, sorry there Derek).
Just because there´s a majority of people that think that NCL is right it
doesn´t mean that that is the best solution for everybody.
Please Derek, respect other opinions, and don´t get pissed off, we are here
to enjoy, if we do it different ways, lets welcome it!. I´m sure that if we
ever get together and talk for a while we´ll forget about this and have many
excellent games in wich I´ll learn a lot about NCL games, and you´ll respect
my CL play style.
And about the cost of buying cards, I have to say again that I am from
Europe. A couple facts: the dollar right now is flying to heaven from the
Euro (you guys over US are doing a well job on economy, at least against
Europe). Actually today it is on the news that the Euro is on its downless.
Right now dollars here cost more than double! than they were 3-4 years
before, if you add to this the cost of delivering via air-mail or whatever,
those cheap Jyhad boxes for you over there are not that cheaper around here.
Don´t put us in the same ground than you are.
But in relation with this, I think that James is totally right.
>James Coupe wrote this:
>Just because you don't have the cards to make the NL deck you really,
>really want to doesn't mean you shouldn't play NL. It just means you
>have to temper your dreams with reality. You can't play a deck with
>cards you don't have, even under xCL. It's no different.
If it is harder for you to get the cards it doesn´t mean that NCL is not the
right way to play. You´re right James, but maybe, as we have this
difficulty, it suits better for us to play with CL.
Thanks for listening
Darkelf
theve...@my-deja.com
>
> No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to
> people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over
> assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the
> arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to
> the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first,
> nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where
> things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said
> before.
>
before discuss it now. we don't want to read screens and screens of
archives, we want a lively discussion.
we play with NL and i can't imagine what it would be like to play with
CL. the whole dynamic would change as you'd know exactly how many cards
of a particular type your opponent would have left to play, could be
interesting.
setite decks wouldn't be much fun with only 4 corruptions though...
theve...@my-deja.com
> If I want to make a Setite deck for example
how much fun is a setite deck with only four corruptions?
Andrew S. Davidson
>Look harder - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL
>debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, search
>for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that have
>been refuted a hundred times before.
You're the one with the same tired old refrain that you repeat again
and again. Trying to silence the argument in this way clearly doesn't
work. I've read the old argmuments in favour of NCL and, while I
understand them, I'm not overly impressed by them.
And there are some new facts to take into account now that the game is
being relaunched. Telling people to go and buy cheap boxes of Jyhad
to get the large multiples they need is a fading argument. At some
point there won't be any more boxes of Jyhad left and then what? I'm
not touching them, in any case, because I don't want the mixed card
backs and lack of colour-coding. I can do without the hassle of
sorting and filing thousands of cards too. Those cards are obsolete
and your emphasis should now be on encouraging players to buy new WW
stock, not old, remaindered WotC stock. They will have to pay full
retail for the WW cards and this isn't going to be cheap even if you
only collect one of each rare. If there's no ceiling to the number of
each card required then the game can clearly become a money-pit and
this issue is certainly enough to stop me taking the game seriously.
If you want to get new players to try the game, you need to have an
answer to this objection. Telling them to read the archives ain't it.
If the PTB had any sense, they'd have multiple tournmant formats to
please both camps. Doomtown has four recognised formats: Bicycle (one
of each value), Derringer (CL=1), Double-Barrel (CL=2) and Standard
(CL=4). The standard format is the most popular but TOs can use the
other formats without all this unnecessary vituperation. What's wrong
with having a choice?
Andrew
Tim Eijpe
>
> A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY important,
is the
> availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and
here we
> have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card
is a
> hard thing to do.
I do not want to bud in but I live in the Netherlands and yes cards
availlability is a problem. But..ehm isn't that why trading over the net
is so usefull?? You could get all you want as long as you take the time
for it. At least that is my opinion.
And I have also played both NL and CL. I think that cardlimits CAN be
usefull, but they also take away too many viable deckoptions. I'll not
go into that again.
Now here in Utrecht, people are seeing the NL arguments and getting the
point and they can choose for themselves.
The most important argument a player gave me pro NCL was: No one likes
to be forbidden something, and creative freedom is something that is
necessary for any card game to evolve.
Thus it's up to you what ever you want, but I can assure you that any CL
will take away way too many other fun, even silly deckdesigns and favors
soem clans over others.
Tim Eijpe
--
PROPHECY OF GEHENNA:
On The First Day Of Gehenna
The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent
And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky
Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise
mgre...@my-deja.com
<79EFF6570DEDA0FA.32E66319...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> You're the one with the same tired old refrain that you repeat again
> and again. Trying to silence the argument in this way clearly doesn't
> work. I've read the old argmuments in favour of NCL and, while I
> understand them, I'm not overly impressed by them.
>
ooooooo. A CL/NCL debate. What a rare treat. Can I join in?
/Checks watch- hmm September, right on time. We very nearly didn't have
2 flame wars about this topic in 2000. That was lucky.
What aren't you impressed with Andrew? Aren't you impressed with players
who have played both formats extensively and come to the conclusion that
NCL is better? Are you not impressed with the fact that deck diversity
is higher in NCL? Play skill is higher with NCL? Deck design is more
important with NCL? That this topic has had the collective input from
countless numbers of people with basically the same outcome? I'm
genuinely confused by this as you only put a single arguement up in
defence.
> And there are some new facts to take into account now that the game is
> being relaunched. Telling people to go and buy cheap boxes of Jyhad
> to get the large multiples they need is a fading argument. At some
> point there won't be any more boxes of Jyhad left and then what? I'm
> not touching them, in any case, because I don't want the mixed card
> backs and lack of colour-coding. I can do without the hassle of
> sorting and filing thousands of cards too. Those cards are obsolete
> and your emphasis should now be on encouraging players to buy new WW
> stock, not old, remaindered WotC stock. They will have to pay full
> retail for the WW cards and this isn't going to be cheap even if you
> only collect one of each rare. If there's no ceiling to the number of
> each card required then the game can clearly become a money-pit and
> this issue is certainly enough to stop me taking the game seriously.
> If you want to get new players to try the game, you need to have an
> answer to this objection. Telling them to read the archives ain't it.
>
Yeah, that Magic the Gathering and it's 4CL. Thats no money pit. oh no.
Hang on, how about this: *ahem*
"Play V:TES by White Wolf, you get to use all your commons- not just the
first 4 of any one type"
Competitive 4CL decks are usually more rare intensive than NCL decks.
Really. Majesty is common, Staredown is rare, etc, etc.
You don't need vast numbers of cards to be good at this game. You just
need to be a good player. If you're not sure what that entails, you're
not playing enough. Stop whining about the numbers of cards you have,
learn how to play the ones you have to the best of your ability. Most
ProMagic players own very few cards.
> If the PTB had any sense, they'd have multiple tournmant formats to
> please both camps. Doomtown has four recognised formats: Bicycle (one
> of each value), Derringer (CL=1), Double-Barrel (CL=2) and Standard
> (CL=4). The standard format is the most popular but TOs can use the
> other formats without all this unnecessary vituperation. What's wrong
> with having a choice?
>
...and who plays Doomtown? There are shed loads of expansions for that
game and nobody plays it competitively. And apparently, if they do they
get a choice of whichever format they want to play in. Strikes me that
if you have a player base of 10 you don't want to have 2, 5 player
tournaments you want 1, 10 player one. surely.
You are of absolutely correct about the numbers of cards available at
the moment, with a bit of luck that will change. Telling people to buy
old stock is obviously a bad idea. However, splitting the player base
and shackling half of them to a bad tournament format is a worse idea.
Players will end up enjoying the game less.
> Andrew
>
matt.
Oaflord
My two cents...
CL bad
NCL good
No need to say why, as I am sure that others will do that for me... but I
leave you with two words to ponder in regards to CL vs. NCL... Cryptic
Mission...
oAFLORD
aka
Thomas Kuster
V:EKN Prince of Caledon
Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe."
John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.
<mgre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8p7ulh$9i8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Peter D Bakija
>>The starting point here is that the player base is already split. Why
won't VEKN embrace the CL play-groups and recognise their way of
playing the game?>>
Because it would be fracturing the player base to support a game that is not
the one desgined to be VTES. VTES was designed specifically to be a NCL game.
When playing with a CL, it doesn't work the same--it is a very different game
(and most would say a worse one). There is no percentage in supporting a format
of the game that is unbalanced and does not work.
Does the international chess federation support tournaments where everyone gets
to use Queens for all of their pieces? No--I'm sure it is an entertaining game,
but it is not the one that the rules intended. Does the Americal Bridge
Federation support tournaments where you only use Spades and Hearts? No. Again,
I'm sure it would be entertaining as games go, but it is not the how the game
was intended to be played.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"Why so many swords?"
"I must kill many."
-Kikuchiyo
cantila
As I said before, we've made an exception for the Corruption card,
there's no limit on that one, as well as Master Skill Cards (because NL
on them allows you to try out fun strategies like Serpentis on
Nosferatu etc).
Xian
[stuff about CLs and other junk]
I liked the suggestion from someone who was vaguely pro-CL that all the old
fogies should shut up and let all the new kids babble about CLs. How
about...start threads with [CL] in them, and then all jack-booted thugs can
ignore those threads and go happily about our business of confusing everyone
(Legbiter, Xian)/plotting the next victory (Derek, Rob T)/figuring out new
methods of dishing out meaty justice (Peter,
http://www.theonion.com/onion3308/headscrackedin.html )
Everyone happy?
Xian, obviously over-tired...
cantila
> > A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY
important,
> is the
> > availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and
> here we
> > have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card
> is a
> > hard thing to do.
>
> I do not want to bud in but I live in the Netherlands and yes cards
> availlability is a problem. But..ehm isn't that why trading over the
net
> is so usefull?? You could get all you want as long as you take the
time
> for it. At least that is my opinion.
How does trading over the net solve the problem?? If you trade, that
means you have to GIVE soemthing to GET something, how is this possibly
making me end up with more (rare) cards than before (unless the guy I
trade with is stupid, but on the other hand I don't like to take
advantage of such things in a deal). So the only option would be to
actually buy the cards from people on the net. Now first of all, most
people don't sell their cards, secondly this gets quite expensive
because our banks charge us with high fees for exchanging the money
PLUS the dollar is super expensive to us. Thirdly I am the only one in
my playgroup that actually trade and buy over the net and I have done
so for years, yet I still don't have a complete set of Sabbat yet (I'm
missing 3 cards, 2 of them I'll get next week) and thanks to a trade
with oAFLOARD I just managed to complete my AH set after 5 years...
Not everyone has the time or knowledge to find a site where ot trade,
or even the interest/cash or the trust for it.
You really seem to have no idea how hard it is to get the cards needed
of the AH and Sabbat set, even commons! Actually of our 25 people
there's only me and three more who has enough Sabbat cards to even play
one of the clans in that set. The rest of my people either no vampires
and very very few Sabbat cards, ones that I or the other two people
have traded to them.
I bought a lot of AH and I got 5 Scorpion Sting, thanks to the CL
there's now another lucky player in my group that has 2 Scorpion
Stings...instead of me having 6 which would make things even more
unfair. And in return I got some well needed cards. Even with Jyhad and
DS that's still actually possible to buy at some places here I don't
have have even 4 of some uncommons I want. About 15 of our 25 players
can't put together a good deck based on a DS clan...and DS has been
bought in big amounts here. Speaking of Dawn Operation, I've played
Jyhad since it first came out 6 years ago, and just last week I bought
the 4th card off oAFLOARD that I needed...although I would have had 4
sooner had I not traded one away once, but still, I think it shows that
even uncommons you seemt to take for granted is really sought for here.
A friend of mine just started to play V:TES again hearing Sabbat War
was coming out, so he managed to buy the last 3 VTES boxes in a store.
Guess what? He has 2 Dawn Ops, although he got 4 Ivory Bows, so now
almost everyone in my frequent playgroup (we're 8, the rest live in the
neighbour city so we don't play often with them) acutally has one, and
trust me, people here has been wanted one for AGES, they went totally
news when they heard the news that my friend got 4 ;)
I myself got my Ivory Bow first two years ago, trying to trade for one
for a really long time through the net. It's not possible to "just
buya box for $75" since ther'es no boxes for sale anymore, and most of
my friends began playing after AH went out of print. As for Sabbat,
those who's been playing the game with me from the start began to lose
interest in the game as Sabbat came out and thus never bought it, some
of my friends bought their sets later on, after Sabbat went out of
print so they can't get any. And one box is not enough either.
In my frequent playgroup of 8 people there's onyl me that can put
together a Sabbat deck of any clan, and there's one more guy who can
put together a Tzimisce deck and a !Brujah deck, for the rest of the
clans he'd have to mix in with other vampires and not go much for their
clan discipline (like obt, dem etc).
Sure you can borrow a few cards, but when you need ot borrow like 20-30
cards people are not that eager to do so. I don't feel like lending
that many all the time myself, and I might even need to use the cards
for my current deck too.
>
> And I have also played both NL and CL. I think that cardlimits CAN be
> usefull, but they also take away too many viable deckoptions. I'll not
> go into that again.
> Now here in Utrecht, people are seeing the NL arguments and getting
the
> point and they can choose for themselves.
> The most important argument a player gave me pro NCL was: No one likes
> to be forbidden something, and creative freedom is something that is
> necessary for any card game to evolve.
> Thus it's up to you what ever you want, but I can assure you that any
CL
> will take away way too many other fun, even silly deckdesigns and
favors
> soem clans over others.
>
I can see how CL takes away some fun, but it also adds some fun. I
think it works both ways. With CL you more often use cards that maybe
you wouldn't have else. I think that as long as everyone is happy with
the CL there's absolutely no reason to change.
mgre...@my-deja.com
<D78832ABD879F57E.CCC81FC5...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What aren't you impressed with Andrew?
>
> telling you is that one practical consequence of the dominance of NCL
> is that I'm not bothering to collect many cards or trying to compete
> seriously. If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+
> of some cards and that way lies madness ...
>
You still haven't said why this is. Why would you want 50+ copies of
some cards? It is practically impossible to play a deck that wins
anywhere near consistanyly with >20 of any one card. Usually something
like Cryptic Mission or possibly Corruption would require >20, but not
always. At _most_ 15 copies (and then usually commons) will suffice for
the most focussed of decks. Most that see play in the UK are very nearly
6CL legal with a few noted exceptions for cards with unique abilities
such as DotBeast and Legacy of Pander.
Decks that want to use those strategies are straight up UNPLAYABLE under
CL. Fine if you want to play a format with less variablility, but if the
card pool is 2000 and hasn't expanded in 5 years i'd want to be playing
the format with the most scope for deck variation.
People with limited access to cards have a justification for CL up to a
point. However sanctioning CL is a road to displeasure as it means:
1. The person with the biggest card collection will always have an
advantage as he/she has access to the 'bad-dupe' (staredown) rares.
2. S:CE is ludricrously powerful
3. Sneak/bleed is overpowered
4. CL players will do badly if ever they play in NL format, whereas NL
players will undoubtedly find it easier in a CL environment.
What i'm telling you is that you haven't played the game enough, looked
at the tournament environment enough and are not a good enough player to
make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations about what is apparently
good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have
argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps
coming up, year after year after year.
After a while you can tell the people who will inevitabily start the
arguement up again.
peace.
cantila
> writes
> >A fact that you didn´t talk about, Derek, and that is VERY
important, is the
> >availability of the cards. As cantila, I live in Europe, Spain, and
here we
> >have very few cards, and getting more than 4-5 copies of a rare card
is a
> >hard thing to do.
>
> Rare cards aren't inherently more powerful. You don't need rare cards
> to compete.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading here how IG is really
necessary for a rush deck. You know most people in my playgroup doesn't
own more than max 2 of them!! I myself had 6 (only rare I ever managed
to get more than 4 of, but that's because I bought lots of Sabbat and
they're uncommon there) and traded away 2, else they'd be even mroe
rare in ym playgroup.
>
> Rare cards offer, nine times out of ten, more "powerful" but more
> "corner-case" cards.
>
> >What?? I can´t believe that you have ever discussed about this
before. So
> >that´s your opinion on decks that use CL, decks that just can´t do
anything
> >"consistently". Well, if you think that cantila and his 25 group of
people
> >know nothing about playing with NCL with this affirmation you state
that
> >know even less of playing with CL.
>
> How are you stopping me playing 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown and 4 Catatonic
> Fear? You don't have enough sources of anti-S:CE.
First of all, I happen to be the only one who even has Catatonic Fea,r
and I have only 2. But what's more important is that there's a real big
difference between Majesty and Staredown/Catatonic since the latter
doesn't allow you to untap, which is what makes Majesty a card you
relaly want to have more than 4 of. Using the other S:CE doesn't have
the same impact at all, especially since I can do 4 IG's and 4 Psyches,
or simply use 4 Majesties (so I can untap when he does too) and IG's
(etc).
>
> >Here we have made up tons of decks that
> >do many things very consistently,
>
> Not by NL standards.
This is really a silly comment, it's like me saying that NCL doesn't
live up to the "fun standard" as CL does because NCL decks are too
narrow-minded and one-way directed. You don't have a right to judge our
way of playing and say it's bad compared to NCL. We think our way is
more fun and that's it. We're not gonna do NCL just to please some guy
over in USA because "that's how the rules were intended to be". I'd
never tell soemone playing Werewolf Pack with house rules that they
cannot do that "because that's not what the rule ssay, you have to go
back to the way it's written on the card!!". And I've never seen you
saying something like that either James, which makes me wonder why
you're so against other people using CL wehn you don't seme to mind
people using other kinds of houserules for specific cards to make them
more interesting.
>
> >Why not? What do you do around there? You just play
> >with bleed only decks, political only decks and combat only decks? My
> >friend, how boring that must be.
>
> And you assert that we know nothing of xCL. *sigh*
You assert we know nothing of NCL.
>
> >Again you state that this is a silly debate just because you are so
stuck in
> >your opinion that can ever think of playing with CL. I would like to
be able
> >to try playing with NCL, but as I stated before it´s hard when you
have no
> >cards to use.
>
> You can play NL with as many cards as you want. Indeed, many of the
> best NL decks have less than 6 copies of many cards.
>
That's 2 too many :)
> You don't need more or different cards for NL. That's the point.
>
> >How could I get my Gangrels able to act via dawn operation 8
> >times in a same game when I only have 2 copies of that card.
>
> You don't.
>
> You look at the cards you have and you make a deck around them.
So the guy witht he most cards/cash can make kick ass decks and always
win, which in the end will result in that:
a) the other players get tired of the game and stop playing, because
they don't want to feel they have to buy lots of cards to remain
competitive, or go through the effort of buying cards over the net.
They just want ot play the game for fun.
b) the player with all these good cards will be less invited for a game
by the others because they want to play a game where they have a chance
to win someomes too.
> >I would need to
> >get rid of another 6 of my valuable uncommons (because DO is a very
valuable
> >one).
>
> Why? You could borrow them from a friend.
Nobody plays with sleaved cards here and since you care about your
cards you don't want to lend out a lot of cards all the time. I do lend
out decks to players quite often, but that's to players who don't have
any cards of their own (but who will most liekly buy Sabbat War when it
comes out).
You could buy a few from
> someone. You could choose to play with proxies in a friendly game.
Proxies totally ruins the game really, then there's no point for
collecting cards at all. You know, half of the fun with the game is
that when you do get hold of this really cool rare u're happy, but with
proxies I could just make 5 of DoS etc. Not to speak of how confusing
it is with proxies, andit doesn't work for vampires either.
You
> could buy some boxes of Jyhad, and get a few in there. You could play
> Jyhad On-Line.
Oh, so I should suggest my playgroup to start playing JOL!! Wow, that's
a great idea, all this just to please you :-)
>
> > Getting one or two more would be a reasonable thing, and won´t
destroy
> >my card collection. Well, if you have money to spare and each week
you order
> >a couple boxes to Potomac distribution,
>
> You don't need to order a couple of boxes "each week", at all. A
couple
> of boxes of Jyhad is plenty to make a workable deck.
Read my post below baout my friend buying 3 boxes of VTES. While it's a
good start he's still lack a lot of cards, and 3 boxes aint that cheap
either for a simple game when you think of it. Just because we're
fanatics doesn't mean they are ;)
>
> Just because you don't have the cards to make the NL deck you really,
> really want to doesn't mean you shouldn't play NL. It just means you
> have to temper your dreams with reality. You can't play a deck with
> cards you don't have, even under xCL. It's no different.
True, but it prevents people that are able to get all these juicy cards
to ruin the fun for everyone else, and it also makes them trade away
any excess cards to those who really would want to own just *one* of
that card.
>
> --
> James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
> "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself
grateful
> they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I,
that's why
> it's possible I could get by."
>
cantila
"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote:
>
> "cantila" wrote:
> > As I said before, we've made an exception for the Corruption card,
> > there's no limit on that one, as well as Master Skill Cards
(because NL
> > on them allows you to try out fun strategies like Serpentis on
> > Nosferatu etc).
>
that "fun"?
> Would it get the okay to break CLs? As has been pointed out
> *cough*archive*cough*, "fun" is something that is quickly determined
by the
> shifting mood of the playgroup, which can easily be swayed by more
forceful
> personalities in that playgroup. How long before a new "fun"
strategy become
> "cheesy"? Maybe a few people think that Using a bunch of...let's say
Change
> of Target, just because it is practically useless, would be "fun".
What
> happens when they figure out some way to make it win? How many games
do they
> have to win before "fun" becomes "cheesy"?
>
> Just a few thoughts. And now I shut up.
>
> Xian
>
The whole idea about the corruption card is based on NCL, that's why we
have NCL on that card, a CL on it would make it nearly useless, while
all other cards are still as useful as always even with a CL. As for
the skill cards, NCL allows you a more diversified play style, while 10
cryptic mission (or 10 of any card) actually do the opposite.
Mike Ooi
theve...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8p7ee5$n40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> If I want to make a Setite deck for example
>
>how much fun is a setite deck with only four corruptions?
>
It's 3.14159 fun. If you played with the EXTRA FUN card featured in Malk &
Kookies, then the most fun you could possibly have (with 4CL) is 15.14159.
legb...@my-deja.com
As was shown in the recent Uk Gencon tournament, which also reinforced
the point that if you play with boring NCL decks you will get your
undead botty good and spanked.
>
> What i'm telling you is that you haven't played the game enough,
looked
> at the tournament environment enough and are not a good enough player
to
> make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations about what is apparently
> good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group
have
> argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps
> coming up, year after year after year.
>
> After a while you can tell the people who will inevitabily start the
> arguement up again.
>
> peace.
>
> matt.
>
Golly, that was fun, wasn't it? i'm sure this is a hormonal thing, the
biannuality of the CL/NCL debate.
Boringly enough i agree with Matt and Derek about this topic, and i'm
sure that after a few months or years so will Cantila and Dark Elf. VTES
cards are very beautiful and you can play all sorts of games with them -
i myself have experimented with Vampy Chess, Vampopoly and L'Attaque
des vampires. These games are OK but they are NOT Jyhad, the King of
Games. Same goes for CL "VTES" - sorry, guys n gals, if you've only ever
played CL then you've not actually played VTES at all, and if you've
tried both and PREFER CL then maybe you should play a game where CL is a
fixture. An example of such a game is sealed-deck VTES, of course, which
i think is the only common ground between the CL and NCL camps.
BUFFER line to stop message tailing
BUFFER line to stop message tailing
BUFFER line to stop message tailing
BUFFER line to stop message tailing
BUFFER line t
Derek Ray
<darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> wrote:
>> No, actually, it's because it pisses us all off to have to listen to
>> people repeat the same damned arguments in favor of CL over and over
>> assuming that they're saying something new to us, or that somehow the
>> arguments are any less wrong than they were before. We direct you to
>> the archives because that way, if someone would EVER go there first,
>> nobody gets pissed, and then you will have a full awareness of where
>> things stand BEFORE you go off with everything that's been said
>> before.
>Oh!, sorry my lord. So it pisses you off (and you have also included
>everyone elses in the newsgroup, :o)) to have to listen to people that think
>different than you do. Why the heck you keep answering us? If you gett
You address the symptoms without answering the problem. If you would
say something NEW about the debate, then we would be perfectly happy
to listen. But haven't you noticed everyone else jumping in and
saying "oh, joy, we haven't had a good CL flamewar in awhile"? Maybe
it means that we've all heard too damned much about it already?
Why do I answer you? Same reason as I answer cantila - I will not
permit you to spread inaccurate information unchallenged.
>pissed about this forget about this conversation and let the people that
>want to talk about something do it. You DONT have to read what we write, and
>we can write here WHATEVER we want about this game, and have the same right
>as you do, Derek. As far as I know this is a public forum in wich NOONE can
>tell you what you should or shouldn´t write in it (as long as it discusses
>something about it´s subject).
I can sure ask you to learn something about the subject before writing
on it, can't I? Which I did originally, VERY politely, in a response
to that first offhand CL mention. And cantila's response was "oh, i
haven't got time to do that" and then he wandered off into a bunch of
the same old tired pro-CL arguments you could find anywhere and were
disproven long ago. Do you wonder that I get annoyed?
>Just because there´s a majority of people that think that NCL is right it
>doesn´t mean that that is the best solution for everybody.
In this case, actually, it DOES mean that it's the best solution for
everybody. It handles the problems of "rich players with lots of
cards" very effectively, because you don't need tons of rares to
compete. It handles the problems of "few cards" fairly effectively as
well, since it's tough to have only a "few" of the common cards.
>Please Derek, respect other opinions, and don´t get pissed off, we are here
>to enjoy, if we do it different ways, lets welcome it!. I´m sure that if we
>ever get together and talk for a while we´ll forget about this and have many
>excellent games in wich I´ll learn a lot about NCL games, and you´ll respect
>my CL play style.
You know, this is the real problem. I can respect you, but I'm not
GOING to respect card limits, because they were never intended for the
game and have been sheet-welded onto it by old Magic players, or
people with good, but sadly mistaken intentions. All the arguments in
favor of card limits hold no water, or in some cases can be shown to
actually be MORE detrimental to the game than if they hadn't been in
place. Why should I respect something that is so obviously wrong?
>And about the cost of buying cards, I have to say again that I am from
>Europe. A couple facts: the dollar right now is flying to heaven from the
>Euro (you guys over US are doing a well job on economy, at least against
>Europe). Actually today it is on the news that the Euro is on its downless.
>Right now dollars here cost more than double! than they were 3-4 years
>before, if you add to this the cost of delivering via air-mail or whatever,
>those cheap Jyhad boxes for you over there are not that cheaper around here.
>Don´t put us in the same ground than you are.
(spreads hands) perhaps White Wolf will release some of the new
expansion in Europe. I can't help you with geographical location, and
I can sympathise, but I cannot support a set of rules that is based on
something totally outside the game's purview. as we point out
repeatedly, the guy with the most money DEFINITELY wins then, because
he has 4 of all the rare cards and nobody else does - and nobody else
can just use 8 commons to make up for the fact that he has 4 commons
and 4 rares. His decks WILL be more effective.
>But in relation with this, I think that James is totally right.
James is capable of saying it in a 'saner' manner than I am. =)
legb...@my-deja.com
"Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote:
> Since you guys (Card Limits vs. No Card Limits) invaded our Talbot's
> Chainsaw thread, I'm going to invade yours...
>
> I want to talk about Talbot's Chainsaw.
> It's very pretty, as chainsaws go.
> It has a chain, and it can saw through things.
> It used to belong to someone, someone named Talbot, I think, but now
IT'S
> MINE!
> The Sword of Judgement is also very pretty, but not as pretty as
Talbot's
> Chainsaw.
>
A little-known fact [which i will now reveal] is that Lady Legbiter is a
collateral relative of that Lord Talbot whose favourite hobby was the
public toasting of French National Heroines. i think therefore that the
chainsaw probably belongs to her. Now i will show her your photograph,
and you can argue it out between you.
> Has someone ever built a nasty Giovanni/Carlotta Necromancy deck
> specifically to screw with card limits?
Yes
If you built it right, you could
> screw everyone at the table by bringing your 4 nasty broken cards back
into
> play time and time again
Yes
(You could also screw everyone at the table because
> they will all think you are clever and sexy!)
YES!!!!!
How was it for you, Mike?
>
> Xian wrote in message ...
Yeah, but no-one sane deliberately starts these things. This time round
it was a new guy called Cantila from Sweden wanting to know how to use
the clan-specific burnable masters from AH and DS. i told him. Then he
revealed that his group plays CL and therefore couldn't do one of the
tricks i'd suggested. Then All Hell [believed to be a euphemism for Our
Brothers Derek Ray and MAtthew Green] broke loose.
> >
>
buffer line to stop message tailing.
buffer line to stop message tailing.
buffer line to stop m
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>What aren't you impressed with Andrew?
>
>There are clearly pros and cons on both sides of CL vs NCL. What I'm
>telling you is that one practical consequence of the dominance of NCL
>is that I'm not bothering to collect many cards or trying to compete
>seriously. If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+
>of some cards and that way lies madness ...
It already lies that way, if you are assuming you need 50+ of some
cards. Ben Peal's 60-Weather Control deck was a silly lark, and i
doubt even HE expected it to do anything other than gain a few VPs and
keep himself amused. Sure, he intended to TRY to win as much as he
could, but 60 of one card is the formula for NO winning deck.
You can easily compete seriously with a simple commons-only deck. The
solution lies in experience, and increased deck-building skill. Your
options may be slightly more limited because you have fewer cards, but
this is true whether or not you play under a CL.
If you don't have all the commons you want, I am CERTAIN that some can
be found for you in the UK. We have an enormous box here in Atlanta
that we call the "common/uncommon giveaway pile" that basically
consists of everyone's commons and uncommons that they have 40 of and
will never need more than 15 of - and that's assuming they keep
several decks built that use the card. When new players come into our
group, we point them at THAT box first, so they can be sure to have
plenty of the basic stuff for their decks, and that way they can be
basically competitive.
>That's funny. When I use comparative arguments on the Doomtown list,
>other bigots tell me that no-one plays Star Wars, B5, Shadowfist,
>whatever. I don't even bother to cite VTES as few of them will have
The facts really come down to this: Lots of people play Magic and
Pokemon. "No-one", by comparison, plays any other CCG. What names
you get will depend on where you turn and who you ask, but those are
the two biggies.
>There is a fragmentation issue in Doomtown now but it's not over the
>CL, it's about the storyline restricted format. VTES hasn't got there
>yet but I dare say it will. The equivalent issue will be banning
>Jyhad cards when the VTES base set is reprinted. That'll be fun...
And will never happen. There are rules right now to deal with
Jyhad-backed cards. They work fine. White Wolf is fully aware of the
original screwup that WotC made by changing the name of the game, and
they aren't about to compound the mistake by alienating all the
players with Jyhad cards, who are currently the people who are keeping
the game ALIVE.
>The starting point here is that the player base is already split. Why
>won't VEKN embrace the CL play-groups and recognise their way of
>playing the game?
Because it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, and doesn't
serve any actual purpose. The game was designed for NCL. The player
base is not split, as the vast majority of players still use NCL. New
players will be introduced to the game as an NCL game, and will learn
it properly. So it won't be a problem.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>unfair. And in return I got some well needed cards. Even with Jyhad and
>DS that's still actually possible to buy at some places here I don't
>have have even 4 of some uncommons I want. About 15 of our 25 players
>can't put together a good deck based on a DS clan...and DS has been
>bought in big amounts here. Speaking of Dawn Operation, I've played
That's because the Ravnos and Giovanni didn't get anywhere near enough
vampire support in DS or afterwards. Look closely at the Giovanni
discipline mix as compared to, say, just the Jyhad Ventrue. Notice
how few actual USEFUL vampires the Giovanni have. They all have
Necromancy, but the clan is supposed to have Potence and Dominate too,
and trying to find those matched up in any consequence is just
hopeless. Not to mention that if you go by just Dark Sovereigns, you
have superior Necromancy on a 3-cap, and the next superior NEC you
find is Carlotta... a 7? Ugh.
The Ravnos are a little better, but they still suffer from some other
problems, such as their stuff being largely related to equipment when
equipment was already weak.
It's going to be difficult to put together a good Ravnos or Giovanni
deck no matter HOW many cards you have.
legb...@my-deja.com
> >A more proper examle is for example 10 Temptation of Greater Power,
> >cards that are rare and really good and one of a kind. Another
example
>
> *sigh* You know, I played against Legbiter's Temptation of Greater
> Power deck multiple times recently. It's a good deck. It is NOT the
> be-all end-all of decks. There are numerous ways to defeat it. It is
> a very strong card, but if you think the deck is boring, all I can say
> is that you've never really seen it played. There are a lot of things
> it has to do BESIDES use "temptation of greater power" just to make
> itself go.
10 Temptations is too many, BTW. About 7 is what you want.
<snip>
> Second, you can build a perfectly adequate deck with nothing more than
> common and uncommon cards from Jyhad. You can sweep a table with it,
> in fact. Against all the other horrible, horrible "NCL" decks. This
> has been SHOWN, REPEATEDLY, in the archive I attempted to get you to
> read..
Yep.
<snip>
> >I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone, how fun is
> >that? Everyone seme to go with that.
Er, up to a point, Lord Copper. Is this the famous swedish sense of
humour, perhaps?
<snip>
> >to prevent stealth or bleed decks, that's obviosuly an important
> >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based
> >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy
of
> >Pander). The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good
thing.
>
Why no, i think this is an amazingly wrong statement. There were CL
decks at Gencon. They were crap, largely. There were boring NCL decks at
Gencon. Also crap, as it happens. Some of the decks in the final were
6CL compatible, some not, but nobody who got there was anything less
than a top European player.
<snip>
>
> The LoP deck does as well as it does because Rob Treasure is playing
> it and he is a very skilled player, not because it is inherently
> broken. It has a number of weaknesses, which he takes great pains to
> play around. Not the least of these weaknesses is... +1 intercept.
> Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are
> actually a threat. Or if a Rush deck had been sitting near him. What
> if a fast bleed deck was behind him? What if some voters were
> influenced out early on, so he couldn't gain vote lock? All of these
> things could be problems for his deck, and all are fairly common
> strategies to see in a tournament.
>
<snip>
In support of your point, Derek, Rob got well kicked in the first round
at the UK Nationals this year, and came into the final behind me on
tournament points. His first LoP went down to a DI. Same would have gone
for his second, had i not used mine to DI a Toreador Justicar of Jon's
which would have given the rest of the table an anti-treasure vote lock,
which would probably have meant Jon or i would have won and sent poor
Rob home in a REAL strop. Why did i do something so crassly stupid, you
will ask? Well, second prize was signed original Sheldon artwork whereas
first was The Barrens and some useless cup thing.
Buffer line to prevent message tailing
Buffer line to prevent message tailing
Buffer line to prevent message tailing
Buffer line to prevent
cantila
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8p69p3$dno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar-
> 6...@student.luth.se> writes
> >So the point is, if someone has 15 Majesties
>
> Staredowns.
>
> >and I throw in 15 Psyches,
> >then my Psyches are for no good if he decides to go with some other
> >deck next time.
>
>
> If you aren't certain of being able to kill someone in one round,
> Psyches will provide useful backup to go in again (say you find damage
> prevention a problem).
>
> If you want to cycle more combat cards, 1 Pysche! will let you go for
> another few combat cards.
>
> If you want to press, it's useful.
>
> If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful.
You mean necessary (if you want to have a chance to beat on him)
>
> >And I'm sure you'd like CL if you tried it out as well. Except for
that
> >fact that your 16 other Fists of Death would be useles sof course.
> >Which is also a good reaosn to have CL, it prevents syndrome where
> >people with the most money can make the best decks.
>
> You need to read all the previous posts on xCL, because you're not
> saying anything that hasn't been said before.
>
> Who wins in a situation where I have 27 Bewitching Orations and 1 Awe,
> and the money player has 500 Bewitching Orations and 5 Awe?
>
> Oh look, the rich player has more of a rare card.
No but who wins ina situation where you have 10 BO or only 4? You said
before that you can use Awe instead, you know I'm the only one in my
playgroup even having that card, and I have one (1)!. It's time to wake
up to reality, I and some other people here have tried to make you
realise that CL is good for us because it's hard to get hold of cards.
If I was rich I could have bought 10 Awes...
Sure with your specific example the other players can get 10 BO quite
easily, but there's tons of other situation where the card you want is
a rare and not a common.
>
> >Not everyone has
> >enough of cash to get 20 IG's to counter the 20 Majesties...
>
> So play an entirely different deck that doesn't care about Majesty.
If
> you just avoid combat altogether, his 20 Majesties are pointless.
>
> >And that's
> >what no CL is about IMO, cheesy stuff :)
>
> You need to read previous arguments on this, you're not saying
anything
> new.
>
> Malkavian Stealth and Bleed is not hampered at all under CL.
>
> It is hampered under NL, because you can defend against it better.
>
> Fact.
Not a fact, the protection is hampered as much/as little as the
Malkavian Bleed deck is, because there's still 12 defelcts, and 4
telepatic counters. That's certian enough against any Malk deck. And
then there's the Protected Resources and Archon Investigation and
evenChimerstry cards reducing stealth/bleed.
>
> >For example, all combat decks
> >I see on the net nowadays are based on IG's and ToS alone,
>
> Look harder.
>
> >how fun is
> >that?
>
> Plenty fun. Not everyone is playing those decks, and you have all
sorts
> of things you can do.
>
> What would you do? Deny people access to 12 copies of IG when you can
> still have 12 sources of Combat Ends in a deck (Majesty, Staredown,
> Catatonic Fear).
>
> Personally, I'd rather not try and play a combat deck and have someone
> play 12 S:CE against me. How fun is that?
12 Majesties would be no fun since he can untap and do another action
against you, however with the other S:CE it's not worse than someone
having the vote power and an Elysium.
I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an
answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly
exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo
Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single
specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact*
same effect.
>
> >Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use
> >other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully
> >replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that
> >might be something you can't afford.
>
> A lot of people find Increased Strength a very playable alternative.
Which requires a strike to go with it, thus you have suddenly at least
doubled the needed cards (need even mroe cards if you strike more than
once).
>
> >You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you
> >say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick
> >the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make
a
> >dedicated stealth deck, which is all true.
>
> You cannot make any other deck as dedicated.
Now you contradict yourself again! Now you're saying that CL DOES have
some effect on making a deck too one-way focused.
>
> People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it
> doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop
> cheese.
I said I'd not explain this again, read above about specific combos...
>
> If that's why you're playing with xCL, you haven't examined the
> situation clearly enough.
>
> > But the point with CL is not
> >to prevent stealth or bleed decks,
>
> You said it was about no "cheesy stuff". Malk S&B often features
under
> a definition of such.
We never tried to limit a Malk S&B deck, because that's what Malks are
all about. It would have been much simpler to ban the clan if that was
what we wanted.
>
> >that's obviosuly an important
> >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based
> >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy
of
> >Pander).
>
> Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are
> defeatable, and have holes to be exploited.
Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the
deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure
though)!!?
>Except, under xCL, you are
> not allowed to have enough of those counters. You're not allowed all
> your S:CE counters because you can't have enough IG. You're not
allowed
> enough vote counters, because you can't have enough Delaying Tactics.
This isn't why, it's to prevent someone going for 10 Consangineous
Boons for example, which would make him win easily if he got them
through (not too hard with 10 BO's unless people block, but you could
use stealth in your deck, like Setites).
> You're not allowed enough bleed bounces, because you can only have 8
in
> Dominate and only 4 in Auspex. Auspex, under NCL, has a very good
bleed
> defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot,
> because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs.
You're so single-minded, there's Flak Jackets, Elysiums, S:CE etc etc
etc etc etc
>
> >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
> >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP
> >deck,
>
> You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against
any
> vote deck.
Hmm how effective is a deck with 15 DG's?? Sure it definately prevents
the LoP but has no chance to win himself.
>
> Building a specific counter deck is a pointless exercise. You need a
> good amount of defence against a deck, along with a decent deck as
well.
> You can defend against politics, you can defend against bleed, you can
> defend against combat. If you don't, you'll be dead, CL or no CL.
>
> >If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to
throw
> >in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with
10
> >IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned?
>
> No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what
NL
> means.
Which is the reason why we don't. Because we know what it means = a
boring repetitive game (IMO)
>
> There are plenty of other viable defences against many other sorts of
> combat decks, and S:CE won't work against all of them. Leather Jacket
> won't work against all of them. Flak Jacket won't work against all of
> them. Dodge won't work against all of them. You put in what is right
> for your deck. And 10 Leather Jackets would be a bloody stupid choice
> for such a deck.
>
> >And just
> >because I have to throw in these LJ's it means my deck is less
> >efficient against other types of decks.
>
> You surely put combat defence in an xCL deck? Do you just stand there
> not being able to defend at all?
>
> >I also think that CL forces a
> >more variety of card use,
>
> That's the point of it. It doesn't force no "cheesy stuff".
It prevents specific combos based on one single (usually rare) card
(once again).
>
> >so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do
> >else, at least not as often.
>
> That might be because the cards are bad cards, or inappropriate to
your
> deck.
So then we come back to the origin of this whole discussion where
someone claimed that CL creates wallpaper cards. Nice to see someone
from the NCL camp admitting they were wrong.
>
> You try and argue against NL, but say you'd put 10 Leather Jackets in
> the above deck. It's an utterly stupid thing to do, and no serious NL
> player would even think of doing such. The idea of maxing out on one
or
> two cards always seems to come from the anti-NL camp, and not from
> people with NL experience.
Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no decks
ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of
Greater Power deck then?
Is that a BAD deck???
>
> <4 Rampage - 4 Arson>
> >This was just an example to illustrate that trying to get around the
CL
> >does punish you
>
> Erm, what?
>
> >(in this case you get punished by being forces to have
> >potence),
> >so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this
> >kind of card.
>
> Indeed. If you don't need 8 of a kind of card, you're unlikely to put
> that many in under NL.
>
> NL simply allows you access to the cards you do want. It doesn't
force
> you to take 10 of them, like you seem to be suggesting.
No but it makes it possible, and with some certain cards that makes the
deck way powerful.
>
> >Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM
> >gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's
instead
> >of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent
> >soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare)
card.
>
> Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop
> the cards being powerful.
But it hasn't been done, so?? And LM isn't too powerful with a CL, and
not enough powerful with NCL to make it changed (obviously, since it
hasn't happened). And why change like 50+ card texts (in erratas) when
you could just make a CL and fix most of the "broken" cards?
>
> Most cards in the game are balanced, currently.
>
> >And to prevent that startegy you might need a specific card in
> >quanitties (like IG against S:CE) and people may not have the money
to
> >buy for.
>
> There are other ways around S:CE, and you can suit your deck to
whatever
> your resources allow, for instance, playing a political deck
instead.
>
> Going and buying a few boxes of Jyhad (which are cheap) is one way to
> get a half-dozen Immortal Grapple.
You're not the one having to get them shipped to Europe, pay for
exchange fees (which are $10) or having to deal with the fact that your
currency has almsot doubled against ours in 3 years time.
I spent $800+ on this game and I got 6 IG's all in all which includes
the Sabbat ones too. But then I bought two of them through the net...
>
> >You fail to mention the numerous of erratas or extra rules that has
> >been invented afterwards just because the abuse of no CL.
>
> No, errata exists to balance cards regardless of number in a deck.
> >Like the no
> >repeat action tenet (that we don't use).
>
> That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak
Drives
> in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon
> you.
Sure they could but it's not likely to happen, and even so it doesn't
have to mean you get ousted etiher. It's extremely unlikely that
someone would have draw 4 FD's AND 4 bleed cards to go with them all at
once. And even so I have the chance to draw 4 deflects etc.
Once again you also forget that nobody even has 4 FD's in my playgroup
but me. I happen to have money to buy more cards than others in my
playgroup, if I wanted to I could have gotten 10 FD's or more, which
wouldn't have made it better would it?
>
> >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
> >Legacy of Pander.
>
> It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten.
CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to
be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some
diversity :)
Playing
> Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives
> you a good chance against many vote decks.
Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with
such a deck :)
Vote lock isn't solely
> generated via Legacy of Pander, you know?
>
> If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's
10
> Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in
the
> game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of
Praxis
> Seizures make the game any more "fun"?
One LoP should give more votes than a PS (else u're doing something
wrong :P) Also you can play 10 LoP's but you cannot play 10 PS unless
you have that many minions (not likely).
>
> >It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the
> >player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and
> >then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new
> >decks).
>
> If a deck has no way to defend itself against politics, it will die
when
> it sits next to politics. If a deck has no way to defend itself
against
> bleed, it will die when it sits next to bleed. If a deck has no way
to
> defend itself against combat, it will die when it sits next to combat.
>
> These are facts.
Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I
find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues and
all.
>
> You should consider what defences your deck has when you build it.
>
> So, you know you're not going to sit next to 10 Legacy of Pander. Do
> you put no vote defence in? Vote lock can be achieved via other
means.
How will I know I'll sit next to a LoP deck??
>
> If you need to "prepare yourself" against a specific deck, you are
> playing badly - and the reason you need xCL to balance decks is
because
> you're playing badly, not because NL is broken. It sounds like you're
> not putting *any* vote defence in at all. LoP can be badly screwed by
> generic vote defence, and if you don't put any of that in, well,
that's
> your own fault, not the fault of NL or LoP. Or another vote deck.
I always have vote defense, but it doesn't help when the guy has 5
minions all trying to play a LoP the same turn, now does it?? Unless I
have enough of titled vampires up, but then he'd not play them in the
first place *duh*.
>
> >> In the meantime, PLEASE read the archive before responding.
> >> Everything I've said here has been said before. Everything YOU
have
> >> said so far has been said before. Let's not say it again
> >> unnecessarily? =)
> >
> >As I said, I don't have the time,
>
> If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should
anyone
> else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments
that
> have gone before you, with nothing new to add?
I never asked anyone to listen, duh. You've chosed so yourself, not my
fault. *I* wasn't the one brining up this whole issue, *someone*
herecomplained at my playgroup using CL! Geesh sounds like now you're
trying to make it my fault that you happen to not like CL and complain
about it.
>
> >and you enedn't reply if you don't
> >want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're
> >happy in our group
>
> Please, be happy in your group. If you can't be bothered to show
people
> here the common decency of reading up on a debate before trying to
sound
> clever in it, don't bother. You just go over old ground and introduce
> nothing new at all, which helps no-one.
Ok, then I say to you, go and read ALL threads EVER made on this forum
and ALL other forums ever created for the VTES. Because if you don't
then u shouldn't post here about anything whatsoever, since it MIGHT
have been handled already at some point, somehwere, in the far past!!
So please, don't post here ever again before you have. Makes much sense
huh? No yours didn't either.
>
> >why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love
> >the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken,
> >why fix it?
>
> What do you do if I sit down with a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed
deck?
>
> 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it,
with
> a decent deck still there. That is broken.
You know we've never had more probs with Malks that any other clan. If
they have a cheesy deck, poeple usually gang up on them because we hate
Malks ;-)
>
> What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's
very
> different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been
ever
> since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES.
But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I? You tell
me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to
check how this single thread came to existance...
"We don't abuse card limits in
> our group, so they're alright." That just doesn't stand up. Card
> limits can be abused. NL has no abusive decks, to my mind, as the
> situation currently stands, even though some decks - LoP and ToGP are
> causing people some grief at the moment. ToGP will do nothing against
> massive blood gain, really.
Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused,
that just doesn't stand up, they are.
>
> >I think the best thing with CL is that you know how many cards you
need
> >ot collect. Without CL u're never satisfied
>
> Once you get beyond a stupid number for a deck, you're satisfied. You
> might also want to have several decks on the go at once, so you can
lend
> them to people, so you can't share cards between decks.
>
> >I think CL really helps to make people try out
> >different clans.
>
> Erm, what?
>
> You can play as many clans as you want under NL.
But not effectively unless u're filthy rich.
>
> > I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players
> >here has a few clans that they almost always play.
>
> Look harder
You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few
decks/clans that they prefer to always play? Only those with tons of
cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they
never break down. I think that tells something...
In my playgroup there's never been anything like "this guy 80% plays
this specific clan". It seems very common at other places. When you got
o websites of playgroups it usually says soemthign like:
"In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a
Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be blind.
- and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL
> debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page,
search
> for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that
have
> been refuted a hundred times before.
>
> A lot of people have favourite clans, but I've seen people try all
sorts
> of things.
I dind't dsay they never tried others. But they play mainly one, and
that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent
their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's
not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed, without
being filthy rich.
>
> And there is *nothing* making people shift clans by the presence or
> absence of card limits.
It means that you don't have to have 10 Majesties to make a Presence
deck competitive because another guy has 10 Psyches in his deck... I
can't believe you ahven't realised this yet, despite me telling you
this so may times :(
>
> >Of our 25 people
> >nobody ever plays a specific clan all the time. I think the answer to
> >that is that if you have collected 10 IG's to amke this powerful
Brujah
> >deck you will naturally mainly play decks based on IG's because you
had
> >to spend so much effort gathering the needed cards to make the deck
> >really effective.
>
> It takes very little expense or effort to get a lot of IGs. Buy a
> couple of boxes of Jyhad. Put up a few notices on a trading site.
> What's that, half an hour's work?
>
> > Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare
> >card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy
> >rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards...
>
> Oh, but 4 is *that* much different to 5. Right.
no but 10 is, you have to out the limit somewhere. If you allow 5, you
could as well allow 6 "since it's not much different" and then you
could as well allow 7...stupid argument. And even between 4 and 5 it
DOES make difference. 5 is 25% more than 4. You say that 25% more Dawn
Ops aint a large increase? ;)
>
> How do you cope with the new player who wants to put more presence
vote
> modifiers in his deck but can't, because he only owns 1 Awe but you
own
> 5?
I don't own 5, if I had I'd traded one away because of the CL, so he'd
have 2 :)
I hardly own even 4 of any rare, VTES cards included. IG, RotBR, and
Psychic Veil are the only exceptions I think. However if it wasn't for
the CL I'd gotten more than 4 of some specific rare cards for sure. But
now I think 3-4 of the best ones are good enough since I need ot mix in
other cards anyway, so my deck won't be as narrow-minded as I else
would have made it.
But he has 10 Bewitching Orations and you won't let him. And the
> rich player doesn't win? Yeah, right.
Again no, because I don't have more than 1 awe. If he really needed it,
he could borrow it from me. Also why would he need 10 BO's when nobody
can have more than 4 Dread Gazes anyway? You need to see the whole
picture here. He won't need as many BO's because there's fewer ways to
counter hsi votes, thus he got place to throw in more fun and odd cards
that's normally not used *wallpaper issue comes to mind*.
>
> > I have most
> >cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare
> >card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either.
>
> So, you have 3 Awes, newbie player doesn't.
I got 1 Awe :) Besides Awes doesn't matter that much because newbie can
still block me or play pulling strings etc.
Shucks, I guess he just
> can't play an effective politics deck - which he could if you'd let
him
> put more than 4 Bewitching Orations in.
We play by the old vote rules, where you can throw one vote card for
ready vampire (IMO I think it's redicilous that was changed), so he'll
be able to gather votes that way plus Ventrue HQ and such cards. Our
newbies never had problems with voting so I don't see how this is a
problem.
But, for some reason, you
> decide to punish him for not being rich, where NL said "Yep, we're
cool
> with you playing 10 of that common card, instead of 4 common and 4
> rare".
Yeah and I get to use 10 ToGP, nice. On a note I should add that it's
the newbies that appreciate the CL the most, which would be strange if
they were disadvantaged.
>
> And NL has shown time and time again that decks with many, many
commons
> in them do very well indeed. If you *want* to play a deck with mostly
> rares, you can do that too - but a common deck won't fall down just
> because it's common. It'll fall down because it's badly made.
>
> --
> James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
> "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself
grateful
> they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I,
that's why
> it's possible I could get by."
>
cantila
>
> telling you is that one practical consequence of the dominance of NCL
> is that I'm not bothering to collect many cards or trying to compete
> seriously. If I were to do so then I'd be collecting multiples of 50+
> of some cards and that way lies madness ...
>
that
> >game and nobody plays it competitively. And apparently, if they do
they
> >get a choice of whichever format they want to play in. Strikes me
that
> >if you have a player base of 10 you don't want to have 2, 5 player
> >tournaments you want 1, 10 player one. surely.
>
> other bigots tell me that no-one plays Star Wars, B5, Shadowfist,
> whatever. I don't even bother to cite VTES as few of them will have
> Doomtown events at Origins and Gencon were much bigger than those for
> VTES though the numbers were about the same at Gencon UK - 30 to 28, I
> think.
>
> There is a fragmentation issue in Doomtown now but it's not over the
> CL, it's about the storyline restricted format. VTES hasn't got there
> yet but I dare say it will. The equivalent issue will be banning
> Jyhad cards when the VTES base set is reprinted. That'll be fun...
>
> >and shackling half of them to a bad tournament format is a worse
idea.
> >Players will end up enjoying the game less.
>
> won't VEKN embrace the CL play-groups and recognise their way of
> playing the game?
>
>
Becuase they're stuck up narrowminded non-tolerant people ;-)
(not serious about this)
cantila
What EXACTLY do you try to say?? I and some of my friends has played
hte game since it first came out! Who do you thin you are? Some all-
knowing God??
to
> make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations
Look's who's talking about ludicrous sweeping generalisations!
(I really suggest you go back and read how this thread was started as
well, I'm not pro CL for everyone, I just am *for my own playgroup* and
you have NO WAY of knowing whether CL is better than us or not! Despite
the fact you seem to consider yourself an all-knowing god. Also with
all your knowledge, how come you manage to claim that Staredown is a
rare!?!)
cantila
cantila
I agree that Giovanni isn't good, I think they're one of the worst
clans, although it's IS possible to put together a good and working
one. Ravnos I think are quite good actually, they manage well in combat
can trap, horrid reality, illusions of the kindred combo is nice :)
Works fine on a 4 CL limit too even. I also think that Konstantin's
ability is one of the best in game and I usually use 3 of him when I
play. Ravnos' problem is the lack of votes I think.
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are
>actually a threat.
Your best option is to kill the Legacies, in my view. They *are* the
votes which are actually a threat.
The times I've seen LoP defeated, it's generally been when the deck has
been stalled very quickly. It couldn't do the vote in its first (i.e.
the second, normally) turn, so it had to wait for the third turn. By,
then, someone has normally been able to bring out a 7 or an 8 -
hopefully a voting vampire.
It's been a long standing habit of mine, when building crypts, to favour
having a couple of Princes, Justicars, Bishops (alter to taste) in the
crypt, simply for this ability. If I can get a Prince out - let's say
Rake, Rob has problems. He can get the edge, yes. He gets one vote
from the card, yes. Now he *needs* a vote push card (Awe, BewOra). And
if I'm not the only person doing this - the Gangrel player has just
brought out Caitlin, or Gitane, say - everyone stands a chance to vote
him down.
So why pick the Legacy of Pander? Well, it's quite common to have a
vote deck on a table or, at least, a deck that has the capacity to vote
in it, possibly as an aside, with a few cards around. Legacy of Pander
doesn't just work on their votes, it works on everyone's. You hand the
control of the entire voting environment to the LoP player. If you
block the Kine Resources Contested, he's still probably got a few more
votes up his sleeve, and he can still vote down your votes. If you
block the Legacy of Pander (either through intercept, Direct
Intervention, Delaying Tactics), then he can't kill your votes, and he
can't pass the Kine Resources Contested anyway.
James Coupe
writes
>If it is harder for you to get the cards it doesn´t mean that NCL is not the
>right way to play. You´re right James, but maybe, as we have this
>difficulty, it suits better for us to play with CL.
Erm, what are you taking?
You can play as many or as few cards as you want under NL. If you don't
have the cards to make a 35 Cryptic Missions deck, you don't make it.
But equally, under xCL, if I don't have the cards I want for a deck, I
can't make that. And you don't *need* dozens of cards to play under NL.
That's the "no difference" part. You can only play with the cards you
have available to you under any format.
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>Trying to silence the argument in this way clearly doesn't
>work.
I am not trying to silence *any* argument.
It is utterly, utterly pointless, however, to have exactly the same
argument as last time.
The NL advocates know all the standard lines on why xCL is good, and can
refute them in their sleep - notice the fact that (whilst being
different people) Derek and I hit on similar examples.
If someone wants to have a decent go at advocating xCL, they need to go
and learn why their arguments have already been refuted before they make
them and then come up with something new. Then the argument can
actually advance and have some point to it.
All the arguments being had here have been had hundreds of times before.
Nothing new is being done. The xCL players need to advance the
argument, since nothing they say in defence of xCL is new, at all. The
only way they can do that is to learn what the counters to their
arguments are, and advance from there.
There is no point them learning everything from first principles, to
make an advance in maybe a few months or years time, when they could,
instead, do an hour's research (I wouldn't say you'd need to do much
more than that) and then be in a position where *real* progress can be
made, taking the argument in new and different directions.
Once again, the use of history and hindsight is to look and learn, not
blindly amble on repeating the same mistakes.
But then, what do I know? I'm just off to build this big boat. It's
really cool. It'll be unsinkable. It'll sail across the Atlantic, and
be really famous and nothing can ever go wrong with it. I can even save
on the lifeboats, because I won't ever need them! What's that? I
should go and spend a few hours doing a little bit of research? Tie-Tan
Nick? Who the hell is Tie-Tan Nick? Screw you, I'm off to build my
boat.
James Coupe
>of some cards and that way lies madness ...
That way lies bad deck design.
I see no reason, at all, to require 50 of one card in a 90 card deck.
Aside from a couple of exceptions - Cryptic Mission and Corruption - I
can't think of a card I'd want more than 12-15 of in a deck, ever.
cantila
"Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote:
> Since you guys (Card Limits vs. No Card Limits) invaded our Talbot's
> Chainsaw thread, I'm going to invade yours...
>
> I want to talk about Talbot's Chainsaw.
> It's very pretty, as chainsaws go.
> It has a chain, and it can saw through things.
> It used to belong to someone, someone named Talbot, I think, but now
IT'S
> MINE!
> The Sword of Judgement is also very pretty, but not as pretty as
Talbot's
> Chainsaw.
>
could
> screw everyone at the table by bringing your 4 nasty broken cards
back into
because
> they will all think you are clever and sexy!)
>
doesn't have that much of an impact.
Noal McDonald
> Action costs blood and is blockable plus it takes an action...so it
> doesn't have that much of an impact.
BZZZT!!! Wrong. Thank you for playing.
Actions aren't always blockable. There are many, many ways to make
actions unblockable. I'll leave lisitng the various methods as an
exercise for the reader.
Extracting cards from your ash heap is a HUGE effect as it goes a long
way towards removing the random element from the contents of your hand.
Need a particular card? Go get it from the ash heap.
Card limits are not a part of the game. People who believe the contrary
are wrong. And, yes, it's that simple.
Noal McDonald
VEKN Prince of Farmington Hills, MI
NJL Rules Team Member
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Darkelf
"Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:C7Pt5.346807$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com...
That was great Mike. Thanks for making me laugh after all this "weird"
discussion
cantila
ignored the
> point of my post. My question was, what other strategies, aside from
> Corruption, that *need* more than 4 of one card (7+ Raptor deck,
Cryptic
> Mission deck -- I find it entertaining...suck all the blood of prey's
> vampires...but surely that isn't broken, is it?) are "fun" and who
defines
> "fun"? And if they're not fun, why are they broken and thus
prohibited by
> your CL?
Sorry I missed to address your question, but here's the answer:
I agree these strategies seem fun to try out and I also agree that with
CL they're not really possible to try out to its fulle xtent. So that's
a negative yes, however on the positive side you get rid of some
potentially very powerful combos and that straight out very boring to
be faced it. It's not like there's absolutely no counter against these
strategies (like LoP, 15 deflect deck etc) but it's that they're just
really boring to face! We want some variety and not be the game
like "vote+BO, vote+BO, vote+BO" etc, see my point?
And as for the Raptor combo, nobody here owns more than 1 Raptor....I
used to have 3 but traded two away, so naturally nobody would come up
with the idea of suggesting we lifted CL coz they wante dot try this
combo. If it happened, I guess we'd have to make a discussion as to
whether we want to continue with the CL or not. It's really that
simple, as long as everybody is happy, we don't change it and people
won't question it since they're that, happy about it!
If I played with you guys using NCL I'd have to adapt and I don't think
I would have much of problems with it. But I do believe CL makes the
game more diversified, makes it last longer, and sums up to making ti
more fun in general.
I think that the *game lasts longer* argument is important too (at
least to me). The impression I get form you guys, is that if you have a
round wasted, or didn't get the combo you built your deck on in the
first few rounds, you're screwed. And it also sounds like ousting
someone after a few rounds isn't uncommon.
Well this isn't just how we want the game to be. I like games that are
a real sweat and very even, and where you can play for up to 4 hours
before it's settled. This doesn't mean our games cannot be quick
either, but at least it's normal that they last for 1,5-2 hours with 4
players. I'm pretty sure yours doesn't (normally).
>
> Personally, if I were playing under a soft CL that allowed for a few
specific
> cards to be NCL (Corruption, etc.), I would want to know why I
couldn't play a
> deck with a lot of Cryptic Mission in it. It's not all that likely
to sweep
> the table time and again, but since I am entertained with odd deck
concepts, I
> would want to try it out.
>
> So, who defines the difference between "fun" and "cheesy"?
>
> You may have noticed that I have continued to post on this thread.
Sorry, I'm
> human.
>
> Xian
cantila
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote:
> > Action costs blood and is blockable plus it takes an action...so it
> > doesn't have that much of an impact.
>
> BZZZT!!! Wrong. Thank you for playing.
>
> Actions aren't always blockable. There are many, many ways to make
> actions unblockable. I'll leave lisitng the various methods as an
> exercise for the reader.
>
> Extracting cards from your ash heap is a HUGE effect as it goes a long
> way towards removing the random element from the contents of your
hand.
>
> Need a particular card? Go get it from the ash heap.
>
> Card limits are not a part of the game. People who believe the
contrary
> are wrong. And, yes, it's that simple.
There's no way to easily make an aciton unblockable with a Giovanni.
Seduction isn't really a good way since both predator and prey can
block and Seduction also only prevents *one* minion from blocking.
It's a part of OUR game, and yes that's a reality (and simple).
legb...@my-deja.com
Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire
your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you,
by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your
addy.
>
> I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided
an
> answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly
> exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo
> Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single
> specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the
*exact*
> same effect.
>
Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8
weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP idea
but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a
tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be
contradicted!
On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't
understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one
card.
<snip>
>
> Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when
the
> deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure
> though)!!?
>
[a] it didn't sweep last year [Rob and Barney tied for first on VP, Rob
won on TP, i was third overall] [b] Rob's a dam' fine player, not only
technically but also psychologically, [c] i wanted second prize this
year because it was signed Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both
Sheldon and Ron SPencer.
<snip>
> >
> > >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
> > >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the
LoP
> > >deck,
Flatly contradict that. You weren't there. i was. i am right. You are
wrong.
<snip>
> Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no decks
> ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of
> Greater Power deck then?
> Is that a BAD deck???
A good temptation deck has at most 7-8 of any one card. Trust me on
this, or not, it doesn't matter.
<snip>
> >
> > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
> > >Legacy of Pander.
> >
It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing.
As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself.
> CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to
> be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some
> diversity :)
>
Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm
afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the
other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too
shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and
understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and
the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy
Families.
> Playing
> > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc.,
gives
> > you a good chance against many vote decks.
>
> Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with
> such a deck :)
>
Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A
well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in
favour of a table-vote deck.
<snip>
>
> Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I
> find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues
and
> all.
This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a
theologian.
<snip vast amount of stuff>
Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm happy
that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going
since the early days. Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew
"Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however, share
your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance
of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and
commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath before
digging yourself any further into the mire here. i thought at first you
were a total newbie but you clearly aren't and therefore, IMO, you ought
to know better.
Confucius said, respect a child's faculties from the Moment it Inhales
the Clear Air - but a Man of Fifty who Knows nothing is Worthy of No
respect.
Buffer line to stop Message tailing
Buffer line to stop Message tailing
Buffer line to stop Message t
legb...@my-deja.com
Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire
your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you,
by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your
addy.
>
> I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided
an
> answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly
> exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo
> Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single
> specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the
*exact*
> same effect.
>
Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8
weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP idea
but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a
tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be
contradicted!
On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't
understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one
card.
<snip>
>
> Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when
the
> deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure
> though)!!?
>
[a] it didn't sweep last year [Rob and Barney tied for first on VP, Rob
won on TP, i was third overall] [b] Rob's a dam' fine player, not only
technically but also psychologically, [c] i wanted second prize this
year because it was signed Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both
Sheldon and Ron SPencer.
<snip>
> >
> > >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
> > >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the
LoP
> > >deck,
Flatly contradict that. You weren't there. i was. i am right. You are
wrong.
<snip>
> Yet again, it was an *example*. You're really telling me that no decks
> ever has 10 card of a specific type? What about the Temptation of
> Greater Power deck then?
> Is that a BAD deck???
A good temptation deck has at most 7-8 of any one card. Trust me on
this, or not, it doesn't matter.
<snip>
> >
> > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
> > >Legacy of Pander.
> >
It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing.
As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself.
> CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to
> be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some
> diversity :)
>
Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm
afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the
other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too
shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and
understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and
the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy
Families.
> Playing
> > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc.,
gives
> > you a good chance against many vote decks.
>
> Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with
> such a deck :)
>
Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A
well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in
favour of a table-vote deck.
<snip>
>
> Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I
> find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues
and
> all.
This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a
theologian.
<snip vast amount of stuff>
Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm happy
that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going
since the early days. Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew
"Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however, share
your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance
of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and
commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath before
digging yourself any further into the mire here. i thought at first you
were a total newbie but you clearly aren't and therefore, IMO, you ought
to know better.
Confucius said, respect a child's faculties from the Moment it Inhales
the Clear Air - but a Man of Fifty who Knows nothing is Worthy of No
respect.
Buffer line to stop Message tailing
Buffer line to stop Message tailing
Buffer line to stop Message t
legb...@my-deja.com
Wait wait wait. You're NOT a newbie??? Ok, that makes things a bit
different. i respect your commitment to the game but, as one who's been
through the process, i really REALLY think you should play a few on-line
games or any games at all outside your own country before you, er,
commit yourself any further.
Who do you thin you are? Some all-
> knowing God??
On no, Matthew is only a very minor God in the VTES world. Not so much
ominiscient as polyniscient, less of the omnipotent and more of the
generally effective. i still worship the ground upon which he deigns to
tread and so, IMO, should you.
>
> to
> > make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations
>
> Look's who's talking about ludicrous sweeping generalisations!
>
> (I really suggest you go back and read how this thread was started as
> well, I'm not pro CL for everyone, I just am *for my own playgroup*
and
> you have NO WAY of knowing whether CL is better than us or not!
Hey, all-knowing Gods can exist outside UK too! Man, i SURE hope that
logic isn't part of your degree course otherwise you could be in some
trouble.
Despite
> the fact you seem to consider yourself an all-knowing god. Also with
> all your knowledge, how come you manage to claim that Staredown is a
> rare!?!)
Even Homer nods.
cantila
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:24:41 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <VPAm75AF...@obeah.demon.co.uk>,
> > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> >> If you want to press, it's useful.
> >>
> >> If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful.
> >
> >You mean necessary (if you want to have a chance to beat on him)
>
> S:CE, not the least of which is using a Haven Uncovered and mobbing
> the guy. Psyche is useful for any Celerity deck, but I have a deck
> that uses Haven, Disguised Weapon, Deer Rifle, and Manstopper Rounds,
> along with Dead-End Alley to press to a 2nd round and get 4 total
> points of damage. It uses all the OBF weenies. It doesn't give a
> damn if you S:CE or Dodge against it - someone will EVENTUALLY get
> you.
>
> Haven Uncovered, Disguised Weapon, and Deer Rifle are all cards I have
> a suspicious lot of. They might be uncommon, but I cannot BELIEVE
> you'd have trouble locating enough copies of each to play with, since
> they're hardly in high demand. Manstopper Rounds is probably a
> very-uncommon or a rare, judging from how many I have, but you don't
> need that many and it shouldn't be hard to trade for or just outright
> buy - not that many people even USE the card. Dead-End Alley is a
> ridiculous common, and even if you don't have enough of those somehow,
> Boxed In is a suitable substitute. I have some Hawgs in there too.
>
> To make this deck all-commons, you could use .44 Magnums and
> substitute Fake Outs for the Manstopper Rounds. The cost is the same
> (2 pool), and the effect is the same (4 points of damage total, all at
> long range). I used Deer Rifles to guarantee myself the maneuvers,
> instead of the damage, so I don't get killed by Potence decks. But it
> might work better with .44s, actually.
>
> >No but who wins ina situation where you have 10 BO or only 4? You
said
> >before that you can use Awe instead, you know I'm the only one in my
> >playgroup even having that card, and I have one (1)!. It's time to
wake
> >up to reality, I and some other people here have tried to make you
> >realise that CL is good for us because it's hard to get hold of
cards.
> >If I was rich I could have bought 10 Awes...
>
> one of the easiest cards to get. We have a huge pile in our commons
> box. I'm sure everyone in your group has AT LEAST 4 of them, and I
> imagine most people actually have more. How many do you have
> yourself?
6 VTES and 7 Sabbat ones. Probably traded away a buch in the past.
>
> That's the definition of "common" cards. COMMON. As in ridiculously
> common.
Never said that you couldn't get 10 or more of the commons, this has
never beenan issue.
>
> >Sure with your specific example the other players can get 10 BO quite
> >easily, but there's tons of other situation where the card you want
is
> >a rare and not a common.
>
> ...So name some already. What no-limit decks do you HAVE to have a
> bunch of rare cards to compete against?
>
> There are a number of decks *I* can't make, because I don't have the
> rares to do it. I can't make the Temptation of Greater Power deck. I
> can play against it just fine, though. I can't make the Legacy of
> Pander deck. But I can play against it with no problems. And I don't
> even need any rares to do it.
>
> We ALL have not enough of the cards we want. We just live with it,
> instead of trying to impose random limitations on people to make up
> for our shortfall.
>
> >Not a fact, the protection is hampered as much/as little as the
> >Malkavian Bleed deck is, because there's still 12 defelcts, and 4
> >telepatic counters. That's certian enough against any Malk deck. And
>
> Um. I count 4 Deflections, and 4 Redirections. Redirection is a
> tragically inferior card to Deflection, because you MUST have superior
> Dominate or you can only bounce younger vampires. So to have a hope
> of defending against Malkavian bleed, you must be playing with
> superior Dominate yourself. Boy, that sure gives me a lot of deck
> variety!
> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections.
And My Enemy's Enemy (although it's a rare, but so is Catatonic Fear
and you counted 4 of these).
I think 16 deflects is WAY more than you need against a Malk bleed
deck, because your prey will be ousted before the Malk can oust you,
and you get 6 pool and a buffer against some bleeds.
Hm. So who has
> superior Dominate and superior Auspex? Well, the Malks do. So I have
> to play the Malkavians to beat the Malkavians? Wait, the Tremere do
> as well! Except you can't get a Tremere with DOM/AUS until Justine,
> at an 8-cap. That's not good. I could play the Ventrue Antitribu, I
> suppose. They can get it at around a 6-cap.
Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es !
Ventrue. But if you don't want to deflect, then you can try to
intercept instead. This whole discussion is pretty meaningless, since
with NCL you *still* are forced to have dominate or AUS to bounce a
bleed, and while you can do fine with one of the types and in big
amounts, you have to
1) actualyl include it in your deck, something you normally won't do
unless you suspect someone is playign a heavy bleed deck (else it's
wasted)
2) You need that many cards of the one you choose. I have 5
Deflections...it's a common card. I'd say I would have maybe 4-5 more
if I hadn't traded away some, on the other hand I've bought more cards
than anyone. They'd be eays to come buy through the net of course, but
my playgroup doesn't trade through the net and doesn't even read any
Jyhad stuff on here.
>
> So, according to your theory, if I am worried about a cheesy Malk
> Bleed deck under CL, my options are limited to playing the Malks
> themselves, the Ventrue Anti, or playing with Justine and whoever else
> I can cram in there. Hmm.
>
> The Malks, on the other hand, just use any assortment of the 11
> different dominate bleed cards (at inferior DOM!), and any assortment
> of the multitude of stealth cards that OBF can provide. Pretty easy
> for them. No, sorry, that just doesn't hold water.
There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or
use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare
card). So you got 5 different options. Hmm I say too.
>
> >then there's the Protected Resources and Archon Investigation and
> >evenChimerstry cards reducing stealth/bleed.
>
> Are you kidding me? First you complain about rares and how people
> don't have them, then you quote two of the MOST rare cards in the
> game? Come on, now, let's be real here!
I just mentioned the OPTION. There's 3 people other than me in my 8
player group having it. They have one each, and I got one myself.
>
> You mention CHI. Well, let's see - they can reduce a bleed by 1. I'm
> glad that Ozmo will only be bleeding me for 5 this turn instead of 6.
CHI can reduce stealth to 0 too. Again, Malks has never been that big
of a problem, I think you relizee yourself there's plenty of options
for defence, just the Archon Investgation alone makes the Malks a bit
cautios, to make you bale to hold out agains the Malks. If you go real
heavy stealth and bleed you have no other defence, so one Haven and a
Malk is in torpor. And everybody hates heavy S&B decks so very rarely
anyone plays them, and when they do they usually get ousted fats
because people gang up on them. In a tournament we had the Malk S&B
deck ended up with 0 VP's actually because of this reason.
>
> >12 Majesties would be no fun since he can untap and do another action
> >against you, however with the other S:CE it's not worse than someone
> >having the vote power and an Elysium.
>
> Think of it from the point of view of a PREDATOR having to deal with
> his prey using tons of S:CE. It doesn't matter if he untaps or not -
> he got to end combat, and your deck got to be totally useless because
> you can't use enough cards to get the right amount of counters to
> S:CE.
As I said before, Elysium has the same effect, so I don't really see
this as a problem, coz then Elysium would be too (and it can be
annoying sometimes really, but so can any card be). If you're gonna
involve the predator into this, all I can say is that while prey can
only have 4 IG's, predator can have another 4, which makes a total of 8
against this S:CE deck. I can assure you even 4 are enough if you send
the vampire in torpor with them (and you most likely do once you get
one out).
>
> >I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided
an
> >answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL
mainly
> >exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo
> >Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single
> >specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the
*exact*
> >same effect.
>
> No Repeat Actions, a very wise rule, stops the bleed/untap/bleed, etc.
> problem. As for the rest, you think those decks are cheesy because
> you are not experienced enough with NCL to understand that they can be
> beaten just like any others.
Never said they can't be beaten. What I said is, that you have to build
your deck witht eh goal to beat a particular deck. Which means you need
to know (or be a good guesser) as to what kidn fo deck your opponent is
going to play, which means it's more luck than skill (or at least some
good intelligence work on your part) required here. Thing is, if I am a
rusher I don't want to feel liek I have to always put in my 7 IG's just
because all non-combat players always sits with like 10 S:CE's.
I had a VERY good go at Legbiter's TGP
> deck while he was in the US, and he barely edged me out at the end of
> the game. And we've all played against Legacy of Pander decks here
> locally, and they definitely have their shortcomings as well.
>
> The trick is learning to build decks well, and learning to discover
> the TRUE weak point in a deck. A LoP deck can accumulate votes like
> mad, sure. But it has a hard time gaining stealth, so you can
> intercept either the damage votes or the LoP votes, as you choose.
> You can beat up his Pander, since it's not so easy to provide combat
> defense for them. You can bleed him -fast-, and he can be hosed.
>
> A Temptation of Greater Power deck relies on its Justicar.
> Incapacitate the Justicar, and TGP cannot be played. It also relies
> on being able to pass its own votes, and gaining vote lock against it
> will hurt it badly. There's always good old blood gain, too, so you
> just pay to keep your vampire and go on with your world.
You keep talkign to me as if our playgroup was the same as yours or had
as many cards as you. While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk
about options here. Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of
options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares as
well. Same thing with CL, it doesn't limit strategies anymore than not
having enough of uncommons/rares does.
>
> >> People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No
it
> >> doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't
stop
> >> cheese.
> >
> >I said I'd not explain this again, read above about specific
combos...
>
> But you were wrong in your explanation. You need to come up with
> another one now. CL doesn't stop abuse. It doesn't stop "boring".
> It doesn't, actually, do anything but limit cards.
>
> >> You said it was about no "cheesy stuff". Malk S&B often features
> >under
> >> a definition of such.
> >
> >We never tried to limit a Malk S&B deck, because that's what Malks
are
> >all about.
It would have been much simpler to ban the clan if that was
> >what we wanted.
>
> Wow, you really haven't played much with the Malks, have you? They
> make EXCELLENT intercept decks. They also can make a pretty good vote
> deck, using Malk Rider Clause and Kindred Coercion/Pulling Strings.
> Let's see... they make a decent Disguised Weapon/Muddles combat deck,
> they do very well with a pool gain/wack Masters deck. If you think
> the Malks are all about S&B, then you definitely should look into them
> more.
I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play
Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does. You brought
up the example, so I countered it. What's fun about this game is to
play it differently from the status quo.
>
> >> Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are
> >> defeatable, and have holes to be exploited.
> >
> >Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when
the
> >deck was well-known and won last year too (I think it did? not sure
> >though)!!?
>
> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes?
This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup
doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive.
I am
> surprised, myself, at the seeming lack of even light intercept at the
> final table or even in the tournament in general. That would've hosed
> the LoP deck down pretty effectively. There seem to have been plenty
> of combat decks, but I suppose there were just none that sat next to
> it - luck of the draw.
>
> There is also the fact that Rob is a damned good player and knows what
> to do when he's sitting next to someone who can hose him down. Just
> handing his LoP deck to someone isn't going to make them win a
> tournament or sweep a table, I guarantee it.
Of course no, I by no means claim that anyone would win with a LoP deck
just like that. The player counts for a whole lot, but a good deck
helps in this.
I this particular issue, the player's skill is irrelevant since a good
player can do as well in CL games.
>
> >This isn't why, it's to prevent someone going for 10 Consangineous
> >Boons for example, which would make him win easily if he got them
> >through (not too hard with 10 BO's unless people block, but you could
> >use stealth in your deck, like Setites).
>
> How does 10 CB's make someone win? How is he going to oust his prey?
You can bring out tons of vamps and bleed with them?? Bring out high
cap vamps and you get the vote power as well.
8 MT/5th combo for example isn't bad either. It's powerful even with 4
cards, but at least you draw them less frequently which allows someone
to get an intercept up before you can get carried away with them.
>
> You win by gaining 3 VPs at a 5 player table, or 2 1/2 at a 4-player.
> A 10-CB deck has excellent blood gain, but if you spend all your time
> calling CBs, you aren't going to be doing any damage to your prey at
> all, and he's going to have a free hand to run over his own prey and
> move forward from there. Sure, you'll be able to get a bunch of
> vampires out, but you'll have to do lots more than that to win.
Heh you can call 2 such votes in a turn at least, and ther'es not too
many other ways to spend the time more efficiently. Else you can always
call some 8 Parity Shifts if you are so inclined.
>
> I have a Setite vote deck, but it's a lot harder to get OBF/PRE to
> work together than you think. First off, you normally have both at
> inferior. The cheapest vamp with PRE/obf is Miranda Samova, a BRUJAH
> 8-cap. The cheapest SETITE is Saqqaf, a 9-cap.
Yes I agree on this. But you can do a Ven/Nos deck. It's quite common,
or you can do Tor with obf. Not the easiest but you mihgt not need too
much stealth either snc ehte vote alone gives you one. Setites also
have opium den to help.
>
> >> defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot,
> >> because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs.
> >
> >You're so single-minded, there's Flak Jackets, Elysiums, S:CE etc etc
> >etc etc etc
>
> Flak Jackets only prevent one point of damage, which isn't going to
> bother Anvil using a Torn Signpost and Blur one damned bit. He will
> be happy to hit you for 8 instead of 9.
People rarily do that much dmg with a 4 CL, esp not since it requires
you to have TS and IG AND some striek card on your hand. Not
impossible, but then if I have my LJ or Elysium it helps me, and both
LJ's common.
>
> Elysium can be Rampaged OR voted down, and is only good once. S:CE is
> good if you abuse it by using the multiple different S:CE cards, which
> is what you used card limits to PREVENT, i thought? No, this won't
> wash.
You just asusme that everyhting speaks for your case. While of course a
Brujah can crush someone (if not, then that would be a bad thing!) but
just as much, people can get away too if things speak in their favor.
Randomnes plays a big part of the game. If I presented you with proof
that you could easily avoid a Brujah deck, you'd start complaining that
Brujah's were to weak instead! So this is a no win conversation as you
put it. Totally meaningless.
>
> >> You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence,
against
> >any
> >> vote deck.
> >
> >Hmm how effective is a deck with 15 DG's?? Sure it definately
prevents
> >the LoP but has no chance to win himself.
>
> Again, you show a lack of experience with NCL by assuming that "vote
> defence" involves 15 Delaying Tactics. That would be effective vote
> defence, but you are correct, he would have no way to win himself. I
> detailed ways to beat LoP up above, which incidentally will also
> defeat almost any other vote deck as well.
DG = Dread Gaze, but that doens't matter. Well you told me that you
could make an anti-vote deck as a defence and no matter if you build it
on 10 DT's and DG's, or 4 of each plus 4 Surprise Influence or whatever
(!) it's going to be a very defense *in any case*. How are you supposed
to win???
>
> >> No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing
what
> >NL
> >> means.
> >
> >Which is the reason why we don't. Because we know what it means = a
> >boring repetitive game (IMO)
>
> This statement shows that you don't know what it means at all.
I don't have to, don't you see? As long as we're happy with our rules
ther'es absolutely NO WAY for us to change. There's no VEKN tournaments
around here or anything. If tis is what we want to do, then we'll do it
no matter what you say! This works best for us, and I can assure you
that I have a better understanding what works for us than you do. That
does NOT mean I'm anti NCL like you are anti CL. I acceptthe fact that
most people like NCL, and I never claimed that CL should be an official
rule. I think people should stick to what they think it's FUN. And
that's very individual. I mind my own business about how to play this
game, I never todl YOU to stop playing NCL because I think CL is more
fun. So I don't see why all these people here go whining about us
playing with CL. IT IS UP TO US TO DECIDE =P
So even if NCL IS better, so what? It's our loss, not yours *shrug*. We
used to not have CL a long time ago, and we didn't like how thinsg
turned out. So we made up the CL rule and we've stuck to it since then.
It's possible we might change back to NCL, only time can tell. In any
case, its' OUR and only OUR decision to do so, and I don't feel that
ANYONE outside our playgroup can come and tell us what do to or what
works best for US.
my 2 cents.
> But other decks also become powerful as well. Sure, the TGP deck is
> going to rape an xCL environment silly. But having seen it, it has to
> work for its VPs - they do NOT come as easily as all that.
>
> Any other "power" cards you can think of, by the way, besides TGP and
> LoP?
That 18 Raptor deck didn't seem too fun to meet if the -1 handsize is
stackable (which I assume it is). Although I admit it's a cool idea :)
Disarm is also a quite powerful card wtih IG (which is another one).
Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too,
although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have)
>
> >> Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to
stop
> >> the cards being powerful.
> >
> >But it hasn't been done, so?? And LM isn't too powerful with a CL,
and
> >not enough powerful with NCL to make it changed (obviously, since it
> >hasn't happened). And why change like 50+ card texts (in erratas)
when
> >you could just make a CL and fix most of the "broken" cards?
>
> Because CL doesn't fix the broken cards, and makes the game even more
> broken in other areas. Do you really thing a Temptation of Greater
> Power deck is going to be so terribly hurt by using only 4 TGPs
> instead of 7? Sure, he won't be able to get ALL the vampires. But he
> can also back off on some of his other defenses, since under a CL he
> doesn't have to worry about some things. I would almost be willing to
> bet that a TGP deck would be even MORE powerful under a CL than
> outside it, because nobody's deck could consistently stop it.
Nope because if you have a Sudden on hand and take away a ToGP with it,
you took away 25% of his cards. While if he has 10 of them, one Sudden
mor eor less makes no difference (and don't tell me people should play
with 5-6 Suddens!! I never even play with 4).
>
> >> That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak
> >Drives
> >> in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck
upon
> >> you.
> >
> >Sure they could but it's not likely to happen, and even so it doesn't
> >have to mean you get ousted etiher. It's extremely unlikely that
> >someone would have draw 4 FD's AND 4 bleed cards to go with them all
at
> >once. And even so I have the chance to draw 4 deflects etc.
>
> So it's all about luck, then?
I wans't the one bringing up the luck issue here, geesh it's really
funny how you guys try to twist things you bring up and make them look
like MY fault.
Luck obviously plays a part *always* in these type of games.
If the deck happens to draw the cards,
> it wins? If not, it loses? xCL seems really stupid to me, frankly.
> If I wanted to play a card game with that much luck, I'd play poker.
Oh so does it work the other way around too? If you happent o be very
unlucky with your cards in a tournament, do you decide not to ever play
the game again because normally your bad luck shouldn't be possible? :)
> >> >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using
10
> >> >Legacy of Pander.
> >>
> >> It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten.
> >
> >CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem
to
> >be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some
> >diversity :)
>
> This statement is, of course, mindless blather.
As was the statement before that just as much.
It's strange how that NCL is a challenge while when I CL is too it's
suddenly "mindless blather". Wow, I don't think that convinces anyone
but maybe yourself.
>
> > Playing
> >> Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc.,
gives
> >> you a good chance against many vote decks.
> >
> >Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey
with
> >such a deck :)
>
> Learn some advanced deck-building skills?
Yeah right, when 25% of my deck consists of cards trying to prevent
someone from gaining power through votes, I'll by some strange miracle
manage to get say a good vleed deck where my prey under NCL could have
some 10 deflections? Wonderful, wonderful.
>
> >> If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if
it's
> >10
> >> Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure
in
> >the
> >> game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of
> >Praxis
> >> Seizures make the game any more "fun"?
> >
> >One LoP should give more votes than a PS (else u're doing something
> >wrong :P) Also you can play 10 LoP's but you cannot play 10 PS unless
> >you have that many minions (not likely).
>
> Ever seen a weenie vote deck go? All the 1-caps. Easy to get 10
> minions out. Lots harder to kill with combat, intercept, etc. Lots
> tougher to pass all the votes.
I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still harder
to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting
titles can become an issue.
>
> >I always have vote defense, but it doesn't help when the guy has 5
> >minions all trying to play a LoP the same turn, now does it?? Unless
I
> >have enough of titled vampires up, but then he'd not play them in the
> >first place *duh*.
>
> The LoP deck doesn't run that way at ALL, by the way. You are
> revealing your inexperience.
Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a
hypothetical discussion. And you assume a lot of things about CL that's
not true either.
By the time he has 5 minions out, you
> and the rest of the table will have some titled vampires and/or vote
> defense out and you can just IGNORE his LoP's. The LoP deck normally
> gets a couple minions out fast and hopes to take an action to pass an
> LoP, getting a couple quick votes. If it doesn't have an LoP in its
> opening hand, it is in trouble already. If it gets those first votes
> intercepted, it is in trouble. It relies a LOT on a great turn of
> speed.
Yes but actually the guy sitting on the opposite side of the table
could help you gain voting power too, it's happened many times, o
you're not necessarily screwed because you didn't get out a LoP the
first round(s).
And to repeat what you said, it's all about luck then? I thought that
was a reason for you not to play poker but play this game instead...
>
> >> If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should
> >anyone
> >> else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments
> >that
> >> have gone before you, with nothing new to add?
> >
> >I never asked anyone to listen, duh. You've chosed so yourself, not
my
> >fault. *I* wasn't the one brining up this whole issue, *someone*
> >herecomplained at my playgroup using CL! Geesh sounds like now you're
> >trying to make it my fault that you happen to not like CL and
complain
> >about it.
>
> Actually, the original poster (Norm) pointed out that CL creates
> wallpaper cards. You responded with one of the common pro-CL
> arguments, and I responded directing you to www.deja.com.
> You ignored
> that, and began immediately posting many MORE pro-CL arguments in your
> own response.
Yes so ACTUALLY Norman made a remark on my playgroup for using CL and I
jsut explained to him that he was wrong. And even you NCL guys have
indirectly admitted in previous posts that NCL creates more wallpaper
cards! You want me to go find the actually text for you??
One of your arguments is that with NCL your deck is more focused and
you don't need to use useless cards.
So tell me, HOW is this not making more wallpaper cards?
>
> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made
> statements like "i haven't got time to read that."
Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads?? I've read aruments about
CL before, jsut not the ENTIRE ARCHIVE. Does that suddenly disqualify
me from posting?? As I stated before, if it is so, then you shouldn't
be posting anything here before you've searched the entire web for all
kinds of topics that relates to VTES, because if you do you risk to
repost soemthing that's already been handled before. And now that would
be terrible, wouldn't it? As I can see why you don't want to repeat
same arguments over and over, that's certianly not a valid reaosn for
me to NOT respond when jumped on. You're basically saying that Norman
has a right to make a remark that I feel is wrong, and I don't have a
right to respond to it until I've read the whole archive about the
subject. Wow, you blow me away. All I can say is, you don't have aright
to comment my playgroup and how we handle things here, until u've
actually came and played with us to see how it is.
> >> 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it,
> >with
> >> a decent deck still there. That is broken.
> >
> >You know we've never had more probs with Malks that any other clan.
If
> >they have a cheesy deck, poeple usually gang up on them because we
hate
> >Malks ;-)
>
> Then someone isn't building the 4CL Malk deck right. It can easily
> run over any 4CL table, barring a GREAT deal of good luck on the
> victims' parts.
It can't run over a table more than the LoP deck did at the Gen*Con or
whatever else. You can certainly stop the Malk deck by having lots of
intercept and a few deflects/reduce bleeds.
Throw in a Guardian Angel, a few Sports Bikes and a few loc-intercepts
and you got a decent defence. Sure Malky might get through but it's not
like you'll die on *one* bleed or two. I could go a voting deck and
vote myself lots of pool, or I could rush his vamps and kill him. I
could have Protected Resources (need only one of this card, and 4 ppl
here has it), I could use Archon Investigation..etc...*doesn't this
discussion feel very familiar somehow??*
>
> >> What you are saying is that xCL isn't broken in your group. That's
> >very
> >> different to xCL isn't broken at all - because it is, and has been
> >ever
> >> since it was grafted, badly, onto V:TES.
> >
> >But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I? You
tell
> >me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to
> >check how this single thread came to existance...
>
> I did. I tried to head the whole damn thing off by directing you to
> the archive, INSTEAD of encouraging you to post all this glop to the
> group, KNOWING that this would happen. Do you understand now why I
> did that?
No I don't, because Norman made a remark that was wrong and I corrected
it and now it's my fault?
CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL and nothing in the
archives makes me think differently and nothing you or anyone else have
said in all this long thread has made me think differently. And
everyhtign u've said has already been handled in the archives, so
OBVIOUSLY it would have been a watse of time to read them, I'm glad I
didn't.
>
> >Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused,
> >that just doesn't stand up, they are.
>
> The card itself is no less powerful with only 4 in a deck. And I
> still hesitate to call ToGP broken.
A sudden will have more impact, and it also take slonger for you to
draw the ToGP's so meanwhile a lot of stuff could happen that speaks to
my favor. I'm not saying it's still not a good combo (I am NOT against
good combos!!) it's just not as likely to pull it all through.
>
> >> You can play as many clans as you want under NL.
> >
> >But not effectively unless u're filthy rich.
>
> This is just wrong. What clan can't you play effectively under NL
> unless you're rich?
No what I mean is that you need ot be filthy rich to buy enough card ot
be able to get vampires for all cards and all the cards that goes with
these vampires. If I for example don't have money to buy both AH and
Sabbat I can't play them either. With CL you don't need as many cards
of these to remain competitive, with NCL you need more cards because
you find that you want more than 4 of a card, say Guard Dogs, so you
need to buy more boosters to get them. And don't come and say you can
use Rat's Warnign instead, because then you're saying that 4 CL doesn't
harm you, since using Rat's Warning is what our players do now...
>
> >You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few
> >decks/clans that they prefer to always play? Only those with tons of
> >cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they
> >never break down. I think that tells something...
>
> Yeah, we're telling you that THERE ARE, IN FACT, *NOT* TONS OF PEOPLE
> HAVING A FEW DECKS OR CLANS THEY ALWAYS PLAY. Those people who DO are
> invariably new to the game or inexperienced, and as soon as they're
> introduced to a different style of deckbuilding, they change over
> themselves. Some of our new players used to play nothing but Brujah,
> nothing but Tremere, etc. - they no longer do that, because they find
> it more fun to play with multiple different ideas.
And they got more hooked ot thegame and were willing to spend more
money. Once our players have spent enough money to be able to pay most
decks they'll also have more rare and uncommon cards and then CL might
be lifted. But this hasn't happeend yet and the fact that it's
virtually impossible to buy new cards prevents this from happening.
>
> >"In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a
> >Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be
blind.
>
> We haven't seen it. Quote us some websites, will you? Because I
> don't think you've seen it either.
I actually came across one just the other day, I'll for sure post an
example when I find one.
>
> >I dind't dsay they never tried others. But they play mainly one, and
> >that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent
> >their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's
> >not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed, without
> >being filthy rich.
>
> Again, this is just false. $750 spent over 2 years is not filthy
> rich, i'm sorry. And I can make pretty much almost any deck I want.
Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts,
they think even $30 to get started is too much. Trust me I'm honest in
this, I think $30 is really nothing for the great fun you get, but
somehow they seme to think so. There was a guy who sold all his cards
(he had a big binder full of cards, both VTES, DS and AH, cards worth
maybe $300) and he was selling for $40 and people weren't interested.
The one who bought it is a guy who's as fanatic as me and who already
had quite many cards. The binder would have done a lot more good in the
hands of some newbies who plays with us all the time.
>
> -- Derek
> Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
>
cantila
X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote:
> I would like to address your point on Malk stealth and bleed below
where
> you say:
>
> > It can't run over a table more than the LoP deck did at the Gen*Con
or
> > whatever else. You can certainly stop the Malk deck by having lots
of
> > intercept and a few deflects/reduce bleeds.
> >
> > Throw in a Guardian Angel, a few Sports Bikes and a few loc-
intercepts
> > and you got a decent defence. Sure Malky might get through but it's
> not
> > like you'll die on *one* bleed or two. I could go a voting deck and
> > vote myself lots of pool, or I could rush his vamps and kill him. I
> > could have Protected Resources (need only one of this card, and 4
ppl
> > here has it), I could use Archon Investigation..etc...*doesn't this
> > discussion feel very familiar somehow??*
>
> stealth with an equal amount of dedicated intercept is wrong. It
> requires approximately twice as much dedicated intercept to catch a
> dedicated stealth deck.
Wrong, you don't need twice as much because of Elder Impersonation, you
can oyl have 4 of EI and you once again forget that my playgroup lacks
AH and Sabbat cards. I have 4 EI, but to my knowledge no one else of
our 8 players have. There *might* be another guy having four, but if so
he's never used them to make ti noticable. As for the rest, they all
have none, one guy has one or two that he got from me.
Another thing is, Malks don't have permanent stealth locations (not
counting Shadow Forest that can be burned easily) while you can have
such intercept ones easily. This makes you require a lot less of
intercept card. Add four 2nd Tradition and a couple of other intercept
card (let's say 12, which isn't uncommon for an intercept deck) and top
it with 4 Telepathic Counters you really DO survive. First I use my
perm intercepts to block and if I have to, I throw in an intercept
card. If he plays IE I could Misdirect it and then I can soon collect
some 6 pool.
The reason for this is Elder Impersonation. At
> superior, Elder Impersonation causes a block to fail.
With NCL this card is certainly bad yes, a reason to not use NCL since
it limits your defence to only be deflects.
This card single
> handedly takes a vampire with alot of intercept on him out of the
> blocking scheme and therefore requires the blocking player to put an
> equal amount of intercept on a second vampire. Therefore it requires
> twice as much intercept on average to catch stealth in any environment
> CL or NCL. If you plan on playing Elder Impersonation, then it should
> be your last of a series of stealth cards with your intention being to
> draw out all of your prey's intercept.
>
> Second, Malkavians can go all out every turn and bleed you with each
> minion for two if you have Protected Resources, but if you have
> protected resources then you cannot bleed your prey so therefore you
> must play politics or you lose your Protected Resources. Therefore if
> you play Protected Resources then you can't use a rush strategy,
because
> with rush you must always eventually bleed your prey out. Rush is the
> counter to Stealth/Bleed.
You play either a rush deck OR vote deck. And by rushing vamps I was
tlaking about the Malks, you rush them and try kill them. He won't have
much defence since he's such a devoted S&B.
>
> Third, Archon investigation is a good defense against power bleeds,
but
> if your predator even has a inkling that you might have one in your
deck
> . He is either going to bleed you for no more than three or try to
draw
> it out using a disposable vampire like a weenie. So it is good to
> suprise your predator with one of these, but it only works once and it
> costs you 3 pool. It is an expensive yet inconsistant defense.
True, but it makes him cautious and it's good to have in combination
with other defence.
>
> This leeds me to Derek's point about bounce. Bounce is the only
> definative defense against stealth and bleeds. It is convenient,
cheap
> and extremely useful in helping you oust your own prey. To restate
> Dereks point in a card limit environment you are limited to at most
> having 12 of these in your deck (4 Redirections, 4 Deflections, 4
> Telepathic Misdirections), and, as Derek said Redirections are the
weak
> one out of that group.
You missed My Enemy's Enemy, although it's not relevant in my
playgroup. But so isn't EI either.
Of course you also have Telepathic Counters, but
> that is a paper shield against a stealth and bleed deck.
>
> That really only leaves one deck strategy to play if you want to win
in
> a CL environment, and that is stealth bleed. Stealth, bleed is fast
and
> powerful right out of the gate, and with your 4 card limit, a player
> cannot muster a substancial defence before they are ousted. Therefore
> if you want to win in a CL environment you play dedicated Stealth-
Bleed.
> Do you like to win? So why would you play anything else?
Why do YOU play anything else but your favourtie win-deck? Because it's
fun. We play both for fun and to win. It's not fun to win IF you were
able to do it as easily as you describe all the time (but it's not).
Why would
> anybody play anything else?
Because we don't liek Malkavians? :)
Let's all play stealth and bleed because
> card-limits just wall-papered Rush Combat and politics is too fragile
in
> a high speed environment. So now everyone plays stealth bleed. Yee
> Haw!! :)
So why don't people do that in my playgroup then?? It's not liek nobody
ever tried it *duh*, like that tournament we had. The player was from
my neighbour town and they're good players, the people there have a to
more cards too and a few have even most cards of all sets.
People in my group don't play much of real pure stealth and bleed,
because it's so friggin' boring and quite lame and IF they do they get
quite gangbanged after the first game (if hey won).
Maybe you don't play for fun but only to win and don't care if you're
having fun while doing so, but you're not in my playgroup, I don't have
to take your possible decks into consideration.
If CL didn't work we OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have it. Your theoretical
arguments doesn't are not real in our playgroup so it makes no sense.
If and when anyhting like you describe happens we'll find a way to deal
with it. NCL could be a way to go, but that would cause other problems
too.
Came to think of another card you don't want to see in quantities,
Horrific Countentance (together with dominate, Gangrels can do it
without too much of effort).
In THIS case bouncing is the only way to go, so you're telling me that
if I don't play a bouncing deck I'm screwed and I should from now on
always play bouncer decks???
>
> 2 cents, 2 pennys, 2 kopeks, 2 pesos, whatever... it is all pocket
> change.
>
> Comments Welcome,
> Norman S. Brown Jr.
> X_Zealot
> Archon of the Swamp
cantila
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire
> your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are you,
> by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in your
> addy.
Hmm how can you admire my speedo connection if you don't know how fast
it is? ;) (it IS fast though, 10Mbit Ethernet).
And no, sorry to disappoint you but luth doesn't stand for what you
think. I'm by no means a theologist (I'm an atheist, Scandinavia tends
to have more of them and any other region I know of). the campus in my
DNS should give you a hint I'ma student ;-) luth stands for Luleå
Tekniska Högskola, or Luleå University of Technolgy as it's in English.
But to make it even more complicated, I'm not a technician, I'm doing
my 5th year Legal Science and I DO claim my right to play with CL if I
so have to go to court with it ;-)
Ok so now when you know my life history let's move on :P
> >
> > I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided
> an
> > answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL
mainly
> > exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation
fo
> > Greater Power, Majesty etc. Tactics that are based on one single
> > specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the
> *exact*
> > same effect.
> >
> Alright, now i claim a record. From New Idea to Cheesy Tactic in 8
> weeks. i know that Lasombra and Tim Eijpe have priority on the ToGP
idea
> but i claim that my way of actually making it work reproducibly in a
> tournament environement is original. Quite prepared, as usual, to be
> contradicted!
>
> On the substance of what you say, i'm afraid that you REALLY haven't
> understood how the ToGP deck works if you think it's based on only one
> card.
No but the reason the deck is called ToGP is that that specific cards
plays the major role of the deck. No ToGP - no taking control of
vampires, which is what the deck is about. I by no means claim it's a
SIMPLE strategy, I never have. I just say it's a POWERFUL one, too
powerful if you ask me. And I suspect it's extremely boring and
frustrating to be faced by it after a couple of times. Of course one
fun thing could be to devote a deck just to counter it, which could be
fun, but in the long run it's really isn't.
It's still well above 4. The idea of CL is also not to completely
destroy a tactic (at least not on purpose), you could play with 4 ToGP
and still probably do quite good. Thing is, you won't at least ALWAYS
draw that ToGP early in thegame, wihch makes the game a bit less
predictale and more fun.
>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using
10
> > > >Legacy of Pander.
> > >
> It is always GREAT fun to face Rob, no matter what deck he is playing.
> As for LoP, it's no biggy in and of itself.
>
> > CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem
to
> > be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some
> > diversity :)
> >
> Well, this is something i have thought long and hard about and i'm
> afraid my opinion is that you are just dead wrong about this. On the
> other hand, i understand where you are, or may be, coming from. i too
> shag an instinctively-CL player [Lady Legbiter] in my group, and
> understand EXACTLY the tension that arises between the Need to Win and
> the Need Not to Sleep in the Bath. Hence the home-versions of Happy
> Families.
Please bring her on to the forum ;-)
Also as I've stated already, I'd not mind playing games with NCL in
tournaments with you guys if I ever got an opportunity to. I just liek
CL better and it's the best solution under the current circumstances
where there's no cards to buy.
>
> > Playing
> > > Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc.,
> gives
> > > you a good chance against many vote decks.
> >
> > Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey
with
> > such a deck :)
> >
> Er, gee, don't you guys do opportunity type stuff at all then? A
> well-timed DT or DI is ALWAYS going to screw up a weenie vote deck in
> favour of a table-vote deck.
You know DI is extremely rare and I'm the onyl one having it (and I
paid $8 for it, who said you needn't be rich? ;-)). DT I don't know
what it stands for, so please enlight me.
I once again ask you to keep in mind that CL is best for us in our
gaming environment. You keep assuming we have this and that card when
we don't. The whole point of CL here is that players here hardly have
any Sabbat and AH cards. Two sets that has some really great cards.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)? Wow I
> > find it hard to believe that....30 players with some being Ventrues
> and
> > all.
>
> This is getting silly. i claim my prize for spotting that you are a
> theologian.
Hey gimem that prize back! :)
> <snip vast amount of stuff>
>
> Although i think the substance of what you say is ectoplasmic i'm
happy
> that there is a good strong swedish group and that you've been going
> since the early days.
I'm glad too, and even more glad if CL helps us to make the newbies
happy and conitnue to play this wonderful game.
Once upon a night, Rob Treasure, MAtthew
> "Demi-God" Green and i thought as you now do. We did not, however,
share
> your certainty and were happy, in most things, to receive the Guidance
> of the REAL gods. As i said before, i respect your tenacity and
> commitment to the game but i think you should take a deep breath
before
> digging yourself any further into the mire here.
I didn't ask to get jumped on in the first place. All I want is to play
the game I like and take part of interesting ideas on this forum. I'd
never critisize anyone for using homesrules and frankly I don't see why
you do that on me.
I made a post where I explained a houserule we had on Werewolf Pack and
nobody complained about that one. Our houserule doesn't follow how the
card was intended to be, yet no complaints? So why this fuzz about CL?
It's not like you guys ever will suffer from it. It's our cards, our
games, our fun, that YOU are trying to change, with no rights.
i thought at first you
> were a total newbie but you clearly aren't and therefore, IMO, you
ought
> to know better.
>
cantila
cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote:
> In article <8p9e7j$3vg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Cantila, before i launch into you, let me say how VERY much i admire
> > your tenacity and also the speed of your internet connection. Are
you,
> > by any chance, a theology student? i ask because of the "luth" in
your
> > addy.
>
> Hmm how can you admire my speedo connection if you don't know how fast
> it is? ;) (it IS fast though, 10Mbit Ethernet).
>
> And no, sorry to disappoint you but luth doesn't stand for what you
> think. I'm by no means a theologist (I'm an atheist, Scandinavia tends
> to have more of them and any other region I know of). the campus in my
> DNS should give you a hint I'm a student ;-)
umm sorry I just saw that you actually realised I'm a student :P I
guess it's time for me to go to sleep...it's 4:40 am...
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In article <vovdrsggj6tpbppqa...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
><lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Let him get as many votes as he wants - intercept the ones which are
>>actually a threat.
>
>Your best option is to kill the Legacies, in my view. They *are* the
>votes which are actually a threat.
Hm. Maybe this is just me, since when I play intercept, I tend to
build decks that can stop "any action, anywhere, any stealth".
(Superior Night Moves is excluded from this list.) So I tend to look
at it as idle entertainment until he actually tries to DO something
with his votes, at which point i offer him the deal "No damage to me,
or that vampire goes kaboom." Usually his vampire gets to go kaboom
at that point, although some of my decks (Daffy Deck, leggy? =) don't
make kaboom very well.
This is assuming he's my predator. If he's my prey, I seize every
opportunity to disrupt the hell out of his deck by stopping his
actions and punching his minions for 1, if necessary. =)
>The times I've seen LoP defeated, it's generally been when the deck has
>been stalled very quickly. It couldn't do the vote in its first (i.e.
>the second, normally) turn, so it had to wait for the third turn. By,
>then, someone has normally been able to bring out a 7 or an 8 -
>hopefully a voting vampire.
This is also an effective way to stomp it, or when someone else has
had a convenient KRCG, or Delaying Tactics, or Edge, or whatever.
>So why pick the Legacy of Pander? Well, it's quite common to have a
>vote deck on a table or, at least, a deck that has the capacity to vote
>in it, possibly as an aside, with a few cards around. Legacy of Pander
>doesn't just work on their votes, it works on everyone's. You hand the
>control of the entire voting environment to the LoP player. If you
>block the Kine Resources Contested, he's still probably got a few more
>votes up his sleeve, and he can still vote down your votes. If you
>block the Legacy of Pander (either through intercept, Direct
>Intervention, Delaying Tactics), then he can't kill your votes, and he
>can't pass the Kine Resources Contested anyway.
OK, I think I see the other half of it. I assume that my deck is NOT
necessarily going to have a vampire -and- intercept handy to stop the
first LoP, so he'll already have one vote per vampire - which could be
enough to pass stuff anyway. Certainly, from the point of view of a
voting deck, I would want to make sure he couldn't gain vote lock and
stomp my guys flat. But this is also something the table should
discuss IMMEDIATELY as soon as the first LoP hits the table - "Do we
need to make this deck dead NOW, or can we just stall it for a few
turns and let it die on its own?" I don't see LoP included as part of
many decks OTHER than the LoP deck, so it's usually safe to assume
that someone calling an LoP is about to attempt to run over the table.
There's always the potential option, in your own vote deck, of just
burning the early single LoP's as they come out. A Prince with
superior BO has 6 votes, which beats 5 Panders. (A Prince with Closed
Session can snub the Pander completely, and Closed Session isn't
always such a bad card.) And after that, he may have a difficult time
getting the next few LoP's out, since there probably won't be THAT
many vote modifiers of his own in the deck, and everyone else will
have had time to get some intercept ready, etc.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>There's no way to easily make an aciton unblockable with a Giovanni.
>Seduction isn't really a good way since both predator and prey can
>block and Seduction also only prevents *one* minion from blocking.
Whispers from the Dead is a +1 stealth action. Spectral Divination
and Giuseppe, Gravedigger make it +3 stealth, out of reach of any
single card *and* most importantly out of reach of 2nd tradition.
Seduction is nastier than you think since that guy you left untapped
just for that reason will suddenly be unable to block - you'll be
spending a lot of time attempting to block the card-fetch actions.
Carlotta's action is also at +1 stealth, and she has Obfuscate. (And
in this deck I would play with OBF skill masters and OBF stealth added
in, because there are a couple other Giovanni with Obfuscate as well.)
It may not be unblockable, but it WILL consistently gain more stealth
than you have intercept available.
The question is now, how do you abuse 4 Whispers from the Dead, the
Giovanni, and Carlotta? Oh look! Dominate bleed! =)
YEEE HAAAAAAA!
On a different note, it REALLY seems to me, from some things you say,
that you guys spend a lot of time habitually blocking. Is that true?
Often the best defense and/or strategy is to just not block someone.
Kevin M.
news:8p8d8h$r1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <%nOt5.124$M06....@news.uswest.net>,> > > As I said before, we've made an exception for the Corruption card,
> > > there's no limit on that one, as well as Master Skill Cards
> (because NL
> > > on them allows you to try out fun strategies like Serpentis on
> > > Nosferatu etc).
> >
> > How about (as someone astutely pointed out) Cryptic Mission? Is
> that "fun"?
> > Would it get the okay to break CLs? As has been pointed out
> > *cough*archive*cough*, "fun" is something that is quickly determined
> by the
> > shifting mood of the playgroup, which can easily be swayed by more
> forceful
> > personalities in that playgroup. How long before a new "fun"
> strategy become
> > "cheesy"? Maybe a few people think that Using a bunch of...let's say
> Change
> > of Target, just because it is practically useless, would be "fun".
> What
> > happens when they figure out some way to make it win? How many games
> do they
> > have to win before "fun" becomes "cheesy"?
> >
> > Just a few thoughts. And now I shut up.
> >
> > Xian
> >
>
> The whole idea about the corruption card is based on NCL, that's why we
Richard Garfield designed Jyhad with NCL. Since the whole idea of Jyhad is
based on NCL, and there has never been a set of rules intimating or asking
or stating that the players should use xCL (such as there has been with
repeat actions), shouldn't we use NCL?
You don't have to say something about your playgroup or how you enjoy the
game better whichever way -- I understand how you feel about your own
personal group and its preferences. Just tell me if we should play the game
based on the conceptual and rules designated system of NCL.
Kevin M.
> buy a box for $75" since there's no boxes for sale anymore
Get on eBay. I bought a box of DS and a box of AH together for about $100
US. (I cannot help you with your currency exchange rate, however.) I don't
know anyone with a regular job that can't do that once a year. Your *entire
playgroup* would have plenty of boxes if you did that. You would have
plenty of cards to trade with each other and make the NCL decks you have
only been dreaming about. Oh, wait, everyone in your playgroup wouldn't
have 20 of every card, so I guess everyone wouldn't be able to make every
deck they've ever thought about making. (This is the core of your pro-xCL
argument, is it not?)
> As for Sabbat,
It isn't our fault that there was a smaller print run with Sabbat. Get the
cards when you can get them. Buy the next expansion. Play in Sabbat
tournaments, if there are any. Trade with people in your play group, and
over the net. Oh, wait, you would have to give up a card(s) to get a
card(s), and since you want to have 20 of each card, I guess you can't trade
with anyone. (This is the core of your pro-xCL argument, is it not?)
It would seem to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in *any* card
game, unless you are Mr. Suitcase, you will have to mentally deal with your
lack of cards. What you as a player/playgroup have to decide is to play the
game as it was intended to be played, i.e. NCL, or create an arbitrary
system that caters to your problems, i.e. xCL.
I'm also curious to know, if one of you won the lottery and went berserk and
bought 10 boxes of each expansion for each member of your playgroup and
therefore had all the cards you could ever want, would you just up and
*change* your rules, i.e. xCL-->NCL ?
mgre...@my-deja.com
> mgre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article
> > <D78832ABD879F57E.CCC81FC5...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > a...@csi.com wrote:
> > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT, mgre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >What aren't you impressed with Andrew?
> > >
> >
> > People with limited access to cards have a justification for CL up
> > to a point.
This was me supporting your arguement to some degree, and your second
clue.
> What EXACTLY do you try to say?? I and some of my friends has played
> hte game since it first came out! Who do you thin you are? Some all-
> knowing God??
>
No, just that Andrew may not have played the game enough yet and as he
plays more i strongly feel that his opinion towards CL will change
based on the dynamics of the game and his experiences with other CCGs-
nothing more. i don't know you, or have any idea of you or your groups
play style. I obviously wouldn't make any rash opinions about that at
all. My apologies if i offended you, the response wasn't aimed at you at
all. It quotes nothing you have ever writen and is 6 posts down the
thread from your last comment on the topic. I am sorry you misconstrued
my comments.
>
> Look's who's talking about ludicrous sweeping generalisations!
>
> (I really suggest you go back and read how this thread was started as
> well, I'm not pro CL for everyone, I just am *for my own playgroup*
Did i not just support that above?
Despite
> the fact you seem to consider yourself an all-knowing god. Also with
> all your knowledge, how come you manage to claim that Staredown is a
> rare!?!)
>
Ah, you're right. You own me. I am indeed your bitch.
(Dammit- why do i only have 2 of them then? ;) )
- you get the point though, it's a lot harder to come by than a Majesty.
matt the partially-knowing god, who's off to memorise card lists.
cantila
in this line of the thread was directed agaisnt another post and not
this one. I'll see if I can find the real thread I was to repsond to
later today when i have the time.
In article <8pacbg$5hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
cantila
"Kevin M." <kjme...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote:
> > It's not possible to "just
> > buy a box for $75" since there's no boxes for sale anymore
>
> Get on eBay. I bought a box of DS and a box of AH together for about
$100
> US. (I cannot help you with your currency exchange rate, however.)
Also add the shipping of some $20 to this, plus the risk of getting
cheated on. Nobody I know (including myself) would really buy anything
that expensive without knowing who the seller is. I've made two trades
aowrht about $100 in the past, but it was with people that was fairly
well known in the online community.
I don't
> know anyone with a regular job that can't do that once a year. Your
*entire
> playgroup* would have plenty of boxes if you did that.
People aren't dedicated enough here to do that. One reason could also
be that we pretty much play in waves. Sometimes we don't play for a
long time, and then we play intensively for a while etc. I myself can't
play at all except during the holidays because I study far away from my
playgroup :( Also, most of my playgroup (read all but two, and that's
me plus one other guy =P) are people who are always short on money.
You would have
> plenty of cards to trade with each other and make the NCL decks you
have
> only been dreaming about. Oh, wait, everyone in your playgroup
wouldn't
> have 20 of every card, so I guess everyone wouldn't be able to make
every
> deck they've ever thought about making. (This is the core of your
pro-xCL
> argument, is it not?)
One box is far from enough, even 3 boxes isn't enough to get even 4
cards of some of the uncommons, let alone the rares.
>
> > As for Sabbat,
>
> It isn't our fault that there was a smaller print run with Sabbat.
Get the
> cards when you can get them. Buy the next expansion. Play in Sabbat
> tournaments, if there are any. Trade with people in your play group,
and
> over the net.
I'm the only one trading on the net, however I do sometimes buy a card
because I know someone in my playgroup would trade with me for it.
Oh, wait, you would have to give up a card(s) to get a
> card(s), and since you want to have 20 of each card, I guess you
can't trade
> with anyone. (This is the core of your pro-xCL argument, is it not?)
>
> It would seem to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in
*any* card
> game, unless you are Mr. Suitcase, you will have to mentally deal
with your
> lack of cards. What you as a player/playgroup have to decide is to
play the
> game as it was intended to be played, i.e. NCL, or create an arbitrary
> system that caters to your problems, i.e. xCL.
So that's what we did.
>
> I'm also curious to know, if one of you won the lottery and went
berserk and
> bought 10 boxes of each expansion for each member of your playgroup
and
> therefore had all the cards you could ever want, would you just up and
> *change* your rules, i.e. xCL-->NCL ?
If that player complained we'd start talking about it yes. I can't
really tell because it hasn't happened and will never happen either
actually. People in ym playgroup don't have the cash to do this even if
they wanted to, and I happen to know that they don't even want to.
There's one guy you spends fairly much money, but even 3 boxes wouldn't
be enough. Sure he might some uncommons and a few rares extra, but
he'll just trade them away for other cards he happened not to get/or
get as many of. You have to understand that people won't buy that many
cards for three reasons:
1) no money
2) no point to buy "too amny" cards since we have the CL, so they won't.
3) people here are confident in the CL rule and will trade away excess
cards without complaints since they will get another card they wanted
instead.
The only one in my playgroup that ever feels he has too many rare sof
one kind is me, and that's not coz of the CL. It's coz I got 3 rares of
cards that were pretty much worthless (for being a rare that is) such
as Code of Milan (if anyone wants tot rade for one let me know hehe).
I even got 3 LoP but I didn't know the card effect was stackable so I
traded away two of them :(
James Coupe
6...@student.luth.se> writes
>What EXACTLY do you try to say?? I and some of my friends has played
>hte game since it first came out! Who do you thin you are? Some all-
>knowing God??
Now, let's see.
Matt was replying to *Andrew* not you.
When playing the game since it came out, did you forget how to read
attribution lines?
James Coupe
6...@student.luth.se> writes
>There's no way to easily make an aciton unblockable with a Giovanni.
>Seduction isn't really a good way since both predator and prey can
>block and Seduction also only prevents *one* minion from blocking.
Who says you have to be playing Giovanni to play it? You could throw
half a dozen master cards in, a Camarilla Vitae Slave, the Setite with
Necromancy etc. Or you could go obf/nec, having Raphael, Carlotta and
that Setite. Drop in 5 or 6 master cards, and go.
Oh, right. You're playing 4CL, the one where creative ideas like that
are stopped. Sorry, forget I ever said anything.
>It's a part of OUR game, and yes that's a reality (and simple).
I'll create a variant of Jyhad where, every time I bleed my prey, I get
to amputate a limb. It's part of MY game, and yes that's a reality.
The old "It's right because we say so" argument. Hmm.... convincing.
4CL was grafted onto Magic, and grafted badly. It didn't stop things
being broken, it didn't stop boring decks. Just look at the Magic scene
now - most of the time, it's half a dozen boring decks. 4CL didn't work
with Magic when it was started, so they invented restricted cards too.
All it did was force the "killer combos" into the "lucky" category. It
didn't make things more creative, because all you did was play lots of
different cards revolving around the same thing, rather than just the
one. Woohoo, you get killed by a Fireball instead of a Lightning Bolt.
Woohoo! And indeed, woohoo.
Magic has now been designed *with* a 4CL in mind - as have a number (the
majority) of other card games, though with subtle variations (3CL, 1CL
per character etc.) The card games are *designed* for it.
Jyhad was *not* designed for a card limit. This is reality. It was
specifically designed to be played with a theoretically infinite supply
of cards. Why do you think they went to so much trouble with things
like "1 named action modifier per minion per action", "1 source of
additional strikes per round", "1 named reaction per minion per action",
"1 master phase action per turn", "You may not cancel a maneuver you
played yourself", "You may not cancel a press you played yourself".
They tried to limit political actions, too, by limiting how many cards
you could replace. Play-testing didn't get that one right - but the
idea was there, and the intent was there, it just needed some tweaking.
The only real thing they didn't catch was actions - again, because play-
testing cannot catch everything, because you are not playing with every
person out there. The creative ideas *I* come up with are not the
creative ideas *you* come up with are not the creative ideas *Legbiter*
comes up with etc. Unless play-testing included every player who ever
has or will play V:TES on the planet, you couldn't predict everything.
So, for the most part, V:TES worked. The Gangrel infinite loop deck was
a trifle annoying, but was fixed with NRA, as was the Presence Bleed-
Block-Majesty-Wash-Rinse-Repeat deck. Two broken decks, and that was
it, basically.
A lot of people *perceived* Malkavian Stealth and Bleed as broken. It
was, indeed, a powerful deck - and still is. It could burn your pool
quickly and do it at stealth. There are, however, many counters to it.
Wake, Deflection is a good one. In a 4CL environment, that's 4 of each
I'm allowed. But you can take lots of bleed actions. I can bounce 4.
Woohoo and, again, woohoo. I can't have a good chance of drawing one in
my opening hand, with only 4 in the deck. I can't have a good chance of
having a steady flow of either, with only 4 in the deck. So, it's luck.
Does he bleed me when I have one, or not? Does he do his really big
bleed when I have one, or not?
If I wanted luck, I'd go play Battletech and roll lots of dice, instead
of relying on some skill in play and construction.
One of the best decks I've seen in recent times is the Lazverinus All-
Stars deck that won GenCon UK 98. Absolutely beautiful to watch then,
and now. Deck list follows:
1 Foreshadowing Destruction
2 Resilience
2 Spirit's Touch
1 Homunculus
3 Disarm
2 Minion Tap
2 Undead Strength
2 Immortal Grapple
2 Taste of Vitae
1 Dominate
3 Restoration
3 Forced Awakening
2 My Enemy's Enemy
2 Rapid Change
2 Freak Drive
3 Rolling with the Punches
1 Demonstration
1 KRCG News Radio
2 Bum's Rush
3 Bone Spur
1 Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper
1 Barrens
1 Masochism
1 Thrown Sewer Lid
3 Wake With Evening's Freshness
1 Mr. Winthrop
2 Flesh of Marble
1 Rack
1 Signet of King Saul
3 Skin of Steel
4 Govern the Unaligned
1 Golconda: Inner Peace
4 Deflection
1 Fists of Death
1 Giant's Blood
1 Direct Intervention
2 Conditioning
2 Earth Control
1 Information Highway
2 Indomitability
1 Enhanced Senses
1 Kindred Co-ercion
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Major Boon
1 Blood Doll
1 Sudden Reversal
2 Skin of Rock
1 Threats
1 Ivory Bow
1 Hand of Conrad
1 Fortitude
Vampires:
2 Badger
1 Jimmy Dunn
1 Dylan
2 Lazverinus, Thrall of Lambach
1 Iliana
1 Juan Cali
1 Cameron
1 Lisette Vizquel
1 Ricki van Demsi
1 Ian Forestal
Works under a 4CL, you know. And it's an astoundingly competitive NL
deck.
Just because you are playing NL doesn't mean that *you* have to play a
deck with more than 4 of anything in. You can play whatever deck you
want and, once you have a reasonable pool of cards, you can build a
competitive set of decks. Something like a box of Jyhad is plenty to
make a very competitive deck. A box of V:TES or a box of Sabbat (though
finding the latter is nigh on impossible now) would do exactly the same,
since they give you, very roughly, a similar pool of cards. Legbiter
has done some astounding things with a box of Jyhad and a copy of the
"Happy Families" formula (.EXE version almost finished, I just need to
fix on error on one of the vampires), things you wouldn't believe. Some
of those fit in the 4CL category, others don't.
The idea that you have to have hundreds of rares to play NL is wrong,
based on assumption and mis-information.
Jyhad is *not* a game like Magic, where, from the off, some of the very,
very powerful cards were made stupidly more powerful than the commons.
That was never viewed to be likely as a problem, in Magic - since no-one
would have more than a couple, because there collection would never
exceed the heady heights of about 400. V:TES learned from this
fundamental error, so let's take a look at a couple of the instances
within Jyhad.
Misdirection: X pool - Tap X vampires. - Common
Anarch Troublemaker: Free - Tap 2 vampires *OR* burn equipment. - Rare
Yikes!
That's a fairly hefty difference. Misdirection has to pay 2 pool for
something Anarch Troublemaker gets for free *AND Anarch Troublemaker has
another ability. Clearly, the rares are more powerful than the
uncommons. Except, no - Anarch Troublemaker has some significant
downsides.
First of all, it isn't instant. You tap it during the untap phase, so
you have to go around a turn. Everyone has warning of it. Then, it
stays in play going to other people. It can come back and haunt you.
Then, it doesn't have the flexibility that Misdirection has. You can't
tap 5 vampires with Anarch Troublemaker, which you could do with
Misdirection.
The common card can be a lot more 'powerful' than the rare version, in
the right situation.
Then, we take Govern the Unaligned vs. Dominate Kine. Govern the
Unaligned is only 1 blood, and gets you +2 bleed, whereas Dominate Kine
is 2 blood, but only gets you +1 bleed *but* it also gives you +1
stealth. Swings and roundabouts. Then at superior, Govern the
Unaligned generates 3 pool for you, whereas Dominate Kine lets you steal
a location - useless, if there's nothing on the board. Swing and
roundabouts. The Rare version isn't more powerful, it's just a
different card.
Then take Fists of Death vs Undead Strength. First of all, Undead
Strength is free - but it's only for one strike. If you were to be
using it defensively (i.e. to deter people from rushing you), you
probably wouldn't have additional strikes, so Undead Strength would be
much better. If, however, you want to go offensively, play Fists of
Death as being better.
What about Undead Strength vs Torn Signpost? Well, again, you have to
pre-declare your intentions with Torn Signpost. There are no hidden
surprises, you can't just throw it on someone once they've said "strike
for hands", they know even before they set range. Then Undead Strength
complements it quite well, adding to the strike - so you could be
striking for 5. Also, the different periods in combat at which you play
them give you different opportunities. I could be drawing Undead
Strength after playing a few maneuver cards, for instance.
Similarly, versus Death of my Conscience, you can get, wow, +8 hand
damage from one card! But you have to discard cards, which is something
Undead Strength never makes you do. And it has a hefty blood cost, too.
Would a deck playing with Torn Signpost be, necessarily, better than one
with Undead Strength? No. It might be a slightly different deck, but
both of them could stand up to competitive play, albeit differently.
Rare cards *aren't* a way to win a game. A good deck is, and a good
deck doesn't require 20 of any card, nor rare cards at all.
That's a reality, and yes, it's that simple.
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes? I am
>surprised, myself, at the seeming lack of even light intercept at the
>final table or even in the tournament in general.
Legbiter normally plays a lot. Recently, he's been playing a lot of
vampires with Animalism, using Raven Spy and 2nd Tradition with the
Nosferatu.
He wasn't, however, in his ToGP deck. He *would* have been the wall,
and could have drastically reduced the effectiveness of Rob's deck,
since Rob didn't have many Majesties and the deck James had been playing
previously had a lot of intercept, followed by a maneuver with a gate,
which wouldn't have suited Rob at all.
James Coupe
>that uses Haven, Disguised Weapon, Deer Rifle, and Manstopper Rounds,
>along with Dead-End Alley to press to a 2nd round and get 4 total
>points of damage. It uses all the OBF weenies. It doesn't give a
>damn if you S:CE or Dodge against it - someone will EVENTUALLY get
>you.
It strikes me that a Prince with Obfuscate would be useful to the deck,
maybe Selma, or someone like Volker (i.e. cheap) with skill cards.
That way, you can play Blood Hunt as well. Once you cycle through a lot
of their defence, you'll want a way to attack multiple *vampires* per
round. A few Blood Hunt cards will do that.
James Coupe
6...@student.luth.se> writes
>> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections.
>
>And My Enemy's Enemy
Which doesn't bounce it the way you want.
9 times out of 10, a bounce will go to my prey, not my grand-predator.
>Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es !
>Ventrue.
So now bleed bounce is only playable by !Ventrue. Yay!
>There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or
>use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare
>card).
Protected Resources is not *quite* rare. It is, as stated, ridiculously
rare.
>As I said before, Elysium has the same effect,
It has the same effect as itself, not as S:CE. Since you get in position
to hit, S:CE causes you to waste cards. You won't waste cards setting
range etc. if Elysium is tapped.
If you think Elysium has the same effect as S:CE, You Are Wrong.
>> A Temptation of Greater Power deck relies on its Justicar.
>> Incapacitate the Justicar, and TGP cannot be played. It also relies
>> on being able to pass its own votes, and gaining vote lock against it
>> will hurt it badly. There's always good old blood gain, too, so you
>> just pay to keep your vampire and go on with your world.
>
>You keep talkign to me as if our playgroup was the same as yours or had
>as many cards as you.
Someone turns up and plays against you with ToGP.
It is defeatable with mostly common card based decks.
> While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk
>about options here.
You have many common options.
>Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of
>options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares as
>well.
They give you more options, because they are other cards, with other
options. But you can defend with common cards plenty well enough.
>I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play
>Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does.
Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck,
something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken
environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at
all.
If people aren't turning up with Malk S&B, you have no way to assert
that xCL isn't broken.
>You brought
>up the example, so I countered it.
No, you didn't.
>> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes?
>
>This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup
>doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive.
You don't need to be a mind-reader to be competitive.
>Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too,
>although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have)
Wrong. Mind Numb is perfectly balanced, as is Marijava Ghoul.
>> So it's all about luck, then?
>
>I wans't the one bringing up the luck issue here, geesh it's really
>funny how you guys try to twist things you bring up and make them look
>like MY fault.
No, but if you cannot refute that xCL ends up revolving around luck
*way* more so that NL, you lose a point in the argument.
>Luck obviously plays a part *always* in these type of games.
And more so in NL.
>
>As was the statement before that just as much.
>
>It's strange how that NCL is a challenge
No, playing against Legacy of Pander is an interesting challenge.
Do learn to read before writing any more moronically obviously incorrect
statements, won't you?
>while when I CL is too it's
>suddenly "mindless blather".
Because you were talking crap.
>> Learn some advanced deck-building skills?
>
>Yeah right, when 25% of my deck consists of cards trying to prevent
>someone from gaining power through votes,
If you have to put 25% of your deck to vote defence, then you *do* need
to learn some "advanced deck-building skills" because you have very weak
deck-building skills if you think that's how to do it.
> I'll by some strange miracle
>manage to get say a good vleed deck where my prey under NCL could have
>some 10 deflections? Wonderful, wonderful.
So, you'd prefer your prey just couldn't defend by bleed bounce instead.
Hurrah.
What you are advocating is a game where everyone races to do their deck,
and no-one else can affect you.
If I want that, I'd go play The X-Files card game, or maybe just toss
coins like Guildenstern and Rosencratz. Or maybe snakes and ladders.
>I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still harder
>to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting
>titles can become an issue.
You don't call that PS and call another one instead, because you have
plenty on hand.
>Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a
>hypothetical discussion.
You oviously don't understand how the deck works then.
If you think 15 Dread Gazes would be a hypothetical way to defend
against Legacy of Pander, You Are Wrong.
>>
>> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made
>> statements like "i haven't got time to read that."
>
>Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads??
You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis
available.
>CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL
Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper.
>Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts,
>they think even $30 to get started is too much.
Loan them a deck. Tell them to buy a pre-con starter when they come
out.
James Coupe
6...@student.luth.se> writes
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading here how IG is really
>necessary for a rush deck.
You read wrong.
If you believe that to be true, you are wrong. It is a very good card
for a rush deck, very true. It is not required.
Rare cards are not required for decks under NL. If you believe
otherwise, You Are Wrong.
Certain styles of rush deck - the Brujah close range pump and pound[0]
decks - do have a great need for it. Not all, by a long shot.
Derek cites his weenie attrition deck, which is great. I've also seen
weenie bleeders with guns, which are quite scary.
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>There's always the potential option, in your own vote deck, of just
>burning the early single LoP's as they come out.
You need Sabbat vampires to burn it.
Understandable, since the respect the Pander have over Caitiff, is
solely internal to the Sabbat, but annoying.
> A Prince with
>superior BO has 6 votes, which beats 5 Panders.
What happens if I get two-pair? ;)
>(A Prince with Closed
>Session can snub the Pander completely, and Closed Session isn't
>always such a bad card.)
I'm starting to think that a voting deck with Closed Session in it is
rapidly becoming a very attractive proposition indeed.
Xian
> >Who said the same vampire need sboth the AUD and DOM? And then ther'es !
> >Ventrue.
>
> So now bleed bounce is only playable by !Ventrue. Yay!
And the Tremere, you evil evil bastard. :)
[Malks]
> Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck,
> something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken
> environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at
> all.
I think that a pertinent question here is, why do people gang up on Malk S&B
in your group? In a balanced environment, there shouldn't be need to gang up
on one deck strategy. Viable defenses against Malk S&B include (CL fave)
intercept, voting, faster bleeding, bounce, and (jack-booted thug fave)
combat. Combat kicks Malk S&B to hell and back. Under NL.
> You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis
> available.
Yes. This will take under, oh an hour, maybe two at most if you are a slow
reader.
URL provided: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
Oaflord
> People aren't dedicated enough here to do that. One reason could also
> be that we pretty much play in waves. Sometimes we don't play for a
> long time, and then we play intensively for a while etc. I myself can't
> play at all except during the holidays because I study far away from my
> playgroup
This says it all... Consistent playing may have led to the realization that
the game was in fact designed to be played NCL. Now, I am not saying that
your mechanics are behind other players, or that NCL players are better than
CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the way the
game was designed), is a better and the right way to play. I started out in
a Magic shop when Jyhad first came out, and we NATURALLY made our decks with
a 4CL in mind. We had to be told that the game was NCL, and when we found
that out, we changed... not because we wanted to, yes we had traded cards
away to make 4CL decks, we changed because we were playing the game wrong.
Restricting ourselves to a CL that was unnecessary and improper. I can't
imagine going back to 4CL. Any deck you play, ANY deck, you can find the
need for more than 4 of a certain card. I would like to see a posting of a
successful 4CL deck that wins consistently over NCL decks and 4CL decks
alike. I don't think that will happen, because if your playgroup is NCL,
you won't play 4CL. Maybe some one would like to take up this challenge???
(insert sounds of crickets chirping) That's what I thought... Prove me
wrong, though. If there is a deck that is 4CL that can win consistently, I
want to build it... ;-)
oAFLORD
aka
Thomas Kuster
V:EKN Prince of Caledon
Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe."
John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.
cantila
I already commented this saying somehting screwed up here, I wasn't
suppsoed ot respond to that thread, but another one.
Tim Eijpe
Exellent article James!! Thank you.
I'd like to emphazise something James touched on earlier.
---> Any self-adopted card limit is in fact NL! <----
And it's always easier to trade for more powerfull commons than for
semipowerfull rares, like James also stated before. Why would you *need*
4 Catatonic Fears when you can use as many Majesties as you like..same
goes fore Awe and My Enemies Enemy.
Don't get me wrong here. IMO any playgroup has the right to adopt any CL
or houserules, but this forum is mainly about V:tES Tournaments where
the official WW rules are enforced.
Moreover, I have played both styles and yes a CL has its pro's
(sometimes) but NL does not force you to use only the standerd tactics.
Creativity as stated by many others is very important to VTES and NL
gives you the option (!) to do whatever you like as long as you do not
have too many or not enough cards in your crypt and/or library.
Please check out the archives for articles about flexibility in decks,
or check out Rob Treasures decks.
Under NL rules every card slot is used to it's maximum potential wher
IMO that is not done under any CL as you will have to adopt too many
different strategies, both offensive as defensive. Also this is
mentioned anywhere in these threads.
But most importantly instead of refuting, ignoring and counterposting
argument to the people who know most about this game in all of it's
facets, first listen to them without arguments. Let it sink in.
They (we) are only trying to be of help.
You can still do whatever you want, but remember the official rules for
the game like you do in any other game.
Tim Eijpe
LSJ
> There are no exact duplicates of any card in V:TES, with about three
> exceptions - Bastard Sword/Meat Clever, Pack Tactics/Elder Intervention,
> Homunculus/Carrion Coffin. And that's about it.
Homunculus is a retainer, Carrion Coffin is just a card (with a built-in
burn option). I wouldn't classify them as exact duplicates of each other.
One can be moved with Heidelburg and the Succubus Club and pulled via
Culling the Herd or stolen in a variety of ways (and is difficult to
burn), the other can be burned without much effort and cannot be moved.
And the action to get one is at +1 stealth at inferior, the other is
0 stealth at inferior.
The only pair I'd add to your list is Anarchist Uprising / Autarkis
Persectution, though with the effects of Delaying Tactics, the change
of name actually matters.
(Similarly, unique cards like vampires are sufficiently "different" by
name alone so as not to count.)
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
cantila
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8p9aau$vba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogcar-
> 6...@student.luth.se> writes
> >> Oh, wait, there's 4 Telepathic Misdirections.
> >
> >And My Enemy's Enemy
>
> Which doesn't bounce it the way you want.
OMG talk about being picky. If it saves me from being ousted that's
pretty much worth it.
>
> 9 times out of 10, a bounce will go to my prey, not my grand-
predator.
> >There's also the chance to block the bleed instaad, or reduce them or
> >use Archon Investigation or Protected Resources (albeit a quite rare
> >card).
>
> Protected Resources is not *quite* rare. It is, as stated,
ridiculously
> rare.
If half of my playgroup have on it's not redicilously rare here.
>
> >As I said before, Elysium has the same effect,
>
> It has the same effect as itself, not as S:CE. Since you get in
position
> to hit, S:CE causes you to waste cards. You won't waste cards setting
> range etc. if Elysium is tapped.
But he wasted a Bum's Rush and an action. If he knows Elysium is up
he's not gonna bother attacking me before he knows a way to get around
it, this it saves me a lot of trouble till he can.
S:CE is not suppsoed to be and-end-to-all-troubles card, I know you
guys like it when one card solves everything and makes you not have to
have more than a few different cards to come up with a good strategy,
but that's ot how we prefer to have it.
>
> If you think Elysium has the same effect as S:CE, You Are Wrong.
> > Someone turns up and plays against you with ToGP.
Who would that be?? In 6 years nobody has ever "turn up" who didn't
belong to the 25 people I've mentioned before. People here don't travel
very far to get to play VTES and even if someone showed up for a day of
playing, then that's certainly not a reason to lift CL forever. This is
getting so redicilous.
> It is defeatable with mostly common card based decks.
>
> > While commons aint too hard ot get by, you talk
> >about options here.
>
> You have many common options.
>
> >Well just common cards doesn't give a whole lot of
> >options compared to as if you had as many of the uncommons and rares
as
> >well.
>
> They give you more options, because they are other cards, with other
> options. But you can defend with common cards plenty well enough.
And you defend with CL well enough against any strategy that follows
the CL too. Your S&B example etc doesn't cut it. We've never had real
trouble with it, if we had we'd changed our rules.
>
> >I didn't put this stereotype stamp on them, you guys did. When I play
> >Malks I never play them straight S&B, hardly no one does.
>
> Perhaps because you'll gang up on them? When you gang up on a deck,
> something about your environment is deeply, deeply broken. Non-broken
> environments require good decks and good players, no gang-warfare at
> all.
And you're supposed to be an experienced player?? Wow if what u're
saying is that you never do politics in your games then your games is
nothing I'd want to play. I saw one example before somewhere in this
long thread where I think Legbiter said that if someone goes for LoP
you could cooperate to bring him down. Isn't that the exact same thing
as ganging up on a S&B deck?? oh noo...wait..I forgot that same things
doesn't apply for you as it does for us because you're so almighty.
That's just the way things are huh?
You'd be a fool if you didn't try to prevent your opponents from
winning. A S&B that is about to sweep the table is a threat and of
course u'd try get people gang up on him if you ever have the intention
of winning the game. But you being a white knight and all, of course
would have done nothing but let him win huh? All for the sake of being
honorable.
>
> If people aren't turning up with Malk S&B, you have no way to assert
> that xCL isn't broken.
Oooh so we should play with NCL because it *might* be broken even when
it's never turned out to be so during 6 years of playing?? Come up with
something better pleeeease. I could say the same thig for you; "there
*might* be some strategy that you just haven't invented yet (based on
existing OR coming card), that *could* turn out to be overpowerful with
NCL, you just haven't discovered it yet, so you better get rid of that
NCL just in case!"
>
> >> Because people didn't bring decks that could exploit the holes?
> >
> >This is my whole point, thank you for admitting it. My playgroup
> >doesn't feel liek they nee dot be mind-readers to be competitive.
>
> You don't need to be a mind-reader to be competitive.
Is that all you have to say? You say you need to exploit holes but that
requires you to know what they'll be playing in first place. How can I
try exploit a hole in a deck that doesn't exist??? I have to have a
deck to refer to, how can I if I don't know what he'll be playing? Thus
I need to be a mind-reader, or the guy needs to play this deck at more
than one consecutive occassion and I also have to know that he intends
to do so. When we gather before gameplay we never tell each other what
decks we're going to play, because then they might throw in some cards
against it.
>
> >Mind Numb (with some Marijava Ghoul) could possibly be one too,
> >although it's a common (but a AH which not many people here have)
>
> Wrong. Mind Numb is perfectly balanced, as is Marijava Ghoul.
Explain this further please. I think that if you don't get intercepted,
being able to play some 10-15 Mind Numbs in a low cap presence deck is
damn powerful. Your prey won't be able to do nothing anfd you can go on
bleeding with some presence cards.
>
> >> So it's all about luck, then?
> >
> >I wans't the one bringing up the luck issue here, geesh it's really
> >funny how you guys try to twist things you bring up and make them
look
> >like MY fault.
>
> No, but if you cannot refute that xCL ends up revolving around luck
> *way* more so that NL, you lose a point in the argument.
It's more luck yes, but a game shouldn't be too predicable. We think
it's fun the extra luck invlved, it doesn't change things at all as
mucha s you try to make ti seem. Obviously you haven't really tried out
CL then.
>
> >Luck obviously plays a part *always* in these type of games.
>
> And more so in NL.
>
> >
> >As was the statement before that just as much.
> >
> >It's strange how that NCL is a challenge
>
> No, playing against Legacy of Pander is an interesting challenge.
>
> Do learn to read before writing any more moronically obviously
incorrect
> statements, won't you?
>
> >while when I CL is too it's
> >suddenly "mindless blather".
>
> Because you were talking crap.
Wow these well-founded arguments blow me away, you win, I have ntohing
to speak against that.
>
> If I want that, I'd go play The X-Files card game, or maybe just toss
> coins like Guildenstern and Rosencratz. Or maybe snakes and
ladders.
But you're not me, and nothing you say can prevent us from playing and
enjoying the game as WE want. If that disturbs you, frankly that's your
problem, not ours. And if you get really annoying by this fact I think
you need to see a doctor, you take this game way too seriously then.
>
> >I've seen it and it can be tough if played right but it's still
harder
> >to pull out than LoP for the above mentioned reasons. Even contesting
> >titles can become an issue.
>
> You don't call that PS and call another one instead, because you have
> plenty on hand.
>
> >Of course I've never faced the deck, on the other hand this is just a
> >hypothetical discussion.
>
> You oviously don't understand how the deck works then.
>
> If you think 15 Dread Gazes would be a hypothetical way to defend
> against Legacy of Pander, You Are Wrong.
You're saying that 15 DG's in a deck won't prevent him from passing LoP
votes all the time??
>
> >>
> >> It has gone downhill from there, especially when you have made
> >> statements like "i haven't got time to read that."
> >
> >Do YOU have time to read like a 200 threads??
>
> You could go and read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page. The best synopsis
> available.
I read that page even before this thread started actually. The page is
seems written by pro-NCL and obviosuly the arguments written there
reflects that.
I can make my own webpage bringing up arguments for and agaisnt CL and
make it look like CL is easily the better we to go.
>
> >CL does not make more wallpaper cards than NCL
>
> Under CL, Corruption is wall-paper.
We don't have a CL in Corruption, try again thank you.
You gave ONE example which wasn't even valid since I already agree on
this and that's why we don't have a CL on that card. Give me a new
example please, it should be easy since CL creates so "many" wallpapers.
>
> >Well when I tell my friends I spent $900 they think I'm totally nuts,
> >they think even $30 to get started is too much.
>
> Loan them a deck. Tell them to buy a pre-con starter when they come
> out.
They will, but the pre-cons aren't out yet. You're saying that we
shouldn't have played with CL for 6 years because they were going to
give out pre-cons in October/November 2000?
James Coupe
6...@student.luth.se> writes
>> If someone else is playing S:CE, Psyche! is useful.
>
>You mean necessary (if you want to have a chance to beat on him)
No, I don't mean necessary.
If you think that, You Are Wrong.
>
>No but who wins ina situation where you have 10 BO or only 4
Walk into a shop and buy a few commons. It's not hard. If you have a
few hundred cards (6 or 7 starters), you'll have half a dozen of quite a
few commons.
If someone tries to play a deck when they have insufficient cards for
it, that's *their* fault, not the format's. They'll have sufficient
cards for some deck.
If I play a rush deck but I only own one Bum's Rush, that's my fault -
nothing to do with the format.
Commons are cheap and easy to come by.
>? You said
>before that you can use Awe instead, you know I'm the only one in my
>playgroup even having that card, and I have one (1)!.
So you have the advantage over other people. You can have 5 vote
pushes, other people can only have 4. Why is this?
>It's time to wake
>up to reality,
Some of us are already there.
>I and some other people here have tried to make you
>realise that CL is good for us because it's hard to get hold of cards.
>If I was rich I could have bought 10 Awes...
Fine. Can I play with 10 Bewitching Orations? Bewitching Oration is a
*different* *card*. Shall we say that again, boys and girls?
*Different* *card*. Awe is not implicitly better. It *can* get more
votes, but then you need to play blood.
>Sure with your specific example the other players can get 10 BO quite
>easily, but there's tons of other situation where the card you want is
>a rare and not a common.
Why do you need tons of a rare? Unless there is one specific deck that
you want to make e.g. the Betrayer deck, you don't *need* rares. You
can defend against all sorts of decks using commons and possibly a few
uncommons.
If you think rares are inherently better than commons, and that you need
rares to defend against the player using rares, You Are Wrong.
Someone plays Immortal Grapple - a rare in Jyhad, uncommon in Sabbat.
What's a good defence? Lots of maneuvers, maybe. Damage prevention.
Oh look, commons win.
Someone plays Temptation of Greater Power. I have lots of minion taps
and blood dolls sucking up blood from my minions already, so I have
plenty of pool. Commons win.
Someone plays Betrayer. I rush their vampires, KRC them, bleed them or
whatever options I have in my deck. All do-able with commons. Commons
win.
Commons are the thing that make V:TES go. Rares are things that give a
deck a little flavour, or a slightly esoteric ability, or a little
flexibility, reasonably priced.
You need to wake up to the situation where commons are not bad. Commons
are good. Commons do many things. Commons have lots of utility. Decks
can be made with few rares or no rares. I recall making one deck, doing
extremely well with it, and having 2 rares in it. 2, out of 90. And
for what they did, they could have been replaced by Drawing out the
Beast, a common, since they (2 Terror Frenzies) only served to stop
equipment.
>
>Not a fact, the protection is hampered as much/as little as the
>Malkavian Bleed deck is, because there's still 12 defelcts,
Available to the Toreador?
Crap. They have 4.
Available to the Tzimisce?
Crap. They have 4.
Available to the Giovanni?
Crap. They have 8.
And if I want to play weenie dominate, I don't even necessarily have
that, because of the necessity to be older, at inferior.
>and 4
>telepatic counters.
Oh god, you can stop a whole 8 bleed.
>That's certian enough against any Malk deck. And
>then there's the Protected Resources and Archon Investigation
So you need rares under xCL. Woohoo! Case proved. Can you please
scuttle off and look at the inherent contradiction in your 'argument'?
I own a *lot* of V:TES cards. Oodles of the things. Number of
Protected Resources owned: 0
>and
>evenChimerstry cards reducing stealth/bleed.
So to defend against stealth bleed, we need to play AUS/DOM/CHI, with
rare cards.
Wow, what a Good Idea. Why didn't you tell me before?
>> Personally, I'd rather not try and play a combat deck and have someone
>> play 12 S:CE against me. How fun is that?
>
>12 Majesties would be no fun since he can untap and do another action
>against you,
Against a *rush* deck they're not acting.
>however with the other S:CE it's not worse than someone
>having the vote power and an Elysium.
Elysium is once per turn.
You do know the rules to the game, don't you?
>I'm only going to say this one more time (you still haven't provided an
>answer for it either, probably because there isn't any), the CL mainly
>exist to limit some specific cheesy combos like LoP and Temptation fo
>Greater Power, Majesty etc.
They're not "cheesy".
They're already balanced under NL. If you're not playing decks that can
evade them, that's the fault of Your Decks, not the Deck Format or even
the Actual Card.
If you need a Card Limit to put up with the fact that you can build
decks, move along please and let the next crap argument have a go.
>Tactics that are based on one single
>specific card, where there's no other card that can provide the *exact*
>same effect.
There are no exact duplicates of any card in V:TES, with about three
exceptions - Bastard Sword/Meat Clever, Pack Tactics/Elder Intervention,
Homunculus/Carrion Coffin. And that's about it.
>> >Everyone seme to go with that. Well with a 4 CL you have to use
>> >other cards as well, so adds some more variety. Even FoD cannot fully
>> >replace ToS since it costs a blood and if you play a weenie deck that
>> >might be something you can't afford.
>>
>> A lot of people find Increased Strength a very playable alternative.
>
>Which requires a strike to go with it, thus you have suddenly at least
>doubled the needed cards (need even mroe cards if you strike more than
>once).
And they're common cards.
You don't seem to understand something, very fundamental. You use the
cards available to you
You look at the cards you have, and you build a deck to suit them. You
cannot build a deck with cards or abilities you don't have. However,
once you have several hundred cards (400, say), you can build perfectly
competitive decks.
>> >You don't make any sense here, look at your own text below. First you
>> >say "you end up having a little bit of everything" and then you pick
>> >the stealth example below where you show out that you still can make
>a
>> >dedicated stealth deck, which is all true.
>>
>> You cannot make any other deck as dedicated.
>
>Now you contradict yourself again! Now you're saying that CL DOES have
>some effect on making a deck too one-way focused.
No, what I'm saying is that you *can* make a Malk S&B deck focussed. I
didn't say it makes it focused.
Please, do take the trouble to read an argument before making a fool of
yourself.
>> People assert that xCL prevents cheesy decks (You did above). No it
>> doesn't. It doesn't force a little bit of everything, it doesn't stop
>> cheese.
>
>I said I'd not explain this again, read above about specific combos...
You noted specific cards above, not specific combos. Care to revise
your argument?
>> >that's obviosuly an important
>> >flavour of the game. What CL is good for is to prevent decks based
>> >around one single card, like (Temptation of Greater Power or Legacy
>of
>> >Pander).
>>
>> Such decks have their own counters in them. All decks under NL are
>> defeatable, and have holes to be exploited.
>
>Ooooh yes, so why did LoP deck sweep the table at Gen*Con even when the
>deck was well-known and won last year too
Because it got good seating, amongst other things. 1 game it got 0
victory points. It also went first, and drew an Info Highway. Had
these things not happened, the deck wouldn't have got vote lock. It
wouldn't have got to its second LoP fast enough, the first one was DI-
ed, its prey would have had votes available
Do decks never sweep under xCL? Never ever? *giggles* And *we* need
to wake up to reality?
>(I think it did? not sure
>though)!!?
It got 2 victory points in the '99 final, being ousted. However, with a
2-2-1 split, and a superior set of VPs in the heats, it won.
That shows you it does have weak points, and can be beaten. If your
playing ability isn't enough to beat it without having to 1) limit it
artifically or 2) prepare specifically for it, the problem is Your Deck
and Your Ability not His Deck.
Even in a 4CL environment, you could get (with Rob's deck) about 36
votes onto the table, enough for vote lock.
*If* the card is a problem, the problem should be addressed via the
card. Why artificially screw up every other card, just because of 5 or
6 cards that are broken, or need addressing?
If Majesty is a problem, address S:CE, or introduce new cards via Sabbat
War. Why screw up every other perfectly usable combat card? Why can't
I have 10 Fake Outs in my deck? What's wrong with 10 Fake Outs?
>>Except, under xCL, you are
>> not allowed to have enough of those counters. You're not allowed all
>> your S:CE counters because you can't have enough IG. You're not
>allowed
>> enough vote counters, because you can't have enough Delaying Tactics.
>
>This isn't why, it's to prevent someone going for 10 Consangineous
>Boons for example, which would make him win easily if he got them
>through (not too hard with 10 BO's unless people block,
Then you're not playing enough vote defence, if any.
If you need to stop people having the votes in their deck to stop them,
you need to look at your playing style.
Put *vote defence* in your deck. There are many potential ways of doing
that. You need to be able to defend against votes. If you are not, and
need to stop people playing the votes instead, You Are Playing Badly.
>but you could
>use stealth in your deck, like Setites).
Setite vote decks have their own, unique problems.
First of all, obf-pre is reserved for, mostly, the larger vampires,
except for two weenies (4 cap), amongst the setites.
Amisa, with her two votes, has OBF pre, not OBF PRE, or obf PRE.
Kemintiri has OBF PRE and 0 votes.
Kephamos has obf pre, and 2 votes.
All of these are problems.
Then you can't easily pass vote-gaining votes on them, because they're
Independent. You need to get an Invitation Accepted passed first, which
isn't easy, because you need a number in your deck, and the ability to
pass it.
Is it a playable deck? Yes. Noal has a very nice one. Is it an
unstoppable deck? By no means.
>> You're not allowed enough bleed bounces, because you can only have 8
>in
>> Dominate and only 4 in Auspex. Auspex, under NCL, has a very good
>bleed
>> defence. You're not allowed good defence against the Brujah lot,
>> because you can't have enough Leather Jackets and Fake Outs.
>
>You're so single-minded, there's Flak Jackets, Elysiums, S:CE etc etc
>etc etc etc
Not every deck has the ability.
What combat defence do I give a clan who don't have vote superiority and
don't have S:CE? S:CE isn't found in every discipline, nor should it
be. And a lot of clans have problems securing many votes. The
Malkavians have no vote lock, and no S:CE. Oh well.
And Flak Jackets will work against Gangrel, but they won't work against
Brujah. Brujah do lots of damage, not a pity 1 damage. Torn Signpost-
Blur. 9 damage. Why did you tell me to equip a Flak Jacket again?
>> >The GenCon tournament I think shows CL could be a good thing.
>> >Sure eveyone can try make a deck that specifically deal with the LoP
>> >deck,
>>
>> You would be better off making a deck that had vote defence, against
>any
>> vote deck.
>
>Hmm how effective is a deck with 15 DG's??
Why would you put 15 of one card in?
Your problem, repeatedly demonstrated by you, is your ability to
construct a deck in the environment, not the environment itself.
1) Vote defence isn't solely achieved via gaining votes
2) If votes don't get a referendum, votes can't pass
3) One way to stop a referendum is to cancel the vote
4) Another way to stop a referendum is to stop it being called in the
first place
5) Vote defence doesn't have to be achieved passively
6) There are permanent cards to be utilised
>Sure it definately prevents
>the LoP but has no chance to win himself.
Because it's a crap deck. Build a crap deck, do badly.
That's true under xCL, too.
>> >If I want to make a Setite deck for example, why should I have to
>throw
>> >in like 10 Leather Jackets just because there's a guy who goes with
>10
>> >IG's, instead of having my S:CE strikes as I had planned?
>>
>> No-one's saying you have to. But you go into an NL game knowing what
>NL
>> means.
>
>Which is the reason why we don't. Because we know what it means = a
>boring repetitive game (IMO)
*snigger*
I saw nothing boring or repetitive about *any* of the 19 games at
GenCon. Even the final. It was a very cleverly played game, with a lot
of thought, creativity and agitation.
Bad players create boring repetitive games, not No Card Limits.
>> >I also think that CL forces a
>> >more variety of card use,
>>
>> That's the point of it. It doesn't force no "cheesy stuff".
>
>It prevents specific combos based on one single (usually rare) card
>(once again).
So people lucky enough to pull such cards should be punished.
And bad deck design should be encouraged, by letting all players know
they're never going to have to defend against a focused political deck,
because there're never going to be more than 8 vote push cards in a
deck, and they can play S:CE, because there are never going to be more
than 4 anti-S:CE cards in a deck.
What a fool I've been. Why didn't I see this before? What Jyhad
*really* needs is to have crap players, playing badly, with no impetus
or time to improve, because they play in an environment which encourages
bad play, no defence and punishes them for being lucky, or for buying
cards. Sounds like great fun to me!
>> >so you use cards that maybe you wouldn't do
>> >else, at least not as often.
>>
>> That might be because the cards are bad cards, or inappropriate to
>your
>> deck.
>
>So then we come back to the origin of this whole discussion where
>someone claimed that CL creates wallpaper cards.
No it doesn't.
xCL has wallpaper cards, you're just forced to use them.
>Nice to see someone
>from the NCL camp admitting they were wrong.
Don't put words in my mouth, or attribute other people's words to me.
Cards are still crap, whether xCL or NL. Just under NL, you have the
choice to avoid them. xCL forces crap cards upon you.
Yay! Making people play with crap cards is a *great* way to get them to
enjoy the game. Why didn't we think of it earlier?
>
>>
>> You try and argue against NL, but say you'd put 10 Leather Jackets in
>> the above deck. It's an utterly stupid thing to do, and no serious NL
>> player would even think of doing such. The idea of maxing out on one
>or
>> two cards always seems to come from the anti-NL camp, and not from
>> people with NL experience.
>
>Yet again, it was an *example*.
And a very bad one at that.
>You're really telling me that no decks
>ever has 10 card of a specific type?
No-one has told you that.
If you think that, you are a First Class Fool.
>What about the Temptation of
>Greater Power deck then?
>Is that a BAD deck???
No. But I can play equally *good* decks which don't have 10 cards the
same in them. NL lets you play the ToGP deck, but you don't have to.
The ToGP deck came second overall at GenConUK, but got 0 points in the
final.
>> >(in this case you get punished by being forces to have
>> >potence),
>> >so it wasn't meant to say that anyone ever needs 8 of this
>> >kind of card.
>>
>> Indeed. If you don't need 8 of a kind of card, you're unlikely to put
>> that many in under NL.
>>
>> NL simply allows you access to the cards you do want. It doesn't
>force
>> you to take 10 of them, like you seem to be suggesting.
>
>No but it makes it possible,
Indeed.
>and with some certain cards that makes the
>deck way powerful.
Unsubstantiated rubbish.
>> >Yes it's easy, but they're not the exactly the same. For example, LM
>> >gives a pool at superior, which could be a reason to go 12 LM's
>instead
>> >of 4x3 +2 bleed cards. And again, the point with CL is to prevent
>> >soemone making a startegy based on a real powerful (usually rare)
>card.
>>
>> Erm, a better way to stop people exploiting powerful cards is to stop
>> the cards being powerful.
>
>But it hasn't been done, so??
Are you *seriously* telling me that Legal Manipulations should be
errata-ed? If you can't defend against Legal Manipulations, give up and
go home now.
>And LM isn't too powerful with a CL,
Legal Manipulations isn't too powerful with NL.
> and
>not enough powerful with NCL to make it changed (obviously, since it
>hasn't happened).
Not "obviously". All no errata means is that, in the view of the Rules
Team, there is no need.
>And why change like 50+ card texts (in erratas) when
>you could just make a CL and fix most of the "broken" cards?
And fuck up 750 cards? Sounds good.
And I contend that there are not 50+ cards in the game that need fixing.
What needs fixing is your inability to play the game well.
>> Going and buying a few boxes of Jyhad (which are cheap) is one way to
>> get a half-dozen Immortal Grapple.
>
>You're not the one having to get them shipped to Europe,
Please, do pay attention to my e-mail address.
I'm based in Europe.
>pay for
>exchange fees (which are $10) or having to deal with the fact that your
>currency has almsot doubled against ours in 3 years time.
Not last time I checked.
>> >Like the no
>> >repeat action tenet (that we don't use).
>>
>> That's ONE rule. And if someone is lucky enough to pull 4 Freak
>Drives
>> in one go, they can bleed you for a truck. xCL does force luck upon
>> you.
>
>Sure they could but it's not likely to happen,
But when someone is lucky enough to pull it off, the situation is just
as broken.
In xCL, broken cards still exist when luck comes up. So the lucky
player wins. Would you care to dispute that?
>Once again you also forget that nobody even has 4 FD's in my playgroup
>but me.
You have never posted your card lists, so please don't tell me what I've
"forgotten".
xCL is giving you a very strong advantage. No wonder you want to keep
it.
>I happen to have money to buy more cards than others in my
>playgroup, if I wanted to I could have gotten 10 FD's or more, which
>wouldn't have made it better would it?
Nothing would happen, because NRA fixes it.
>> >I can't really ever imagine it would be fun to face a deck using 10
>> >Legacy of Pander.
>>
>> It's an interesting challenge, and one that has been beaten.
>
>CL is an interesting challenge too, but as I can see you don't seem to
>be the courageous type wanting to try new and odd decks with some
>diversity :)
New and odd decks exist under NL. All xCL decks exist under NL, and
some are played.
Apparently, you want to hamper the number of decks available.
> Playing
>> Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence etc., gives
>> you a good chance against many vote decks.
>
>Oh sure u're right, I just wonder how I'm ever gonna oust my prey with
>such a deck :)
Like everyone else does. By building a good deck and playing well.
Twit.
*Not* by putting 15 Dread Gazes in, like you would.
>
> Vote lock isn't solely
>> generated via Legacy of Pander, you know?
>>
>> If you go into a game with no vote defence, it doesn't matter if it's
>10
>> Legacy of Pander. You could go and face 1 of each Praxis Seizure in
>the
>> game, instead, and you'd still be screwed. Would the variety of
>Praxis
>> Seizures make the game any more "fun"?
>
>One LoP should give more votes than a PS
So? Someone can still achieve vote-lock, and you have no defence,
because You Are Playing Badly.
>(else u're doing something
>wrong :P) Also you can play 10 LoP's but you cannot play 10 PS unless
>you have that many minions (not likely).
You've never seen a weenie Caitiff/2 cap deck in action then.
Would that be because under xCL, the creativity is hampered because I
can't have more than 8 vote push cards in a deck? I'd say so.
>> >It would be so boring for everyone except maybe the
>> >player himself unless you knew he was going to make such a deck and
>> >then could prepare yourself (but as I said, we constantly make new
>> >decks).
>>
>> If a deck has no way to defend itself against politics, it will die
>when
>> it sits next to politics. If a deck has no way to defend itself
>against
>> bleed, it will die when it sits next to bleed. If a deck has no way
>to
>> defend itself against combat, it will die when it sits next to combat.
>>
>> These are facts.
>
>Hmm so at Gen*Con there was only one vote deck (the LoP one)?
Bollocks. Do read the report, won't you, before making any more stupid
statements?
You also forget to take into account *anything* to do with the player.
Rob Treasure is a highly skilful player and, in his hands, LoP is a very
destructive deck. Other people have fallen over into a heap with it, by
being bad players.
>Wow I
>find it hard to believe that
You don't need to believe anything. The report is there for you to
read.
>....30 players with some being Ventrues and
>all.
Why would some be Ventrue? I don't recall a solid mono-Ventrue deck,
off the top of my head.
>> You should consider what defences your deck has when you build it.
>>
>> So, you know you're not going to sit next to 10 Legacy of Pander. Do
>> you put no vote defence in? Vote lock can be achieved via other
>means.
>
>How will I know I'll sit next to a LoP deck??
You won't. And you don't need to.
But a deck with politics could end up next to you. So you put vote
defence in.
This is not a race to see who can pull of their combo first. The game
is about interacting. If you don't interact with other decks, you're
playing badly. If you can't interact with a vote deck, you've left
yourself open and deserve to be ousted by a vote deck.
>> If you need to "prepare yourself" against a specific deck, you are
>> playing badly - and the reason you need xCL to balance decks is
>because
>> you're playing badly, not because NL is broken. It sounds like you're
>> not putting *any* vote defence in at all. LoP can be badly screwed by
>> generic vote defence, and if you don't put any of that in, well,
>that's
>> your own fault, not the fault of NL or LoP. Or another vote deck.
>
>I always have vote defense,
Then you can defend.
>but it doesn't help when the guy has 5
>minions all trying to play a LoP the same turn, now does it??
Anyone with that many Legacy of Panders in a deck - 5 in their hand at
once?!?!? - has already screwed themself over by playing a crap deck.
LoP works well as the focus for a deck at around 9 or 10. Fewer is
possible for a deck, but it wouldn't be the focus, necessarily, but a
nice by-line. Anything more than 10 - and for 5 in your hand at once,
you'd need around 20 in a deck, I'd guess - and you fuck up big-time.
>Unless I
>have enough of titled vampires up, but then he'd not play them in the
>first place *duh*.
Which works very nicely.
He has a hand full of crap, and can't do anything.
Vote defence achieved, LoP stopped.
*duh* yourself.
>> >As I said, I don't have the time,
>>
>> If you don't have the time to go and read the archive, why should
>anyone
>> else hear have the time to listen to your repetitions of arguments
>that
>> have gone before you, with nothing new to add?
>
>I never asked anyone to listen, duh.
You posted to a newsgroup. Unless you like talking to yourself, you
post things for people to read. *duh*
>You've chosed so yourself, not my
>fault. *I* wasn't the one brining up this whole issue, *someone*
>herecomplained at my playgroup using CL! Geesh sounds like now you're
>trying to make it my fault that you happen to not like CL and complain
>about it.
That I happen to have empirical evidence that CL leads to a more broken
game, you mean.
>> >and you enedn't reply if you don't
>> >want to ;) I might check it out later, but really, as long as we're
>> >happy in our group
>>
>> Please, be happy in your group. If you can't be bothered to show
>people
>> here the common decency of reading up on a debate before trying to
>sound
>> clever in it, don't bother. You just go over old ground and introduce
>> nothing new at all, which helps no-one.
>
>Ok, then I say to you, go and read ALL threads EVER made on this forum
>and ALL other forums ever created for the VTES.
I've read a great deal of the posts ever made to this group. Not all,
because Usenet doesn't work like that. (I cannot guarantee that any
given server will see *all* posts, because of rogue cancels, rogue
supersedes, legitimate cancels, legitimate supersedes, expires, NNTP
propagation leaving holes, servers going down, leaky back-fill and the
like. If you do not understand any of the above, you are not qualified
to argue with me on this.)
>Because if you don't
>then u shouldn't post here about anything whatsoever, since it MIGHT
>have been handled already at some point, somehwere, in the far past!!
It is good sense to go and do a search on any topic you bring up which
strikes you as being likely to have been addressed in the past.
Also, you are being *specifically* told here that this has been
addressed time and time again in the past. But you response is "I can't
be bothered to listen. *lah lah lah* I'll just stick my fingers in my
ears."
Going over exactly the same argument *again* and *again* as each new
poster suddenly thinks they've hit on something new does nothing. Doing
a little research helps you by:
1) You don't annoy the regulars
2) You don't take several months to glean all the points that you could
get in a half hour's work
3) You get to pre-empt counter-responses, by already having formulated
an answer to them
4) You gain respect for having done thorough research, even if we
disagree with you
5) You move the argument forward to new and unprepared ground, where you
can give yourself an advantage by already having thought three or
four steps ahead
Learn some netiquette.
>
>So please, don't post here ever again before you have. Makes much sense
>huh? No yours didn't either.
Mine makes plenty of sense, if you actually have a brain in your head.
We are *telling you* that what you are saying is nothing new, and that
you should do some research. I would not have expected an utterly
exhaustive search *before* you made your initial comments, but now you
are being told what you should do.
But you ignore us, because You Know Better.
>> >why should we change it?? I'm pretty sure I'd love
>> >the game with or without CL, but CL works great so if it aint broken,
>> >why fix it?
>>
>> What do you do if I sit down with a Malkavian Stealth and Bleed
>deck?
>>
>> 4 of each card. No-one has yet showed a decent xCL defence to it,
>with
>> a decent deck still there. That is broken.
>
>You know we've never had more probs with Malks that any other clan.
That you group doesn't abuse xCL is not a valid defence for saying that
it is a good format.
>If
>they have a cheesy deck, poeple usually gang up on them because we hate
>Malks ;-)
Ah, so now you have to:
1) Gang up on powerful decks
2) Victimise people
Recipe for harmony, don't you think? A better tactic is:
1) Make the deck balanced
2) Allow everyone equal access to defences, so if they get screwed, it's
a combination of their lack of defence with the skill of the winning
player
>But I NEVER EVER claimed everyone should play with CL, did I?
You have been advocating CL as more creative and balanced.
> You tell
>me to read up on the archives posts and you haven't even bothered to
>check how this single thread came to existance...
And you don't know what you're saying yourself.
>
> "We don't abuse card limits in
>> our group, so they're alright." That just doesn't stand up. Card
>> limits can be abused. NL has no abusive decks, to my mind, as the
>> situation currently stands, even though some decks - LoP and ToGP are
>> causing people some grief at the moment. ToGP will do nothing against
>> massive blood gain, really.
>
>Just as you easily say it I can too, you say ToGP decks aint abused,
>that just doesn't stand up, they are.
No, I can give empirical evidence of decks that stand up against ToGP.
I can *prove* there are defences against it.
We take the hypothesis:
H0 = ToGP deck is unstoppable
I disprove H0 by counter-example.
You are trying:
H0 = xCL is balanced and creative
Counter example: I cannot play a Corruption deck. I disprove the latter
part of H0 by counter-example.
Counter example: People gang up on Malkavian decks. I disprove the
former part of H0 by counter-example.
>> >I think CL really helps to make people try out
>> >different clans.
>>
>> Erm, what?
>>
>> You can play as many clans as you want under NL.
>
>But not effectively unless u're filthy rich.
Bollocks. Utter, utter unsubstantiated bollocks.
You can play very effective decks with commons.
Legbiter has done some *very* good Happy Families decks with ONE box of
Jyhad. ONE. He picked Brujah in his example, but could have picked
*any* of the clans - and still come up with a neat deck. I think he
dropped all of two cards in that weren't in the box.
>> > I've noticed that the majority of the V:TES players
>> >here has a few clans that they almost always play.
>>
>> Look harder
>
>You're telling me that there's not tons of people here having a few
>decks/clans that they prefer to always play?
I can tell you that there are people who have preferred clans.
I dispute "almost always" as being wrong.
>Only those with tons of
>cards doesn't, instead they have like 10 Lasombra decks etc that they
>never break down.
That they never break down? No. And that's Lasombra, whose focus is
Lasombra decks, unsurprisingly.
>I think that tells something...
It tells me that you think a sample of 1 person is statistically
significant, which makes you a fool.
>In my playgroup there's never been anything like "this guy 80% plays
>this specific clan". It seems very common at other places.
Emphasis on the word "seems".
>When you got
>o websites of playgroups it usually says soemthign like:
>
>"In your group there, sme who plays a Toreador, Mark who plays a
>Tremere Antritribu..." etc. If you haven't sene it, you must be blind.
And people change decks and move on. If you haven't seen that, you're
blind.
> - and whilst you're doing that, look at some of the NL/CL
>> debates that have gone before (try Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page,
>search
>> for it) so you don't just repeat the same tired old arguments that
>have
>> been refuted a hundred times before.
>>
>> A lot of people have favourite clans, but I've seen people try all
>sorts
>> of things.
>
>I dind't dsay they never tried others.
You said they "almost always" play certain clans.
I dispute that as untrue.
>But they play mainly one,
Untrue.
>and
>that's coz they are most effective with it because they have spent
>their resources collecting cards for that particular deck since it's
>not possible to get 5-6 cardsof all rares/uncommons needed,
I dispute that any clans needs 5-6 of rares and uncommons.
I assert that with every clan, a workable decks is playable without 5-6
rares and uncommons. That is your null hypothesis. Disprove it.
>without
>being filthy rich.
Perhaps they traded away cards they don't want. If I have a Society of
Leopold I don't want and Robert Goudie wants it, and Robert Goudie has a
Curse of Nitocris that I do want and he doesn't, we can *trade*.
Nothing "filthy rich" about that.
>> And there is *nothing* making people shift clans by the presence or
>> absence of card limits.
>
>It means that you don't have to have 10 Majesties to make a Presence
>deck competitive because another guy has 10 Psyches in his deck...
You can cycle Psyche! out of your hand, you can put in a number you
think will be most useful, you can use them against several Methuselahs
- once you've ousted your prey, for instance.
All decks are about compromise.
But, let's say we get into a situation where we're playing 4CL. I can't
put 10 Psyches in. But you play 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown and 4 Catatonic
Fear. That's 12 S:CE. And I can't do anything about it. *sigh*
Apparently, this is a Good Thing.
>I
>can't believe you ahven't realised this yet, despite me telling you
>this so may times :(
If you put a *useful* number of a card in your deck, you don't have a
problem. And you twist your deck to fit an environment, not a seating
position. If you are likely to be playing in a high S:CE environment,
play more. If you are not, play less. You don't pick a specific *deck*
to counter.
One of the hall-marks of true quality in a player is the ability to
judge an environment based on past experience, thought, rationale, logic
and instinct.
>> > Thus you haven't been able to get other good rare
>> >card for other (different) startegies. Becuase unless you're filthy
>> >rich, you canot get 5-10 rare cards of all rare cards...
>>
>> Oh, but 4 is *that* much different to 5. Right.
>
>no but 10 is,
You don't even need 5 of any rare card to make a playable Brujah deck.
To make a *specific* Brujah deck, yes. To make a *playable*
*competitive* deck, no.
>I hardly own even 4 of any rare, VTES cards included. IG, RotBR, and
>Psychic Veil are the only exceptions I think.
And you can make perfectly usable decks with none of those, or lots of
those, or somewhere in between.
>However if it wasn't for
>the CL I'd gotten more than 4 of some specific rare cards for sure.
And? People could defend against any deck you make with solely commons,
possibly aided by a few uncommons.
And your pointless arguments about 15 Dread Gazes just show what a bad
grip you have on making decks.
>But
>now I think 3-4 of the best ones are good enough since I need ot mix in
>other cards anyway, so my deck won't be as narrow-minded as I else
>would have made it.
Having more than 4 of a card in a deck doesn't have to make it narrow
minded. A player can make the deck narrow-minded in several ways.
Duplicate cards aren't necessarily a cause, nor the only cause.
> But he has 10 Bewitching Orations and you won't let him. And the
>> rich player doesn't win? Yeah, right.
>
>Again no, because I don't have more than 1 awe.
But you have 4 Bewitching Oration and 1 Awe.
He has 4 Bewitching Oration.
Rich player wins.
>If he really needed it,
>he could borrow it from me.
In which case, you arguments about "rich players" are utterly spurious.
>Also why would he need 10 BO's when nobody
>can have more than 4 Dread Gazes anyway?
Dread Gaze
Surprise Influence
Other voting vampires
The edge
Political action cards in hands
Vote locations, e.g. Ventrue HQ, Powerbase Rome, Alamut
And every player could play a Dread Gaze.
Alan, Belinda, Caroline, Donald and Euan sit down a table to play Jyhad.
Alan calls a vote.
Belinda: "Euan, this looks bad. We don't want to give him vote-lock.
Can you cast your votes against with Donal O'Conor?"
Euan: "Sure, Belinda. 2 votes against."
Alan: "I play Bewitching Oration."
Belinda: "I throw the Edge in. And I'll tap my Mausoleum. Five votes
against."
Alan: "Damn it."
Next action.
Belinda: "He's doing it again. What are we going to do?"
Euan: "Two votes against."
Alan: "Damn it, I'm only allowed 4 Bewitching Orations in the deck, so I
haven't pulled another."
A couple of turns down the line.
Alan: *sees the card he's drawn*
Euan: "2 votes against."
Alan: "2 votes in favour with Rake who I managed to get out."
Belinda: "Erm, I toss a political action card from my hand. Pity I've
already tapped the Mausoleum."
Caroline: "Hey no, you're not ousting her. I need her there to protect
me from you. I burn a political action card from my hand too."
Donald: "So, it's three in favour, 4 against."
Alan: "I play a Bewitching Oration with Gideon. Four in favour."
Caroline: "I burn 4 counters from my Alamut."
Every player has 2 direct enemies, and 2 potential enemies. That's 4
times as many cards against them as they have in their deck,
potentially. And, yes, I've seen some frighteningly good Alamut decks.
Matt Green has one.
>You need to see the whole
>picture here. He won't need as many BO's because there's fewer ways to
>counter hsi votes,
There are still more counters than he has ways to do it.
>thus he got place to throw in more fun and odd cards
>that's normally not used *wallpaper issue comes to mind*.
So we make people play with crap cards, because they can't use the ones
they want.
You really aren't thinking.
>> > I have most
>> >cards of all our 25 players, and I don't have more than 4 of any rare
>> >card, and I hardly even have more than 3 of any rare card either.
>>
>> So, you have 3 Awes, newbie player doesn't.
>
>I got 1 Awe :) Besides Awes doesn't matter that much because newbie can
>still block me or play pulling strings etc.
No, but he can't play as good a deck as you can. With more than 4
Bewitching Orations, he can have the basis of a very strong deck.
> Shucks, I guess he just
>> can't play an effective politics deck - which he could if you'd let
>him
>> put more than 4 Bewitching Orations in.
>
>We play by the old vote rules, where you can throw one vote card for
>ready vampire (IMO I think it's redicilous that was changed
You don't understand the old rules, by the sounds of it.
Nor do you understand why it was changed.
>), so he'll
>be able to gather votes that way plus Ventrue HQ and such cards. Our
>newbies never had problems with voting so I don't see how this is a
>problem.
That's because you're building bad decks, and don't know how to do vote
defence.
You've established that one with your ill-thought out crap above. 15
Dread Gazes is not vote defence, my dear.
> But, for some reason, you
>> decide to punish him for not being rich, where NL said "Yep, we're
>cool
>> with you playing 10 of that common card, instead of 4 common and 4
>> rare".
>
>Yeah and I get to use 10 ToGP, nice.
Perfectly workable deck, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Deck
with holes, deck with defences, deck that can be defeated.
The ToGP deck needs pool gain to work. It cannot afford to up the
stakes on ToGP without a good supply of pool. That's one good way to
attack. Block the actions, rush the vampires, banish the vampires,
Sudden Reversal the ToGP, bleed the player (using the relevant cards),
KRC the player, Dramatic Upheaval yourself out the way (such that
stealing your vampires isn't of use to them), have massive pool gain
yourself, play weenie vampires so it becomes too expensive for them to
steal them all. It needs a Justicar, so either has to split among
several clans or double up on cards. It doesn't necessarily guarantee a
Justicar, or can screw itself for vampires. It's an interactive card,
so someone else on the table (e.g. the ToGP deck's predator) could have
massive pool gain and bid for it instead, strengthening its position and
putting the ToGP deck in a possibly marginally stronger position (one
less vampire of its prey), but something that could have been achieved
via combat, say, and with a newly strengthened predator. If it's using
votes, like Parity Shift, to gain pool, you could block the vote,
Delaying Tactics it, or even, horror of horrors, put vote defence in the
deck.
Creative thinking, creative play. Things you can't do properly unless
you're allowed the cards.
>On a note I should add that it's
>the newbies that appreciate the CL the most, which would be strange if
>they were disadvantaged.
They don't understand the situation properly.
They think that rares are better than commons. In Jyhad, this isn't
true. Limiting the number of rares you have in a deck doesn't remove
powerful cards. There are many powerful common cards.
They also don't understand the advantage the old players have.
Old players have access to more sets. Old players, therefore, have
Majesty, when they only have Staredown. (Or whatever sets are
accessible in your group.)
You have access to cards they don't. You can play double the number of
cards they have.
>>
>> And NL has shown time and time again that decks with many, many
>commons
>> in them do very well indeed. If you *want* to play a deck with mostly
>> rares, you can do that too - but a common deck won't fall down just
>> because it's common. It'll fall down because it's badly made.
Very telling that you choose not to dispute this.
cantila
"Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message
> news:8paish$c7b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > People aren't dedicated enough here to do that. One reason could
also
> > be that we pretty much play in waves. Sometimes we don't play for a
> > long time, and then we play intensively for a while etc. I myself
can't
> > play at all except during the holidays because I study far away
from my
> > playgroup
>
> This says it all... Consistent playing may have led to the
realization that
> the game was in fact designed to be played NCL. Now, I am not saying
that
> your mechanics are behind other players, or that NCL players are
better than
> CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the
way the
> game was designed), is a better and the right way to play.
That's what you thin, not I. I agree that NCL allows for more powerful
decks, and this is exactly what we wanted to prevent with the CL. In
our opinion they're *too* powerful and single-minded. For example why
would you ever use Staredown in a deck that you want a lot of S:CE in?
You'd use Majesty instead because it's a lot better than Staredown.
With CL you'll use Staredown too and add some variety to the game
instead of making it a wallpaper.
You missed the whole point as to why we use CL if you think we use it
because it makes better decks *duh*
> oAFLORD
> aka
> Thomas Kuster
> V:EKN Prince of Caledon
>
> Go see. http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In article <d7qfrsc0k4pgifgqd...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
><lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Psyche is useful for any Celerity deck, but I have a deck
>>that uses Haven, Disguised Weapon, Deer Rifle, and Manstopper Rounds,
>>along with Dead-End Alley to press to a 2nd round and get 4 total
>>points of damage. It uses all the OBF weenies. It doesn't give a
>>damn if you S:CE or Dodge against it - someone will EVENTUALLY get
>>you.
>
>It strikes me that a Prince with Obfuscate would be useful to the deck,
>maybe Selma, or someone like Volker (i.e. cheap) with skill cards.
Possibly. It certainly changes the focus of the deck, since nobody is
larger than a 3-cap in the deck right now (and Watenda appears in the
crypt 3 times, since his special is just so cool for this instance).
Blood Hunt would be entertaining, though.
>That way, you can play Blood Hunt as well. Once you cycle through a lot
>of their defence, you'll want a way to attack multiple *vampires* per
>round. A few Blood Hunt cards will do that.
Granted. Currently, the way I handle it is I tend to use the Havens
backwards mostly to subtract large threats, and then once I've got
Deer Rifles on everyone, I just bleed with Computer Hacking. Even
without a Manstopper Rounds in hand, my guys should at least SURVIVE
any combat, and 2 points of damage at a time is a nuisance and will
add up. =)
cantila
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > There are no exact duplicates of any card in V:TES, with about three
> > exceptions - Bastard Sword/Meat Clever, Pack Tactics/Elder
Intervention,
> > Homunculus/Carrion Coffin. And that's about it.
>
> Homunculus is a retainer, Carrion Coffin is just a card (with a built-
in
> burn option). I wouldn't classify them as exact duplicates of each
other.
> One can be moved with Heidelburg and the Succubus Club and pulled via
> Culling the Herd or stolen in a variety of ways (and is difficult to
> burn), the other can be burned without much effort and cannot be
moved.
> And the action to get one is at +1 stealth at inferior, the other is
> 0 stealth at inferior.
>
> The only pair I'd add to your list is Anarchist Uprising / Autarkis
> Persectution, though with the effects of Delaying Tactics, the change
> of name actually matters.
I think it should say Anarchist Uprising / Ancillae Empowerment?
>
> (Similarly, unique cards like vampires are sufficiently "different"
by
> name alone so as not to count.)
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
>
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In article <xz6u5.4437$Ld.9...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
> "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the
>way the
>> game was designed), is a better and the right way to play.
>
>That's what you thin, not I. I agree that NCL allows for more powerful
But you are wrong, and he's not.
>decks, and this is exactly what we wanted to prevent with the CL. In
>our opinion they're *too* powerful and single-minded. For example why
It sounds to me as though you all prefer to wallow in ignorance, a
glorious never-ending fish-fight. Why shouldn't you all try to make
the best decks you can, instead of imposing stupid limits on
yourselves?
>would you ever use Staredown in a deck that you want a lot of S:CE in?
Since I only have like ONE Staredown, there's a good reason why I
personally wouldn't.
However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a
dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can
then use a Blur and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat.
But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and
end combat. Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than
Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE
Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that.
>You'd use Majesty instead because it's a lot better than Staredown.
>With CL you'll use Staredown too and add some variety to the game
>instead of making it a wallpaper.
You keep mentioning this fictional "variety" you seem to have. Both
cards end combat. Both cards are played to end combat. There is no
"variety" in what you're saying here, other than the name of the card.
If you believe this is "variety", then you are extremely
simple-minded. VARIETY is something like I mentioned above, except
you can't DO that since you can't put more than 4 Staredowns in a
deck, and Majesty wouldn't serve the purpose at all.
Andrew S. Davidson
>You still haven't said why this is. Why would you want 50+ copies of
>some cards? It is practically impossible to play a deck that wins
>anywhere near consistanyly with >20 of any one card. Usually something
>like Cryptic Mission or possibly Corruption would require >20, but not
>always. At _most_ 15 copies (and then usually commons) will suffice for
>the most focussed of decks. Most that see play in the UK are very nearly
>6CL legal with a few noted exceptions for cards with unique abilities
>such as DotBeast and Legacy of Pander.
A deck was recently described which had lots of Pursuit. This seemed
like an amusing deck - one that I might build and play given the
opportunity. You really can't have it both ways. Either large
multiples of cards are effective and interesting or they're not. If
they are then one has the problem of collecting them. If they are not
then a CL is unimportant as you won't want to exceed it anyway.
As for the exact numbers, bear in mind that I expect to build lots of
decks for a CCG that I take seriously. I have about 30 decks each for
Shadowfist and Doomtown. I have bought about 3500 VTES cards so far
and in my limited attempts at deck building it seems that I have less
than enough staples like Taste of Vitae for one deck, never mind many.
If you put 12 copies of a card like this in a combat deck and have 5
decks of that type then that's 60 cards that you need to find. The
lack of a CL clearly exacerbates this problem.
>What i'm telling you is that you haven't played the game enough, looked
>at the tournament environment enough and are not a good enough player to
>make these ludicrous sweeping generalisations about what is apparently
>good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have
>argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps
>coming up, year after year after year.
Get a clue - it obviously keeps coming up because it's an important
issue. It won't go away until it is resolved in a better way than
ranting "wrong, wrong, wrong".
Andrew
Derek Ray
wrote:
>As for the exact numbers, bear in mind that I expect to build lots of
>decks for a CCG that I take seriously. I have about 30 decks each for
>Shadowfist and Doomtown. I have bought about 3500 VTES cards so far
>and in my limited attempts at deck building it seems that I have less
>than enough staples like Taste of Vitae for one deck, never mind many.
Join the club. I have roughly enough Taste of Vitae for one deck as
well. I solve the problem by keeping in mind which decks need Taste,
and rotating out the cards to the appropriate deck as necessary.
<shameless Atlanta plug>
I find that ELDB helps me ENORMOUSLY with this, since I do not need to
physically keep 30 decks built. I usually build decks first in ELDB,
then save to a text format and pull it up in Notepad for easy
reference when I actually physically put the cards together for the
deck. I have approximately 8 decks built at any given time (well,
that's how many I have right now), and the rest of the cards sorted
out appropriately. As demonstrated recently, in a weekend of
Jyhad-playing with multiple players, I was unable to become bored with
my decks, having 8 to choose from every time I wanted to play a game.
8 "built" decks is really plenty. But I never have to worry about
wasting time just because a deck isn't built - it takes approximately
10 minutes, tops, to constitute any deck from its .TXT ELDB format to
a playable pile of cards.
</shameless Atlanta plug>
>If you put 12 copies of a card like this in a combat deck and have 5
>decks of that type then that's 60 cards that you need to find. The
>lack of a CL clearly exacerbates this problem.
Goodness me, no. The concept of owning 60 Taste of Vitae is totally
foreign to me, and given the current "rare" distribution, would force
me to buy a ridiculous number of cards. Much better to just use a
little restraint, a little forethought, and swap cards out between
decks, since there are so very FEW cards that have the problems Taste
does.
>>good for this game when myself and many of the people on this group have
>>argued about this until we are blue in the face and yet it still keeps
>>coming up, year after year after year.
>
>Get a clue - it obviously keeps coming up because it's an important
>issue. It won't go away until it is resolved in a better way than
>ranting "wrong, wrong, wrong".
No, it keeps coming up because the people who bring it up and begin
ranting about CL don't understand the issue fully - they've simply
grafted on the CL from Magic, assuming that of COURSE it applied to
all other CCGs as well... which it doesn't. Or they've grafted on the
CL to avoid having to spend money on rare cards, when they don't
realize that they don't NEED to spend money on rare cards - commons
and uncommons will serve just nicely.
Oaflord
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o99irs8poi97qu137...@4ax.com...
cantila
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:19:19 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <xz6u5.4437$Ld.9...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
> > "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> >> CL players, but what I am saying is that from experience, NCL (the
> >way the
> >> game was designed), is a better and the right way to play.
> >
> >That's what you thin, not I. I agree that NCL allows for more
powerful
>
> But you are wrong, and he's not.
>
> >decks, and this is exactly what we wanted to prevent with the CL. In
> >our opinion they're *too* powerful and single-minded. For example why
>
> It sounds to me as though you all prefer to wallow in ignorance, a
> glorious never-ending fish-fight. Why shouldn't you all try to make
> the best decks you can, instead of imposing stupid limits on
> yourselves?
>
> >would you ever use Staredown in a deck that you want a lot of S:CE
in?
>
> Since I only have like ONE Staredown, there's a good reason why I
> personally wouldn't.
>
> However, I could use Staredown in a Toreador gun deck - it provides a
> dodge at inferior if I'm fighting someone like the Gangrel, and I can
> then use a Blur
If you have celerity on the vamp you rather use a cel dodge than a
presence! Why the heck would you use presence when you can use celerity
and thus make the deck mroe focused?
and blow their heads off since I haven't ended combat.
> But if I'm fighting, say, the Assamites, I can use the superior and
> end combat.
If it was S:CE you included Staredown for you'd do better with Majesty
where you get S:CE even at inferior.
Staredown is a multiple-use card, and more flexible than
> Majesty. In fact, thinking about it, I currently wish I had MORE
> Staredown now, because it'd be entertaining to build a deck like that.
>
Oh why don't I believe you?
> >You'd use Majesty instead because it's a lot better than Staredown.
> >With CL you'll use Staredown too and add some variety to the game
> >instead of making it a wallpaper.
>
> You keep mentioning this fictional "variety" you seem to have. Both
> cards end combat. Both cards are played to end combat.
But with Staredowns it's slightly harder to get a S:CE, which means
more challenge and less boring too for the other players to always see
that Majesty coming. You need to include some Presence skill cards so
the deck needs a different apporach on the deck building.
You don't have to like this, it's enough that we do.
There is no
> "variety" in what you're saying here, other than the name of the card.
> If you believe this is "variety", then you are extremely
> simple-minded. VARIETY is something like I mentioned above, except
> you can't DO that since you can't put more than 4 Staredowns in a
> deck, and Majesty wouldn't serve the purpose at all.
>
> -- Derek
> Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
>
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> >
> > First of all, your arguement about being able to counter dedicated
> > stealth with an equal amount of dedicated intercept is wrong. It
> > requires approximately twice as much dedicated intercept to catch a
> > dedicated stealth deck.
>
> Wrong, you don't need twice as much because of Elder Impersonation,
you
> can oyl have 4 of EI and you once again forget that my playgroup lacks
> AH and Sabbat cards. I have 4 EI, but to my knowledge no one else of
> our 8 players have. There *might* be another guy having four, but if
so
> he's never used them to make ti noticable. As for the rest, they all
> have none, one guy has one or two that he got from me.
So a 4 cl actually helps you, because you could play a better stealth
than someone else who doesn't have access to Elder Impersonation. The
other players, who under a NCL could play a deck with more than 4 Cloak
the Gathering, now can only play with 4 Cloaks but you can play with the
same 4 cloaks they can plus your 4 Elder Impersonation cards in
addition to any other stealth cards that they have.
> Another thing is, Malks don't have permanent stealth locations (not
> counting Shadow Forest that can be burned easily) while you can have
> such intercept ones easily. This makes you require a lot less of
> intercept card. Add four 2nd Tradition and a couple of other intercept
> card (let's say 12, which isn't uncommon for an intercept deck) and
top
> it with 4 Telepathic Counters you really DO survive. First I use my
> perm intercepts to block and if I have to, I throw in an intercept
> card. If he plays IE I could Misdirect it and then I can soon collect
> some 6 pool.
So now you understand that bounce is a nessasary defense against stealth
bleeds because of this card. I am glad we agree.
> The reason for this is Elder Impersonation. At
> > superior, Elder Impersonation causes a block to fail.
>
> With NCL this card is certainly bad yes, a reason to not use NCL since
> it limits your defence to only be deflects.
You just said above that your only defense against Elder Impersonation
is bounce.
> This card single
> > handedly takes a vampire with alot of intercept on him out of the
> > blocking scheme and therefore requires the blocking player to put an
> > equal amount of intercept on a second vampire. Therefore it
requires
> > twice as much intercept on average to catch stealth in any
environment
> > CL or NCL. If you plan on playing Elder Impersonation, then it
should
> > be your last of a series of stealth cards with your intention being
to
> > draw out all of your prey's intercept.
> >
> > Second, Malkavians can go all out every turn and bleed you with each
> > minion for two if you have Protected Resources, but if you have
> > protected resources then you cannot bleed your prey so therefore you
> > must play politics or you lose your Protected Resources. Therefore
if
> > you play Protected Resources then you can't use a rush strategy,
> because
> > with rush you must always eventually bleed your prey out. Rush is
the
> > counter to Stealth/Bleed.
>
> You play either a rush deck OR vote deck. And by rushing vamps I was
> tlaking about the Malks, you rush them and try kill them. He won't
have
> much defence since he's such a devoted S&B.
But you will never play rush in a Cl environment. It doesn't and
can't win because it can't beat S:CE. So someone who plays it is
playing it for "fun" but not to win.
<snip point on Archon Investigation which we agree on>
> >
> > This leeds me to Derek's point about bounce. Bounce is the only
> > definative defense against stealth and bleeds. It is convenient,
> cheap
> > and extremely useful in helping you oust your own prey. To restate
> > Dereks point in a card limit environment you are limited to at most
> > having 12 of these in your deck (4 Redirections, 4 Deflections, 4
> > Telepathic Misdirections), and, as Derek said Redirections are the
> weak
> > one out of that group.
>
> You missed My Enemy's Enemy, although it's not relevant in my
> playgroup. But so isn't EI either.
>
> Of course you also have Telepathic Counters, but
> > that is a paper shield against a stealth and bleed deck.
> >
> > That really only leaves one deck strategy to play if you want to win
> in
> > a CL environment, and that is stealth bleed. Stealth, bleed is fast
> and
> > powerful right out of the gate, and with your 4 card limit, a player
> > cannot muster a substancial defence before they are ousted.
Therefore
> > if you want to win in a CL environment you play dedicated Stealth-
> Bleed.
> > Do you like to win? So why would you play anything else?
>
> Why do YOU play anything else but your favourtie win-deck?
All my decks are win decks (in that I built them with winning as a
end-goal). I expect all the other players in my playgroup to play their
win decks. When this happens and everyone is trying to win, it is not
only fun, but also makes us better players as we can see how the decks
interact with each other.
> Why would
> > anybody play anything else?
>
> Because we don't liek Malkavians? :)
Why should you have to dislike a clan to play with your playgroup? I
know what I am touching on now is social theory, but why should you have
to not play Malkavians to be a member of your group? I have gotten
killed alot by stealth bleed or tap/ bleed. So I just build my decks to
compensate for it, which is easy in a NCL environment (I just add 8
wakes and 8 deflections or Telepathic Misdirections or use a serious
rush strategy like a Gangrel Multi-rush or an IG deck). It seems much
harder to compensate for stealth and bleed in a CL environment.
> People in my group don't play much of real pure stealth and bleed,
> because it's so friggin' boring and quite lame and IF they do they get
> quite gangbanged after the first game (if hey won).
These are social considerations, and while I like the social aspect of
VTES and love table politics, I don't think that social bullying should
be part of the rules.
> Maybe you don't play for fun but only to win and don't care if you're
> having fun while doing so, but you're not in my playgroup, I don't
have
> to take your possible decks into consideration.
I do play for fun, and you are right I do not play in your playgroup.
You certainly don't have to take my possible decks into consideration,
but you might have fun, abeit a different kind of fun, if you tried
them.
> If CL didn't work we OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have it. Your theoretical
> arguments doesn't are not real in our playgroup so it makes no sense.
> If and when anyhting like you describe happens we'll find a way to
deal
> with it.
Since you are not here in my play group and I am not there in your
playgroup, the only way to show you how CL don't work is to show you the
theory behind CL.
The reason people apply CL to VTES is because Magic has card limits.
Did you know that Magic used to have NCL? They did back in Alpha and
Beta, but someone figured out a deck that could win consistantly on the
first round. It was the Black Lotus-Channel-Fireball deck. I don't
know if you have heard of it so I will tell you about it. On round one
A player would play a Black Lotus (which costs zero mana and the player
could tap it and discard it for 3 mana of any color), and a mountain.
That player would then tap the black lotus for 2 green and one red mana.
The player would use the 2 green mana to cast a channel which allowed
you to burn one life for one colourless mana. The player would then
burn 19 life, so he would have 2 red mana (one from the lotus and one
from the mountain) and 19 colourless mana. The player could then cast a
20 point fireball and take the opposing player out on round one.
There is no deck in VTES that can take a person out on the first round,
or even the second round. The game was designed that way. Since there
is no way to kill another player instantly, then there is no reason for
card limits.
NCL could be a way to go, but that would cause other problems
> too.
Please name some of these problems
> Came to think of another card you don't want to see in quantities,
> Horrific Countentance (together with dominate, Gangrels can do it
> without too much of effort).
Which also costs 4 blood, and also defeats all intercept strategies.
> In THIS case bouncing is the only way to go, so you're telling me that
> if I don't play a bouncing deck I'm screwed and I should from now on
> always play bouncer decks???
Actually, yes, that is what I am telling you. In the face of stealth
and bleed bouncing (which includes bleed reduction) is the only way to
go, and in a four card limited environment you cannot put enough defense
in your deck to compensate for stealth and bleed and rush is not a
viable defense because you are limited to how many IG's or even bum's
rushes that you can put in your deck. Also as we mentioned above,
intercept as a deck is extremely difficult proposition for a deck
strategy because of Elder Impersonation.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> As for the exact numbers, bear in mind that I expect to build lots of
> decks for a CCG that I take seriously. I have about 30 decks each for
> Shadowfist and Doomtown. I have bought about 3500 VTES cards so far
> and in my limited attempts at deck building it seems that I have less
> than enough staples like Taste of Vitae for one deck, never mind many.
> If you put 12 copies of a card like this in a combat deck and have 5
> decks of that type then that's 60 cards that you need to find. The
> lack of a CL clearly exacerbates this problem.
Actually we are addressing this subject under the Toreador-Antitribu
Newsletter. We call it deck modules. It is groups of interchangable
cards that you can switch from deck to deck, therefore allowing a player
more decks to be ready a one given time than would be under normal
circumstances.