Zip Gun
Vince Johnson
the game is intently based on keeping some realism in an unrealistic world.
Recently after being asked to ressurrect some of my old decks to start
playing again I went to the Wizards page for updates to the rules and was
dismayed to find that for no reason whatsoever the infamous Zip Gun and ammo
cards don't work.
Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively
the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the
ammo cards.
Vince
Richard D. Zopf
The decision to ban the use of ammo from Zip Guns wasn't based on
intuition, but rather on the "broken" combo of Zip Gun/Dragon Breath
Rounds, which had a weak expense to effect ratio. Now, if you wish to
generate the same effect, you need to do a Disguised Weapon/Saturday
Night Special/Dragon Breath Rounds combo. Let me assure you it's not
that much more dificult to pull off, and the expense is much more in
line with the result...
Regards,
R. David Zopf
guenh...@mindspring.com
Atom Weaver
Vagabond
> "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> >Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively
> >the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the
> >ammo cards.
>
> The decision to ban the use of ammo from Zip Guns wasn't based on
> intuition, but rather on the "broken" combo of Zip Gun/Dragon Breath
> Rounds, which had a weak expense to effect ratio.
Do you really believe a *gun* that shoots *pencil stakes* can shoot DBR also?IMHO
this card should be re-labeled as weapon and nothing more.
Madjack
LSJ
> I've been playing the game since the original release and understand that
> the game is intently based on keeping some realism in an unrealistic world.
> Recently after being asked to ressurrect some of my old decks to start
> playing again I went to the Wizards page for updates to the rules and was
> dismayed to find that for no reason whatsoever the infamous Zip Gun and ammo
> cards don't work.
>
> the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the
> ammo cards.
Game balance.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Vince Johnson
LSJ wrote in message <77vcun$jn2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>> I've been playing the game since the original release and understand that
>> the game is intently based on keeping some realism in an unrealistic
world.
>> Recently after being asked to ressurrect some of my old decks to start
>> playing again I went to the Wizards page for updates to the rules and was
>> dismayed to find that for no reason whatsoever the infamous Zip Gun and
ammo
>> cards don't work.
>>
>> Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively
>> the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the
>> ammo cards.
>
>Game balance.
>
>--
Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a
game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes
to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of
"fixing them"... personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
2)...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then
it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of
the other overpowering cards...
BTW I never found dragon's breath rounds with zip guns to be that
overpowering... especially since most combat decks have their own ways to
deal with it... and non-combat decks tend to avoid it or prevent it...
leaving me with a damaged vamp holding an exploded gun.
Thanks for not clearing that whole mess for me...
Vince
James Coupe
>Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a
>game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes
>to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of
>"fixing them"...
They don't *just* ban them though. They restrict them, and re-print
them with new wording. V:TES doesn't have the luxury of reprinting.
The re-wordings and errata that would be reprinted are issued as errata
instead.
> personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
>they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
>2)...
For the over-powered cards, perhaps it would be a possibility.
However, a power card is a power card is a power card. When I draw it,
it's still powerful. I just draw it fewer times.
Also, the staple cards of many decks require being in there more than 5
times - Bewitching Oration, say, Kine Resources Contested, Corruption
(especially), stealth (especially non-Obfuscate based stealth),
intercept etc. Many deck styles just *don't* work without the No Limits
game we play.
Also, the game was designed from the start as being no limits. They
screwed up a few times, messed up a few cards, didn't spot a few combos
etc. But the vast majority of the game is designed on a no-limits basis.
You may like to visit http://www.io.com/_mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
and read the various items against 4CL (4 card limit).
>and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then
>it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of
>the other overpowering cards...
Again, you need to go back and read the arguments to understand this.
In a Magic environment, say, Lotus is still bloody powerful, even if
it's only in your deck once.
And the overpowering cards have also been "fixed" to make them not
overpowering. There are arguments over what would have been better -
re-writing, banning, restricting etc. - and all have their upside and
downside. One way, rather than restricting the card, is just to make it
balanced.
See http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra and check under the recent
batches of rulings.
Unfortunately, what holds up in your play environment is not true of all
play environments and tournaments and this is why the errata have to be
issued. Some groups decide not to adopt them wholesale, although most
people who have used them have found them to be helpful in the long run.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Derek S. Ray
<john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a
>game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes
>to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of
>"fixing them"... personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
...It's just Magic. (shrug) =)
>they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
>2)...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then
>it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of
>the other overpowering cards...
Jyhad was specifically designed so that card limits would not be
necessary to maintain game balance.
>BTW I never found dragon's breath rounds with zip guns to be that
>overpowering... especially since most combat decks have their own ways to
>deal with it... and non-combat decks tend to avoid it or prevent it...
>leaving me with a damaged vamp holding an exploded gun.
"Adds 2 aggravated damage to a gun's damage. This burns the gun after
it is used. Only usable as damage is being resolved." - from DBR's
card text.
Zip guns provide an all-important maneuver (which DOES make things
difficult for combat decks who'd like to IG you) and one point of
damage. They come with a built-in Disguised Weapon, which means that
they fit in any deck completely as a surprise, not just OBF decks.
They cost zero pool, meaning that you can burn through guns until you
run out of cards with no significant cost to you. Their only
effective "cost" is one point of damage PER COMBAT to the vampire
holding it, which can be prevented in 6,000,000 different ways OR just
gained back via hunting later.
Dodge or S:CE decks play their strategy during the strike phase, which
happens before DBR can be played, so if you see Dodge or S:CE, you
don't bother exploding your gun. Card text is a little vague about
when the gun is burned in relation to additional strikes, but I'm
going to take the narrow view and say that DBR only applies to one
strike -- but even in this case, any prevention that isn't superior
Skin of Steel is still largely worthless against a Blur. If you take
the wide view, 3 points of normal and 6 points of agg in a round (all
for the cost of two vampire blood - one for the gun damage, one for
the Blur) is absolutely ridiculous. And you get to do it again next
combat if you have both cards in your hand.
Or you could just take a lot of Torie, Assamite, and Brujah weenies
with CEL, and instead of using DBR rounds, use Glaser rounds - you
only get 7 total points of damage on an opposing minion, and you now
-must- use a Blur or you can't play the ammo, but you also get to keep
your gun, all for the same 2 blood cost.
-- Derek
(replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)
Richard D. Zopf
>Richard D. Zopf wrote:
>> "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
><snip>
>> >Could someone explain to me why this combo doesn't work since intuitively
>> >the Zip gun is and states it is a gun which fills the requirements of the
>> >ammo cards.
>>
>> The decision to ban the use of ammo from Zip Guns wasn't based on
>> intuition, but rather on the "broken" combo of Zip Gun/Dragon Breath
>> Rounds, which had a weak expense to effect ratio.
>Do you really believe a *gun* that shoots *pencil stakes* can shoot DBR also?IMHO
>this card should be re-labeled as weapon and nothing more.
For all purposes that I can think of, the errata that's been issued
amounts to the same thing.
Richard D. Zopf
>LSJ wrote in message <77vcun$jn2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Game balance.
>>
>>--
>Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a
>game that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes
>to screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of
>"fixing them"...
That is a much easier route to take, particularly when you're
releaseing an expansion every three months to have poeple get new
cards. The effort with V:TES has been to make a balanced game, using
as many rpinted cards as possible. It's an ongoing process, and LSJ
(the WotC Net-Rep) has demonstrated an open ear to revising previous
errata, if said errata is shown to have too much of a debilitating
effect on the card (cf Tomb of Ramses, III).
>personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
>they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
>2)...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then
>it wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of
>the other overpowering cards...
Card limits like that haven't been around for about two to three
years. The base rules have never provided for a card limit in V:TSE,
and with good reason. It's a patch fix for any game when the real
problem lies in a very few cards (this holds for V:TES, M:t$$, and any
other). CL has been discussed here as nauseam, and the final
resolution most people came to was that you could do one or more of
the following:
1) Play in your gaming group any way you want. It's your gaming
group, after all.
2) Play non-DCI V:TES tournaments any way you want, they're your
tournaments, after all.
3) Play DCI Sanctioned V:TES tournments with DCI Tournament rules,
including the full range of Official Errata, Rulings, and
Clarifications. This includes no card limit.
If you're uncomfortable with other "overpowered" cards, I'd encourage
you to raise a rational discussion about them here, and search
Dejanews for what's been said about them to date.
>BTW I never found dragon's breath rounds with zip guns to be that
>overpowering... especially since most combat decks have their own ways to
>deal with it... and non-combat decks tend to avoid it or prevent it...
>leaving me with a damaged vamp holding an exploded gun.
Then use DBR's like crazy. Go for it! And hey, a Sawed Off Shotgun
has two barrels anyway, so it should be able to use two DBR's per
strike. That's only common sense, right?
>Thanks for not clearing that whole mess for me...
Oh, it ever remains our highest priority to clear up your messes....
Vince Johnson
Ok so this brings me back to where I started... why place a limitation on
the gun... while you're at it you could add errata to the Rulebook itself
for ammo cards that despite what the cards says, they are to be used with
the strike... now you cripple ANY ammo combo with any gun but to me it makes
sense intuitive sense and is a rule that you could implement on the whole
... for instance, realistically, you can't decide that in the middle of a
firefight that when you finally land a hit that you were using a non-average
ammo(what the cards represent)
And as for S:CE and Dodges... it's never been a bad thing that because of
these cards that his (the one with the ammo) that he's stuck with those ammo
cards in his hand if he is either relying on them and doesn't want to throw
them away... not to mention the overload of zip guns when all of his kindred
have them and now they're piling up in his hand not getting through for
damage... start discarding them for the other cards in your deck...(perhaps
thought betrays.... or similar cards to get the combo off)... and you're
still crippling pieces of the puzzle when you only draw more of the same
card(perhaps because you've dumped a dozen of each into the deck).
At any rate... it's a moot point... as it has been pointed out to me... my
group can decide how we choose to play the game and how we restrict
cards(through errata or restrictions)... we plan to do this anyway with
recent problems we've seen in other games... I just hate to take some
rulings and ignore others based on the fact that the ruling was only made
for those that couldn't deal with it correctly with what they have in front
of them... overall though, I feel, it invalidates the rulings as a whole...
Thanks
Vince
PDB6
"Ah... so in other words... it's ok to change the wording of a card for a game
that Wizards of the Coast doesn't properly support... but when it comes to
screwing up with their "major product" (MTG) they ban cards instead of "fixing
them"..."
WOTC has almost zero need to errata or "fix" cards for Magic that are broken,
misprinted, too powerful, too weak, or just plain dumb. As Magic is still
being printed, the bad cards just drop out of the cycle and get reprinted as
something else. Compare Lightning Bolt to Shock, Repentant Blacksmith to
Desciple of Law, or Black Lotus to Lotus Petal. Cards that came out wrong, or
were determined to be wrong, for what ever reason get changed and reprinted as
somthing closer to what is "balanced". Yes, cards get banned, but for the most
part, these are in situations where reprinting cards does not prevent the use
of the original busted versions (like in a Type 1 tournament environement). In
a Type 2 tournament, where cards keep cycling in and out, the bad cards just
fall out of the environement after a while and get replaced by the fixed
version.
Jyhad does not have this benefit. No more cards are getting printed. No
revisions will be made. The balance of the set cannot be jiggered with by
reprinting cards. The only option is to continue playing in an environment
with unbalanced or broken cards, or issue errata to put balance in a propper
place. What is or is not balanced is certainly a matter of debate, but LSJ,
the Rules Team and this newsgroup are probably the best equipped to debate
this.
"personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
2)"
There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten
tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to some
number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card
limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be played
with no limits.
"...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then it
wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the
other overpowering cards..."
Wouldn't make the busted cards any less busted or the broken combos any less
broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more of a
crap shoot.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious
I would have it all if I'd only have this much"
-Liz Phair
Vince Johnson
PDB6 wrote in message
You're wrong if WotC would properly support their games there would be no
problem... as for broken cards... they sit there and MAKE the killer
combos... they admitted to it in the last Duelist... then while sitting with
their thumbs up their a$$ ignore that there are other sets... which is why
there were recent bannings in cards ....
>
>"personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
>they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
>2)"
>
>There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten
>tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to
some
>number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card
>limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be
played
>with no limits.
And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the
restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned
copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was
way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days
of DCI... they were law within my gaming group until the last weeks when we
resurrected interest in the game.... and without the restrictions... some
games ... and some people complain that due to the fact that some
disciplines lacking within certain areas it is important that cards not be
restricted... that's the point... certain clans... certain disciplines lack
in areas so that you have to think...( and the key word is think...
something too many people do not do) ... about your designing a deck...
ok... so I'm playing Gangrel... well they don't have auspex... they're not
going to have huge access to intercept or even stealth(althought they have
cat's guidance and earth meld)... that's the point... they're supposed to be
more limited in those area's in comparison to the other disciplines and
clans... because they can make up for it in generic cards... and the fact
they are more combat oriented than, say... the malkies which are stronger in
both areas than the gangrel and lack slightly more in combat(although I've
made some fun malkie combat decks too)....
>
>"...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then
it
>wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the
>other overpowering cards..."
>
>Wouldn't make the busted cards any less busted or the broken combos any
less
>broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more
of a
>crap shoot.
exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement
the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they
could not make the combos core deck designs... and even if people did still
make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to
think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games...
you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's
never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor...
I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized
games because they were built around the environment that was set up...
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Also, the staple cards of many decks require being in there more than 5
> times - Bewitching Oration, say, Kine Resources Contested, Corruption
> (especially), stealth (especially non-Obfuscate based stealth),
> intercept etc. Many deck styles just *don't* work without the No Limits
> game we play.
Such as?
This is where I play the devil's advocate...seeing as I play in a 6CL
group. We use 6CL as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.
Corruption is an obvious exception....but to be honest, I'd rather use
Temptation or Form of Corruption anyway. The other is the "Murder
of Raptor" type decks. It's pretty difficult to get 7 Raptors in a 6CL
deck.
I can make virtually any other deck style work in 6CL with little or no
impact on its effectiveness. Our guidline is to prevent people from
playing lame Protean Dominate stealth bleed decks based on 25
Form of Mist and 25 Conditionings. Play a deck like that and I can
guarantee you won't get invited to any of the local games.
> Unfortunately, what holds up in your play environment is not true of all
> play environments and tournaments and this is why the errata have to be
> issued. Some groups decide not to adopt them wholesale, although most
> people who have used them have found them to be helpful in the long run.
This is certainly not true of all groups. The Michigan Jyhad League has its
own rules team that looks over LSJ's errata and decides whether to use it
or not. In the matter of the Zip Gun, we have decided to play as printed.
All MJL sponsored tournaments use MJL errata and rulings rather than
DCI or WotC rulings.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
mboh...@shout.net
"Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>
> PDB6 wrote in message
> >There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten
> And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the
> restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned
> copies to you...
I think I remember these. IIRC, they lasted only a few months before they
changed them again.
> but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was
> way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days
> of DCI... they were law within my gaming group until the last weeks when we
> resurrected interest in the game.... and without the restrictions... some
> games ... and some people complain that due to the fact that some
> disciplines lacking within certain areas it is important that cards not be
> restricted... that's the point... certain clans... certain disciplines lack
> in areas so that you have to think...( and the key word is think...
> something too many people do not do) ...
This is all covered on the web site someone posted in this thread. Here it
is again:
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
> about your designing a deck...
> ok... so I'm playing Gangrel... well they don't have auspex... they're not
> going to have huge access to intercept or even stealth(althought they have
> cat's guidance and earth meld)... that's the point... they're supposed to be
> more limited in those area's in comparison to the other disciplines and
> clans... because they can make up for it in generic cards... and the fact
> they are more combat oriented than, say... the malkies which are stronger in
> both areas than the gangrel and lack slightly more in combat(although I've
> made some fun malkie combat decks too)....
The restriction is still there without card limits. Why? You can still only
play 1 copy of each reaction modifier or action modifier in an action. So
while the Gangrel can play Earth Meld and a couple other cards for stealth,
the Malkavians have 10 different cards available to them. This makes a huge
difference that anyone playing NL will tell you.
The two biggest arguments for card limits are to keep powerful cards from
being easily drawable and so people without as many cards can compete.
The first problem is only partially solved. It introduces a larger element
of luck where most people feel that the game should be skill based. So,
using the as-written Return to Innocence, you might be able to only have 2
copies in your deck. You're playing Fortitude so you've got Day Operation
and Daring the Dawn. You have other uses for these cards, but you also hope
you draw them with an RtI. If you draw it at the right time, you are going
to oust your prey. If you don't draw it, you just continue using your main
strategy. The point is, it's entirely luck. There's no skill. The only
thing you might worry about is a deflecting prey (assuming more than 2
players at this point). Otherwise, you just play it and your prey is
generally ousted. The cost isn't that big a deal because you get 6 pool back.
The second problem takes a reverse course when using CL. There are many cards
in Jyhad that are similar but different - Guard Dogs and Rat's Warning, Fists
of Death and Torn Signpost, etc. Generally, one of the cards is rare except
in the GD/RW case. So if you have the rare cards, you can use them when you
max out your CL using the common. And guess who has the most rares? The
people with the most cards. So the guy without many cards is stuck because
he can't take his friend's stack of commons and use as many copies as he
wants of each card.
> >broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more
> >of a crap shoot.
>
> exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement
> the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they
> could not make the combos core deck designs...
Ok, so you seem to be agreeing that it is luck when a restricted combo comes
up, not deckbuilding skill.
> and even if people did still
> make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to
> think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games...
> you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's
> never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor...
Now are you talking about building decks around specific (restricted) cards
or just specific cards in general? If you mean restricted, you're
contradicting yourself because restricted cards make it a "crap shoot" if you
build around them. So I'll assume you mean specific cards in general. If
you are saying a 5CL and you build a 60 card deck, you have a 1 in 12
chance of drawing a specific card you built around. That's about an 8%
chance of drawing your core card. Theoretically, that means I have to play
my whole hand plus 4 more cards in order to draw the card I really want.
That sure sounds like a crap shoot to me, too.
Now if you had a real deck size like most people build their decks, with
and without CL, you'd have 90 cards. Your chance now drops to 1 in 18.
That's a 5.5% chance.
> I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized
> games because they were built around the environment that was set up...
Are these 4 player games? With 60 cards, you're going to run out quickly
in a combat deck.
I've played in all sorts of groups. I've played 4CL, 4CL with a restricted
list, 6CL, and NL. CL games have their merit because they can be fun merely
for their different flavor and style. However, they do not have the effects
that CL proponents are seeking.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > Many deck styles just *don't* work without the No Limits game we play.
> Such as?
I would modify the statement with:
There are many unique and interesting decks that just don't work without
No Limits.
And besides, you pretty much agree, Noal. :)
> This is where I play the devil's advocate...seeing as I play in a 6CL
> group. We use 6CL as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.
So it's not technically a card limit then. Why not play a flat gentlemanly
NL? You state below that if someone were to bring an "abusive" deck, they'd
pretty much uninvite themselves from playing again. That way, people can
make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks
that are viable without having to be tournament competitive.
> Corruption is an obvious exception....but to be honest, I'd rather use
> Temptation or Form of Corruption anyway.
So Mr. Suitcase has the advantage because he has more Temptations and
Forms of Corruption? The reverse effect of what many CL'ers try to accomplish
with limits.
> The other is the "Murder of Raptor" type decks. It's pretty difficult to get
> 7 Raptors in a 6CL deck.
Yeah, that would be kind of hard. Where's that Jyhad Clone card....
> I can make virtually any other deck style work in 6CL with little or no
> impact on its effectiveness.
I'd agree. Pretty much any other deck style can work under CL without
extreme detriment in comparison to the other decks. However, some decks are
just plain knocked out of possibility under NL. Like Heart of Darkness and
Fortitude deck. Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred
Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion, and
Pulling Strings).
> Our guidline is to prevent people from
> playing lame Protean Dominate stealth bleed decks based on 25
> Form of Mist and 25 Conditionings. Play a deck like that and I can
> guarantee you won't get invited to any of the local games.
So just play NL and tell people that you are geared more towards fun than
stiff competition, so no standard S&B decks or 25 Skin of Steel and 25
Pulled Fangs (you play as written, IIRC).
> > Some groups decide not to adopt them wholesale, although most
> > people who have used them have found them to be helpful in the long run.
> This is certainly not true of all groups. The Michigan Jyhad League has its
> own rules team that looks over LSJ's errata and decides whether to use it
> or not. In the matter of the Zip Gun, we have decided to play as printed.
> All MJL sponsored tournaments use MJL errata and rulings rather than
> DCI or WotC rulings.
Does MJL use CL, too, or just your group? I didn't think so, but it's
not beyond the realm of possibility.
Derek S. Ray
<john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>
>Ok so this brings me back to where I started... why place a limitation on
>the gun... while you're at it you could add errata to the Rulebook itself
>for ammo cards that despite what the cards says, they are to be used with
>the strike... now you cripple ANY ammo combo with any gun but to me it makes
>sense intuitive sense and is a rule that you could implement on the whole
>... for instance, realistically, you can't decide that in the middle of a
>firefight that when you finally land a hit that you were using a non-average
>ammo(what the cards represent)
No, but S:CE is so prevalent that it's only fair to the gun users to
make them not have to pack 30 ammo cards in hopes that they'll get one
to land. (Dodge is pointless since any gun deck probably also
includes Celerity, which beats Dodge hands down.) Guns are hard
enough to make "go" without hurting them THAT badly. Also... The game
is about supernatural creatures, "vampires" - which sort of defies
realism in the first place, don't you think? So the primary concern
when issuing errata is game balance, not "realistic" play.
>And as for S:CE and Dodges... it's never been a bad thing that because of
>these cards that his (the one with the ammo) that he's stuck with those ammo
>cards in his hand if he is either relying on them and doesn't want to throw
>them away... not to mention the overload of zip guns when all of his kindred
>have them and now they're piling up in his hand not getting through for
>damage... start discarding them for the other cards in your deck...(perhaps
>thought betrays.... or similar cards to get the combo off)... and you're
>still crippling pieces of the puzzle when you only draw more of the same
>card(perhaps because you've dumped a dozen of each into the deck).
What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat.
There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth
Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all
at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side
note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still
receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the
Retainer, but IANALSJ)
If you have ammo cards and you're facing S:CE, you can always PLAY
them in combat if you have a hand-jam issue - I certainly wouldn't
waste time hanging on to multiple ammo cards when 75% of my strikes
won't ever land. Every deck design has its own inherent flaws, but
the Zip Gun-Ammo combination is just too low-cost for how easy it is
to make work.
>At any rate... it's a moot point... as it has been pointed out to me... my
>group can decide how we choose to play the game and how we restrict
>cards(through errata or restrictions)... we plan to do this anyway with
>recent problems we've seen in other games... I just hate to take some
>rulings and ignore others based on the fact that the ruling was only made
>for those that couldn't deal with it correctly with what they have in front
>of them... overall though, I feel, it invalidates the rulings as a whole...
The ruling was not made for those who couldn't "deal with it", it was
made because the cost-to-effect ratio of a Zip Gun and DBR was
excessive - pay 1 vampire blood, get 2R agg with a free maneuver.
Normally to get 2 points of aggravated damage, you either require an
equip action (to get a weapon which does agg), OBF (to get the weapon
via Disguised Weapon), superior Potence (to play Burning Wrath, which
costs 3 vampire blood), superior Quietus (Taste of Death, cost 1 blood
and you need to have a maneuver in hand as well)... a Gangrel and a
Lucky Blow/Claws combination (cost 1 blood), or Tremere and a way to
get to the 2nd round consistently. (Or Shotgun Ritual - cost 2
blood.)
The only cost-to-effect ratio here that even comes close to a Zip
Gun-DBR is having OBF and Disguised Weapon - but all weapons that
naturally do 2 points of agg damage cost pool, not blood. (Example, a
Flamethrower costs 4 pool for 2R agg - and doesn't come with a
maneuver.) Burning Wrath is miserably expensive for what it does, but
it can be easily combined with IG to ensure that your strike HITS,
which none of the other listed combos can. (Not easily anyway.)
Taste of Death can be outmaneuvered as WELL as S:CE'd or Dodged.
Lucky Blow/Claws don't work at long range and don't come with a free
maneuver like Zip Gun/DBR. Tremere require a press to continue or
some way to prevent their own Burst of Sunlight's damage. Shotgun
Ritual will cost you two blood, but without a maneuver you'll take at
least one point of damage from a punch as well. Do you see yet? Zip
Gun-DBR was an UNDISCIPLINED combo (meaning any vampire anywhere
anytime could use it) that was more effective than all other
DISCIPLINE combinations *and* cheaper. Yech.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> > Such as?
>
> I would modify the statement with:
> There are many unique and interesting decks that just don't work without
> No Limits.
And again I say, "Such as?"
> And besides, you pretty much agree, Noal. :)
...which is why it's a guideline, not a hard rule. If I want to put 10
Raptors in a deck, nobody is going to care. We like to see cool and
innovative decks. 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mist is _not_ cool or
innovative.
> > This is where I play the devil's advocate...seeing as I play in a 6CL
> > group. We use 6CL as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.
>
> So it's not technically a card limit then. Why not play a flat gentlemanly
> NL? You state below that if someone were to bring an "abusive" deck, they'd
> pretty much uninvite themselves from playing again. That way, people can
> make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks
> that are viable without having to be tournament competitive.
Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our
decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need
25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck.
> > Corruption is an obvious exception....but to be honest, I'd rather use
> > Temptation or Form of Corruption anyway.
>
> So Mr. Suitcase has the advantage because he has more Temptations and
> Forms of Corruption? The reverse effect of what many CL'ers try to accomplish
> with limits.
*shrug* Calling me Mr. Suitcase is a bit silly when I freely loan and give
cards.
Besides, 6 Forms and 6 Temptations are hardly difficult to come by. I think I
use 4 Forms and 6 (maybe 5) Temptations in my Setite political deck.
> > I can make virtually any other deck style work in 6CL with little or no
> > impact on its effectiveness.
>
> I'd agree. Pretty much any other deck style can work under CL without
> extreme detriment in comparison to the other decks. However, some decks are
> just plain knocked out of possibility under NL. Like Heart of Darkness and
> Fortitude deck.
How so? How would No Limits be detrimental to a Heart of Darkness/Fortitude
deck?
> Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred
> Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion, and
> Pulling Strings).
Sounds like a lot of different cards. You would be surprised how effective 6
of each can be. Not to mention there are other master cards that require
political actions to burn. Use some of them.
> > Our guidline is to prevent people from
> > playing lame Protean Dominate stealth bleed decks based on 25
> > Form of Mist and 25 Conditionings. Play a deck like that and I can
> > guarantee you won't get invited to any of the local games.
>
> So just play NL and tell people that you are geared more towards fun than
> stiff competition, so no standard S&B decks or 25 Skin of Steel and 25
> Pulled Fangs (you play as written, IIRC).
Correct about Pulled Fangs, although we've ruled it to limit it to once
per round of combat. *shrug* S&B decks don't show up too often since,
like Peter, I play in a high combat and voting environment. They die quick.
It's much more fair to instill a guideline that people can adhere to rather
than tell someone they can't play a deck concept. Exceptions are always
made when reasonable...and again, I assure you, the local competition is
quite stiff.
> Does MJL use CL, too, or just your group? I didn't think so, but it's
> not beyond the realm of possibility.
Actually it's a very good question since my group can be called the
core of MJL as 3 of the 5 rules team members play in my group. It's
not really a question that's been raised since most players in the
MJL use a 6CL guideline.
To my knowledge, a 6CL isn't enforced in a MJL tournament. I never have,
and I don't recall any of the other folks who run MJL tournaments doing
so either. The MJL really strives to make it possible for a new player to
buy some cards and make a deck based on the printed rules and card text
without needing to re-work it because of errata he's never heard of. When
we issue errata, we try to make it with minimal impact on the way the game
is played and still keep game balance in mind.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> I think I remember these. IIRC, they lasted only a few months before they
> changed them again.
*nods* They were printed in the Duelist about 3 years ago.
> And guess who has the most rares? The
> people with the most cards. So the guy without many cards is stuck because
> he can't take his friend's stack of commons and use as many copies as he
> wants of each card.
*shrug* depends on the group. People make decks out of my stuff all the
time. I allow people to use my rares as well as my commons.
> Ok, so you seem to be agreeing that it is luck when a restricted combo comes
> up, not deckbuilding skill.
*nods* This is why I support the idea that if you use a card limit, do it on
all cards, not just a few. Either that or use card limits as a guideline
rather than a hrad and fast rule. Either way, using 4CL is a bit excessive
in my opinion and limiting a card to 2 copies in a deck is pointless. Either
ban it or don't.
> If you are saying a 5CL and you build a 60 card deck, you have a 1 in 12
> chance of drawing a specific card you built around. That's about an 8%
> chance of drawing your core card.
Um...I don't know where you studied statistics but most people draw more
than 1 card in their opening hand. You have about 56% chance of drawing
one in your opening hand and 8% chance thereafter with each card that
you draw.
> Theoretically, that means I have to play
> my whole hand plus 4 more cards in order to draw the card I really want.
> That sure sounds like a crap shoot to me, too.
*shrug* It's all a crap shoot unless your deck is 50% made up of one card.
> Now if you had a real deck size like most people build their decks, with
> and without CL, you'd have 90 cards. Your chance now drops to 1 in 18.
> That's a 5.5% chance.
Actually, 5 in 90 is 6%. You still have a 42% chance of drawing one in
your opening hand.
> I've played in all sorts of groups. I've played 4CL, 4CL with a restricted
> list, 6CL, and NL. CL games have their merit because they can be fun merely
> for their different flavor and style. However, they do not have the effects
> that CL proponents are seeking.
Depends on the effects they're seeking. We use it to prevent boring,
repetitive decks. We don't use it as a control on over-powerful cards.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Vince Johnson
>There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten
>tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to
some
>number (2? 6?), but I am fairly certain that there never was a blanket card
>limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be
played
>with no limits.
And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the
restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned
copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was
way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days
of DCI... they were law within my gaming group until the last weeks when we
resurrected interest in the game.... and without the restrictions... some
games ... and some people complain that due to the fact that some
disciplines lacking within certain areas it is important that cards not be
restricted... that's the point... certain clans... certain disciplines lack
in areas so that you have to think...( and the key word is think...
something too many people do not do) ... about your designing a deck...
ok... so I'm playing Gangrel... well they don't have auspex... they're not
going to have huge access to intercept or even stealth(althought they have
cat's guidance and earth meld)... that's the point... they're supposed to be
more limited in those area's in comparison to the other disciplines and
clans... because they can make up for it in generic cards... and the fact
they are more combat oriented than, say... the malkies which are stronger in
both areas than the gangrel and lack slightly more in combat(although I've
made some fun malkie combat decks too)....
>
>"...and put the combo or at least the zip gun on the restricted list then
it
>wouldn't be so bad... not to mention clear up the problems with some of the
>other overpowering cards..."
>
>Wouldn't make the busted cards any less busted or the broken combos any
less
>broken. They would just come up less often, making the game into far more
of a
>crap shoot.
exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can supplement
the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions... they
could not make the combos core deck designs... and even if people did still
make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to
think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games...
you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that it's
never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your favor...
I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized
games because they were built around the environment that was set up...
>
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> > make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks
> > that are viable without having to be tournament competitive.
>
> Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our
> decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need
> 25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck.
But your tournament environment, as you state later, is oriented towards
6CL. It took me about 3 months before I full adjusted from hard 6CL to
NL. It's a lot different. Of course, I know that you and probably others
make the transition quite well, but in general, I doubt that all of the
soft 6CL decks people play would be tournament viable (meaning having a
decent chance at winning).
> > So Mr. Suitcase has the advantage because he has more Temptations and
> > Forms of Corruption? The reverse effect of what many CL'ers try to
> > accomplish with limits.
> *shrug* Calling me Mr. Suitcase is a bit silly when I freely loan and give
> cards.
Mr. Suitcase was meant to refer to people with lots of cards in general.
Nice Mr. Suitcases do like you do - give away extras.
> Besides, 6 Forms and 6 Temptations are hardly difficult to come by.
> I think I use 4 Forms and 6 (maybe 5) Temptations in my Setite political
> deck.
I wish I had even close to that many Forms and Temptations. I think I have
1 Form and 2 Temptations. And I've gotten about the equivalent of 3 boxes
of AH.
> > I'd agree. Pretty much any other deck style can work under CL without
> > extreme detriment in comparison to the other decks. However, some decks are
> > just plain knocked out of possibility under NL. Like Heart of Darkness and
> > Fortitude deck.
>
> How so? How would No Limits be detrimental to a Heart of Darkness/Fortitude
> deck?
The Heart of Darkness is very fragile. Burnable with a (D) action. It
needs to use most of its blood for actions - Heart of Darkness (2 blood),
Force of Will (2 blood), and Daring the Dawn (1 blood). So you use the
Fortitude to keep that precious blood by using damage prevention in combat.
You could use 6 Skin of Rock and 6 Resilience (and 6 Flesh of Marble if you
have them). Skin of Steel will probably be too much as far as cost goes
because that's still one less blood. Why should the deck be restricted from
using more Resilience? Plus, the strategy aspect of choosing the proper card
is removed because you can't put in more than 6 of either one.
> > Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred
> > Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion,
> > and Pulling Strings).
>
> Sounds like a lot of different cards. You would be surprised how effective 6
> of each can be. Not to mention there are other master cards that require
> political actions to burn. Use some of them.
But the 6 of the others are not what I'm concerned about. It's only the 6
of the EKN. Why should I arbitrarily use only 6? Seriously, what reason
can there be to only be allowed 6?
> Correct about Pulled Fangs, although we've ruled it to limit it to once
> per round of combat. *shrug* S&B decks don't show up too often since,
> like Peter, I play in a high combat and voting environment. They die quick.
My group is mainly combat, too, with smaller equal amounts of voting and
bleed. However, I'm the only one using 12 IG's in my Potence-based deck.
And do you know how effective the other Potence based decks are against well
proportioned S:CE? Not very. Actually, it would seem obvious why voting is
competing well in your high combat environment. The Potence deck is limited
to 6 IG's. The Presence vote deck has 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 Catatonic
Fear (and possibly, God help us, 6 Mercy for the Weak).
> It's much more fair to instill a guideline that people can adhere to rather
> than tell someone they can't play a deck concept. Exceptions are always
> made when reasonable...and again, I assure you, the local competition is
> quite stiff.
Exactly why there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with playing CL as long as
everyone agrees. It's just as fun as NL. In your case though, with a soft
limit, I'd just say, why bother with limits at all?
> Actually it's a very good question since my group can be called the
> core of MJL as 3 of the 5 rules team members play in my group. It's
> not really a question that's been raised since most players in the
> MJL use a 6CL guideline.
I wish you hadn't scheduled your tourney on Super Bowl Sunday. Otherwise,
I'd have made the trip up from Champaign, IL.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
LSJ
> What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat.
> There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth
> Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all
> at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side
> note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still
> receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the
> Retainer, but IANALSJ)
The minion takes the damage.
Same deal if the Ghoul sets of a Grenade at close range - the
minion takes the damage.
--
Vince Johnson
Derek S. Ray wrote in message
<2B510934163E173B.DF08AD82...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:37:05 -0500, "Vince Johnson"
><john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>No, but S:CE is so prevalent that it's only fair to the gun users to
>make them not have to pack 30 ammo cards in hopes that they'll get one
>to land. (Dodge is pointless since any gun deck probably also
>includes Celerity, which beats Dodge hands down.) Guns are hard
>enough to make "go" without hurting them THAT badly. Also... The game
>is about supernatural creatures, "vampires" - which sort of defies
>realism in the first place, don't you think? So the primary concern
>when issuing errata is game balance, not "realistic" play.
>
I realize that "realism" in the game is difficult since it's based on
something that doesn't exist, yet the point of the WW system for the game
and the original intent of the game was to stick to a world that is similar
to ours. The vampire excuse does not apply in this case because it's not a
vampire ability that influences anything about gun and ammo cards.
>What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat.
>There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth
>Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all
>at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side
>note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still
>receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the
>Retainer, but IANALSJ)
>
First off... if you're playing cards on Vampires "because you can".... is a
waste too, I've done it in the past and it's a pain in the ass when that
vampire gets entirely burned by combat... or torpored and diablerized by my
opponent...
>If you have ammo cards and you're facing S:CE, you can always PLAY
>them in combat if you have a hand-jam issue - I certainly wouldn't
>waste time hanging on to multiple ammo cards when 75% of my strikes
>won't ever land. Every deck design has its own inherent flaws, but
>the Zip Gun-Ammo combination is just too low-cost for how easy it is
>to make work.
And when facing S:CE... you can always discard them from your hand at the
end of each of your turns to cycle... but my point is that you're discarding
cards to get the combo to work or help you in some other way, yet slowly
dumping cards a player that are key to the combo always makes a combo harder
to pull off...
>The ruling was not made for those who couldn't "deal with it", it was
>made because the cost-to-effect ratio of a Zip Gun and DBR was
>excessive - pay 1 vampire blood, get 2R agg with a free maneuver.
>Normally to get 2 points of aggravated damage, you either require an
>equip action (to get a weapon which does agg), OBF (to get the weapon
>via Disguised Weapon), superior Potence (to play Burning Wrath, which
>costs 3 vampire blood), superior Quietus (Taste of Death, cost 1 blood
>and you need to have a maneuver in hand as well)... a Gangrel and a
>Lucky Blow/Claws combination (cost 1 blood), or Tremere and a way to
>get to the 2nd round consistently. (Or Shotgun Ritual - cost 2
>blood.)
Ok... so what you're effectively looking for are 1 card versions that cost
more blood but incidentally are more effective because you're not relying on
having the other card in your hand which takes up hand size while you're
waiting for an opportunity to play the combo. What you make up for in card
numbers is made up for in those blood costs. And your 2 card versions of the
same thing prove my point.... there are other ways to deal the damage that
are just as powerful... or can be made more powreful...
>The only cost-to-effect ratio here that even comes close to a Zip
>Gun-DBR is having OBF and Disguised Weapon - but all weapons that
>naturally do 2 points of agg damage cost pool, not blood. (Example, a
>Flamethrower costs 4 pool for 2R agg - and doesn't come with a
>maneuver.)
AND is not burned so it can be used over and over which is why they tend to
be very deadly... incidentally... I noticed you chose to not pick on ivory
bow which (albeit is unique)... is even more cost effective than the
> Burning Wrath is miserably expensive for what it does, but
>it can be easily combined with IG to ensure that your strike HITS,
>which none of the other listed combos can. (Not easily anyway.)
>Taste of Death can be outmaneuvered as WELL as S:CE'd or Dodged.
>Lucky Blow/Claws don't work at long range and don't come with a free
>maneuver like Zip Gun/DBR. Tremere require a press to continue or
>some way to prevent their own Burst of Sunlight's damage. Shotgun
>Ritual will cost you two blood, but without a maneuver you'll take at
>least one point of damage from a punch as well. Do you see yet? Zip
>Gun-DBR was an UNDISCIPLINED combo (meaning any vampire anywhere
>anytime could use it) that was more effective than all other
>DISCIPLINE combinations *and* cheaper. Yech.
Those combos don't work because you don't have the other cards listed to
back them up... tremere tend to work nicely with mob connections... hey now
they've got there press into a next round... and that's only one card that
costs you nothing unless your opponent has one... and burst of sunlight
works nicely at the first level with other damage prevention cards... there
are "generic" ones you know... flak jacket.... leather jacket.... there are
vamps in tremere that float over some agg damage... other than that I
personally wouldn't touch the card because there are many other better uses
of thaumaturgy like blood stealing...
lucky blow and claws can work... and actually be more effective because
there are other things you can tack ontop of the claws other than just the
lucky blow.... manuevers can be dealt with as well... with another "generic"
card... IR goggles... also fake outs work too... and they cost you
nothing... but the pool used or goggles is negligible due to the fact its'
useable after the combo is used... the vamp blowing off a DBR in his zip gun
doesn't get to keep his manuever...
and there are other generic combos that cost you nothing and could result in
even worse amounts of damage for no blood cost and no blood... or with the
addition of especially for cards like sengir dagger combined with add to
strike cards and even one or 2 additional strikes... the same thing that
could also result of a claw attack... at least the zip gun is burned after
that first use... now taking for granted the dagger is unique once again..
but that is usually not a problem...
Vince
Derek S. Ray
>...which is why it's a guideline, not a hard rule. If I want to put 10
>Raptors in a deck, nobody is going to care. We like to see cool and
>innovative decks. 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mist is _not_ cool or
>innovative.
as a complete unrelated sidebar, remember the conversation about
people being "upset" over a card game? =) now you know what sort of
thing will earn you some scorn in my group - this is the kind of deck
I meant. =)
>> So it's not technically a card limit then. Why not play a flat gentlemanly
>> NL? You state below that if someone were to bring an "abusive" deck, they'd
>> pretty much uninvite themselves from playing again. That way, people can
>> make whatever decks they want. Generally, this means you can play decks
>> that are viable without having to be tournament competitive.
>
>Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our
>decks are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need
>25 Immortal Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck.
Hmm. You do if your prey packs six Majesties, six Staredowns, six
Catatonic Fears, six Dodges, and if it's the Ventrue, six Skin of
Steels, six Rolling with the Punches... you get the idea. Although I
think most people prefer only 10-12 IG's anyway just to avoid that
nasty hand clog - and also considering that each of your IG's will be
effective (since I can't see playing an IG without the cards-in-hand
to reduce a vampire to bits.)
How do you manage to pull an effective Potence Pitch deck out of that,
also? Mine uses 15 Thrown Gates and 20 Sewer Lids as basic "this is a
damage card" damage. It's got 5 Sacraments of Carnage floating around
for those times when somehow i've run out of maneuvers, and, hm, well,
let's see since I have a little time to waste. There are only 4 "at
range" Potence strike cards: Thrown Gate (1/2), Sewer Lid (3/press),
Well-aimed Card (sic, 4/press), and Sacrament of Carnage (2/3). with
a 6-card limit there are enough "big" strike cards so that you can
have 18 "Big strikes", although the Car will hand jam you if you only
have one of those on the first round. You have 6 maneuvers from the
Gates, and 6 from Flash, and I assume 6 from Pursuit and 6 from Rapid
Thought since if this deck is stuck at close range it'll self-destruct
miserably. With the 2nd round problem from Well-aimed Card, you
probably want to run a little lighter on additional strikes and
heavier on presses - fortunately the Lid, Flash, Rapid Thought, (and
since you only have 6 Blurs you'll stick Nimble Feet in it, i'm sure)
all provide presses, although Flash and Rapid Thought cost you a
maneuver to press with, and Nimble Feet costs you some of your
additional strikes (though the maneuvers are a more serious problem),
so you'll have to wedge ... hmm, looking through the database, the
only press card you have left is Infernal Pursuit at inferior. =)
Amusing, but throw 6 of those in since the superior version may well
save your butt also. Rush actions are not a problem, obviously, with
6 Ambush and 6 Bum's Rush respectively. 6 Taste of Vitae is all this
deck needs, if -that-; it's not taking damage and not spending a
significant amount of blood - the only cards that cost anything are
Blur and Sacrament. The limitation of 6 Psyche means you'll be raped
by any S:CE deck even under 6CL, although the additional strikes mean
you can pretty much laugh at S:Dodge. I couldn't see sticking
Acrobatics in this deck since you only have 24 strike cards - with
Pursuit, Blur, and Nimble Feet you have 18 sources of up to 24
additional strikes, and you'll undoubtedly run out of strike cards
long before you find yourself wishing "Damn, I wish I had a Blur now."
The other problem is maneuvers. I only see 24 maneuvers, some of
which are forced to double as press actions or additional strikes, and
that could get your vampires eaten alive at some point since everyone
will block your Rush actions to deny you the free one as soon as they
know what sort of deck you have. And half your strikes -require- long
range.
so, the best Pitch deck I can see under 6CL is:
Strikes: 6 Gate, 6 Lid, 6 Car, 6 Sacrament
Support: 6 Flash, 6 Rapid Thought, 6 Nimble Feet, 6 Infernal Pursuit
Vital: 6 Blur, 6 Psyche, 6 Taste, 6 Ambush, 6 Bum's Rush
Left: 12 masters in some form or other. 4 Haven, 4 Potence, 4 blood
dolls, probably.
...Yuck. The maneuver from the Gate is absolutely vital, IMO, to
making this sort of deck run - the 6CL version would not be crippled,
but certainly would be less effective than a NL version of the same
deck.
>> Does MJL use CL, too, or just your group? I didn't think so, but it's
>> not beyond the realm of possibility.
>
>Actually it's a very good question since my group can be called the
>core of MJL as 3 of the 5 rules team members play in my group. It's
>not really a question that's been raised since most players in the
>MJL use a 6CL guideline.
>
>To my knowledge, a 6CL isn't enforced in a MJL tournament. I never have,
>and I don't recall any of the other folks who run MJL tournaments doing
>so either. The MJL really strives to make it possible for a new player to
>buy some cards and make a deck based on the printed rules and card text
>without needing to re-work it because of errata he's never heard of. When
>we issue errata, we try to make it with minimal impact on the way the game
>is played and still keep game balance in mind.
-- Derek
Vince Johnson
>>
>> exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo... they can
supplement
>> the deck if they're used... but other than that... at restrictions...
they
>> could not make the combos core deck designs...
>
>Ok, so you seem to be agreeing that it is luck when a restricted combo
comes
>up, not deckbuilding skill.
>
No... I am not agreeing with you... read what I said there and below before
commenting... decks that use the combo get them less frequently and if you
want to build a deck around the combo then fine... just make a smaller deck
and not expect to make it too far in a very big game... and stop relying on
the combo...
>> and even if people did still
>> make decks based around the restricted cards, for someone that seems to
>> think they are familiar with what the concepts of "Deckmaster" games...
>> you'd realize the point in building decks around specific cards is that
it's
>> never a "crap shoot"... play the odds... they tend to work in your
favor...
>
>Now are you talking about building decks around specific (restricted) cards
>or just specific cards in general? If you mean restricted, you're
>contradicting yourself because restricted cards make it a "crap shoot" if
you
>build around them. So I'll assume you mean specific cards in general. If
>you are saying a 5CL and you build a 60 card deck, you have a 1 in 12
>chance of drawing a specific card you built around. That's about an 8%
>chance of drawing your core card. Theoretically, that means I have to play
>my whole hand plus 4 more cards in order to draw the card I really want.
>That sure sounds like a crap shoot to me, too.
>
>Now if you had a real deck size like most people build their decks, with
>and without CL, you'd have 90 cards. Your chance now drops to 1 in 18.
>That's a 5.5% chance.
>
that's all good and fine in a game of say.... MAgic... where you only get
one card a turn... but in jyhad it's possible to burn through several cards
in a turn... increasing the likelihood you'll get to the card... so you're
percentages are cycled a whole lot quicker than you've presented them... you
can lower that 1 in 12 chance of drawing a card in no time...
>> I have often built 60 cards decks that hold their own in moderate sized
>> games because they were built around the environment that was set up...
>
>Are these 4 player games? With 60 cards, you're going to run out quickly
>in a combat deck.
Gangrel Combat and Anarchy deck... it works and dominated most 3 player
games by controlling my opponent's pools early and dominating(not the
discipline) over the vamps he could get out through combat... it had an
extremely good win percentage for 4 player games(incidentally if the
question comes up in anyone's mind...I didn't use DBR/Zip in this deck...
didn't need to because there were other cards that worked better in the
deck)... the deck was built under the original restrictions that were
notably removed not soon after... but because there wasn't much tourney
support by DCI we never found out until recently.... it even included
including the stupid ones that restricted some cards that really shouldn't
have been restricted but the DCI felt were more powerful than they should
be... I'll note that the deck was built before I could acquire any Ancient
hearts and Sabbat wasn't out... but that is nebulous because it only proves
that some of the other cards should be restricted... and because there are a
few extra hundred cards that I have to deal with now if I plan to rebuild
the deck.
I'd also like to include with this response that I don't think there should
be any restrictions to the game... in terms of deck construction AND card
chnages... what I have said is that there can be changes in the rulebook
because the cards have always dominated the rulebook as it is... decks work
because they are built well by playing with the construction and realizing
what the deck lacks and compensating for it....
Vince
Dhar...@yahoo.com
I go home.
mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> I wish you hadn't scheduled your tourney on Super Bowl Sunday. Otherwise,
> I'd have made the trip up from Champaign, IL.
Actually, we've made a decision to change it for that very reason.
Wintercon 99 is at the Kennedy Rec Center in Lincoln Park, MI
on Saturday, January 30. We have changed the tournament to that
venue and game time will be at 6 pm. If you need directions, let me
know. The con is $10 ($6 after 4pm) and the tournament will be free.
Also, we just bashed our way through a load of rulings, so I'll get that
to you tomorrow.
If you're not able to make Wintercon, we will be running a tournament
at BashCon at the University of Toledo, Ohio on the last weekend of
February (I think). I'll get details soon. I believe Dave will be running
that one.
We're working on firming up our tournament schedule for the year, so
there will be plenty others.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
PDB6
"And again I say, "Such as?""
Noal, Noal, Noal. You know what we are going to say, yet you ask anyway?
:-)
Ok. A Potence Rush deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Immortal Grapple.
With a 6 CL, it is perfectly viable to play 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6
Catatonic Fear. That is 6 anti S:CE cards vs 18 S:CE cards. The Potence deck
will fail.
An Animalism based Intercept deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Cat's
Guidance. Without reliable access to Cat's Guidance, the deck has to rely on
permanent intercept (Ravens and such), which is always the case with card
limits.
A Celerity based combat deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Psyche in the
same manner as the IG based deck.
A Presence vote deck _is_ going to suffer from only having 6 Bewitching
Oration.
Any card limit reduces the options available players and reduces the viablity
of decks that rely on cards that have no redundant variations. An unitended
result of any sort of CL game is making decks that rely on disciplines with a
great deal of redundancy (Dom, Pre, Obf, Aus) much more capable than decks that
rely on disciplines that don't have much redundancy (Pot, Ani, Tha, Qui). The
more cards you have availabe to do what you want, the better your deck will
work. When you are building a deck that has only one card that does what you
want it to, 6 simply isn't enough, when other decks will be built out of
disciplines that have multiple cards that do what they want them to, so they
can have 6X cards that do what they want them to.
"...which is why it's a guideline, not a hard rule. If I want to put 10
Raptors in a deck, nobody is going to care. We like to see cool and
innovative decks. 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mist is _not_ cool or
innovative."
So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going to
be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 Immortal
Grapples :-)
"Heh. Trust me. We play in a very competitve environment. Most of our decks
are quite tournament competitive, even with 6CL. You don't need 25 Immortal
Grapples to make an effective Potence combat deck."
No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need them
and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE. Which
there will be more than 6 of.
PDB6
"You're wrong if WotC would properly support their games there would be no
problem... as for broken cards... they sit there and MAKE the killer combos...
they admitted to it in the last Duelist... then while sitting with their thumbs
up their a$$ ignore that there are other sets... which is why there were recent
bannings in cards ...."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you are saying that is WOTC would
continue to support Jyhad, then there would probably not be need for errata,
yup, you are correct. However, this is a completely moot point, as WOTC isn't
printing any more cards (well, there are pretty substantial rumors that they
are going to print a mini expansion or something this year, but it seems
unlikely that they will be reprints of fixed cards). WOTC has very little to
do with this game any longer. There is a rules team and DCI support, but these
both exist primarily due to player action, not WOTC action.
"And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the
restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned
copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was way
back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days of
DCI..."
Please do. It is possible that such a set of rules existed at one, very short,
time, but as far as I am aware, the only CL tournament rules involved a list of
restricted cards (KRC, CA, Majesty, Freak Drive, et al) and a limit of either 2
or 6, depending on the version of the DCI rules. I have never run across a
flat card limit set of tournament rules.
Robert Goudie
>
[clip]
> >"personally if they re-released their tourney rules the way
> >they were before (5 of any card... restricted cards are restricted to
> >2)"
> >
> >There were never tournament rules of this sort. There was some misbegotten
> >tournament rules involving a list of restricted cards that were limited to
> >limit set of tournament rules, as Jyhad was specifically designed to be
> >played with no limits.
>
> restrictions... if you'd like them I'd be more than willing to email scanned
> copies to you... but they're useless now since they lifted that... it was
> way back in the days of the duelist companion newsletter in the early days
> of DCI...
I'd be interested in seeing those. The set of rules in effect for the
briefest period of time was the 2CL on restricted cards. I never recall
seeing any tourney rules that prescribed an across the board card limit.
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'll try to get to the other stuff later. I've got about five minutes before
> I go home.
Weak excuse. ;)
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> > I wish you hadn't scheduled your tourney on Super Bowl Sunday. Otherwise,
> > I'd have made the trip up from Champaign, IL.
>
> Actually, we've made a decision to change it for that very reason.
> Wintercon 99 is at the Kennedy Rec Center in Lincoln Park, MI
> on Saturday, January 30. We have changed the tournament to that
> venue and game time will be at 6 pm. If you need directions, let me
> know. The con is $10 ($6 after 4pm) and the tournament will be free.
Still not possible. I'd obviously have to stay overnight and drive
the seven hours back to get things ready for the party I'm hosting
for the Super Bowl. Sorry. :(
> If you're not able to make Wintercon, we will be running a tournament
> at BashCon at the University of Toledo, Ohio on the last weekend of
> February (I think). I'll get details soon. I believe Dave will be running
> that one.
Why can't you guys have something on the western side of Michigan? :)
At least I know some people in Detroit that I could crash with. And
I can drive up and back to western Chicago pretty easily.
> We're working on firming up our tournament schedule for the year, so
> there will be plenty others.
Looking forward to it.
Derek S. Ray
<john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>
>Derek S. Ray wrote in message
><2B510934163E173B.DF08AD82...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>...
>I realize that "realism" in the game is difficult since it's based on
>something that doesn't exist, yet the point of the WW system for the game
>and the original intent of the game was to stick to a world that is similar
>to ours. The vampire excuse does not apply in this case because it's not a
>vampire ability that influences anything about gun and ammo cards.
Vampire: the Masquerade, the live-action role-playing game is not
Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, the card game, although the latter was
obviously based on and a spinoff of the former. And my point is that
I don't believe Wizards of the Coast used "realism" in their design
criteria for the card game.
>>What? Zip Gun is an always-playable card if you get into combat.
>>There is no restriction on a minion having a second, third, or tenth
>>Zip Gun just because he already has a Zip Gun. He can't USE them all
>>at once, but a Ghoul Retainer certainly could use another one. (Side
>>note: if a Ghoul Retainer uses a Zip Gun, does the player still
>>receive the point of damage? or does the Retainer? I'd say the
>>Retainer, but IANALSJ)
>
>First off... if you're playing cards on Vampires "because you can".... is a
>waste too, I've done it in the past and it's a pain in the ass when that
>vampire gets entirely burned by combat... or torpored and diablerized by my
>opponent...
OK, three things.
1. If you have no ammo cards in your hand and need to cycle cards to
draw one, it is CERTAINLY no waste to put a second, third, or seventh
Zip Gun on a vampire if you were already going to have him use a Zip
Gun anyway. Zip Guns cost no pool, so -unlike- all other weapons, can
be freely cycled in time of desperation.
2. To properly abuse zip gun/dragon's breath, you need to think in
terms of weenies. Who cares if you burn my 1-cap weenie, or torporize
him? He didn't cost anything anyway, and you're probably going with
him. And NOBODY diablerizes weenies, although nobody really rescues
1-caps from torpor either.
3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
than enough handy.
>>If you have ammo cards and you're facing S:CE, you can always PLAY
>>them in combat if you have a hand-jam issue - I certainly wouldn't
>>waste time hanging on to multiple ammo cards when 75% of my strikes
>>won't ever land. Every deck design has its own inherent flaws, but
>>the Zip Gun-Ammo combination is just too low-cost for how easy it is
>>to make work.
>
>And when facing S:CE... you can always discard them from your hand at the
>end of each of your turns to cycle... but my point is that you're discarding
>cards to get the combo to work or help you in some other way, yet slowly
>dumping cards a player that are key to the combo always makes a combo harder
>to pull off...
You don't have to pull it off as often as you think. Assuming a lucky
draw for us both: Round 1, I bring out 4 weenies. You bring out a
4-cap. Round 2, they bleed. You block the first, I play Zip Gun/DBR
and your 4-cap is in torpor with 2 blood left on him. Next weenie
diablerizes and is burned in the Blood Hunt. Next two weenies bleed.
Assuming I haven't played any Effective Managements, I spend a pool to
go fishing. I have just bled you for six pool and spent a mere five
myself. I have three minions out, you have zero. You have taken no
actions. If you quit blocking, you will be raped for a MINIMUM of
four more pool every turn. If you have S:CE, you will eventually run
out of cards, since every minion I bring out will equip with a Zip Gun
until you fail to play Majesty when choosing a strike, at which point
I will play another DBR during the damage resolution phase, torporize,
and diablerize another one of your vampires. Are you getting the
picture now?
>>The ruling was not made for those who couldn't "deal with it", it was
>>made because the cost-to-effect ratio of a Zip Gun and DBR was
>>excessive - pay 1 vampire blood, get 2R agg with a free maneuver.
>>Normally to get 2 points of aggravated damage, you either require an
>>equip action (to get a weapon which does agg), OBF (to get the weapon
>>via Disguised Weapon), superior Potence (to play Burning Wrath, which
>>costs 3 vampire blood), superior Quietus (Taste of Death, cost 1 blood
>>and you need to have a maneuver in hand as well)... a Gangrel and a
>>Lucky Blow/Claws combination (cost 1 blood), or Tremere and a way to
>>get to the 2nd round consistently. (Or Shotgun Ritual - cost 2
>>blood.)
>
>Ok... so what you're effectively looking for are 1 card versions that cost
>more blood but incidentally are more effective because you're not relying on
>having the other card in your hand which takes up hand size while you're
>waiting for an opportunity to play the combo. What you make up for in card
>numbers is made up for in those blood costs. And your 2 card versions of the
>same thing prove my point.... there are other ways to deal the damage that
>are just as powerful... or can be made more powreful...
You are not reading what I am writing very carefully. I have four
criteria for evaluating all the combinations I mentioned.
1. Number of cards in the combo. (Zip + DBR = 2)
2. Total Cost of the combo. (1 vampire blood, which is widely
accepted as being much less expensive than 1 pool.)
3. Total damage and/or combat effectiveness of the combo. (Zip + DBR
= 1 normal + 2 agg, at close OR at range. Comes with a free maneuver,
which is prized highly in ANY combat as it permits you to escape being
Immortally Grappled and actually have a chance of using the gun.)
4. Ease of actually getting the combo off. (Zip Gun + DBR does not
require a discipline or a separate action.)
Note that taking a separate equip action matters heavily - first, it
slows down the deck's progress as a whole since you have a minion
doing effectively nothing this turn. Second, equip actions are
interceptable by both your predator and your prey. If either of them
can generate ANY intercept, they're not going to let you equip the
Ivory Bow on a vampire. That's just ASKING for trouble. Zip Guns are
not interceptable.
Now, let's go through the combinations I mentioned and rate them. I
shall give one point to any criterion where the card mentioned
-always- does better than a Zip Gun/DBR combo. I shall give one half
point where the results are unclear or vary depending on the situation
(Burning Wrath with a Torn Signpost and Fists of Death can do an
obscene amount of damage, but requires 3 blood, 3 cards, superior
Potence, and close range)
A Flamethrower is one card, costs 4 pool (INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE),
requires an equip action OR a discipline to bring into play, and does
less damage (2R agg) without providing a maneuver. By the criteria
above: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 to 1 in favor of ZG/DBR over a Flamethrower.
(If you use Disguised Weapon, it is 3.5 to 0.5 since you're now using
2 cards.)
Burning Wrath requires one card and in its WORST form provides 2
aggravated hand damage. It costs three vampire blood to play. It
requires inferior Potence and a minimum three-capacity vampire (since
you have to be able to pay the three blood somehow.) It is a hand
strike, so can be played at any time. By the criteria above - 1 + 0 +
.5 + .5 makes it 2 to 2. It is one fewer card, a much higher cost,
roughly equivalent combat effectiveness (must be used at close range,
but provides stackable agg damage with Torn Signpost or Fists of Death
and can be paired with IG to prevent S:CE), and -does- require a
discipline, preferably superior Potence although inferior will do.
I'd still give the nod to the Zip Gun/DBR because weenie decks can use
it, whereas Koko, Mitchell, and Lupo can't use Burning Wrath without a
skill card, and Jacob Bragg, Dr. Dre, and other 3-cap Potence weenies
will go to torpor after using it (but do some good on the way).
Potence decks generally do better to rely on stacked normal damage and
Decapitate as a combo instead.
Taste of Death provides 1R/2R agg, *only* usable at long range. It
requires a maneuver card or an equip action (to get IR Goggles). It
requires superior Quietus. It costs one vampire blood to play. By
the criteria above, .5 + .5 + 0 + 0 leaves it as 3 to 1 in favor of
Zip Gun/DBR.
Gangrel playing Lucky Blow/Claws provide 2 aggravated hand damage. It
requires 2 cards. It costs one vampire blood to play. It requires a
discipline - inferior Protean. By the criteria above, .5 + .5 + 0 + 0
leaves it in the same boat as Taste of Death - 3 to 1 in favor of Zip
Gun/DBR. There is an intangible here - Gangrel Protean Claws are a
-very- common sight, and so the element of surprise is in Zip Gun's
favor too - nobody expects Smudge to blow your head off when you block
him, whereas Chandler Hungerford might as well have vampire blood
dripping from his hands and "I'm a Badass" tattooed on his forehead.
Walk of Flame provides 2 aggravated ranged damage for 0 blood. It is
only one card by itself, but in order to use it you must either have a
press card such as Trap or Apportation, a press master such as Mob
Connections, or Shotgun Ritual for 2 blood. It requires a discipline
- superior Thaumaturgy. By the criteria above - .5 + .5 + 0 + 0
(anyone who's ever played Thaumaturgy decks can tell you that it's a
lot easier to say "oo, i'll just press to the 2nd round and Walk of
Flame him" than it is to actually do it. I'd like to put a -1 in slot
#4, but in the interest of fairness I won't.) 3 to 1 in favor of Zip
Gun/DBR *again*.
Burst of Sunlight provides 2 aggravated ranged damage for 0 blood. It
is only one card by itself, but you MUST have a damage prevention card
such as Skin of Night or your vampire is going to torpor with him - a
bad end result. So, .5 + 1 + 0 + 0 makes it 2.5 to 1.5 in favor of
Zip Gun/DBR - and there is an intangible. THA/FOR decks are not the
easiest things in the world to make "go", so i'd seriously want to put
a -.5 or -1 on "ease of use".
Since you mentioned it below... the Ivory Bow. It provides 1
aggravated ranged damage for 1 pool. Its disadvantages are identical
to a Flamethrower (no maneuver, requires Disguised Weapon or an equip
action), and it is also unique. It is a good weapon. For 1 pool, it
is an excellent source of consistent aggravated ranged damage. By the
criteria above, however... 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 to 1 for Zip Gun/DBR,
which can burn vampires and is still cheaper, while an Ivory Bow can
-only- send them to torpor and can't even maneuver itself out of
harm's way.
Reading through the above, there is simply no way to provide
equivalent effects to a ZG/DBR combo without it costing much more or
being much more difficult to make happen. An undisciplined pair of
cards being much more powerful *and* cheaper than discipline cards
themselves? That won't do for game balance at all.
>AND is not burned so it can be used over and over which is why they tend to
>be very deadly... incidentally... I noticed you chose to not pick on ivory
>bow which (albeit is unique)... is even more cost effective than the
With 20 Zip Guns and 15 DBR cards in my deck, I can use the Zip Guns
over and over and over too. Don't worry. Ivory Bow didn't make it
into my original listing because it can't ever do any more than 1R
agg, and a Zip Gun does 1 normal and 2R agg - a huge difference since
Zip Guns/DBR can burn vampires and Ivory Bows can't.
>> Burning Wrath is miserably expensive for what it does, but
>>it can be easily combined with IG to ensure that your strike HITS,
>>which none of the other listed combos can. (Not easily anyway.)
>>Taste of Death can be outmaneuvered as WELL as S:CE'd or Dodged.
>>Lucky Blow/Claws don't work at long range and don't come with a free
>>maneuver like Zip Gun/DBR. Tremere require a press to continue or
>>some way to prevent their own Burst of Sunlight's damage. Shotgun
>>Ritual will cost you two blood, but without a maneuver you'll take at
>>least one point of damage from a punch as well. Do you see yet? Zip
>>Gun-DBR was an UNDISCIPLINED combo (meaning any vampire anywhere
>>anytime could use it) that was more effective than all other
>>DISCIPLINE combinations *and* cheaper. Yech.
>
>Those combos don't work because you don't have the other cards listed to
>back them up... tremere tend to work nicely with mob connections... hey now
>they've got there press into a next round... and that's only one card that
Mob Connections only works once per turn. Zip Gun/DBR can be played
as many times during your turn as you have minions and cards. And if
you add more cards to Walk of Flame, you're making the combo more
difficult to get off and just increasing Zip Gun's advantage. What
makes you think a 3-card combo that requires disciplines and does less
damage is somehow "better" than a 2-card combo that requires no
disciplines? How do you make this logic work?
>costs you nothing unless your opponent has one... and burst of sunlight
>works nicely at the first level with other damage prevention cards... there
1 point of agg won't ever burn a vampire - 1 point of normal and 2
points of agg will burn a vampire with 1 blood on him. That second
point of agg damage means a LOT.
>are "generic" ones you know... flak jacket.... leather jacket.... there are
>vamps in tremere that float over some agg damage... other than that I
>personally wouldn't touch the card because there are many other better uses
>of thaumaturgy like blood stealing...
There is one vampire, Merrill Molitor. He can only change one point,
so you STILL can't burn a vampire with him. And in the end, you do
have to admit that Burst of Sunlight is entertaining, but nowhere near
as useful.
>lucky blow and claws can work... and actually be more effective because
>there are other things you can tack ontop of the claws other than just the
>lucky blow.... manuevers can be dealt with as well... with another "generic"
>card... IR goggles... also fake outs work too... and they cost you
>nothing... but the pool used or goggles is negligible due to the fact its'
>useable after the combo is used... the vamp blowing off a DBR in his zip gun
>doesn't get to keep his manuever...
Lucky Blow and Claws *can* be more effective, at the opportunity cost
of still more cards played on top of the original two. Zip Gun/DBR
costs you two cards. No more. No less. IR Goggles cost you an
additional equip action as well as the third card, and it's a good
thing they don't cost pool cause then they'd REALLY suck. Form of the
Ghost is a third card. Fake Out is a desperation maneuver card, since
you do not get to replace it til after combat - yuck.
I don't get to keep my maneuver? Sure I do. Since ANY of my weenies
can use a Zip Gun, when I play another two cards (Zip Gun and DBR) I
get another maneuver for free! How bout that? If I don't blow up the
gun (for example, someone plays Majesty) I -also- get to keep my
maneuver!
>and there are other generic combos that cost you nothing and could result in
>even worse amounts of damage for no blood cost and no blood... or with the
Name three. Go on. I'm waiting.
>addition of especially for cards like sengir dagger combined with add to
a Sengir Dagger costs 2 pool - expensive. It only works at close
range. It only does one agg. It requires an equip action or
Disguised Weapon. It is unique. by our criteria above - 1 + 0 + 0 +
0, 3 to 1 for Zip Gun/DBR. If you play it with, say, Undead Strength
or Torn Signpost, both of which produce 2 agg from inferior Potence,
>strike cards and even one or 2 additional strikes... the same thing that
>could also result of a claw attack... at least the zip gun is burned after
>that first use... now taking for granted the dagger is unique once again..
>but that is usually not a problem...
No? When someone has an obvious source of agg damage (Sengir Dagger),
it's easier to decide to avoid getting into combat with him. You know
exactly who to not block, and so his only way of getting into combat
is to commit Rush actions. If I have six weenies out, you know that I
could play a Zip Gun/DBR at any moment, for any or all of them - which
means you have to let ALL of them by if you can't handle agg damage,
instead of just the one.
Consider this deck:
Crypt: one copy of each 1-cap. one copy of each 2-cap.
Total # vampires in crypt: 45. (should be plenty. If you think
that's too many, pull out 2-caps 'til you get down to where you're
happy. Don't go below 20 total vamps. You may need 'em, and there
are only 14 1-caps. I'd play this with 28 vamps, 1 of each 1-er and a
matching 2-er.)
Library:
10 Effective Management
5 Information Highway
5 Tribute to the Master
total masters: 20
15 Zip Gun
15 Dragon's Breath Rounds
total combat: 35
15 Computer Hacking
5 Rumors of Gehenna
total actions: 15
Total cards: 70
Abuse Potential: huge. Send everyone to computer hack. Get blocked?
Zip Gun, maneuver to long, DBR. Send the next guy to diablerize if
you really want them to stay gone, and let the bloodhunt burn 'em to a
crisp ... time to bring out the next weenie. Biggest problem may be
too many Zip Guns once people quit blocking you - and people WILL quit
blocking you after they lose a couple vampires.
There we go. That took about ... two minutes to create. I don't want
to spend the time to make it any more effective since we don't play
with Zip Gun ammo. This type of deck is the reason we don't, and the
reason the errata was issued in the first place. I should probably
pull the Computer Hackings out as superfluous and put in a few
Delaying Tactics for those nasty people who call Ancilla Empowerment
and other fun stuff, but... even having spent all of two minutes on
it, it should be obvious.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> But your tournament environment, as you state later, is oriented towards
> 6CL. It took me about 3 months before I full adjusted from hard 6CL to
> NL. It's a lot different.
Actually, it's my local game group that uses the 6CL, not the MJL
tournaments. The reason I state that the local competition is stiff is
because 3 of the regular players are people that have made it to the
Origins finals in the past and consistently finish in the top 5 of most
tournaments. Myself, Bernie and Matt Latham. I know you met Bernie
at last year's Origins. Matt was at the infamous one before that.
Either way, even within 6CL we can build some pretty brutal decks.
> Of course, I know that you and probably others
> make the transition quite well, but in general, I doubt that all of the
> soft 6CL decks people play would be tournament viable (meaning having a
> decent chance at winning).
*shrug* I've never had a problem. The deck I took to Origins last year
was something that I put together to have fun with. After I took a closer
look at it later, I realized I had forgotten to make some changes that I
had intended.
6CL isn't nearly as restricitve as you seem to think it is.
> Mr. Suitcase was meant to refer to people with lots of cards in general.
> Nice Mr. Suitcases do like you do - give away extras.
Ahhh. Gotcha. Though I'm not sure how I feel about being called "nice".
I'm often rather fond of being thought of as an asshole...*grin*
After all, nice guys don't get the girl.
> I wish I had even close to that many Forms and Temptations. I think I have
> 1 Form and 2 Temptations. And I've gotten about the equivalent of 3 boxes
> of AH.
I might be able to dig up a couple spares for you.
> > How so? How would No Limits be detrimental to a Heart of Darkness/Fortitude
> > deck?
>
> The Heart of Darkness is very fragile. Burnable with a (D) action. It
> needs to use most of its blood for actions - Heart of Darkness (2 blood),
> Force of Will (2 blood), and Daring the Dawn (1 blood). So you use the
> Fortitude to keep that precious blood by using damage prevention in combat.
> You could use 6 Skin of Rock and 6 Resilience (and 6 Flesh of Marble if you
> have them). Skin of Steel will probably be too much as far as cost goes
> because that's still one less blood. Why should the deck be restricted from
> using more Resilience? Plus, the strategy aspect of choosing the proper card
> is removed because you can't put in more than 6 of either one.
...and this has what to do with "no limits"? Okay, even in a NL group, 6
Heart of Darkness, 6 Force of Will and 6 Daring the Dawns will be plenty.
The trick in a 6CL environment isn't to load your deck with a billion copies
but to get the card flow to go fast enough to get what you need when you need
it. A skilled deck builder will not have that many problems...in fact it
encourages deck skill, rather than discourages it.
>>> Or a deck I've been thinking about built around Elder Kindred
>>> Network (Anarch Revolts, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion,
>>> and Pulling Strings).
>>
>> Sounds like a lot of different cards. You would be surprised how effective
>> 6 of each can be. Not to mention there are other master cards that require
>> political actions to burn. Use some of them.
>
> But the 6 of the others are not what I'm concerned about. It's only the 6
> of the EKN. Why should I arbitrarily use only 6? Seriously, what reason
> can there be to only be allowed 6?
Firstly, 6 EKN and 6 Political Backlashes will prolly be plenty anyway for
what you want to do. The Anarch Revolt trick will really only work once.
As for the "abitrary" use of a soft 6CL, it's a reasonable number that
discourages repetitve decks and encourages people to try to build inovative
decks based on combos rather than centering it around one card.
> My group is mainly combat, too, with smaller equal amounts of voting and
> bleed. However, I'm the only one using 12 IG's in my Potence-based deck.
> And do you know how effective the other Potence based decks are against well
> proportioned S:CE? Not very. Actually, it would seem obvious why voting is
> competing well in your high combat environment. The Potence deck is limited
> to 6 IG's. The Presence vote deck has 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6 Catatonic
> Fear (and possibly, God help us, 6 Mercy for the Weak).
*shrug* If someone is basing his entire deck around S:CE, I'd be amazed that
they can do anything else. Of course, a 6CL environment makes Dog Pack
a hell of a lot more effective, but without card limits a deck can be all S:CE
rather than a limit of 18. However, most people don't use 18 S:CE cards in
their deck because they have other things to do, not to mention it gets
tiresome.
> Exactly why there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with playing CL as long as
> everyone agrees. It's just as fun as NL. In your case though, with a soft
> limit, I'd just say, why bother with limits at all?
Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks.
Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun?
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Ok. A Potence Rush deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Immortal Grapple.
> With a 6 CL, it is perfectly viable to play 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6
> Catatonic Fear. That is 6 anti S:CE cards vs 18 S:CE cards. The Potence deck
> will fail.
This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them
out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along.
A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG
deck anyway.
> An Animalism based Intercept deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Cat's
> Guidance. Without reliable access to Cat's Guidance, the deck has to rely on
> permanent intercept (Ravens and such), which is always the case with card
> limits.
A deck that relies on Cat's Guidance for intercept is already in a world of
hurt. If you're counting on animalism for intercept, you need permanent
intercept and Pack Tactics (and Elder Intervention) to make intercept useful.
Having only +1 intercept isn't going to cut it.
> A Celerity based combat deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Psyche in the
> same manner as the IG based deck.
*shrug* So combine them... At least Psyche is a good answer to maneuvers.
> A Presence vote deck _is_ going to suffer from only having 6 Bewitching
> Oration.
*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
If it's not, you're doing something wrong.
> When you are building a deck that has only one card that does what you
> want it to, 6 simply isn't enough,
A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent.
Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged.
> So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going
> to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6 Immortal
> Grapples :-)
Uh...Peter, not everyone plays an IG deck and to require one to beat such a
deck is silly. I'd rather go the other route as it keeps the arms race to a
minimum.
> No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need
> them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE.
> Which there will be more than 6 of.
No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Still not possible. I'd obviously have to stay overnight and drive
> the seven hours back to get things ready for the party I'm hosting
> for the Super Bowl. Sorry. :(
bummer. I was looking forward to doing battle with cards. *grin*
> Why can't you guys have something on the western side of Michigan? :)
> At least I know some people in Detroit that I could crash with. And
> I can drive up and back to western Chicago pretty easily.
Actually, we do have something on the western side.
Our tentative schedule for the year is:
January: Wintercon 99' Lincoln Park, MI
February: BashCON, Toledo, OH
March: GEMCON? Ypsilanti, MI
April: TLC Cards Augusta, MI
May: Gamer's Inn Rochester, MI
June: Dave's House Grand Haven, MI
*July: Origins 99' Columbus, OH
JULY: <TBD> Lansing, MI
August: TLC Cards Augusta, MI
September: ANDCON Toledo, OH
October: Grand Cafe Farmington, MI
November: UCON Ann Arbor, MI
December: None (It's a HOLIDAY!)
Augusta and Grand Haven are on the west side. Most of the tournaments
are on the last weekend of the month. If GEMCON in Ypsi is a dead con
this year (due to the degradation of the student org over the last two years)
then I'll try to get the con to be on the west side.
...and yes, we are planning on running a tournament at Origins. So warm up
those Mind Rape/Return to Innocence and WVP decks. *grin* Or better yet,
play decks that are as fun to play against as it is for you to play.
Hell, I might even push for a prize for the most innovative deck.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
PDB6
"Abuse Potential: huge. Send everyone to computer hack. Get blocked? Zip
Gun, maneuver to long, DBR. Send the next guy to diablerize if you really want
them to stay gone, and let the bloodhunt burn 'em to a crisp ... time to bring
out the next weenie. Biggest problem may be too many Zip Guns once people quit
blocking you - and people WILL quit blocking you after they lose a couple
vampires."
(Fine analytical post, by the way).
I would like to, in support of Derek's post, pre-emptively point out that
trying to fix this sort of nightmare with a blanket card limit will curtail
this sort of deck a bit, sure, but only at the expense of making thousands of
other perfectly reasonable decks no longer playable as well as making certain
common deck types far more powerful than they should be (Malk S+B?). Errataing
Zip Gun succceeds in fixing this sort of nightmare (turning it from a complete
horror show to a fairly useful [sans the DBR], but in no way over powered,
deck) without comprimising the structural integrity of the rest of the game.
That is the purpose of all the errataed cards--to repair holes in the game
(cards that are too powerful, combos that are too powerful, cards that don't
cost enough, whatever) without comprimising the structure of the game.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> so, the best Pitch deck I can see under 6CL is:
>
> Strikes: 6 Gate, 6 Lid, 6 Car, 6 Sacrament
> Support: 6 Flash, 6 Rapid Thought, 6 Nimble Feet, 6 Infernal Pursuit
> Vital: 6 Blur, 6 Psyche, 6 Taste, 6 Ambush, 6 Bum's Rush
> Left: 12 masters in some form or other. 4 Haven, 4 Potence, 4 blood
> dolls, probably.
First off, nobody plays 18 S:CE due to the spirit of the 6CL.
Number two, you forgot RPG Launcher. *grin*
Noal
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them
> out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along.
> A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG
> deck anyway.
Maneuvers will run out pretty quickly. It only takes one time of not
having them in the hand for the IG to be in position.
> > A Presence vote deck _is_ going to suffer from only having 6 Bewitching
> > Oration.
>
> *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
> If it's not, you're doing something wrong.
This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip.
None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence deck
merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card that I
don't? Yes, this is always true, but in this specific case, there is a
reasonable substitute for the Awe - more BO. "Listen, you smell something?"
One pool to the person who names that movie reference, btw. :)
> > When you are building a deck that has only one card that does what you
> > want it to, 6 simply isn't enough,
>
> A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent.
> Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged.
What? Huh? I think you're taking his statement a little too literal
possibly. I don't think he's referring to building a deck entirely or almost
entirely of one card but to building a deck around a specific card. Like the
Elder Kindred Network deck that I mentioned earlier. There are no real
substitutes for that card, Political Backlash being a weak imitation. If I
want to build a deck around that card, I am limited to only 6. So that card
doesn't exactly become the main feature of the deck, and I won't reliably
draw it. This is not to say that a 6CL deck using it won't work, but it
won't be near as consistent as the NL version and the EKN just becomes
another card in the deck.
> > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't going
> > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6
> > Immortal Grapples :-)
>
> Uh...Peter, not everyone plays an IG deck and to require one to beat such a
> deck is silly. I'd rather go the other route as it keeps the arms race to a
> minimum.
The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A
similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer
Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast
enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you
either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires.
> > No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need
> > them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE.
> > Which there will be more than 6 of.
>
> No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this.
I built a pretty effective 6CL Pot/Ani/For rush deck once. It could go
through 4 cards before range was even determined. And it was absolutely
necessary against a Presence deck because the risk of wasted cards was so
high.
It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version.
The rush deck has no actions to waste going after the same vampire multiple
times. That's why Fortitude is such a bane. And without an IG against
S:CE, you add another big block to it.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Joshua Duffin
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:
[snip]
> > The Heart of Darkness is very fragile. Burnable with a (D) action. It
> > needs to use most of its blood for actions - Heart of Darkness (2 blood),
> > Force of Will (2 blood), and Daring the Dawn (1 blood). So you use the
> > Fortitude to keep that precious blood by using damage prevention in combat.
> > You could use 6 Skin of Rock and 6 Resilience (and 6 Flesh of Marble if you
> > have them). Skin of Steel will probably be too much as far as cost goes
> > because that's still one less blood. Why should the deck be restricted from
> > using more Resilience? Plus, the strategy aspect of choosing the proper
card
> > is removed because you can't put in more than 6 of either one.
>
> ...and this has what to do with "no limits"? Okay, even in a NL group, 6
> Heart of Darkness, 6 Force of Will and 6 Daring the Dawns will be plenty.
> The trick in a 6CL environment isn't to load your deck with a billion copies
> but to get the card flow to go fast enough to get what you need when you need
> it. A skilled deck builder will not have that many problems...in fact it
> encourages deck skill, rather than discourages it.
The point here was that you can only have 6 Resilience under 6CL, and
if you want more damage prevention you can put in 6 Skin of Rock, and if
you want more damage prevention, you start resorting to substantially
inferior cards. Under no limits, you can use as many Resilience as you
think you need.
(Nor is 6 Force of Will/6 Daring the Dawn enough for the theme to really
work, but that's not the immediate point.)
Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that
what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a
strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a
particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates
looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards
because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards.
Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used.
But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me.
> > Exactly why there's nothing inherently _wrong_ with playing CL as long as
> > everyone agrees. It's just as fun as NL. In your case though, with a soft
> > limit, I'd just say, why bother with limits at all?
>
> Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks.
> Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun?
*Winning* is fun.
This often appears to be the sticking point between people who advocate
card limits to 'enforce fun' and those who prefer no limits.
Being able to build your deck any way you want in order to accomplish
the goals (or fulfill the themes) you want to is also fun. Thirty-five
Cryptic Missions may not win tourneys, but it might be fun.
My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled
by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've
been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by
card limits, if you believe that using a CL will reduce the power of
decks such that it is less likely that any one deck will completely
foil another, or that any one deck will be so effective as to oust
people excessively quickly, or that any abusive combinations will be
available to players.
However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just
by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really
have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks.
And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that
consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and
25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't
play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough. I
could suggest that the deck might be more effective if it were less
predictable. But ultimately it's his choice as to what he wants to
build and play. If winning is what's fun, then what wins is what
people will want to play. If winning is not the primary objective
of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be
more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is*
fun than by card limits.
I don't presume to tell your group that you can't play with card limits
if you want to, either, of course. ^_- But I (like some others, I
expect) have a knee-jerk bad reaction to card limits because there have
been people who feel that they're necessary for the game, whereas I
(and some others) feel that they are nothing but bad for 'the game as
a whole'.
Josh
full of hot air today
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them
> > out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along.
> > A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG
> > deck anyway.
>
> Maneuvers will run out pretty quickly. It only takes one time of not
> having them in the hand for the IG to be in position.
Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck.
My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a
6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in
a NL environment.
A Protean-Dominate-Animalism deck would be ugly. Use Protean for
Form of Mist and maneuvers, Animalism for Terror Frenzy to keep them
at long range so you can use your FoM and Dominate for all the fun
bleed.
The crypt would be limited to Don Cruez - The Idealist, Caitlin,
Genevieve, Faruq, Ingrid Rossler and Stanislava but Minion
Taps would be useful to offset the costs.
> > *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
> > If it's not, you're doing something wrong.
>
> This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip.
> None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence
> deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card that
> I don't?
*shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and traded, so it's not
much of a problem.
> > A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent.
> > Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged.
>
> What? Huh? I think you're taking his statement a little too literal
> possibly. I don't think he's referring to building a deck entirely or almost
> entirely of one card but to building a deck around a specific card.
No...not at all. A deck based on one card can be interesting and that's
why we allow reasonable exceptions. However, we encourage card
combos as a foundation of a deck rather than using a power card to
base one on.
> Like the
> Elder Kindred Network deck that I mentioned earlier. There are no real
> substitutes for that card, Political Backlash being a weak imitation.
Why? After all, you can stack them. Besides, how often do you think
people are going to call to burn Anarch Revolt after you unload a
can of EKN whoopass on them? The trick will only work once.
> If I want to build a deck around that card, I am limited to only 6.
Notice that first part? Remember what I said we discourage? *grin*
> So that card doesn't exactly become the main feature of the deck,
> and I won't reliably draw it.
Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math,
(6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of
drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. If I don't
draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it
after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I
draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another
(which increases until I draw another) with each card I play.
I'd say that's fairly reliable.
> This is not to say that a 6CL deck using it won't work, but it
> won't be near as consistent as the NL version and the EKN just
> becomes another card in the deck.
Depends on your card flow. If you play 4 cards all at once, you
have about a 25% chance of drawing one.
> > > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't
going
> > > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6
> > > Immortal Grapples :-)
>
> The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A
> similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer
> Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast
> enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you
> either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires.
Minion Tap gets rid of the larger vampires problem. I could work out the
rest of the details.
> > No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this.
>
> I built a pretty effective 6CL Pot/Ani/For rush deck once. It could go
> through 4 cards before range was even determined. And it was absolutely
> necessary against a Presence deck because the risk of wasted cards was so
> high.
>
> It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version.
It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do.
The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin*
Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously.
I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage
to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of
looking at deck building.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that
> what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a
> strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a
> particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates
> looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards
> because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards.
What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll
keep seeing the same old crap over and over again.
> Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used.
> But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me.
Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile.
> > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks.
> > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun?
>
> *Winning* is fun.
For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification,
buy a porno mag or a video game.
I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
you play the game." It could not be more true.
> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled
> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've
> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by
> card limits,
...and usually with some success.
> However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just
> by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really
> have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks.
One goes with the other.
> And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that
> consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and
> 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't
> play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough.
Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get
invited to any of the local games.
> If winning is not the primary objective
> of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be
> more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is*
> fun than by card limits.
Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
> But I (like some others, I
> expect) have a knee-jerk bad reaction to card limits because there have
> been people who feel that they're necessary for the game, whereas I
> (and some others) feel that they are nothing but bad for 'the game as
> a whole'.
Never once did I say that card limits are "necessary for the game," nor
would I imply such. But card limits being "bad for 'the game as a whole'"
is a bit excessive when we're discussing local groups.
Noal
-always full of hot air, among other things. *grin*
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mboh...@shout.net
jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> In article <784s42$b3g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks.
> > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun?
Aha! The crux of the matter.
> *Winning* is fun.
Yes, but I've said before that people weight where they get their fun
differently. For me, winning isn't fun when a deck seems abusive or
cheesy. I feel dirty. :) Winning is about 30% of my fun.
> Being able to build your deck any way you want in order to accomplish
> the goals (or fulfill the themes) you want to is also fun. Thirty-five
> Cryptic Missions may not win tourneys, but it might be fun.
Yes, such a thing can be fun. And if you're using a combo under a CL
and you don't draw your fun combo, you don't have any fun. Or at least
I don't. A Heart of Darkness without a Force of Will and Daring the
Dawn isn't fun. Heart of Darkness by itself just sucks. :)
> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled
> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've
> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by
> card limits, if you believe that using a CL will reduce the power of
> decks such that it is less likely that any one deck will completely
> foil another, or that any one deck will be so effective as to oust
> people excessively quickly, or that any abusive combinations will be
> available to players.
Under NL, the gentlemanly aspect of it isn't so great because you can
make about any deck pretty competitive. So if someone doesn't play
gentlemanly, you are usually equipped to handle it to at least some degree.
Under CL, if someone doesn't play gentlemanly, you're generally hosed.
Examples would be playing with all 18 Presence S:CE cards that Noal says
people in his group don't do. Or playing S&B. Even though a group might
be heavy combat, the properly made S&B deck is going to win quite often.
> And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that
> consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and
> 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't
> play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough.
I generally roll my eyes and give them a hard time.
> I don't presume to tell your group that you can't play with card limits
> if you want to, either, of course. ^_- But I (like some others, I
> expect) have a knee-jerk bad reaction to card limits because there have
> been people who feel that they're necessary for the game, whereas I
> (and some others) feel that they are nothing but bad for 'the game as
> a whole'.
Playing with CL can be just as much fun as playing without them. However,
your avenues for fun, ie. a deck that (ab)uses Betrayer an otherwise
useless card, are limited.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck.
There's another rare I don't have.... Note that both of these rares are
from the Sabbat, a set that really went overboard with rare power.
> My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a
> 6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in
> a NL environment.
You must have a lot of Terror Frenzies. I personally prefer Ani/Pot for
the sake of you only need one Drawing Out the Beast to kill their maneuvers
AND equipment. Terror Frenzy also requires you to pay an extra blood for
combat cards at superior, no?
> > This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip.
> > None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence
> > deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card
> > that I don't?
> *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and traded, so it's not
> much of a problem.
I give away vampires until I have only two of a given one left unless it
uses disciplines I like. For other cards, I have yet to complete a set in
Sabbat, so I always keep at least one of each that I have. So trading is
difficult. Lastly, everyone in my group is on pretty limited funds (or
appropriated elsewhere), so getting all these rares we need is pretty much
out of the question.
> > Like the
> > Elder Kindred Network deck that I mentioned earlier. There are no real
> > substitutes for that card, Political Backlash being a weak imitation.
>
> Why? After all, you can stack them.
So let's say I have a hand of 2 EKN, 1 Kindred Coercion, 2 Surprise
Influence, and 2 Political Backlash. I have two ready vampires (which is my
thought on this deck). Someone calls a vote to burn and I quash it by 8
votes. I can then play both EKN's and both PB's and my prey will more than
likely be ousted. Without being able to pack more EKN's, I might cause 8 less
pool loss. That's a pretty weak imitation of PB. They aren't mutually
exclusive.
> Besides, how often do you think
> people are going to call to burn Anarch Revolt after you unload a
> can of EKN whoopass on them? The trick will only work once.
Yes, once I do this, no one will probably call to burn. If no one burns the
Anarch's, they just die. I've built my deck to prepare for 3 or 4
non-blockable, non-redirectable pool loss a turn; they haven't. And it
won't just work against the Anarch votes, but any other votes. The AR's are
just incentives for someone to call a vote.
Plus, it'd feel oh so good to see everyone's jaw drop at that amount of pool
loss using cards no one uses. :)
> Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math,
> (6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of
> drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. If I don't
> draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it
> after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I
> draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another
> (which increases until I draw another) with each card I play.
>
> I'd say that's fairly reliable.
But it's not totally reliable. What if I whack them with a couple
Political Backlashes and they stop calling? Those 6 cards just became
useless. At least if I have one when I want it the first time, I know
I can probably oust my prey.
> > It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version.
>
> It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do.
> The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin*
Hrmmm....
> Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously.
I figured you wouldn't be that provocative. :)
> I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage
> to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of
> looking at deck building.
Which is the position I've always held. Switching back and forth once
in a while can make it interesting. It forces people to think about
cards they may never have considered and expands their playing ability
in the long run....assuming an eventual switch back to NL. ;)
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Vince Johnson
>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
>than enough handy.
Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it
all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have
nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better
things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many
zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because
you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns...
I rest my case
Vince
L. Scott Johnson
> jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
>> Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that
>> what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a
>> strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a
>> particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates
>> looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards
>> because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards.
>What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll
>keep seeing the same old crap over and over again.
True under NL as well. But, when a card limit causes you to keep using
the same set of cards to supplement your decks...
>> Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used.
>> But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me.
>Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile.
All the innovative decks that you can make under CL can be made under NL.
The reverse is not true.
Joshua, I believe, was referring to the fact that CL stifles the
innovation by restricting your innovative ideas/combos in favor of
the stock cards/combos (or, worse, less-effective "shadow" cards)
because you can't pack enough of the individual cards required for
some (not all) "innovations".
>> > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks.
>> > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun?
>>
>> *Winning* is fun.
>For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification,
>buy a porno mag or a video game.
>I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
>you play the game." It could not be more true.
Playing competitively is fun. Winning on the basis of competitive play
is icing on the cake, and is still at least as fun, if not moreso.
Being unable to play certain deck because of some arbitrary restriction
makes the game less competitive, and less fun, in some people's opinion,
by increasing the reliance on luck or the need to resort to cards that
don't "fit" as well in your deck.
>> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled
>> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've
>> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by
>> card limits,
>...and usually with some success.
... with a gentlemen's agreement, sure. But the same is true of NL.
Straight CL won't address the "problem" of speed-kill S&B. NL at least
gives more decks a fighting chance against that (and other) types
of decks.
>> However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just
>> by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really
>> have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks.
>One goes with the other.
CL addresses the decks. The "gentlemen's agreement" you have in place
addresses the players. The two may "go together" where you play, but
are not generally dependent on each other.
>> And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that
>> consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and
>> 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't
>> play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough.
>Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get
>invited to any of the local games.
Doesn't sound like a very amicable solution. But, whatever you find "fun"...
>> If winning is not the primary objective
>> of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be
>> more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is*
>> fun than by card limits.
>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
Winning is the defined objective.
If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely.
This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the
other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Research has been shown
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | to cause cancer in mice.
Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger |
Xian
> > This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip.
> > None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your
> > Presence deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful
> > rare card that I don't?
>
> *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and traded, so it's not
> much of a problem.
Noal, I have to admit that your group sounds very cool. However, it appears
that the rest of the world (most unfortunately) doesn't work that way. Cool
traders aside *nudges Peter*
However, I do have a few comments/questions...
> > The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A
> > similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer
> > Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast
> > enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you
> > either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires.
>
> Minion Tap gets rid of the larger vampires problem. I could work out the
> rest of the details.
Well as you are probably aware, Minion Taps don't 'get rid of,' but maybe
alleviate the difficulty of using larger vampires. They still can be
torporized before you get the chance to tap them, or intercepted after
they've been tapped & are hunting or 5th Traditioning or Restoring, or
whatever. I think Mike's deck in JOL84 (which, by the way, I'm not horribly
worried about sweeping the table...but I'm nearly through in that game
anyway...) is perhaps the best deck at getting around all of that nastiness
I've ever seen. But no one near him is playing rush, either.
> > > No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this.
Actually, I've been meaning to call you on this, Noal. In general, I
understand the concept of card flow, but you've been referring to it so darn
often, I want to know what *precisely* you mean by 'ensuring good cardflow'.
I know you typically include 20 masters in a deck, but beyond that, do you go
with specific proportions, or include extra discard stuff, or what? I guess
what got me thinking on this was a comment that went something along the
lines of 'developing good card flow skills' or something.
Josh said something about winning being fun, and Mike countered with winning
being about 30% of the fun for him.
Overall, I think I'm with Mike on this one. Though I'd go for an even lower
percentage of fun being winning. Though I don't deny that winning can be
fun. We had a really evil blow-up at the last meeting of our little
playgroup over this matter, when a new (to the group) player got *very*
nitpicky after he decided to block a friend (who doesn't play lots of Jyhad)
playing my Dom/For/Tha deck. When my friend played the Dawn Op, but asked
for maneuvers before remembering to play his Weather Control, the new guy
freaked out about how he had told my friend a bunch of times (@ 2 or 3, in
actuality) previously that he had to remember to play it. Not that it would
have affected the outcome. In a tournament, I can see getting that picky.
In a local playgroup, that's above & beyond.
But enough of my aside. Actually, I think my fun breaks down as:
10% winning
30% seeing my deck(s) do well (whether played by me or others...)
50% designing the deck...yup
10% tormenting others with my strangeness
Josh also said:
>However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just
>by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really
>have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks.
This I definitely agree with. It doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand, as you
indicate, Noal. Fun players = fun decks. Fun decks ~ fun players,
sometimes...in the group I play with, even though they have semi-soft limits
(i.e. they apparenly don't mind too much if *you* play NL, but they don't
seem to bother...), one guy has built a Corruption deck that uses Carlotta &
that Necromancy card to bring the Corruptions back from the ashheap.
Yikes...I call that scary adherence to CL for no good reason (which I'm not
accusing you of, Noal...it all sounds very cool...I'd still be upset about
not being *encouraged* to play 8 Dawn Op, 8 Skin of Night, 10-12 Weather
Control). But fun is the way to play. Fun fun fun.
Xian, thinking that yeah, Noal is right that the 7-Raptor deck doesn't work
very easily under 6CL...
"they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain
lion on crack" --greensea
Robert Goudie
>
> Dhar...@yahoo.com writes:
> > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> >> *Winning* is fun.
>
> >For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification,
> >buy a porno mag or a video game.
> >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
> >you play the game." It could not be more true.
>
> Playing competitively is fun. Winning on the basis of competitive play
> is icing on the cake, and is still at least as fun, if not moreso.
The old quote almost certainly refers to playing fair and with respect
for the other team. You can bet that a team that loses a baseball game
in which they turned a triple play doesn't crack open the champagne
afterwards.
> >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
> >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
>
> Winning is the defined objective.
>
> If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely.
> This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the
> other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game.
Agreed. By rule, getting the most victory points is the only objective.
The players I've seen play with a different goal (like maybe getting off
this new six-card combo they think is sooo cooool.) end up screwing up
the game because they don't put an effort into ousting their prey. I
believe the game (and the meta game) only works properly when everyone
plays to win.
--
Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
_________________________________________________________________
The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization
James Coupe
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:
>> > Such as?
>>
>> I would modify the statement with:
>> There are many unique and interesting decks that just don't work without
>> No Limits.
>
>And again I say, "Such as?"
The Betrayer deck
The Corruption deck (what you prefer to use is not a problem - some
people prefer this method, because it *can* be quicker and more
permanent)
A Tremere steal blood deck
Robert Goudie's Cryptic Mission-Society of Leopold deck
Many Brujah decks, designed to prevent S:CE
Many Gangrel (non-POT) decks designed to get around S:Dodge
The Might of the Camarilla-Possession deck (Chris Berger)
Basically, any deck which wants to base itself around difficult to
obtain effects, such as those only offered by one or two cards. Whether
you or I choose to play such a deck is neither here nor there. Whether
other people should be given the choice to play such decks *is* for me.
You may think that one trick pony decks don't work. In principle, I
agree to a limited extent. Every deck needs some diversification, IMO,
but that's up to the player.
In a game where every effect is available in similar form multiple
times, a CL is okay (it's then mostly pointless, but okay). In Jyhad,
you have many unique effects, especially for the newer disciplines,
which can't at all easily be duplicated. An xCL stops them from working
effectively, unless "x" is so large as to be meaningless.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
James Coupe
>First off, nobody plays 18 S:CE due to the spirit of the 6CL.
And this is the thing. If you have to rely on "spirit" to limit the
game, the card limit is irrelevant. You should just play with people
you trust not to build, whatever your opinion dictates are, sick decks.
James Coupe
>6CL isn't nearly as restricitve as you seem to think it is.
You *can* make viable decks under 6CL. Many tournament decks I see win
are very close to 6CL anyway. But you just lose the ability to make
those decks where you only have one, maybe two, sources of an effect.
James Coupe
>> Ok. A Potence Rush deck _is_ going to suffer with only 6 Immortal Grapple.
>> With a 6 CL, it is perfectly viable to play 6 Majesty, 6 Staredown, and 6
>> Catatonic Fear. That is 6 anti S:CE cards vs 18 S:CE cards. The Potence deck
>> will fail.
>
>out of S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along.
>A deck with a bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG
>deck anyway.
But I don't want to do weenie pot and I'm playing Nosferatu. People
aren't blocking so my Hidden Lurkers are useless.
What would I do here? Is my Nosferatu deck all but useless, because I
can't pack enough IG in it to stop the S:CE?
James Coupe
>What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll
>keep seeing the same old crap over and over again.
Okay, you want variety in decks
I want to play Robert Goudie's 35 Cryptic Mission decks. That would be
different to your usual decks. Why can't I have the variety to do that?
James Coupe
>I just hate to take some
>rulings and ignore others based on the fact that the ruling was only made
>for those that couldn't deal with it correctly with what they have in front
>of them...
No, the ruling *wasn't* made because people couldn't deal with it.
You might not have had a problem in your group. You just didn't get a
deck degenerate enough to entirely exploit the card.
And if you want to make a deck entirely devoted to blocking that deck,
you kind of lose the point of the game.
James Coupe
>
>>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
>>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
>>than enough handy.
>
>all... the game is meant to be played by everyone...
Why restrict it though? The errata does *exactly* the same thing -
makes making a 20-30 Zip Gun deck stupid for similar reasons.
Restricting and errata may help achieve the same effects. You just
don't like issuing errata. Fair enough, but it *works*. Zip Guns can
still be used. If I want a lot of them in my deck, I still can. I just
can't abuse them with DBR, which was the problem all along.
Since the problem was with DBR, we stop them using DBR (or ammo cards in
general). You can still use the Zip Gun as non-ammo defence, because
you're not limited to having "x" in a deck.
One up for the errata, methinks.
James Coupe
>And you are dead wrong ... there were offical DCI rules with the
>restrictions...
And they were removed because they did untold damage to the tournament
decks.
Tell me how you would propose to construct the very viable Betrayer deck
with a CL.
James Coupe
>exactly... so that decks no longer rely on the combo...
If a combo is not abusive, where is the problem in relying on that
combo? Why can't a player choose to do so?
If it is abusive, fix the thing making the combo abusive, but leave the
options still open for using the cards on their own.
James Coupe
>decks that use the combo get them less frequently and if you
>want to build a deck around the combo then fine...
If it's abusive, fair enough.
But if you restrict the card, you stop it being used in non-abusive
combos. Why would you want to do that?
Would you also require that before every game, the judge checks the
decks to make sure they have only so many of every card? With only 1
judge and 10-20 decks, it could take a while.
Derek S. Ray
<john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>
>>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
>>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
>>than enough handy.
>
>Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it
Hence the need for errata to Zip Gun, as opposed to silly sweeping
restrictions that restrict OTHER combinations that are not so easily
abused. Restricting one card is as difficult to remember as simply
making errata for that card - zero difference in the end.
>all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have
>nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better
I'm sorry? You think boxes of Jyhad are expensive? Go look at how
many Zip Guns you get in a $7 box of Jyhad and tell me again how
difficult it is to get 20 Zip Guns together, and how much it will
probably cost you. With regards to wasting my money... I have
purchased two boxes of Sabbat cards, mostly because of the Sabbat
vampires. That is "expensive", to me, for a card game. I haven't
purchased boxes of Ancient Hearts because they're even MORE expensive
then Sabbat boxes, although someday I'm probably going to break down
and do just that, again mostly for the vampires. I am hardly a Mr.
Suitcase, if that's what you're implying - I just put my money where
it would do some good, in multiple boxes (grand total: 8) of the base
set so that I would have enough cards to build -any- kind of deck and
also to have enough of the "common" cards like WWEF, Blood Doll,
Minion Tap, etc., so that I would be able to keep multiple decks built
at the same time. Oh, I also purchased two boxes of Dark Sovereigns
somewhere along the way.
My total investment in Jyhad-backed cards, which are apparently where
you think I've "wasted my money", is approximately $56 (8 x 7, for the
less mathematically inclined) - which is almost identical to the cost
of ONE box of Sabbat, and FAR more useful and fun in the long run,
since I don't have to worry about whether or not I happen to have got
enough of any particular card to make an idea work. (Except Immortal
Grapple... dammit. The fates conspire against my ever being able to
try a traditional "12-IG Rush Deck" without proxies.) Anyway... that
was part of the appeal this game had for me, was that I did NOT have
enough money to even pretend to compete in the Magic arena, with
individual cards costing several hundred dollars... but that I could
easily buy enough cards to make almost any deck I wanted for less than
$75. The game has so far provided many months of fun for me, and some
truly hilarious moments... for example, last night Nik blocked an
Assamite, paid his 1 blood for Acrobatics to pop him one on the nose,
and then spent three CEL cards (Flash, Nimble Feet, Rapid Thought)
pressing to end combat, to avoid having to go to torpor. The thought
of Nik, 1-cap Caitiff with inferior Celerity and a special disability
to boot, gratuitously escaping death at the hands of the evil Assamite
combat monsters and even doing more damage in the process had the
table laughing for at least fifteen minutes afterwards. (On a side
note, of course it was a complete waste of cards, and yes, I DID have
hand jam for the next three turns trying to get some maneuvers back
into my hand so I could block again, but damn, it was funny. Nik
survived hunting and was gloriously burned while blocking the turn
afterwards, since I still had a l'il hand jam problem.) I don't
consider my $56 wasted at all, and I'm not sure why you do either. If
you have difficulty coming up with this much spare money... I'm afraid
NO collectible card game is for you, since I don't know of any that
don't require a certain initial investment, and I don't know of any
that don't require a significantly larger initial investment.
My final point is something I've seen no other CCG do... I can build a
deck out of those $56 worth of cards that will absolutely, completely
ruin any deck you build, with as many Sabbat cards as you care to
include, with as many astonishing rares, however abusive you would
like to make the deck... I can make a deck out of those cards that
will beat it like a drum. My deck may lose miserably to the OTHER
decks on the table, but I can certainly guarantee that if you are my
predator, you will never oust me, and if you are my prey, you will BE
ousted. That's part of the challenge of the game... there is no "one
great deck that does it all". Innovation and creativity (agentzero's
Computer Terrorists deck is pretty damn funny and brings pictures to
mind of little goblins holding bombs twice the size of their bodies
rushing headlong at the enemy) actually has a chance of succeeding.
Want to beat that Zip Gun deck I posted? Make an Animalism deck with
12 Drawing out the Beasts and either Aid from Bats, Protean Claws,
whatever. Stack a bunch of Rat's Warning in there as well so you can
keep untapping and blocking all the weenies. There is lots of combat
that can go great with DotB, and a deck like this will COMPLETELY ruin
that Zip Gun deck. Acting minion has to play before-range cards
first, and Zip Guns come out only before range, so you don't have to
Draw out his Beast unless he plays a zip gun. Simple, huh? Just
because there's an effective counter to a deck, though, doesn't mean
the deck isn't abusive.
>things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many
>zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because
>you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns...
I wasn't attempting to build the deck to be perfect... I was
attempting to build the deck to be abusive, to demonstrate that yes,
it is VERY EASY to make a deck that will pound an awful lot of people
silly with a broken Zip Gun/DBR combo. It took me five whole minutes
to write up and post that deck, and it proved my point very nicely,
thank you - that Zip Gun unquestionably required errata, which happily
was provided.
>I have no case, and I'm beginning to get personal about it
>Vince
I took the liberty of correcting your misspelling above, right before
your name.
-- Derek
(replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)
Derek S. Ray
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Agreed. By rule, getting the most victory points is the only objective.
>The players I've seen play with a different goal (like maybe getting off
>this new six-card combo they think is sooo cooool.) end up screwing up
>the game because they don't put an effort into ousting their prey. I
>believe the game (and the meta game) only works properly when everyone
>plays to win.
Absolutely. That's why we only try to come up with six-card combos
that do obliterative damage to your prey in the process, so maybe you
only get it off once, but ... =)
(I made a silly deck called Sneak, Bleed, and Videotape like this. 15
Incriminating Videotapes, lots of OBF weenies and enough stealth cards
(forgotten labyrinth, woo! +3 stealth to a non-bleed action!) to
ensure that I wouldn't ever be unable to equip one, and enough bleed
retainers and assorted bleed whatevers (laptop, Spying Mission,
Inverary, vampires with base +1 bleed) to jack a single bleed up
somewhere around 10. 5 copies of Heidelburg Castle so that after I
had a tape of all of my prey's vampires, i could consolidate them all
along with the retainers on one unblockable vamp who could then
happily bleed for 10 twice. Tournament-effective? ... well... no.
Fun as hell to play a couple times? Yeah. Although it never bled for
more than 7 due to some of the retainers not coming out by the time i
had all the tapes made... poo.)
PDB6
This I'll grant you...but a weenie potence deck will eventually run them out of
S:CE cards. A pot-cel deck can use Psyche to speed it along. A deck with a
bunch of maneuvers (and Terror Frenzy) will kill an IG deck anyway."
Not before they are dead. If I have 6 IG and you have, say, 10-12 S:CE (which
is not at all unreasonable for any sort of Pre deck), it is highly likely that
I won't have an IG in my hand when you have a S:CE. The life and death of the
pure Rush deck is getting the maximum effectiveness out of its actions. If it
is regularly getting foiled by S:CE (even half of the time), it is getting
killed.
Yes, a bunch of manuvers and Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck, and while an
IG deck will be hamstrung by having only 6 IG, the manuver deck will not be
hamstrung bu having only 6 manuvers. This (not the manuvers and TF in
particular, but the general outclassing of IG based combat decks) makes playing
a pure Rush deck mostly pointless. Yes, you can make other kinds of combat
decks, or more well rounded combat decks, but then you are artificially
restricting the types of decks that are effective.
"A deck that relies on Cat's Guidance for intercept is already in a world of
hurt. If you're counting on animalism for intercept, you need permanent
intercept and Pack Tactics (and Elder Intervention) to make intercept useful.
Having only +1 intercept isn't going to cut it."
No, but being able to have, say, 12 Cats Guidance as along with a good supply
of Ravens and Elder Intervention means you will regularly have the +1 transient
intercept you need as well as being able to use the Cats for its inferior
ability without having to worry about "wasting" the card. Again, the 6CL makes
such a deck (which is a perfectly reasonable deck) a non option in a
compettetive sense, while under NL, it is a perfectly viable deck idea.
"*shrug* So combine them... At least Psyche is a good answer to maneuvers."
So to be a compettetive Pot combat deck, you _have_ to be the Brujah. Again,
substantially restricting what decks can be actually compettetive.
"*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
If it's not, you're doing something wrong."
Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just having 12
common as dirt commons.
"A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent.
Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged."
I'm a bit mistified by this whole idea of thought policing the players in your
group. If somone really enjoys playing a deck made out of 2 different cards,
why is it their responsibility to not play such a deck for your enjoyment? If
they are a really cool guy, but you don't like the decks they want to build,
you aren't going to let them play? You'd actively "not invite them back"?
"Uh...Peter, not everyone plays an IG deck and to require one to beat such a
deck is silly. I'd rather go the other route as it keeps the arms race to a
minimum."
That wasn't my point. Such a deck (25 Conditioning/25 Form of Mist or
whatever) simply isn't going to be overly effective in a situation where _all_
deck types are viable. And while I wouldn't really find playing such a deck to
be all that amusing, why should I tell my pal that _he_ shouldn't find playing
such a deck fun?
"No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this."
This is a highly sketchy concept. Yes, you can attempt to make up for not
having enough of the particular card you need through making a smaller deck or
using inferior "patch" cards to attempt to pick up the slack, or whatever wacky
tricks you can come up with to compensate for the 6CL, but such a deck will
always be at a disadvantage against decks that do not have to resort to such
tricks (such as a bleed deck relying on Dom, Obf, or Pre, all of which are
frought with redundancy).
Jasper Phillips
> jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
>> Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that
>> what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a
>> strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a
>> particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates
>> looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards
>> because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards.
>
>keep seeing the same old crap over and over again.
I don't know why I'm getting back into this tired old debate, but frankly
I think this argument is just false.
There are simply more viable decks under NCL than under CL. There
are plenty of decks that can't work, or don't work as well under CL.
Add that to the fact that there are pleny of decks completely unnaffected
by CL (e.g. S:CE or S&B decks).
Are you actually disputing this fact? This part has been gone over
point by point repeatedly in the past, and I
I even find that NCL decks tend to have more variety _within_ a given
deck, as you don't simply see the CL of all the important cards. Most
NCL decks also will only have alot of a few select cards, and will
not be by the "Cond/GotU/FoM" beasts you suggest.
>> Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used.
>> But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me.
>
>Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile.
Innovative? What's innovative about including the card limit of a card,
and then moving on to the next one? The 4CL decks I remember were quite
cookie cutter, as there were a fastly reduced number of ones that worked
(admittedly, back then the situation was worse, since there weren't
as many duplicate cards).
What's innovative is a ton of Raptors, viable corruption, cryptic mission
decks, or a ton of other things that don't exist under CL (frankly,
I'd add effective combat decks to that list).
>> > Like I said, we use it to encourage people to play more interesting decks.
>> > Sure, a 12 IG deck is effective...but is it fun?
A deck with 12 IG is definitly fun. Alot of people simply don't have
the knee jerk reaction that some decks having a few cards that are heavily
used is boring.
>> *Winning* is fun.
>
>For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification,
>buy a porno mag or a video game.
Um, is there really any need to be this insulting?
What Josh means, I believe, is that the game of trying to figure out
how to win is fun -- that competition is fun. The number of cards used
is really unimportant -- it's the variety and depth of play that's
important.
>I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
>you play the game." It could not be more true.
I think you're really missing the point here.
>> My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled
>> by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've
>> been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by
>> card limits,
>
>...and usually with some success.
No. Perhaps in other card games, but it has the _opposite_ effect in
Jyhad. Card limits make a few decks better, and others worse.
This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also
come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of
the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark?
do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me.
Strangely, nobody has claimed the money yet.
>> However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just
>> by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really
>> have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks.
>
>One goes with the other.
Not really. What Josh is saying is that such simple fixes don't really
address the problem, as they're never comprehensive. You're basically
stuck with shaming players out of playing unwanted decks.
>> And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that
>> consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and
>> 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't
>> play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough.
>
>Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get
>invited to any of the local games.
What ever. Ostracizing someone because you don't like his deck is the
same thing.
>> If winning is not the primary objective
>> of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be
>> more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is*
>> fun than by card limits.
>
>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
Why do people always misunderstand this argument? It's not that winning
itself is so important for "serious gamers", but playing to win. It's
not some childish need for gratification as you imply, but rather
curiosity, problem solving, and competition.
--
/\ Jasper Phillips
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--.
* http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`
Jasper Phillips
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
>> >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
>> >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
>>
>>
>> If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely.
>> This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the
>> other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game.
>
>The players I've seen play with a different goal (like maybe getting off
>this new six-card combo they think is sooo cooool.) end up screwing up
>the game because they don't put an effort into ousting their prey. I
>believe the game (and the meta game) only works properly when everyone
>plays to win.
Amen. Nothing is worse than a player who, unintentionaly or not,
plays King Maker. It's more acceptable if it's done because a player
doesn't care than if it's done intentionally -- but it's no more
fun. It really has nothing to do with _who_ actually wins or loses.
If the competitive game I'm in isn't being played to win, I'd much
rather role play, read, go the symphony, or out dancing.
Hell, I'd even rather watch TV.
Jasper Phillips
>> No, but you _do_ need 10-12 to be able to reliably draw them when you need
>> them and have enough to compete with the very common and over powered S:CE.
>> Which there will be more than 6 of.
>
Fine. Let's see this hypothetical well-built deck.
I predict that while a NL rush deck (with lots of Bum's Rush and IG)
does fine with either weenie presence or S&B as it's predator, 6CL rush
gets hosed (and 4CL rush gets completely hosed).
Jasper Phillips
> mboh...@shout.net wrote:
>> having them in the hand for the IG to be in position.
>
>Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck.
>My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a
>6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in
>a NL environment.
Heh. Really?
[snip]
>No...not at all. A deck based on one card can be interesting and that's
>why we allow reasonable exceptions. However, we encourage card
>combos as a foundation of a deck rather than using a power card to
>base one on.
"Power Card"? Like what?
>> So that card doesn't exactly become the main feature of the deck,
>> and I won't reliably draw it.
>
>Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math,
>(6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of
>drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds. If I don't
>draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it
>after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I
>draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another
>(which increases until I draw another) with each card I play.
>
>I'd say that's fairly reliable.
That's a fairly reliable chance of starting with it. It's _not_ a
fairly reliable chance of using it often. Especially if multiple
variants of the counter card exist.
>> This is not to say that a 6CL deck using it won't work, but it
>> won't be near as consistent as the NL version and the EKN just
>> becomes another card in the deck.
>
>Depends on your card flow. If you play 4 cards all at once, you
>have about a 25% chance of drawing one.
No, it doesn't depend on your card flow: Good card flow works for
NL decks as well as CL decks.
Furthermore (in my experience) NL decks flow better than most CL decks
(with the exception of the ones that approximate NL by using variant cards
that are nearly the same).
>> I built a pretty effective 6CL Pot/Ani/For rush deck once. It could go
>> through 4 cards before range was even determined. And it was absolutely
>> necessary against a Presence deck because the risk of wasted cards was so
>> high.
>>
>> It is possible to do, but it's not near as effective as the NL version.
>
>It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do.
>The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin*
Which you presume to have, Nice. Rather than a dubious implication
of authority, perhaps you could show us such a deck?
>Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously.
>I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage
>to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of
>looking at deck building.
*sigh* This isn't the issue (Nor do I even think it's true. Many
CL decks work just fine playing against NL). The issue is whether
6CL rush is as viable in it's environment as the NL variant
is in it's. You contend just above that it is, many others contend
that it's not.
Jasper Phillips
>
>>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
>>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
>>than enough handy.
>
>Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it
>nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better
>zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because
>you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns...
>
>Vince
You rest your case? You're contradicting yourself... You say limits
are needed to stop such decks, since presumably always having Zip Guns
is nice, and then mention the reason such decks suck later on (tons
of wasted cards that you could easily find better uses for).
Also, your point about the money is simply false, as even most CL
advocates will agree: NL lets you use tons of easy to get commons,
while CL tends to force you to substitute harder to get rare
cards, that do essentially the same thing.
Petri Wessman
<delurk mode>
>> > *snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
>> > If it's not, you're doing something wrong.
>>
>> This is exactly the problem with card limits. I have zero Awe. Nada. Zip.
>> None. My Presence deck is supposed to be disadvantaged to your Presence
>> deck merely because of the fact that you have more of a useful rare card that
>> I don't?
Dharzhak> *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and
Dharzhak> traded, so it's not much of a problem.
So you have to resort to card loaning just to conform to an artificial
limit that you yourself have set? If it works for you, fine, but that
sounds sort of screwy to me. In the above example, why exactly in your
opinion would using 12 BO's be "worse" or "degenerate" as compared to
6 x BO and 6 x Awe?
>> > A deck based solely on one card is exactly what we try to prevent.
>> > Decks like that require little thought and are discouraged.
>>
>> What? Huh? I think you're taking his statement a little too literal
>> possibly. I don't think he's referring to building a deck entirely or almost
>> entirely of one card but to building a deck around a specific card.
Dharzhak> No...not at all. A deck based on one card can be
Dharzhak> interesting and that's why we allow reasonable exceptions.
Dharzhak> However, we encourage card combos as a foundation of a deck
Dharzhak> rather than using a power card to base one on.
But the point is that if you are using the newest rulings and errata,
there aren't any such "power cards". If someone bases their deck
around a single card, they will lose, more often than not.
Besides, you yourself admit that you allow "reasonable
exceptions". Since you are going by group concensus on what's ok and
what's not in any case, why have any sort of limits at all?
You're free to play however you want, of course :) I just don't really
see your point for having 6-card limits.
>> > > So what? A deck with 25 Conditionings and 25 Form of Mists also isn't
Dharzhak> going
>> > > to be all that effective, especially if someone is using more than 6
>> > > Immortal Grapples :-)
>>
>> The above example is pretty hard to do anyway with no-repeat actions. A
>> similar deck I made once using Earth Melds, Form of Mist, and Computer
>> Hacking would never work under no-repeat action. It just can't bleed fast
>> enough. If you add the Dominate, it is going to be inefficient because you
>> either have to add skill cards or go with larger vampires.
Dharzhak> Minion Tap gets rid of the larger vampires problem. I could
Dharzhak> work out the rest of the details.
I don't buy this. I seriouly doubt that a 25 Conditioning / 25 FoM
deck would be that nasty. One Immortal Grapple (or Psyche, since FoM
is treated as an action modifier nowadays) would be serious bad news
for that deck.
Dunno. Someone want to test this one in JOL? *grin*
Dharzhak> It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to
Dharzhak> do. The extra level of difficulty builds deck building
Dharzhak> skill. *grin*
Dharzhak> Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it
Dharzhak> seriously.
Taunt or not, I'll send a resounding "oh ha ha" to that (Rimmer-style
:)
Handicapping yourself and then trying to overcome those handicaps in
convoluted ways does not equate to "deck building skill" in my book.
Dharzhak> I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the
Dharzhak> advantage to the NL deck. Different environments build
Dharzhak> different ways of looking at deck building.
Yeah. Like I said, each group plays the way that's most fun for
them. I just fail to see the exact "why" in your case, IMHO you're
conviced that NL results in people building decks that focus on single
cards. T'ain't so. We've always played NL here, and I rarely see more
than, say, 8 of any single card in a deck. The exception to this are
theme decks that sometimes have to focus on a single card (like the N
Raptors concept). These decks aren't boring either, in general.
//Petri
Petri Wessman
Joshua> *Winning* is fun.
Joshua> This often appears to be the sticking point between people who
Joshua> advocate card limits to 'enforce fun' and those who prefer no
Joshua> limits.
Well... no, in my experience. I've always played with NL and see no
sense in card limits (provided you're using the new errata and
rules). On the other hand, actually winning is only a small part of
the fun for me (and for others in the local play group, it seems). A
lot of the fun is simply in designing fun decks and seeing how well
they do, and in the playing itself. If you happen to win it's a nice
bonus, but nothing like "the point".
Your mileage obviously varies :)
//Petri
Petri Wessman
"gentlemens' agreement" with the effect of the 6CL. IMHO, they are
totally different things. Having a card limit in no way limits
"boring" decks (pure S&B, etc), and makes a lot of innovative designs
totally impossible. The thing limiting boring decks is the (perhaps
unspoken) agreement of the players to not allow "boring" decks. *That*
is what works, and it has nothing to do with a card limit.
I think a lot of CL advocates make the same (IMHO mistaken) assumption
between card limits and "interesting decks". We always play NL here,
and the decks are nothing if not innovative. It's the play group that
matters, not any numerical card limit. A one-trick S&B deck is just as
viable (and just as boring) under CL as it is under NL.
Having more than N of a single card does not make a deck boring. The
focus of the deck is what matters.
//Petri
artax...@my-dejanews.com
phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> In article <785flr$n1j@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
> >>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
> >>than enough handy.
> >
> >Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it
> >all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have
> >nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better
> >things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that many
> >zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because
> >you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns...
> >
> >I rest my case
> >Vince
>
> You rest your case? You're contradicting yourself... You say limits
> are needed to stop such decks, since presumably always having Zip Guns
> is nice, and then mention the reason such decks suck later on (tons
> of wasted cards that you could easily find better uses for).
>
> Also, your point about the money is simply false, as even most CL
> advocates will agree: NL lets you use tons of easy to get commons,
> while CL tends to force you to substitute harder to get rare
> cards, that do essentially the same thing.
>
> --
> /\ Jasper Phillips
Oh contrare...
I have watched the Zip Gun question spiral into the inveitable N/CL debate.
My personal, and admittedly restricted view (Scotland), is that 4CL was
initially very useful to prevent those with access to huge amount of cards the
pathetic ease of beating players with smaller suitcases into trembling
submission.
Without the four card limit which encouraged our big case player (who to
make the contrast uniquely stark worked in the WotC office in Glasgow) to
trade such wonderful cards as even the simple Majesty - Jyhad would of died
there and then (first printing, those were the days!). Four card limits
allowed an even distribution of the commoner 'must have' cards, and a
smattering of favoured cards as the smaller, occasional players eveloved into
favoured decks and clans. Those who persued the game with financial vigour,
to remain in a competitive stance with their large but only occasional group
saw 4CL as a compromise that was all that stood between us and no-game
oblivion.
It may be easy to cite the availability of cards, but personally our
collections have matured into 4's and 4's and 4's, as much as we need for
continuing gaming. None of us see it as sensible to unilaterally, or even as
a group evlove into NCL.
Most NL advocates here cite the limitations that 4CL imposes; no 15 Raptors
in your deck! I feel though that you are attacking the question from the
angle of those who play regularly with large collections; consider the
profile of the posters to this group... die hard fans with large collections
which can support this level of play. Whereas I would suggest that for
informal games, 4CL allows everyone to play... where NCL excludes those who
do not have large collections; so for balanced play between different
suitcase sizes - 4CL. Considering the amount of new blood coming into the
game, this is now essentially a moot point, if not actually a point in favour
of the NL advocates.
One of the beauties of Jyhad used to be that everyone with minimal outlay and
trading could build a deck that could show it's face in our games. It should
of course evolve into NL, but if your group does not as a whole want to, say,
double it's investment, then 4CL lets us all play together.
Whilst 4CL may limit the number of decks viable. NL limits the munber of
players viable. Everyone on this list could present a 4CL, not all a NL. I
know which I prefer.
artaxerxes
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> > Not usually. An Assault Rifle and a Terror Frenzy will kill an IG deck.
>
> from the Sabbat, a set that really went overboard with rare power.
Maybe so. But I don't think that Terror Frenzy or Awe are overpowered.
Terror Frenzy at minor is pretty much a DotB but for long range.
Awe isn't really that powerful unless you use it as a combo with Voter
Cap. Bewitching Oration can give you 4 votes at superior without
spending blood. With superior Awe, you have to spend 1 blood to get
3 votes and 2 blood for 5. Unless you have a way to fill back up, that
can get your vampire killed if you go hog wild.
> > My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a
> > 6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in
> > a NL environment.
>
> You must have a lot of Terror Frenzies. I personally prefer Ani/Pot for
> the sake of you only need one Drawing Out the Beast to kill their maneuvers
> AND equipment. Terror Frenzy also requires you to pay an extra blood for
> combat cards at superior, no?
*nods* At superior, Terror Frenzy makes the opposing vampire spend one
extra blood for combat cards, but it's not cumulative with the inferior text.
Terror Frenzy at minor kills their equipment and kills their ability to cancel
maneuvers. As for having, a lot of Terror Frenzies, I'm not sure how many
I have...5 or 6, I think. I just traded one away to someone who needed it
for a deck.
> I give away vampires until I have only two of a given one left unless it
> uses disciplines I like.
I keep up to 5 copies of a vampire unless I'm going to build a theme
deck around a vampire. For example, a Uriah Winter/Betrayer deck.
> For other cards, I have yet to complete a set in
> Sabbat, so I always keep at least one of each that I have.
I'm pretty sure I have a complete set. I finally got a Derange. That's
the hardest card to get a hold of. I've prolly bought about 10 boxes of
Sabbat and I've only gotten one copy.
I try to keep 15 copies of any non-unique card so I can build multiple
decks that use the same card. Unique locations, etc. I tend to keep 5 of.
If someone needs a card, I'll usually trade something for it and when I get
around to buying another box, I'll replace the copy.
> So trading is
> difficult. Lastly, everyone in my group is on pretty limited funds (or
> appropriated elsewhere), so getting all these rares we need is pretty much
> out of the question.
Ah. There's the difference. I doubled my salary about 6 months ago and
I'm almost in the position to double it again. Makes a big difference in
your disposable income.
> So let's say I have a hand of 2 EKN, 1 Kindred Coercion, 2 Surprise
> Influence, and 2 Political Backlash. I have two ready vampires (which is my
> thought on this deck). Someone calls a vote to burn and I quash it by 8
> votes. I can then play both EKN's and both PB's and my prey will more than
> likely be ousted.
Um...EKN is used before votes are cast.
> Without being able to pack more EKN's, I might cause 8 less
> pool loss. That's a pretty weak imitation of PB. They aren't mutually
> exclusive.
Um...I fail to see the above being a very good example against stacking
EKN and Politcal Backlash, but...*shrug*
> Yes, once I do this, no one will probably call to burn. If no one burns the
> Anarch's, they just die.
Not necessarily. Decks with very good pool gain have nothing to fear from
Anarch Revolt decks and will prolly just ride them out until you've ousted
yourself...much like I'm doing to my prey in jol94. *grin*
> Plus, it'd feel oh so good to see everyone's jaw drop at that amount of pool
> loss using cards no one uses. :)
Heh. All of those cards get used in our group. We can be pretty vicious.
> But it's not totally reliable. What if I whack them with a couple
> Political Backlashes and they stop calling? Those 6 cards just became
> useless. At least if I have one when I want it the first time, I know
> I can probably oust my prey.
That's assuming that your prey is the one calling the vote. More often
than not, it's someone across the table. I've tried various versions of
Anarch Revolt decks and they can be fairly inconsistent.
> > I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage
> > to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of
> > looking at deck building.
>
> Which is the position I've always held. Switching back and forth once
> in a while can make it interesting. It forces people to think about
> cards they may never have considered and expands their playing ability
> in the long run....assuming an eventual switch back to NL. ;)
Perhaps. Like I said, it's our local group that uses 6CL, not the MJL
tournaments...which I verified with the other Rules Team folks. It's
a pretty unanimous consensus against card limits at all. Most felt the
NRA rule was control enough.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Noal, I have to admit that your group sounds very cool. However, it appears
> that the rest of the world (most unfortunately) doesn't work that way.
> Cool traders aside *nudges Peter*
*takes a bow* thanks.
Since most of the people in our gaming group play the game and don't
collect the game, card stock isn't that big of a deal. Most of us would
be just as happy playing poker or History of the World. The point is
to have an enjoyable evening with your friends. I don't care if my deck
wins or not...just as long as I and the other folks I play with have fun.
Being stingy with cards doesn't promote fun.
> Well as you are probably aware, Minion Taps don't 'get rid of,' but maybe
> alleviate the difficulty of using larger vampires.
*nods* I'm aware of the hazards of using huge vampires, which is why I
rarely do. Given a bit of time and forethought, I could build good defense
around rush combat with pro-ani-dom pretty easily.
>>>> No, you don't. Good card flow from a well-built deck will overcome this.
>
> Actually, I've been meaning to call you on this, Noal. In general, I
> understand the concept of card flow, but you've been referring to it so darn
> often, I want to know what *precisely* you mean by 'ensuring good cardflow'.
> I know you typically include 20 masters in a deck, but beyond that, do you go
> with specific proportions, or include extra discard stuff, or what? I guess
> what got me thinking on this was a comment that went something along the
> lines of 'developing good card flow skills' or something.
Card flow is the opposite of hand jam. If I'm able to keep my cards cycling
through my hand, I can get the cards that I need when I need them....even
under 6CL. You've played in two games with me. I typically go through
about 5-6 cards per turn with little problem. Sometimes less, often more.
I don't go with specific proportions other than master cards (which I fudge a
little) in most decks. I try to tailor it to what the deck does. If the
deck uses smaller vampires, I'll put more action cards. If I will typically
only use one or two vampires (like the Tzimisce "Transformers" deck where the
little ones become frozen) I will use less action cards.
What I do is put together a deck concept and see if I get hand jam. If I
do, I take note of what is overloading my hand and cut it down. The
biggest problems are often action cards and master cards. I typically use
a total of 20 master phases. This means that a Short Term counts as 4
master phases....one turn to play it and three to use it. Because of the
time that it takes, I usually go with Blood Dolls, Powerbase: Chicago
or something that doesn't take up master phases once in play.
> Overall, I think I'm with Mike on this one. Though I'd go for an even lower
> percentage of fun being winning. Though I don't deny that winning can be
> fun. We had a really evil blow-up at the last meeting of our little
> playgroup over this matter, when a new (to the group) player got *very*
> nitpicky
Sounds like this new person needs a tip from Ms. Manners on how to be
a good guest.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> >Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get
> >invited to any of the local games.
>
We have limited space at the local games as it is. Monster Bob can hardly
fit 15 people in his dining room. I think it's very reasonable to limit the
type of people you want to play with at your home.
> If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely.
Heh. I see a codependence issue here. Tell me about your childhood.
*grin*
Okay, ribbing aside, not everyone can win a game. Remember
what I quoted before. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you
play the game. If I find I've built a deck that's nearly impossible to
beat, I stop playing it in the local games and shelf it for tournaments.
Then I start developing another deck or two. After all, others should
have the opportunity to win.
> This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the
> other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game.
...speaking of what gets played in the background. *grin* Oh, and
we also watch pro-wrestling or hockey.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> "*shrug* So combine them... At least Psyche is a good answer to maneuvers."
>
> So to be a compettetive Pot combat deck, you _have_ to be the Brujah. Again,
> substantially restricting what decks can be actually compettetive.
Or Nosferatu. DotB kills maneuvers dead. *shrug*
> "*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
> If it's not, you're doing something wrong."
>
> Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just having 12
> common as dirt commons.
Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them away as it
is now.
> I'm a bit mistified by this whole idea of thought policing the players in your
> group. If somone really enjoys playing a deck made out of 2 different cards,
> why is it their responsibility to not play such a deck for your enjoyment? If
> they are a really cool guy, but you don't like the decks they want to build,
> you aren't going to let them play? You'd actively "not invite them back"?
*shrug* It's not my house, I don't make the rules. But there can be a sense
of elitism, I'll grant you. But when there's already limited space, I think
that
limiting the type of players is reasonable.
Keep in mind that this topic is quite different from the tournaments. Rules
for local games often are different from tournaments. I will encourage
_anyone_ to show up for a tournament.
Noal
Petri Wessman
artaxerxes> Whereas I would suggest that for informal games, 4CL
artaxerxes> allows everyone to play... where NCL excludes those who do
artaxerxes> not have large collections; so for balanced play between
artaxerxes> different suitcase sizes - 4CL.
Ummmm... no. This has been done to death before, but to reiterate: 4CL
does nothing to balance the game, in fact it *favors* Mr. Suitcase in
many cases (since he will be able to get hold of 4 subsitute rares in
addition to the 4 "base" cards of some type or the otherm getting an
edge on the card-poor player). As an example, see the "6 Bewitching
Orations + 6 Awes" 6CL suggestion earlier in this thread.
artaxerxes> Whilst 4CL may limit the number of decks viable. NL limits
artaxerxes> the munber of players viable. Everyone on this list could
artaxerxes> present a 4CL, not all a NL. I know which I prefer.
<heated discussion mode>
You're free to prefer 4CL, of course, but your argument is
nosense. NCL does not mean "a deck must have more than 4 copies of
each card". You say that not everyone in this list could produce a NCL
deck... what the hell does that mean, pardon my French :)?
Don't confuse the number of a single card in a deck with the quality
of the deck, or its viability in an NCL environment. A lot of my (NCL)
decks have had a max of 3 of any single card, and are totally
competitive. What matters is what those cards are and how they are
used. With NCL, you have the freedom to put as many cards as the *deck
needs* into it, not the "automatic 4 of each good card".
You and some other CL advocates seem to think that a NCL environment
degenerates into 25 Form of Mists -type of decks. Totally false, in my
fairly long experience with this game. What NCL gives you is the
*possibility*, not any hard and fast guidelines. Remember, the NCL
equation works both ways in the Mr.Suitcase vs. Joe NotManyCards
case. Most of the critical cards you may want a lot of are common or
uncommon. How on earth do you make an effective rush deck (to combat
stealth bleeders or vote decks) under 4CL? A Potence rush deck *needs*
something like 8 Immortal Grapples in order to have a chance against
strike: combat ends. Note that the 4CL environement does absolutely
nothing to stop semi-degenerate stealth-bleed or strike-combat ends
decks. It only hurts decks that are trying to defend against
them. There are *lots* of ways of gaining stealth or s:ce. The are
very few alternatives to Immortal Grapple. Thankfully the Sabbat
edition made IG an uncommon, as a rare it was *way* hard to get.
In addition, a CL environment makes counting cards a viable
strategy. As in: "hmmm, now he's played 4 Immortal Grapples. I'm
safe". IMHO, that's not a part of how the game should be played.
//Petri
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Well... no, in my experience. I've always played with NL and see no
> sense in card limits (provided you're using the new errata and
> rules).
Our local group and all MJL tournaments do not use WotC errata.
We use our own rules team decisions.
> On the other hand, actually winning is only a small part of
> the fun for me (and for others in the local play group, it seems). A
> lot of the fun is simply in designing fun decks and seeing how well
> they do, and in the playing itself. If you happen to win it's a nice
> bonus, but nothing like "the point".
This is entirely the point that I'm trying to get across. Thank you
for putting it so well, Petri. I hope understand that everyone
understands my position about fun and winning is entirely limited
to local games. In tournaments, I do play to win, although I try to
do it with innovative decks. While I have an extremely competitve
nature, I also have a highly creative one.
Noal
-the typical Aries
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> In this discussion, I think Noal is equating the playgroup
> "gentlemens' agreement" with the effect of the 6CL. IMHO, they are
> totally different things. Having a card limit in no way limits
> "boring" decks (pure S&B, etc), and makes a lot of innovative designs
> totally impossible.
This is why our 6CL is a guideline and not a hard and fast rule.
Innovative designs are always welcome. Using 25 Form of Mist
cards in a deck is not.
Noal
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> >Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile.
>
> Innovative? What's innovative about including the card limit of a card,
> and then moving on to the next one? The 4CL decks I remember were quite
> cookie cutter,
Nobody is discussing 4CL. Bringing it up is a straw man argument.
No to mention that you seem to miss the point about the 6CL that's
being discussed is a guideline and not a hard and fast rule.
> >> *Winning* is fun.
> >
> >For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification,
> >buy a porno mag or a video game.
>
> Um, is there really any need to be this insulting?
*shrug* I don't see how this is insulting. My point is that when you
play with a group, everyone should have fun. Not just you.
> >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
> >you play the game." It could not be more true.
>
> I think you're really missing the point here.
...actually I think you are.
> This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also
> come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of
> the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark?
> do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me.
>
> Strangely, nobody has claimed the money yet.
I'm not Mr. Miagi. I don't give a damn about balance.
My focus here is on FUN.
> >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
> >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
>
> Why do people always misunderstand this argument? It's not that winning
> itself is so important for "serious gamers", but playing to win. It's
> not some childish need for gratification as you imply, but rather
> curiosity, problem solving, and competition.
You've obviously missed the point about this thread being entirely about
not using boring, repetitive decks in a local game. I've stated from the
beginning that we like to see innovative, competitive decks. I'm prolly
one of the most competitive people you'll ever meet. I just realize that
at a local game, the decks that I play should be as much fun for others
as they are for me.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> >My "Transformers" deck would eat an IG deck for lunch...esp in a
> >6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in
> >a NL environment.
>
Yes. Really.
> >It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do.
> >The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin*
>
> Which you presume to have, Nice. Rather than a dubious implication
> of authority, perhaps you could show us such a deck?
Lasombra has a bunch on his page that I've posted here. The fact that
I consistently end in the finals of any tournament I play in would speak
well of my deck building skills, wouldn't you say?
Not to mention that the above comment was intended as a joking jibe
to Mike as was made obvious by the below comment which you
seperated from the text:
> >Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously.
> >I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage
> >to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of
> >looking at deck building.
>
> *sigh* This isn't the issue (Nor do I even think it's true. Many
> CL decks work just fine playing against NL).
It is very much the issue. The fact that you can't see that would
indicate that you might do well to stay out of the thread.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Dharzhak> *shrug* In our local group cards are freely loaned and
> Dharzhak> traded, so it's not much of a problem.
>
> So you have to resort to card loaning just to conform to an artificial
> limit that you yourself have set?
Um...I think you may have missed the point at which I said that isn't
my house and I didn't set the rules. I'm merely stating _why_ they
are there. Besides, the whole thisng started when I said that I'd play
the devil's advocate. I do not advocate CL in a tournament.
> But the point is that if you are using the newest rulings and errata,
> there aren't any such "power cards".
...which as we know, I don't. MJL tournaments do not take WotC errata
as the Holy Grail after the 7/7 fiasco. Besides, I'd say that Banishment
is a fairly powerful card (among others).
> Besides, you yourself admit that you allow "reasonable
> exceptions". Since you are going by group concensus on what's ok and
> what's not in any case, why have any sort of limits at all?
Petri, I've already been thorugh this. Please don't make me repeat
myself.
> Dharzhak> Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it
> Dharzhak> seriously.
>
> Taunt or not, I'll send a resounding "oh ha ha" to that (Rimmer-style
> :)
Okay....but all you've seen me play was the Presence Weenies deck
and the subsequent re-working of it. I've got other decks that are
much more interesting. I'm rather proud of "The Grind" deck.
> Handicapping yourself and then trying to overcome those handicaps in
> convoluted ways does not equate to "deck building skill" in my book.
What it does do is make you take a closer look at cards that you may
otherwise overlook. Granted, you can do the same things in a NL
group...it really depends on the type of environment you are in.
> IMHO you're
> conviced that NL results in people building decks that focus on single
> cards. T'ain't so.
While it doesn't always happen, it frequently does.
> The exception to this are
> theme decks that sometimes have to focus on a single card (like the N
> Raptors concept). These decks aren't boring either, in general.
...and these are the type of exceptions that get made. Besides, it's
not like we have the 6CL police checking your deck before you play.
*grin*
agen...@my-dejanews.com
> Lasombra has a bunch on his page that I've posted here. The fact that
> I consistently end in the finals of any tournament I play in would speak
> well of my deck building skills, wouldn't you say?
Before I say anything, I just want to point out that this isn't a
knock on your deckbuilding skills or on your playing skills...
The only thing that it says to me is that your skills are good within
the limits you've imposed on yourself and that are imposed on your
group. If you can make the same claim where the tournaments you play
consist of a majority of NL decks, then it would say even more of
your skills.
a0
agen...@my-dejanews.com
>> Meaning you have to have 6 very hard to get Rares rather than just
>>having 12 common as dirt commons.
> Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them
> away as it is now.
Yes, hard to get.
If you're just giving them away, I'd like to get my hands on 2 or 3...
:p
Dhar...@yahoo.com
realize that I'm being completely objective, I will concede a
couple of points.
Petri Wessman wrote:
> Ummmm... no. This has been done to death before, but to reiterate: 4CL
> does nothing to balance the game, in fact it *favors* Mr. Suitcase in
> many cases
Absolutely. If Mr. Suitcase doesn't help out people with less cards, you
betcha he's got the advantage.
> You say that not everyone in this list could produce a NCL
> deck... what the hell does that mean, pardon my French :)?
I think he means that "not everyone on the list" has the cards to
produce the kind of decks that someone who can afford to buy
a box or two every month can build. He's correct of course.
However, I'd say it's almost Mr. Suitcase's duty to help out
newer or poorer players in the interest of having fun....although
card limits should have no bearing on this kind of generosity.
> You and some other CL advocates seem to think that a NCL environment
> degenerates into 25 Form of Mists -type of decks. Totally false, in my
> fairly long experience with this game.
I've seen it happen enough in tournaments to say that it's not a totally
false statement. However, it's up to us not to build this kind of nonsense.
> There are *lots* of ways of gaining stealth or s:ce. The are
> very few alternatives to Immortal Grapple.
I can think of few myself. Psyche, Direct Intervention *bleh*, Dog Packs
and cards that provide reusable rush (Bloodhunt, Haven Uncovered, etc.)
But that's pretty much it.
> Thankfully the Sabbat edition made IG an uncommon, as a rare it was
> *way* hard to get.
*nods* Very true. I think I even like the original art better. It looks
less like a Warhammer 40K illustration.
> In addition, a CL environment makes counting cards a viable
> strategy. As in: "hmmm, now he's played 4 Immortal Grapples. I'm
> safe". IMHO, that's not a part of how the game should be played.
This I completely agree with. Card limits make counting cards possible.
Not knowing what your opponent holds is entirely part of the game.
...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout,
"Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of
deck building skills. Even without card limits (and especially _without_
card limits) there is no such thing as an "unbeatable" deck. Card limits
can produce decks that are impossible to beat without the entire table
joining forces against a single player. Even a weenie horde can be
easily killed with a Domain Challenge or a Anarchist Uprising.
Noal
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mboh...@shout.net
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...speaking of what gets played in the background. *grin* Oh, and
> we also watch pro-wrestling or hockey.
Well aimed chair? And you know, with Dennis Rodman doing some wrestling,
he sort of looks like Anvil....
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> The only thing that it says to me is that your skills are good within
> the limits you've imposed on yourself and that are imposed on your
> group. If you can make the same claim where the tournaments you play
> consist of a majority of NL decks, then it would say even more of
> your skills.
Again, the MJL tournaments do not use a card limit. I also finished in
the finals at Origins with a deck that, admittedly, was not as good as
it should have been...but that was because there were some changes
that I wanted to make that I had forgotten to do.
Noal
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Petri Wessman
Dharzhak> Um...I think you may have missed the point at which I said
Dharzhak> that isn't my house and I didn't set the rules. I'm merely
Dharzhak> stating _why_ they are there. Besides, the whole thisng
Dharzhak> started when I said that I'd play the devil's advocate. I
Dharzhak> do not advocate CL in a tournament.
Ok, I got the impression from earlier posts that you were generally in
favor of card limits. I stand corrected.
>> But the point is that if you are using the newest rulings and errata,
>> there aren't any such "power cards".
Dharzhak> ...which as we know, I don't. MJL tournaments do not take
Dharzhak> WotC errata as the Holy Grail after the 7/7 fiasco.
Dharzhak> Besides, I'd say that Banishment is a fairly powerful card
Dharzhak> (among others).
At the risk on starting another thread, I liked the 7/7 rulings a
lot. But maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms again. All I can
say is: the new rulings work for us.
As for Banishment, it's a powerful card, but it's dangerous only if
you have vote dominance. You need a lot of other vote-providing stuff
to back it up, and then something to prevent the other meth of just
bringing the vamps back into play, i.e. you need ways of getting them
low on blood first. Or after, with Cairo Airport etc. But in any case,
I don't see it as a killer card, even if one included 30 of them in a
deck.
//Petri
Joshua Duffin
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> > Regarding 'deck skill': It seems to me (and other NL advocates) that
> > what's truly rewarded under card limits is skill in choosing a
> > strategy that won't be hamstrung by only being able to use 6 of a
> > particular card. The 'innovation' that is claimed by CL advocates
> > looks to me like people simply being forced to use second-tier cards
> > because they're not allowed to use any more first-tier cards.
>
> What it enforces is variety. If people don't think about variety, we'll
> keep seeing the same old crap over and over again.
I notice this discussion is getting a bit heated in places. I'm trying
my best to avoid that. I like arguing (duh), but it makes me unhappy
when I feel like people are just yelling at each other unconstructively.
My position here is that any kind of CL completely *fails* to enforce
variety. What it enforces is not having more than X of a card in your
deck. To get 'variety' in the decks you see, you must browbeat _the
players who make them_ into trying to build decks you consider 'varied'.
If people don't _want_ to think about variety, a CL will not make them
build new decks that you find interesting.
> > Sure, it can be fun to see traditionally spit-upon cards being used.
> > But it doesn't seem really *worthwhile* to me.
>
> Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile.
Using a different card doesn't make a deck innovative.
If all you care about is seeing more different card names, why not force
everyone to use no more than one of a particular card? Or to use at
least one of each card printed for each discipline a vamp they're using
has?
You wouldn't do that because it's silly, right? But not more silly than
'protecting variety' by saying 'can't have more than 6 of any one card,
by name, in your deck', in my opinion.
> > *Winning* is fun.
>
> For you, perhaps. For others, prolly not. If you want self-gratification,
> buy a porno mag or a video game.
I think what you're trying to say here is that it's not fun for the other
players for me to win, is that right? Since I'm sure you're not just
trying to be insulting. ^_^
But it is fun for the other players to compete against me in trying to win.
That is the very definition of 'a game', isn't it? An activity in which
you compete against other people to accomplish some goal?
> I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
> you play the game." It could not be more true.
But it _is_ whether you win or lose. You wouldn't be playing a _game_
if you didn't care whether you won or lost. It's fun to throw a frisbee
around, but it's not exactly a game.
A bunch of NL advocates (Mike Bohlmann, Petri Wessman, and so on and so
forth) have said that winning is not _all_ of the fun in playing, and
I agree with that. But playing to win is, I think, what differentiates
games from other forms of recreation. Sitting around with your friends,
expressing creativity within the bounds of the game, etc, etc, are usually
also part of what's enjoyable about playing games. But if you don't care
at all about winning, why play a game with defined winning conditions?
(And especially, why play a game where some people are knocked out before
the winner is declared? Good lord, it's completely the opposite of fun
for them, if they didn't enjoy trying to win when they were still in the
game.)
> > My experience of what's 'not fun' is having your deck completely foiled
> > by someone else's, or being killed very quickly, or feeling that you've
> > been treated unfairly. These problems can be addressed somewhat by
> > card limits,
>
> ...and usually with some success.
I played a lot of games under 4cl, and in none of them were any of those
problems successfully addressed by the card limit. My group at the time
browbeat people into not playing decks that were 'too good' in a 4cl
environment _in addition_ to decreeing the 4cl, because we wanted to
'enforce fun'. We found that the 4cl was not sufficient to 'enforce fun',
and eventually we decided that we liked competitive play enough that we'd
rather just play no-limits and decree that 'playing to win' was fun.
> > However, having 'not fun' things happen can't be entirely avoided just
> > by imposing a card limit. If you're going to enforce fun, you really
> > have to enforce it on the players, not on their decks.
>
> One goes with the other.
But it doesn't. Enforcing fun can be done _without_ using a card limit,
even as a guideline. If your group is willing to decree that some deck
ideas are Not Fun and Will Not Be Tolerated, you don't have to _also_
say, Furthermore, You Will Not Put More Than Six Cryptic Missions In Your
Deck, You Will Use Something Else Instead.
> > And, while I may find it 'boring' to play against someone's deck that
> > consists of nothing but 25 Conditioning, 25 Govern the Unaligned, and
> > 25 Form of Mist, I would not presume to tell the person that *he* can't
> > play the deck because *I* don't think it's imaginative enough.
>
> Oh...I won't tell him that he can't play it. Like I said, he just won't get
> invited to any of the local games.
ie, you'll tell him he can't play it _with you_. If he doesn't know
any other players, is this not equivalent to telling him he can't play
it at all? (I know, not your house, you're not the one kicking him out,
but you do agree with the philosophy, right?)
> > If winning is not the primary objective
> > of the playgroup, I would expect that their idea of fun could be
> > more usefully accommodated by a gentleman's agreement of what *is*
> > fun than by card limits.
>
> Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
> should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
Playing to win _is fun_ for _lots of people_. This is why people play
competitive tennis, golf, baseball, softball, soccer, chess, Magic, and
so on and so forth. They have fun _competing_ even if they don't win
every time. To me, _that's_ the underlying meaning of 'it's not whether
you win or lose, it's how you play the game'.
> Never once did I say that card limits are "necessary for the game," nor
> would I imply such. But card limits being "bad for 'the game as a whole'"
> is a bit excessive when we're discussing local groups.
I know you didn't. I was just explaining why I have a bad reaction to
card limits. I feel they're bad for 'the game as a whole' because I
used to play with them, and now I think they're a bad idea. ^_^
Josh
armed with a no-limits deck and a sunny disposition
Jasper Phillips
> Jasper Phillips wrote:
>> >Innovative decks are _always_ worthwile.
>>
>> and then moving on to the next one? The 4CL decks I remember were quite
>> cookie cutter,
>
>Nobody is discussing 4CL. Bringing it up is a straw man argument.
>No to mention that you seem to miss the point about the 6CL that's
>being discussed is a guideline and not a hard and fast rule.
I don't see the two as being that different. I only bring up 4CL because
I have played that, while I have not played 6CL. I believe the same
arguments against 4CL also hold against 6CL, although clearly to
a lesser extent.
I think it's you whos bringing up the strawmen going into the differences
between 4 and 6 CL. My statement about using substite cards clearly
holds for whatever reasonable CL you happen to use.
>> >I'm going to use an old quote, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how
>> >you play the game." It could not be more true.
>>
>> I think you're really missing the point here.
>
>...actually I think you are.
That's nice. You've snipped my explanation of why I thought that was
the case, and then didn't say what you thought I was missing.
Quite a bit later on you
>> This is another point that has been beat to death, and CL advocates also
>> come back to. Could you please show how a CL increases the balance of
>> the game? As I recall there's something around $100 sitting around (Mark?
>> do you remember?) for anyone who can do it -- $25 of it from me.
>>
>> Strangely, nobody has claimed the money yet.
>
>I'm not Mr. Miagi. I don't give a damn about balance.
>My focus here is on FUN.
Um, so? My point that you haven't, and I believe can't, support _your_
statement that CLs have a game balancing effect still stands. If you're
going to make statements about balance, you should be able to defend them.
Copping out with, oh, "I don't give a damn" when pressed to defend them
is lame.
>> >Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
>> >should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
>>
>> Why do people always misunderstand this argument? It's not that winning
>> itself is so important for "serious gamers", but playing to win. It's
>> not some childish need for gratification as you imply, but rather
>> curiosity, problem solving, and competition.
>
>You've obviously missed the point about this thread being entirely about
>not using boring, repetitive decks in a local game. I've stated from the
>beginning that we like to see innovative, competitive decks. I'm prolly
>one of the most competitive people you'll ever meet. I just realize that
>at a local game, the decks that I play should be as much fun for others
>as they are for me.
I understood, and I think the point is quite relavent when debating
"playing to win" vs. "playing for fun", as the part I'm responding too
was. Hell, _you're_ the one quoting "It's not whether you win or lose...",
and saying "Winning shouldn't be your primary objective".
I think you were, and are, completely misunderstanding the opposing
argument about "playing to win".
Now, to respond to your new point. I don't find that CL lends itself
to innovative or competitive decks, for the reasons I've outlined before.
I feel it lends itself to cookie cutter decks, less variety, and
less competition than NL. People are severly restricted in the deck
design, a great many decks aren't possible, and the balance is skewed
enough that you're forced to "play nice" to have any compitition.
As an example, you mention having to shelve decks that win too much.
Funny how I've never had to do that to make the game interesting in
NL.
Jasper Phillips
Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote:
>In this discussion, I think Noal is equating the playgroup
>"gentlemens' agreement" with the effect of the 6CL. IMHO, they are
>totally different things. Having a card limit in no way limits
>"boring" decks (pure S&B, etc), and makes a lot of innovative designs
>unspoken) agreement of the players to not allow "boring" decks. *That*
>is what works, and it has nothing to do with a card limit.
>
>I think a lot of CL advocates make the same (IMHO mistaken) assumption
>between card limits and "interesting decks". We always play NL here,
>and the decks are nothing if not innovative. It's the play group that
>matters, not any numerical card limit. A one-trick S&B deck is just as
>viable (and just as boring) under CL as it is under NL.
>
>Having more than N of a single card does not make a deck boring. The
>focus of the deck is what matters.
>
>//Petri
I agree completely, and only wish I had such eloquence. :-(
If it helps Noal, this is largely what I mean. CLs simply don't
make the game innovative or competitive.
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> Well aimed chair? And you know, with Dennis Rodman doing some wrestling,
> he sort of looks like Anvil....
*laughs* Funny, Mike.
Although I'm not sure what species Dennis Rodman is anymore.
He's kind of filed under that "Freak" category with Michael
Jackson and Marilyn Manson.
Noal
--
DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dhar...@yahoo.com
> At the risk on starting another thread, I liked the 7/7 rulings a
> lot. But maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms again. All I can
> say is: the new rulings work for us.
*grin* Good man. I'm more than happy not to go through that again.
It's enough that I have to debate each piece of errata on the MJL
rules team without doing it again here.
> As for Banishment, it's a powerful card, but it's dangerous only if
> you have vote dominance. You need a lot of other vote-providing stuff
> to back it up, and then something to prevent the other meth of just
> bringing the vamps back into play, i.e. you need ways of getting them
> low on blood first. Or after, with Cairo Airport etc. But in any case,
> I don't see it as a killer card, even if one included 30 of them in a
> deck.
Hence, that "Grind" deck I came up with. Vote dominance is almost
assured and after I stack Masquerade Endangered's, it doesn't matter
whether they have it at capacity or not. But I agree, very few cards
will win you a game if you build a crypt made up of 30% of that card.
Banishment is one of those that can get quite deadly.
Noal McDonald
Michigan Jyhad League
Jasper Phillips
>> >6CL environment. With appropriate tweaking, I could do the same in
>> >a NL environment.
>>
>> Heh. Really?
>
>Yes. Really.
Oops! I forgot to finish that part of the argument off. Doesn't help
I was in a nasty mood. What I meant to continue with is that
you'd have to hope that it wasn't an pot/ani deck, which would
trump your trump deck. Which deck trumps which is uninteresting.
In any event, I don't see how your trump decks has much relevence
to whether IG decks work well in CL or not (which is what was
being discussed).
>> >It can be as effective as a NL version, it's just harder to do.
>> >The extra level of difficulty builds deck building skill. *grin*
>>
>> Which you presume to have, Nice. Rather than a dubious implication
>> of authority, perhaps you could show us such a deck?
>
>Lasombra has a bunch on his page that I've posted here. The fact that
>I consistently end in the finals of any tournament I play in would speak
>well of my deck building skills, wouldn't you say?
I really just don't care what kind of authoriy you think you have. *shrug*
You can either back up your statements, or you can't.
I'll have to go look at the decks you've posted again, but at the time
you posted them I recall thinking that they were actually a good example
of why rush was weak under a CL, as the deck you posted was pretty
much the same as others have come up with (not difficult, as CL
restricts your options), and I couldn't see any reason it'd work any
better.
>Not to mention that the above comment was intended as a joking jibe
>to Mike as was made obvious by the below comment which you
>seperated from the text:
>> >Okay...that was an open taunt. *smile* Don't take it seriously.
I wasn't taking that taunt seriously so much as your general attitude
that your authority alone is enough backing for an argument. Your statement
that it was just a matter of deck building skill, with the implication
that you had it and those opposing you didn't, is one you've made
before.
>> >I will grant you that a 6CL deck vs a NL deck grants the advantage
>> >to the NL deck. Different environments build different ways of
>> >looking at deck building.
>>
>> *sigh* This isn't the issue (Nor do I even think it's true. Many
>> CL decks work just fine playing against NL).
>
>It is very much the issue. The fact that you can't see that would
>indicate that you might do well to stay out of the thread.
What, that a CL deck is at a disadvantage against a NL deck? That
was the issue? Very interesting argument. I was taking issue with your
broad statement that you could work most any NL deck so it'd function
in CL, if only you had the skill.
I feel that CL requires less skill to construct decks (as you have
less options), and that there are plenty of decks and even deck
archetypes that don't survive the transition form NL to CL. I've
posted my reasons for believing that, and I don't think you've
refuted them.
Jasper Phillips
> pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote:
>> "*snort* Not hardly. 6 Bewitching Oration and 6 Awe is plenty.
>> If it's not, you're doing something wrong."
>>
>> common as dirt commons.
>
>Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them away as it
>is now.
Which qualifies you as exactly the kind of mister suitcase that Peter was
talking about. It's not difficult for you to get that many Awe. But
for most of the players I know it is, and that's even after having bought
boxes of cards.
Jasper Phillips
<artax...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Oh contrare...
>
>I have watched the Zip Gun question spiral into the inveitable N/CL debate.
Yah,
> My personal, and admittedly restricted view (Scotland), is that 4CL was
>initially very useful to prevent those with access to huge amount of cards the
>pathetic ease of beating players with smaller suitcases into trembling
>submission.
[large Snip]
I guess I just don't understand how this is so. When a CL forces you
fairly often to substitue hard to get rares for easy to find commons,
how does a Card Limit help the player with the smaller collection?
I think a Card Limit makes it far easier for the Suitcase to have
an advantage. I can see how the impression the the opposite is true
might come about, but I can't see any evidence for it.
I think a suitcase player is only going to be a problem if players
have access to less than box of cards (and then whether it's CL or NL
isn't going to matter). As boxes of Jyhad cost ~$7, I don't see
it as much of an issue.
Jasper Phillips
> Petri Wessman wrote:
>> Ummmm... no. This has been done to death before, but to reiterate: 4CL
>> does nothing to balance the game, in fact it *favors* Mr. Suitcase in
>> many cases
>
>Absolutely. If Mr. Suitcase doesn't help out people with less cards, you
>betcha he's got the advantage.
I agree, the problem is if you have players with only "Medium Sized"
suitcases, who have enough of the rares for themselves, but not for
other players.
This is generally the case where I play, People are generally
quite free with Commens, or even uncommons. But if you want to borrow
rares from someone, you have to hope that he's not using it in any
of his decks (popular uncommons are the same way). It's quite unusual
for someone to have enough Awe to lend for instance (or even enough
to use themselves, for that matter).
>
>> You and some other CL advocates seem to think that a NCL environment
>> degenerates into 25 Form of Mists -type of decks. Totally false, in my
>> fairly long experience with this game.
>
>I've seen it happen enough in tournaments to say that it's not a totally
>false statement. However, it's up to us not to build this kind of nonsense.
Really? Huh. Have you found such decks to be effective? I've always thought
that while such decks were theoretically possible under NL, they tended
to get weeded up simply because they sucked.
>> There are *lots* of ways of gaining stealth or s:ce. The are
>> very few alternatives to Immortal Grapple.
>
>I can think of few myself. Psyche, Direct Intervention *bleh*, Dog Packs
>and cards that provide reusable rush (Bloodhunt, Haven Uncovered, etc.)
>But that's pretty much it.
Unfortunatly none of these are nearly as effective as IG, or even effective
enough to really survive. :-( It's far, far easier to find S:CE.
>> Thankfully the Sabbat edition made IG an uncommon, as a rare it was
>> *way* hard to get.
>
>*nods* Very true. I think I even like the original art better. It looks
>less like a Warhammer 40K illustration.
Heh. At least they didn't emply SCAR.
>...and one last statement to baffle you all, (and make many of you shout,
>"Amen!!! Hallelujah!!!") a strict card limit is a poor crutch for a lack of
>deck building skills. Even without card limits (and especially _without_
>card limits) there is no such thing as an "unbeatable" deck. Card limits
>can produce decks that are impossible to beat without the entire table
>joining forces against a single player. Even a weenie horde can be
>easily killed with a Domain Challenge or a Anarchist Uprising.
I'm definitly baffled... I had thought you'd been, at times, arguing
just the opposite... I guess the arguments between us simply boil
down to you thinking that CL makes the game have more variety and depth,
and my disagreeing.
PDB6
"Or Nosferatu. DotB kills maneuvers dead. *shrug*"
Yes, but the point was that you needed 6 IG and 6 Psyche to compete against the
completely reasonable 12 S:CE available to a 6CL deck. The Nosferatu get
nothing but the 6 IG. Thus, they will not be competetive, and consequently not
worth playing.
"Hard to get?!? I've got at least 15 Awe cards and I'm giving them away as it
is now."
Send some my way. I have a metric buttloade of Jyhad cards, but not all that
many Sabbat/AH/DS cards. I have no Awe whatsoever. There in lies one of the
main problems with CL of any type. With no CL, it is perfectly possible to
build a very effective and compettetive deck with nothing but commons. For
example, around here, a multi-time tourney winner was Steve Wamplers Pre weenie
bleed deck that consisted of about 30 Social Charm/10 Aire/10 Majesty/10 Anarch
Revolt. This deck was a nightmare, and almost entierly common cards. It was
easily as effective as (if not more effective than) my Rush/IG deck that is,
like, 50% Rares. Wheither or not Wamplers deck was fun to play or play against
is not the issue here, so we will ignore that (personally, I found it very fun
to play against, as long as everyone at the table is using a deck of equal
intesity). With a 6CL, a very similar deck could be built out of 6 Social
Charm/6 Legal Manip/6 Entrancement/6 Media Influence/6 Computer Hacking/6 Aire
or whatever, but Steve the impovrished 17 year old HS student would have zero
chance of aquiring all the needed rares. Thus, he can't compete.
"*shrug* It's not my house, I don't make the rules. But there can be a sense
of elitism, I'll grant you. But when there's already limited space, I think
that limiting the type of players is reasonable."
Granted. It'd be nice to have to turn players away...
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I want to be cool, tall, vulnerable, and lucious
I would have it all if I'd only have this much"
-Liz Phair
Vince Johnson
Jasper Phillips wrote in message <786np2$96e$1...@news.NERO.NET>...
>In article <785flr$n1j@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>3. With approx. 20-30 zip guns in a deck, why would I care how many
>>>of them I waste or discard in some fashion? I'll always have more
>>>than enough handy.
>>
>>Hence the need for restrictions... I think your last statement says it
>>all... the game is meant to be played by everyone... not morons who have
>>nothing better to waste their money on while the people who have better
>>things to do with their money get whomped... and if you're playing that
many
>>zips... you need to seriously work on deck construction skills...because
>>you're going to be consistently drawing wasted guns...
>>
>>I rest my case
>>Vince
>
>You rest your case? You're contradicting yourself... You say limits
>are needed to stop such decks, since presumably always having Zip Guns
>is nice, and then mention the reason such decks suck later on (tons
>of wasted cards that you could easily find better uses for).
sarcasm due to the fact it's nice to get parts of your combo in your hand...
but is a nice waste when you've got them clumped in your deck
>
>Also, your point about the money is simply false, as even most CL
>advocates will agree: NL lets you use tons of easy to get commons,
>while CL tends to force you to substitute harder to get rare
>cards, that do essentially the same thing.
#1 I've never contradicted myself.... stop reading into what I'm saying(my
comment was sarcastic meant to point out that there's too many... in fact...
20 is entirely too many for any deck because you will be throwing them
away... and if you're "throwing" cards away... your deck isn't working and
you need to fix it if possible...)... or reading what others are saying...
I've never said that always having a zip gun is a good thing to have... I
played against a "zip gun" style deck last night that got stuck with 4 guns
in his hand because my deck never let him get into combat with me... and
even discarding them he wasn't able to replace his hand with cards to
help... discarding a zip gun and drawing another combat card doesn't help
(particularly when they draw DBRs) ... my deck was deck with a 6CL and I won
a game and ousted several players in each of other games(we play to the
final methuselah in most games to determine the winner instead of victory
points to see how our decks work on the whole).... It was a 60 card deck
that was being played for the first time and needs some tuning...
#2 I've been saying all along that restrictions should be placed... whether
through a card limit or whatever... errata is not the answer because it
leads to problems in other cards... or cards that now become too powerful as
a result of the errata because of other card interactions not expected
#3 just because some people have no originality in their deck designs and
play half or more of their deck with one card because they can't think of
anything better... don't get me wrong... theme decks are fun... but theme
decks that rely so heavily on ... everyone that has advocated CL in what
I've read in response to my postings has said the same thing... that most
people that build decks out of restrictions tend to not have any originality
and have no skill in playing the game... the people that advocate NL all
have the same response.... "fine... play a deck with 20 of this card... or
30 of this card to stop that kind of deck"... that is not a proper
response... it only discourages thinking... something a game is supposed to
make you do... there's no point in playing if the deck could literally play
itself...
#4 Many of the NL card players advocate that with NL they can play with as
many of a common that they have and it is easier to play them... so what
about the rares?.... it makes it that harder for me to build a theme deck
that I might want to build based on a particular rare cards... and I tend to
find that the rare cards provide the best ideas for theme decks which tend
to be the most fun to play... they are not fun to play when I've got to deal
with 20-30 of the same card in someone else's deck... and the players that
do spend $ upon $ on the game WILL have multiples on the rares from the
newer sets... and by multiples... I mean they can have the #'s to build
decks with a dozen or so of a type of rare... now I'll admit that I have
rares in quantity like this from Jyhad(and some of you are right.. in what I
said Jyhad itself is considerably cheap and doused me for stating what I
said above what I thought about uncontrolled spending on the game... but I'm
not talking about boxes for $7... I'm talking about Sabbat and Ancient
Hearts... which if you can get that cheap, are uniquely lucky... don't EVER
come to me and tell me you didn't spend a lot of money on the game when I've
seen the quantities that people have dumped into the newer sets that have
not been that cheap/box... also I'd like to say that some people don't spend
that much on the game so don't get offended and think I'm talking about
everyone) ... but I have not been able to acquire the rares in quantity like
that from any of the other sets because its too hard to find it as cheap as
the original Jyhad boxes... anyone that wants to refute that a deck with
mulitples of the right rares is simply not looking at the game on the right
level... some rares are rares because they are more powerful cards than most
or provide very unique abilities...often though... the reason a card is rare
because it is not as easily placed in all decks and has a more focused
effect than most of the cards of the discipline, clan, or generic cards...
for instance... regardless of any errata to the card(it is not relevant
whether the card does agg or not because I know someone will try to comment
about that... it's not the issue here...)... pulled fangs is by it's own
right is a very defined card in its ability... and most often goes only in a
high hand damage or similar combat deck for this reason... the card it is
often compared to is lucky blow...lucky blow however is a decently usable in
any deck that uses pulled fangs... but can be used to aid ANY deck that
might need more hand damage... or just needs more or some combat.... thus
the pulled fangs is a rare and the lucky blow is made common...
BTW... if you people that cling to your dozens of commons in each of your
decks don't seem to think that your supposed lack in rares would help you
with your decks so I'd gladly take those Rares off of your hands for
computer hackings and majesties... I've got dozens upon dozens of each ...
but you and I know that's not correct and those rares are rare for a
reason... if you are in a group of players that have quantities of cards
like it sounds... it should not be difficult to acquire the proper number of
rares to fill 5 or 6 slots in a deck... if you need that many of a card...
now I'll mention the fact that some of the commons themselves are entirely
too powerful... and in multiple quantites off balance decks in favor...I'd
also like to say that Rares don't make the deck either... commons certainly
are important... there are some commons that make decks flow properly...
Malkie bleed relies on stealth... but anyone that says they need to have 20
lost in crowds and 20 conditionings is not building a deck that could work
at full potential... there are at least 20 obfuscate cards that add to the
stealth if you play a 6CL which seems to be the most popular(6 lost in
crowds... 6 cloak... 6 faceless night... I think at 18 total cards right
there for the deck (not to mention they're all common) there I don't need
to go on and a similar situation exists for bleed modifiers...)
Finally I'd like reiterate that some of the statements I make do not refer
to ALL players... do NOT be offended by them if they do not apply to you...
there are always exceptions to everything... I'd also like to point out I
pieced this response together making sure when I thought of something I went
to fill it in where it belongs... there may be some incomplete thoughts...
if there are... just ignore them or let me know so I can finish them...
don't jump to any conclusions...I hate to proof read
Vince
Vince Johnson
>>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
>>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
>
>
>If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely.
>other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game.
>
>--
>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Research has been shown
>http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | to cause cancer in mice.
>Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger |
For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to
you... you are a horrible representative of the game... Winning is not the
defined objective... winning is just what happens in the game... having fun
is the objective of any game... as a representative never presume to put
your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. no
one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a
game...and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have
fun is to win... last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if
you win you will have fun... stick to what you're supposed to be doing.
Vince
Vince Johnson
>does fine with either weenie presence or S&B as it's predator, 6CL rush
>gets hosed (and 4CL rush gets completely hosed).
and I predict that any rush deck sitting next to a well built stealth/bleed
deck is going to get housed regardless of restrictions... and I stress well
built... intercept combat decks mixed with rush tend to do the best in this
situation...not to mention in a 6CL deck you have 12 rush cards... and most
S/B decks do not have the cards to deal with your IGs if they make it into
combat...
Vince
Robert Goudie
>
> >>Winning should never be a primary objective. Fun for all participants
> >>should be. We have chosen the method by which we accomplish this.
> >
> >Winning is the defined objective.
> >
> >If you're not playing to win, the fun factor goes down immensely.
> >This is even more true if you are playing to win but some of the
> >other players are not. You might as well just watch a football game.
[clip]
> For these comments alone I can't understand how anyone would ever listen to
> you... you are a horrible representative of the game... Winning is not the
> defined objective... winning is just what happens in the game...
The Revised Rulebook: Section: The Object of the Game
"Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methuselahs...As
Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the
player with the most victory points at the end of the game."
The in-game objective isn't to "have fun" and then after you are done
with the "fun" to go back and see who "happened to win".
> having fun
> is the objective of any game...
We all have a personal objective to have fun. I think that is what you
are probably talking about. I don't think anyone will argue with that
(certainly not me). We found a game we like because it helps us achieve
our personal objective of fun. In Monopoly, if we choose to get that
fun by creating an "in-game objective" that is different from the
objective defined in the rulebook, you will probably lose the game
(especially if your only "in-game goal" is to try and win without owning
anything.) but may still somehow meet your personal, out of game
objective of having fun. Maybe you just enjoy the company and social
aspect of the game.
In Jyhad, the game only works when all players are attempting to meet
the gamed defined objective of getting the most VPs--attempting to win.
One common problem occurs mainly with new players. New players often
play with the in-game objective of being the last player at the table.
They typically play so defensively that their prey gets a free ride,
allowing the new player's prey to have an easier time ousting their prey
than any other player at the table.
> as a representative never presume to put
> your personal opinions into the game... it devalues all of your rulings. no
> one wants to listen to someone that's only purpose for being involved in a
> game...and if I'm wrong you shouldn't be telling others the only way to have
> fun is to win... last time I checked... it's not written in the book that if
> you win you will have fun... stick to what you're supposed to be doing.
The defined objective L. Scott was referring to is the objective as
stated in the rules. Seems perfectly reasonable for him to comment
officially on something that is within the realm of the game rules.
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
davey!
buildings decks, especially crypt-building.
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Let's say you build a 90 card deck with 6CL. After doing the math,
> (6/90 + 6/89 + 6/88...) I come up with an approx 48.3% chance of
> drawing "that" card in my opening draw. Not bad odds.
"Not bad odds" ??? Thos are terrible odds! Plus, they're wrong odds :)
To find the odds of drawing a card over several draws, you have to
multiply the odds of *not* drawing it together, and then subtract this
product from 1. So instead of (6/90 + 6+89 + 6/87...) you want
1-(84/90 * 83/89 * 82/88...) The actual probability for drawing one of
6 cards in your opening hand from a 90 card deck is a measly 39.4%.
> If I don't
> draw one in my opening hand, I have a 7.2% chance of drawing it
> after I discard (or play a master) and that chance increases until I
> draw one. If I do draw one, my odds are 6% that I'll draw another
> (which increases until I draw another) with each card I play.
Correct.
> I'd say that's fairly reliable.
Well, just because you have a 7% chance of drawing it as the next card,
doesn't mean you have a 14% chance of drawing it among the next 2
cards. In fact, you could go through 9 cards after drawing the first
special card, and still you would have *less than* a 50% of drawing a
second copy! Nine cards! And even if you manage to cycle those 9
cards, you still won't have drawn your special card over half of the
time!
-davey!
Jasper Phillips
In my experience it simply doesn't work out that way. A good rush deck
will never let a S&B predator even take an action. Hesina Kesi, etc.
Rush decks are quite effective against S&B.
Jasper Phillips
>don't jump to any conclusions...I hate to proof read
I noticed. Makes people find another post to read.