Four-Card Format - Opinions?
Christian
finding the decks use the same narrow range of monotonous combos over
and over again. (I'm not making a judgment - I play it and enjoy it
regardless.)
I'm just curious if anyone has tried this format and how it works for
them? Problems? Complications?
Thanks,
Christian
librarian
There have been so many discussions about this in the far flung past,
that I can't even begin to bring myself to look them up for you.
Search google groups for Four card Limit, 4CL, etc etc.
It won't make your games better. It won't make your decks different.
Only *you* the players can make your decks different. And you can only
do that with no limits.
That said, any VTES is better than no VTES.
best -
chris
RoddPrime
Personally I feel the game should do away with rarities. There is no
cash incentive or high rewards in tournaments anyway (like magic) and
if the focus is the game and the players then I think having the
ability to get the cards you need without spending a ton on the
secondary market would be awesome (of course there still may be more
expensive cards, but not like we see them now). And if someone were to
complain that more people were to have access to cards like Enkil Cog,
etc. then there is a problem with the game. Chase cards destroyed
other games entirely. And the only reason Magic hasn't gotten away
with it is the four card limit and it's long standing and large player
base. However, I guess that is what makes VTES "collectible."
Christian
My apologies. I wasn't aware that this subject had been discussed
before. Didn't mean to take up group bandwidth with it.
Abdul alHazred
>
> - Visa citerad text -
My experience is that it "blands" decks out. You get very restricted
when building nifty combo decks and combat decks suffer immensly. You
get only 4 immortal grapple in a potence deck, you get only 4 carrion
crows in an animalism weenie deck, but you have a number of different
viable S:CE cards for non combat decks, but even they get more bland.
So less diversity between decks which imo goes completely against what
I want to see when I play.
Try to play a couple of Highlander games (only 1 copy per card per
deck) and you get the impact it gets on the game while trying to build
a deck.
JH
Yeah. That pretty much grabs it. There is absolutely 0 chances for an
Animalism/Celerity/Potence typed combat deck to be viable in a 4CL
environment. There is only one Carrion Crows and nothing that
duplicates it. There is only one Psyche! and nothing that duplicates
it. There is only one Immortal Grapple and nothing that duplicates it.
It would also kill all the dementation, sanguinus, and other bleed
decks that have only limited amount of options. On the other hand
there are 8 obfuscate stealth cards that you can use for practically
the same effect. For Dominate there are 3 action cards and 5 modifiers
that add to bleed unconditionally with a cost of 1 or 0. For Presence
the same numbers are 7 actions and 1 modifier. In Presence there are
also 4 combat end cards available. Thus the effect a 4CL would have on
already strong dominate and presence based bleed decks would be close
to 0, while it would ruin some of the already struggling deck types
like Celerity or Potence combat. There are several examples of whole
deck types that would be ruined by the 4CL, and most of them are
already struggling to be successful on a larger scale.
Kevin M.
I'm going to repost some information along with some examples. --KJM]
Christian wrote:
> Several of us at the FLGS are discussing a four-card format
Why 4CL? Why not 3? or 5? or 2? or 6?
> as we're finding the decks use the same narrow range of monotonous
> combos over and over again. (I'm not making a judgment - I play it
> and enjoy it regardless.)
Why is the game structure being blamed for your player's inability
or unwillingness to stop playing the same decks over and over again?
Do you all have a bleed deck?
Do you all have a combat deck?
Do you all have a vote deck?
Do you all have a bruise/bleed deck?
Do you all have an intercept-wall deck?
Do you all have an intercept/bleed deck?
Do you all have an ally (or Imbued) deck?
Do you all have a Camarilla deck?
Do you all have a Sabbat deck?
Do you all have a Independent deck?
Do you all have a Laibon deck?
Do you all have a <CLAN> deck?
Also, what makes your group believe that a 4CL will stimulate any
creativity or a 'wider range of combos'?
Consider:
16 Bum's Rush vs 16 KRC
or:
4 Bum's Rush vs 4 KRC
4 Ambush 4 ConAg
4 Harass 4 Neonate Breach
4 Big Game 4 Finding the Path
How about this:
20 Enchant Kindred vs 20 Govern the Unaligned
or:
4 Enchant Kindred vs 4 Govern The Unaligned
4 Social Charm 4 Scouting Mission
4 Legal Maniplations 4 Mind Rape
4 Public Trust 4 Slaughtering the Herd
4 Propaganda 4 Spirit Marionette
How about this:
24 Enhanced Senses vs 24 Lost in Crowds
or:
4 Enhanced Senses vs 4 Lost in Crowds
4 Eagle Sight 4 Cloak the Gathering
4 Melange 4 Faceless Night
4 My Enemy's Enemy 4 Domain of Evernight
4 Precognition 4 Spying Mission
4 Spirit's Touch 4 Swallowed by the Night
How about this:
20 Bleed actions vs 10 Wake with Evening's Freshness
10 'Bounce' cards (either DOM or AUS)
4 Bleed Action A vs 4 Wake with Evening's Freshness
4 Bleed Action B 4 On the Qui Vive
4 Bleed Action C 2 Forced Awakening
4 Bleed Action D 4 Deflection and 4 Redirection (DOM)
4 Bleed Action E 4 'Bounce' cards and 4 'Reduce' Cards (AUS)
How about this:
24 Rolling With the Punches vs 24 Majesty
or:
4 Rolling With the Punches vs 4 Majesty
4 Skin of Steel 4 Staredown
4 King of the Mountain 4 Catatonic Fear
4 Superior Mettle 4 Putrefaction
4 Infection 4 Unholy Penance
4 Armor of Vitality 4 Force of Personality
Do you really see this as the 'wider range of combos' that you and
your playgroup are looking for? As a famous player once said:
"The main skill and challenge in building 4CL decks is figuring out
how to get around the card limit. Once you have exausted 4 of every
useful card you need, you spend the rest of the time trying to figure
out how to make other cards do what you want circumvent the limit."
And why restrict DEFENSE so much? You like quick, fast, death games?
Consider:
16 Bum's Rush vs 16 Obedience
or:
4 Bum's Rush vs 4 Obedience
4 Ambush [...]
4 Harass
4 Big Game
How about this:
20 Enchant Kindred vs 20 Deflection
or:
4 Enchant Kindred vs 4 Deflection
4 Social Charm 4 Redirection
4 Legal Maniplations [...]
4 Public Trust
4 Propaganda
How about this:
20 Enchant Kindred vs 10 Telepathic Counter
10 Telepathic Misdirection
or:
4 Enchant Kindred vs 4 Telepathic Counter
4 Social Charm 4 Telepathic Misdirection
4 Legal Maniplations [...]
4 Public Trust
4 Propaganda
> I'm just curious if anyone has tried this format and how it works
> for them? Problems? Complications?
The only real problem with an 'xCL' in VTES is that VTES is produced
specifically to be a game without card limits. By artificially using
an 'xCL' you make the common cards, which are specifically created to
be plentiful in decks, less-good, and the rares, which are created to
be scarce in decks, are unaffected one way or the other. The cards
are playtested within a NCL framework and they are powered as such.
Why do you believe that altering that power level will enhance your
group's creativity or a 'wider range of combos'?
And why introduce such randomness (4 in 90 instead of, say, 12 in 90)
into the game? Is that something desirable to your group?
Or, do you have some fear within your playgroup that someone who
spends more on the game will have some kind of advantage over the
other players? Are you trying to level the playing field in your
group by artificially restricting the number of cards a person can
play with in order to make everyone feel better, even though there is
zero evidence that more cards equals more wins?
Also, the VTES designer(s) and community dislike Banned/Restricted
lists and want everyone to be able to play with all their cards (since
VTES has no 'block' format) so an 'xCL' is undesirable.
Lastly, there are certain deck types which are DESTROYED by 'xCL'.
Just off the top of my head:
- Third Tradition/Embrace/Creation Rites/other 'embrace' decks
- War Ghoul/Shambling Hordes/Reanimated Corpse decks
- Cryptic Mission decks
- Theft of Vitae decks
- Shadow Twin decks
- Immortal Grapple decks
- Corruption decks
- Deep Song decks
- Horrid Form decks
- 419 Operation decks
- crazy Anarch decks, e.g. 30x Undue Influence
- crazy Trophy decks, e.g. 29x Trophy:Progeny
- crazy decks with lots of one card, e.g. Una, Turbo Baron, Khazar's
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Ruben Feldman
> And why introduce such randomness (4 in 90 instead of, say, 12 in 90)
> into the game? Is that something desirable to your group?
Well your deck shouldnt reallly be 90 in the first place...
:P
Kevin M.
That's debatable. You should try playing a rush combat deck.
In any case, a 12 in 70 to 4 in 70 comparison still proves my point.
Is that all you got out of that post? :P
Peter D Bakija
> I'm just curious if anyone has tried this format and how it works for
> them? Problems? Complications?
The short version: Yes. People have tried this format (it was, for a
very short window of time, the official tournament rule. In, like,
1995 or something...) and the end result is that it breaks the game in
a bad way. The game was specifically designed to not use a per card
card limt. And the result of forcing a per card card limit into the
game is that certain deck strategies (i.e. the ones that use cards
that have a lot of similar cards that provide redundancy, like
Obfuscate and Dominate) don't suffer at all while others (i.e. the
ones that revolve around a specific card with no similarly redundant
card, like Immortal Grapple, Shambling Horde, or Cryptic Mission) are
completely demolished.
The long version: Kevin posted a very long description of what using a
card limit does. Which is dead on. To shorten the long version--if you
want to stealth and bleed someone with Obfuscate and Dominate, you can
use 20x Lost in Crowds and 20x Govern the Unaligned. Or, you can use
4x each of Lost in Crowds, Cloak the Gathering, Swallowed by the
Night, Faceless Night, and Spying Mission, and then 4x each of
whatever + bleed cards you have handfulls of. And in reality, the deck
using 4x of each of 5 different cards will be *better* than the deck
that uses 20x each of 1 card ('cause of the way the rules interact
with stacking cards--you can only play a single Lost in Crowds on a
given action, but can stack 5 different ones if you need to). Also, a
per card limit makes it much harder to play the game without spending
a ton of money--card limits often increase the necessity and power of
hard to get rare cards, and consequently, give players with more money
an advantage. For example, if you are making a Presence based vote
deck, with no card limit, you can use 10 common Bewitching Orations to
pass your votes as needed. With a limit of 4x Bewitching Orations, you
need to get ahold of 4x rare and expensive Awe and/or difficult to get
a hold of Perfect Paragon.
-Peter
Matthew T. Morgan
> My apologies. I wasn't aware that this subject had been discussed
> before. Didn't mean to take up group bandwidth with it.
Well, don't worry about that. If you're receptive to the reasons why 4CL
is a bad idea (see KevinM's post), then we've done good work here. It's a
much better use of our time than telling Peter he's a big dummy for
playing a four-player final in an unsanctioned, unrated event.
The funny thing is I saw this post and figured "Four-Card Format" meant
you were playing vtes with a deck that only had four cards in it, like a
variant of Duffin Draft. I'm intrigued!
Wilsoros
We should play with Card Limits (ie a 4 card limit).
Suggestion:
Playing with a card limit provides the following benefits:
a) Increased Creativity
b) Helps players with fewer cards (ie those who have spent less)
c) Decreases the possibility of Boring Decks (ie cheese decks /
degenerate decks)
d) Cards that are "Broken", aren't "Broken" if you only see 4 per
game
Response:
a) Reducing the number of copies of a particular card you can play
in a deck
has nothing to do with increasing creativity. Some very creative
decks can
only be made effectively with large quantities of specific cards,
ie Cryptic Mission,
Corruption, Shadow Twin, Enticement. If a card or strategy exists,
you can
make creative use of it using any number of copies, the only
question is how many
copies does it take for that strategy to be effective, and
artificially limiting
or prohibiting those decks takes away from the creativity of the
game.
b) "If you limit the number of commons that someone can play, you
eliminate the
effectiveness of someone who favors paying rent over buying lots
of cards."
- jonathan bradford bailey 8/18/1995
If you are playing a vote deck that would like to increase its
votes with action
modifiers, the new player with Eight Bewitching Oration cards and
Zero Awe cards is
hampered completely by a card limit while the person with a little
more money spent
and 4 Awe and 20 Bewitching Oration isn't hurt by a 4 card limit
at all. The one
who spent more money can put in 8 vote modifiers while the new
player can only put
in 4. Clearly, a card limit does not help those players who have
spent less money.
c) A card limit does not prohibit a deck from being boring. If
every action of
every vampire is the same (ie, bleed with an action card) it is no
more boring
if the action card is the same card every time (32 Computer
Hacking) or if it is
a different card every time (4 Media Influence, 4 Social Charm, 4
Legal Manipulations,
4 Intimidation, 4 Enchant Kindred, 4 Entrancement, 4 Propaganda, 4
Computer Hacking).
The only part that may be boring is that your deck may not be
prepared for 32 +bleed
actions so you will be sitting out the rest of the game waiting
for the game to finish.
d) Whether or not a particular card is balanced is not in any way
affected by
the number of times per game you see it played. As an example, it
is only
necessary for a Return to Innocence to played one time for a 11-17
pool swing
to take place. This swing is too much for one card, regardless of
the number
of times it happens in a game. As such, card limits will not fix
the card, nor
will card limits prevent this card from being "broken". As such,
the card is banned
and the rest of the set is not affected.
For more views on card limits, read Mark Langdorf's archive of
articles on the subject.
You can find that archive here: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/.
James Coupe also wrote a compelling recap of the arguments against
card limits here: http://www.TheLasombra.com/card-limits-coupe.txt.
LSJ
Or a four-card limit (you can only have four distinct cards, but as many copies
of those four cards as you like), which is what I thought when I saw the subject.
suoli
> Why is the game structure being blamed for your player's inability
> or unwillingness to stop playing the same decks over and over again?
Don't be obnoxious. The man sincerely asked opinions on a 4CL. Why are
you being so aggressive about attacking the format when he isn't even
defending it? Do you just take every question as an argument? Or do
you just hate it when people question the status quo? We should all
just shut up and put up, is that what you want? Why do you hate
freedom, Kevin?
Matthew T. Morgan
> Personally I feel the game should do away with rarities. There is no
> cash incentive or high rewards in tournaments anyway (like magic) and
> if the focus is the game and the players then I think having the
> ability to get the cards you need without spending a ton on the
> secondary market would be awesome (of course there still may be more
> expensive cards, but not like we see them now). And if someone were to
> complain that more people were to have access to cards like Enkil Cog,
> etc. then there is a problem with the game. Chase cards destroyed
> other games entirely. And the only reason Magic hasn't gotten away
> with it is the four card limit and it's long standing and large player
> base. However, I guess that is what makes VTES "collectible."
I'm not sure what this has to do with a 4CL, but just because you want
more Enkil Cogs and I want more Villeins doesn't mean that all cards
should have the same rarity. KoT is a huge set, so yeah the rares are
kind of tough to get. It can be tough to get enough of a common card you
want even. The guiding philosophy for rarity in vtes these days (this
hasn't always been true) is that cards you want more of will be more
common. Of course this isn't implemented perfectly and the design team
can't know what decks you want to build. They do know that you might have
a few different decks with 8x Cloak the Gathering or 12x Torn Signpost
(see how this keeps showing up in multiples in starter decks?), but
probably won't have any decks that want to have 8x Enkil Cog.
I think a good example of a card that should've been rare but wasn't is
Houngan from Legacies of Blood. I probably have like 15 of these and have
never had use for more than two of them at a time. It's unique and only
goes in Samedi decks. I'll bet 99% of the Houngans in print have never
been played. Do away with rarity and you'll have as many Arcane
Appraisers as you will Deep Songs. Does that make sense? I have a deck
with 9x Deep Song. Will you make a deck with 9x Arcane Appraiser?
Matt Morgan
Kevin M.
Whoa, new format! :)
Kevin M.
Is this a joke post? Where's the emoticon? PETER HELP!!!
LSJ
> suoli wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Why is the game structure being blamed for your player's inability
>>> or unwillingness to stop playing the same decks over and over again?
>> Don't be obnoxious. The man sincerely asked opinions on a 4CL. Why
>> are you being so aggressive about attacking the format when he isn't
>> even defending it? Do you just take every question as an argument?
>> Or do you just hate it when people question the status quo? We
>> should all just shut up and put up, is that what you want? Why do
>> you hate freedom, Kevin?
>
> Is this a joke post? Where's the emoticon? PETER HELP!!!
A plea to be nice, especially to new faces, should be no joke.
A plea to constructive discourse when it comes to topics appropriate to this
group should be no joke.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>>
>> The funny thing is I saw this post and figured "Four-Card Format" meant you
>> were playing vtes with a deck that only had four cards in it, like a
>> variant of Duffin Draft. I'm intrigued!
>
> Or a four-card limit (you can only have four distinct cards, but as many
> copies of those four cards as you like), which is what I thought when I saw
> the subject.
I smell a TWDA challenge! Who can get the deck with the fewest distinct
cards in the archive?
Kevin M.
So you believe that I wasn't nice and/or my post wasn't constructive?
As with suoli, I can't tell what you're saying. Perhaps you could be
more direct so that I can understand you?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> suoli wrote:
>>>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>> Why is the game structure being blamed for your player's inability
>>>>> or unwillingness to stop playing the same decks over and over
>>>>> again?
>>>> Don't be obnoxious. The man sincerely asked opinions on a 4CL. Why
>>>> are you being so aggressive about attacking the format when he isn't
>>>> even defending it? Do you just take every question as an argument?
>>>> Or do you just hate it when people question the status quo? We
>>>> should all just shut up and put up, is that what you want? Why do
>>>> you hate freedom, Kevin?
>>> Is this a joke post? Where's the emoticon? PETER HELP!!!
>> A plea to be nice, especially to new faces, should be no joke.
>>
>> A plea to constructive discourse when it comes to topics appropriate
>> to this group should be no joke.
>
> So you believe that I wasn't nice and/or my post wasn't constructive?
So you believe the bit quoted above was constructive?
You don't believe it was overly aggressive in the context in which the OP asked
his question?
> As with suoli, I can't tell what you're saying. Perhaps you could be
> more direct so that I can understand you?
The direct statement: Posters should post with civility, and optimally out of an
earnest desire to find common ground.
If that's still too circumshrubbish:
Be nice.
LSJ
Need to firm up those parameters, to avoid confusion:
"...including crypt cards".
suoli
> As with suoli, I can't tell what you're saying. Perhaps you could be
> more direct so that I can understand you?
Probably not.
Janne Hägglund
Damn, there goes my claim for fame.
I won the Ropecon 1999 tournament with a deck with five different library
cards: Info Highway, Misdirection (old and broken version), Computer Hacking,
Dodge and Fake Out.
Crypt was all the 1-caps in existence then, minus Uriah Winter and Julius
twice.
HG
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> suoli wrote:
>>>>>> Why is the game structure being blamed for your player's
>>>>>> inability or unwillingness to stop playing the same decks over
>>>>>> and over again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be obnoxious. The man sincerely asked opinions on a 4CL.
>>>>> Why are you being so aggressive about attacking the format when
>>>>> he isn't even defending it? Do you just take every question as
>>>>> an argument? Or do you just hate it when people question the
>>>>> status quo? We should all just shut up and put up, is that what
>>>>> you want? Why do you hate freedom, Kevin?
>>>>
>>>> Is this a joke post? Where's the emoticon? PETER HELP!!!
>>>
>>> A plea to be nice, especially to new faces, should be no joke.
>>>
>>> A plea to constructive discourse when it comes to topics
>>> appropriate to this group should be no joke.
>>
>> So you believe that I wasn't nice and/or my post wasn't
>> constructive?
>
> So you believe the bit quoted above was constructive?
>
> You don't believe it was overly aggressive in the context in which
> the OP asked his question?
I can see where a certain type of person might find it a challenging
and/or direct question, but to be so touchy-feeley about challenging
one's beliefs? Really?
>> As with suoli, I can't tell what you're saying. Perhaps you could
>> be more direct so that I can understand you?
>
> The direct statement: Posters should post with civility,
Being direct and challenging one's beliefs isn't civil, now?
> and optimally out of an earnest desire to find common ground.
So it isn't truth or 'the best' that you're after, it's compromise?
> If that's still too circumshrubbish:
>
> Be nice.
I rewrote the post several times to 'nicen it up', and I believe that,
while challenging and direct, it falls under the definition of 'nice'.
suoli
> I can see where a certain type of person might find it a challenging
> and/or direct question, but to be so touchy-feeley about challenging
> one's beliefs? Really?
What beliefs? The opening post gives no hints that a reasonable person
could follow to come to conclusions about Christian's beliefs on 4CL.
Do you know something that we don't or are you just assuming too much?
Kevin M.
Here's a question:
What would make you believe you could have a reasonable, constructive
conversation with someone who hates freedom, who assumes too much,
and who just wants everyone to shut up?
suoli
> Here's a question:
> What would make you believe you could have a reasonable, constructive
> conversation with someone who hates freedom, who assumes too much,
> and who just wants everyone to shut up?
Nothing. Which is why I would draw attention to these personal
qualities. Knowing that you have a problem is the first step in the
healing process.
Matthew T. Morgan
16 distinct cards may still be pretty close. I don't really care to comb
the TWDA to see if anyone has done it with fewer. Maybe secretlibrary can
tell us.
LSJ
No one's being touchy-feely.
And no one is saying anything pro or con about challenging one's beliefs.
Really.
>
>>> As with suoli, I can't tell what you're saying. Perhaps you could
>>> be more direct so that I can understand you?
>> The direct statement: Posters should post with civility,
>
> Being direct and challenging one's beliefs isn't civil, now?
It can be done civily, and it can be done not civily.
But that's not the issue.
>> and optimally out of an earnest desire to find common ground.
>
> So it isn't truth or 'the best' that you're after, it's compromise?
>
>> If that's still too circumshrubbish:
>>
>> Be nice.
>
> I rewrote the post several times to 'nicen it up', and I believe that,
> while challenging and direct, it falls under the definition of 'nice'.
And apparently it isn't perceived that way by at least one reader.
Peter D Bakija
> Is this a joke post? Where's the emoticon? PETER HELP!!!
I dunno--I thought the part where you hated freedom was funny, smiley
or no :-)
-Peter
Christian
the subject of conversation to any great and/or recent length. Though
as someone who usually lurks and rarely posts, I do think LSJ is
correct in that you guys are sometimes rather harsh with your replies
(just not in my case, IMO). Just one man's opinion.
I think the rest of my post is fodder for a separate subject heading
so I'll start a new thread there.
Christian
Mathieu Rivero
existence of VTES) and still survives today, in Lyon, France.
This was a simple format with 5CL, and only 3 copies of each unique.
However an addition was made to this : as the library had been
restricted, the grouping restriction was removed. You can play Leandro
with Lutz, etc.
The good side of this is that new players could fit in with
competitive decks right away - kinda. You could see unexpected vampire
matching, like making a nice POT/SER bruise and bleed deck. The 5CL
was decided simply as a result of M:TG CL. 60 cards decks > x4.
average 80 cards decks > x5.
By now the playgroup has evolved and most players play unlimited.
Unlimited proves to bring more deckbuilding span but at the same time
allows more "archetypal" decks. And on a table, sometimes a CL deck is
played, and gets ousted fast by lack of the right card at the right
time. Kevin pointed what issues are when using CL. I won't discuss
this any further.
If I can add something, it would be that we still use this CL mainly
for a special format with no crypt and only one 9 to 10-cap vampire to
avoid boring monomaniac games like mono Una and bring true diversity
to this format. It diverts the game from its original rules, but
creates new opportunities. That's why we players are looking for,
aren't we?
PS. About rarity : WW's policy about fixing demand with offers is
nice. However, some cards are underused and would benefit from being
uncommons or even rares. Houngan was a good example. Plus, some cards
are clearly spoilers and are rare as gold. ie. Carlton Van Wyk, Touch
of Clarity, Villein, Enkil Cog. The bad thing with villein is that you
need at least 5 of them in every deck that would use Minion tap. On 3
political decks with voter captivation you'd need at least 15... So
you'd need to buy 15 KoT boxes. And mixing Villeins/Minion Taps is
bad. The Vessel/blood doll balance is far better. (that was out of
subject)
Daneel
wrote:
> Several of us at the FLGS are discussing a four-card format as we're
> finding the decks use the same narrow range of monotonous combos over
> and over again. (I'm not making a judgment - I play it and enjoy it
> regardless.)
>
> I'm just curious if anyone has tried this format and how it works for
> them? Problems? Complications?
The main problem I see is that it won't trim down the monotonous combos
- in fact, you can be sure to see more of it. Most current decks would
be almost useless in a 4-card format. Off the top of my hat, I can
think of a couple of examples that might still work, and they are all
pretty monotonous.
Weeny vote: Kine Resources Contested, Bewitching Oration, Bribes, Dodge
Kindred Spirits: KS, Lost in Crowds, Learjet, Elder Impersonation
etc.
You would hardly see any Master cards at all, maybe except Life in the
City, or any of the highly conditional, situational cards that you
usually just splash into the deck.
I'd also wager that the decks you see would be 60-cards (and even then
you will pull off the same combo 15-20 times).
The benefit I see is moving people to think and cope with a new situation
(e.g. do I build my deck based on a basically 3-card combo, and then I
can splash in a couple of copies of a nice-to-have card, or do I forego
situational coverage and go for a solid 4-card combo?).
But, all in all, I think it would probably be a bad idea. :)
--
Regards,
Daneel
Chris Berger
>
> I'm just curious if anyone has tried this format and how it works for
> them? Problems? Complications?
>
See, I thought four-card format was something totally different from
both the actual question (on 4CL) and from what other people
misinterpreted. I thought maybe you wanted to play with just 4 cards
in your hand, and were planning to reduce the "monotonous" combos that
way... fewer cards in hand means less chance to make your combo!
And then I got to thinking... how about a 4-card hand where card slot
was replaced from a distinct draw-pile? So, say you have a draw pile
A, B, C, and D (each player determines the contents of each pile for
himself, so in essence you build 4 decks that go together instead of
one deck)... at the beginning of the game, you draw one card from
each pile. When you play a card, I'm not sure if you should be
allowed to draw from any of the 4 piles, or if it has to come from the
same pile that you played from.
If the latter, then you'd have to make some additional changes. 1) to
facilitate remembering which card came from which pile you'd have to
put each pile is in sleeves with a different color back. Or perhaps
you don't hold your cards in hand - you must leave them face down next
to the pile they came from, and you can look at the card at any
time... 2) when you Do Not Replace a card, that draw pile is
essentially out of play until you can replace it. 3) when you
increase your hand size, you increase the number of cards you can see
at a time from 1 or more draw piles. I'm tempted to say that you
cannot decide to see like 7 cards from pile C and 1 each from the rest
of the piles. I'd say you have to increase them evenly...
Essentially you have 4 different hands which each has a hand size of
1. Things that decrease hand size would decrease the hand size of the
hand you played/discarded from. Things that increase hand size are
split between the hands as evenly as possible - if you gain +4 hand
size from Visit From the Capuchin, you increase each hand size by 1.
If you bring out Guillaume (it's Guillaume, right?) Giovanni and have
16 locations in play, you increase each hand size by 4... If you run
out of cards from a particular pile, you may *not* split the hand size
from that pile up among your other piles.
I dunno, just an idea I got from the OP...
Peter D Bakija
> I wasn't offended by the reply. I sincerely didn't think 4CL had been
> the subject of conversation to any great and/or recent length.
Heh. It has died down in the recent past, and this is the first 4CL
thread I remember seeing in a few years, but really, the 4CL debate
was one that raged on and on for years and years, and never seemed to
go away from, like, 1996 till the early 2000's.
-Peter
Frederick Scott
"RoddPrime" <rodd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a9f962c-c1c1-4905...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 11:30 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> Personally I feel the game should do away with rarities. There is no
> cash incentive or high rewards in tournaments anyway (like magic) and
> if the focus is the game and the players then I think having the
> ability to get the cards you need without spending a ton on the
> secondary market would be awesome (of course there still may be more
> expensive cards, but not like we see them now). And if someone were to
> complain that more people were to have access to cards like Enkil Cog,
> etc. then there is a problem with the game. Chase cards destroyed
> other games entirely. And the only reason Magic hasn't gotten away
> with it is the four card limit and it's long standing and large player
> base. However, I guess that is what makes VTES "collectible."
I have great sympathy with your point of view. I've always hated
rarity-for-the-sake-of rarity in CCGs. To me, the brilliant innovation
Richard Garfield added to the field of gaming will always be the
constructed deck format of playing card games. The collectible/rarity
thing is simply what made the format commercially viable and even, for
some products, downright lucrative.
However, that said, the commercial side of the game endeavor is still
a key to getting our game printed and on the market for us to buy, use,
and enjoy. So - until someone thinks up a better way to make money in
this format - I think we have to take artificial rarity limitations and
lump it. I agree with you that chase cards can kill a CCG in the long
run. I think White Wolf understands that and they take advantage of
rarity in only limited and temporary ways. (That is, eventually,
you'll get reprinted, relatively cheap copies of those key cards. Just
maybe not for two or three or years.) It's all a matter of opinion
but I think they've balanced profit against playability as well as any
game company I've seen.
Also, keep in mind that a perfectly player-oriented mix of cards
wouldn't involve an equal number of copies of all cards in any event.
Players would want cards that get used in multiple kinds of decks and
used in multiples within decks (the various forms of Wakes and Blood
Dolls would be the most obvious examples) to be far more common than
those cards needed only for specialized decks and in small numbers of
copies. Ironically, if Enkil Cog had been as common as On the Que
Vive in Keepers of Tradition boosters, we'd probably be scowling at
them when we pulled them out of packs. For simple utility's sake,
we certainly want _some_ level of inequality in card commonality.
Fred
The Lasombra
>>>> I smell a TWDA challenge! Who can get the deck with the fewest distinct
>>>> cards in the archive?
>16 distinct cards may still be pretty close. I don't really care to comb
>the TWDA to see if anyone has done it with fewer. Maybe secretlibrary can
>tell us.
13, for Turbo Arika
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8sequeenslandcq
Steven McRoy's Tournament Winning Deck
DeckName: Arika Turbo
Created by: Steven McRoy
Vamps (15) [avg=11]
Arika x15 (could have more, 15 was enough)
Library (90)
Daring the Dawns x10
Force of Wills x10
Soul Gems x7
Majesty x3
Freak Drive x10
Conditioning x10
Distraction x10
Awe x10
Praxis Seizure: Geneva x4, Berlin x4, Cairo x2
Forgotten Labyrinth x5 (would add one more)
Elder Impersonation x3 (would exchange for Faceless Night x4
Seduction x2 (would delete)
LSJ
That's 15, BTW. There are three distinct Praxes.
John Flournoy
Peter Bakija's "Nos Hate You" deck has 14 unique library cards. Robert
Goudie's got a weenie dominate deck in the TWDA with 12.
Here's one with 11 unique library cards:
-----------------------
Steve Wampler's Praxis Seizure: Ithaca March 1998
Crypt [avg = 2.47]:
2x Antoinette Duchamp
2x Gideon Fontaine
2x Mariana Gilbert
2x Delilah Easton
1x Igo, the Hungry
1x Roland Loussarian
1x Violette Prentiss
1x Vasilis, the Traitor of Don Cruez
1x Khalil Anvari
1x Angela Decker
1x Uma Hatch
---
15 vampires
Library:
1x Information Highway
2x Effective Management
7x Presence
3x Misdirection
1x The Barrens
1x Entrancement
11x Enchant Kindred
8x Social Charm
5x Legal Manipulations
13x Aire of Elation
7x Majesty
------------------------------
-John Flournoy
LSJ
>> That's 15, BTW. There are three distinct Praxes.
>
> Peter Bakija's "Nos Hate You" deck has 14 unique library cards. Robert
> Goudie's got a weenie dominate deck in the TWDA with 12.
>
> Here's one with 11 unique library cards:
Sure. But we're counting all the cards, not just the library.
Curevei
> Several of us at the FLGS are discussing a four-card format as we're
> finding the decks use the same narrow range of monotonous combos over
> and over again. (I'm not making a judgment - I play it and enjoy it
> regardless.)
>
> them? Problems? Complications?
In the last year, I have been playing mostly with a 4cl group. If it
was my only group, I'd probably care about moving to the standard
game, but I like variant play and play enough normal ... well, NoCal
isn't normal, ... standard, legal and often utterly insane ... play.
Problems are a function of what players are trying to do with games.
Can NCL be monotonous? Sure. But, that's a function of players who
don't appreciate the variety offered by CCGs and players too lazy to
metagame to destroy predictable decks. xCL can be even more
monotonous on both play and deck construction levels even if it
doesn't seem so as the number of viable decks is smaller.
Is 4cl easily broken? Sure, but I don't think it happens in those
rare groups that play with a CL. The reality is that 4cl feels right
to people who don't want to break games, so they don't try to break
games and never see how much more unbalanced a 4cl environment will be
than a NCL environment will be. It's pointless to bring up the Aus/
Dom/Obf or Pre or whatever examples of broken decks under card limits
because the people who want the limits aren't likely to build strong
decks no matter what the rules are.
Fun in gaming comes from players being on the same page about what is
enjoyable. A belief that card limits will improve this game is more
about "cover" for having a general interest in not trying to play the
game as competitively as possible than it is about making for a better
environment.
Anyway, my 4cl environment has related features that help define it as
one where players are playing a particular house game rather than
trying to play V:TES as it was intended.
Sure, there's been a problem of the introduction of new sets to my
group that seemingly break the environment - Presence gets too many
combat ends or whatever. But, that's just lack of perception since
highly redundant disciplines such as Auspex, Dominate, and Obfuscate
were already broken. Meanwhile, it gets ignored how utterly screwed
some disciplines are under card limits. It didn't take me long to
realize why no one I played with knew what any of the Dementation
cards did, for instance.
But, again, some of the players want it for whatever reason, not all
of which are easily dismissed (e.g. I only kept enough copies of each
card to play four in a deck since that's all we were allowed, or
whatever). And, I personally don't care since I've played plenty
without card limits and I'm always looking for some sort of limitation
on deckbuilding to make me less bored.
What really hurts, by the way, are the 4cl, Jyhad only or Sabbat only
(libraries) decks that I started building since 4cl wasn't restrictive
enough. x4 Forced Awakenings for wake effects without getting into
Animalism? Ouch!!
The 1CL deck I have isn't so thrilling to play, either.
As for the 4dcl (four different cards limit) decks (libraries, I fail
to see the basis for limiting crypt variety), I tried 2dcl and that
was painful in actual play. My old 4dcl deck of Effective Management,
Enchant Kindred, Majesty, Dread Gaze was under the old wording of
Majesty. I do think there is some interesting thought in dcl - for
instance, consider why I used up a valuable slot on Dread Gaze in that
deck.
YY
So how does your playgroup react to a visiting player (who doesn't
have a deck that is 4cl) or more importantly, a player who have moved
into your area due to work or whatever? Are the players in your group
willing to accept a non-4cl deck on the same table? Or will the new
player be forced to convert to the 4cl format or become an outcast?
Similarly, what about new players who enter the game through your
playgroup? What happens when they move to another place and get the
shock of their lives when the 5th copy of Kindred Spirits or Aid from
Bats (for example) is played by another player? Do you inform new
players that the 4cl is, in fact, a variant play and that the standard
rules allow for no CL?
Reason I'm asking is because there is a risk of the player quitting
the game, simply because there is no where else to play the game
without converting. I think that, given how hard it is to get new
players, player retention becomes an important way of keeping the game
alive.
Cheers
YY
Curevei
> So how does your playgroup react to a visiting player (who doesn't
> have a deck that is 4cl) or more importantly, a player who have moved
> into your area due to work or whatever? Are the players in your group
> willing to accept a non-4cl deck on the same table? Or will the new
> player be forced to convert to the 4cl format or become an outcast?
It's a house game. People know up front about the 4cl. Only one
other person from the region's general playerbase has played with the
group, and he knew about the 4cl for a long time.
For someone who isn't interested in 4cl, there's two regular groups at
opposite ends of the region.
The reason most of my play has been with the CL group is because it
was consistently weekly and not terribly inconvenient like the other
weekly group. Again, if that was all I could play, ... actually, I
just don't care anymore. But, if I hadn't been playing the game for
13 years already, I might care about trying to play standard rules.
> Similarly, what about new players who enter the game through your
> playgroup? What happens when they move to another place and get the
> shock of their lives when the 5th copy of Kindred Spirits or Aid from
> Bats (for example) is played by another player? Do you inform new
> players that the 4cl is, in fact, a variant play and that the standard
> rules allow for no CL?
The CL group is aware that the standard game lacks card limits.
There's been talk at times about the nature of playing with a card
limit.
The CL is not the hardest thing to deal with. The history of the
group was a house game that mistakenly thought there was a CL and that
wasn't plugged into rules changes. So, a lot of rules have been
changed since I started playing with them and there are still issues
with card text. There are cards I don't play because the card text
migrations are too vast, such as Anarch Revolt. Changing to NCL
probably wouldn't be any greater a challenge than the numerous rules
and card text changes, but I don't bother arguing for a change since I
don't care.
I used to have a weekly game where the host and I had played
previously with the same group of players in another house game but
never showed up at the same time. They had house rules - anyone
playing a vote deck had to be ousted as quickly as possible to avoid
screwing up the game, no repeat *successful* action, etc. It drove
him nuts as he was learning the game to try to play by two sets of
rules. Didn't bother me. Nevermind that my original group didn't
allow any cards from sets other than Jyhad, so I'd play Jyhad only
decks in my house game and Sabbat only decks at conventions. So,
having had a history of playing under multiple sets of rules, I don't
find any problems playing under them now. It is, of course, lunacy
for anyone trying to learn the game to play under multiple rules sets.
> Reason I'm asking is because there is a risk of the player quitting
> the game, simply because there is no where else to play the game
> without converting. I think that, given how hard it is to get new
> players, player retention becomes an important way of keeping the game
> alive.
If people want to play with house rules and can find enough players,
then so be it. I don't care enough about how to play games anymore to
try to convince people to do things they don't want to do.
However, everyone should be aware enough that this only works with
that one group and that, in general, it's better for everyone to play
the same game so that you are part of a greater community.
More generally, I'm no longer as caring about trying to retain people
who don't really want to play the game. If you want to do something,
do it, if you don't, don't. It's a game. It's meant to be fun.
Btw, since most of my decks are 4cl these days, I routinely play them
with NCL groups. The deck I played in the after Gen Con tournament at
Ankur's house was a 4cl deck.
Reyda !
> 13, for Turbo Arika
>
> http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8sequeenslandcq
>
> Steven McRoy's Tournament Winning Deck
> DeckName: Arika Turbo
> Created by: Steven McRoy
>
> Vamps (15) [avg=11]
> Arika x15 (could have more, 15 was enough)
>
> Library (90)
> Daring the Dawns x10
> Force of Wills x10
> Soul Gems x7
> Majesty x3
> Freak Drive x10
> Conditioning x10
> Distraction x10
> Awe x10
> Praxis Seizure: Geneva x4, Berlin x4, Cairo x2
> Forgotten Labyrinth x5 (would add one more)
> Elder Impersonation x3 (would exchange for Faceless Night x4
> Seduction x2 (would delete)
Sorry to interrupt : This deck was not created by Steven Mc Roy, but
rather by Philippe Lang and François Alix.
Now that the information is corrected, we're pleased. We can go back
to torpor where we belong.
Good night, gentlement.