4 Card Limit Thoughts
PDB6
limit, but about half the people I met at the Origins 95 Jyhad game did.
If this is indicative, then many people do. I do not belive that a 4 card
limit is the answer to the tournament rules, as it alienates the people
who play no limits more than the people who play with them. If someone
shows up to a tourney with a 4 limit deck, they can just play it as it is,
or beef it up some. No limit decks have to be entirely rebuilt.
Regardless, we use the 4 card limit because:
1) It makes you be more clever. You can still play just about any deck
concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum
Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of
the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote
decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards
that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people.
2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things
like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher "
decks. Granted, the " Malkavian Chainsaw " is a very powerful design in
the limit game, but as they use up 5-6 cards a turn, they run out of steam
rather quickly with more than 4 players, as they only have 16-20 stealth
cards. Also, we all play multiple Malkavian Dementias, just to punish the
fools. ( What? You mean Ozmo has accidentally diablerized Muriel? I'm
OUTRAGED! Call a bloodhunt! Heh Heh. ). And who wants to play those silly
Malkavians anyway.
3) New players won't be heard saying " Urk. Where the heck did you get the
27 Deflections from? "
4) The decks are not as predictable, as in " Oh, Hey. You Majesty and
untap, again? No way. Who would have thought."
I would never claim that every one should play this way, but I would like
to hear who does and why. Just curious I guess.
KoKo. Justicar in 96
-Peter D Bakija
Errol T
>Ah yes, the "database search" concept of cleverness. Can your database
>cough up 3 or more similar cards so you can avoid the cards limits and
>actually play something approaching Jyhad?
Come on now Curt No limits is the same when it comes to Your "Database
Search" Except your "Database" is a hell of alot smaller.
>Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you
>must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their
>hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I
>won't give it up to shut down my predator.
Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent
properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under
4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced.
>Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will
>cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you
>can't block.
Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more
people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while
everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the
hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders
for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your
hand is full of rush combat cards.
>>2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things
>>like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher "
>>decks.
>
>Freaky bleed is almost academic - to my knowledge, nobody but me has made
>one. It's just not worth the trouble of collecting 30 or so Freak Drives.
I have made one to altough the freak drive deck is..I mean was a neat one
I got bored half way through the game, though I have played this deck
with 4CR and it worked well,you have to add other concepts obviously.
> Vote pushing is a rules problem, and card limits don't fix it.
I have had no Problem with vote pushing and have yet to see a logical
problem with it.
>The more fundamental problem with tight card limits is that there is much
>less variety in deck designs - basically every deck is S&B or dreary,
>slow, permanent-driven intercept combat.
There is much less variety in deck design period Curt, 4CR and NL not
because of either of these but because a lack of expansions has sent the
game to limbo. To coin a phrase "All the great themes have been used"
both 4CR and NL. Lets face it this game needs an expansion bad.
I agree with what you both said here NL the game breaks down 4CR the game
breaks down again.
2 CR the game doesn't breakdown but you do end up with a little bit of
"luck of the draw" But deck creation is at its finest and is only for
those with a little patience.
Errol
James R. McClure Jr.
>1) It makes you be more clever. You can still play just about any deck
>concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum
>Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of
>the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote
>decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards
>that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people.
Peace Peter,
Please, post an example of an effective Brujah rush combat deck under four
card limit.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
PDB6
games under the 4 card limit, and the decks were:
Nosferatu/Gangrel "I Bleed you, or I kill you " (S+B and Rush )
All Gangrel " Wake up, time to die! " ( Rush and aggro )
Tremere/ Toreador " Press and mash " ( Intercept and Thamu )
All Brujah " I vote you dead " ( nasty votes, guns, Rake )
Brujah/Toreador " Intercept combat " ( Guns, Guns, Guns )
Malkavian " non efective bleeding loonies " (all those goofy masters)
All Ventrue " Walking Bleeders " ( no stealth DOM bleeds )
Ventrue/Toreador/Tremere " Voting kill" (KRC and others)
The "Malkavian Chainsaw" ( Traditional S+B )
So we had plenty of deck variation on a 4 card limit. The Nos/Gang tied
for points with the all Ventrue in one game, the all Gangrel won another,
the Guns deck won yet another, and the Brujah/Ventrue voter won the last.
There was plenty of variation, and the Malkavians did not win.
As for an all Brujah rush deck, you got me, but I'm sure it would involve
Rush, Haven uncovered and Blood hunt (Hey, Rake is a prince...).
And hey, Curt, lighten up. It's only a game, and it's not as if I was
saying YOU ( or anyone else for that matter ) had to play this way. :-)
Peter D Bakija
Consoli Luca
>I don't know how many people or groups play with a self imposed 4 card
>limit
>Regardless, we use the 4 card limit because:
>
>concept, it is just harder to do. For instance, instead of using 30 Bum
>Rushes, you have to figure out ways to get in a fight after you run out of
>the easy cards, like preforming actions no one can afford to let by. Vote
>decks need to be more than 60 KRC. There are still at least 4 vote cards
>that directly damage, and then many other more subtle ways to hurt people.
Well, the point is not to be or not to be clever, but the fact that Jyhad is
*not* M:tG and you can not think to it on this basis. I think we all agree that
Jyhad is more than 60 KRC decks, but it is *much* more than destroying clan
strategies with 4-card limits!!
>2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things
>like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher "
>decks. Granted, the " Malkavian Chainsaw " is a very powerful design in
>the limit game, but as they use up 5-6 cards a turn, they run out of steam
>rather quickly with more than 4 players, as they only have 16-20 stealth
>cards. Also, we all play multiple Malkavian Dementias, just to punish the
>fools. ( What? You mean Ozmo has accidentally diablerized Muriel? I'm
>OUTRAGED! Call a bloodhunt! Heh Heh. ). And who wants to play those silly
>Malkavians anyway.
Also about this I would like to say that Malks are no doubt a very good clan
but they are no way unbeatable. BTW I like to play Malks and it would not be
fair to use rules which prevent one clan to be competitive ( e.g., tourney
rules do prevent any clan but S&B Malks from being playable...)
[deleted]
>4) The decks are not as predictable, as in " Oh, Hey. You Majesty and
>untap, again? No way. Who would have thought."
Since you wrote about cleverness it should be obvious that when people meet not
in tornament the explicit purpose is to have fun and so cleverness should be
applied by everyone on not playing boring decks (boring also for the one who
plays them). Besides *everyone* here IMHO is convinced that Majesty is a
problem but many other solutions were proposed and they were almost all better
in my opinion than limiting *all* cards to 4 per type.
>I would never claim that every one should play this way, but I would like
>to hear who does and why. Just curious I guess.
>
>KoKo. Justicar in 96
>-Peter D Bakija
--
Luca "Democritus" Consoli
Web page: http://imoax1.unimo.it/~consoli/
|-------------------------------------------|
|" S'i fossi foco arderei lo mondo..." |
|{ Were I Fire, I would burn the world..." |------------|
| (Cecco Angiolieri, Italian poet)|
|--------------------------------------------------------|
Alan Kwan
>
>>Ah yes, the "database search" concept of cleverness. Can your database
>>cough up 3 or more similar cards so you can avoid the cards limits and
>>actually play something approaching Jyhad?
>
>Come on now Curt No limits is the same when it comes to Your "Database
>Search" Except your "Database" is a hell of alot smaller.
I don't get it. Please clarify.
>>Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you
>>must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their
>>hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I
>>won't give it up to shut down my predator.
>
>Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent
>properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under
>4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced.
Do you have any specific actions you can name which your Malk predator
/must/ block? Even if you KRC, you'll be ousted by your Malk predator
before you can hold him down, and you have little to no chance of
winning if all you're doing is KRC on your predator.
>>Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will
>>cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you
>>can't block.
>
>Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more
>people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while
>everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the
>hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders
>for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your
>hand is full of rush combat cards.
If everybody's vampires are torporized by Rush, although the game may
go on for a number of turns, they're very fast turns in terms of
real time ("Okay, my turn, I play a master, nobody has blood to get out
of torpor, no transfers, and next person's turn while I'm discarding.")
:-)
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
CurtAdams
>>Ah yes, the "database search" concept of cleverness. Can your database
>>cough up 3 or more similar cards so you can avoid the cards limits and
>>actually play something approaching Jyhad?
>Come on now Curt No limits is the same when it comes to Your "Database
>Search" Except your "Database" is a hell of alot smaller.
No. In no limits design the questions are how many dodges you put in your
deck - not whether you can contort the deck enough to find 3 Dodge cards
and thus have an adequate number. Without limits everybody can dodge,
everybody can maneuver, everybody can press, everybody can bleed (lots of
different ways), everybody can fight, etc. Every deck faces a huge
plethora of complex design
decisions. With card limits, most of these decisions are made for you
with any given deck - the cards just aren't there.
>>Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action
you
>>must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their
>>hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I
>>won't give it up to shut down my predator.
>Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent
>properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under
>4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced.
A lot of people are surprised when I refuse to block their actions. But
it works very well against the right decks. Combat decks that rely on
somebody else's blocks to use their combat cards turn into a giant hand
jam if you don't block them - they don't even get to draw any actions to
take. Really, there are very few actions which *have* to be blocked.
Sticking your predator with a neverending hand jam is worth almost
anything.
>>Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will
>>cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you
>>can't block.
>Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more
>people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while
>everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the
>hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders
>for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your
>hand is full of rush combat cards.
Actually I find rush works best with weenies or laptops, so once they face
no opposition they can deal a lot of bleed.
Combat decks, of any type, tend to lengthen games and to benefit from
longer games.
>> Vote pushing is a rules problem, and card limits don't fix it.
>I have had no Problem with vote pushing and have yet to see a logical
>problem with it.
This has been hashed over before. Take 20 KRC, 20 Conservative Agitation,
20 assorted Praxis Siezures and Justicars, 10 Effective Management and go
to town.
>>The more fundamental problem with tight card limits is that there is
much
>>less variety in deck designs - basically every deck is S&B or dreary,
>>slow, permanent-driven intercept combat.
>There is much less variety in deck design period Curt, 4CR and NL not
>because of either of these but because a lack of expansions has sent the
>game to limbo. To coin a phrase "All the great themes have been used"
>both 4CR and NL. Lets face it this game needs an expansion bad.
An expansion would be great, assuming it didn't unbalance the game (the
three Inner Circle vampires listed in Duelist 7 really worry me, if they
are any indication of what is to come). However, no limits, there are
already many more themes than have been tried in my circle - I stand by my
previous estimate of 100 fundamentally different decks. (With an
expansion, I'd estimate about 150).
>I agree with what you both said here NL the game breaks down 4CR the game
>breaks down again.
>2 CR the game doesn't breakdown but you do end up with a little bit of
>"luck of the draw" But deck creation is at its finest and is only for
>those with a little patience.
2-card Jyhad isn't even Jyhad - it's a permanent-driven game like Magic
with an extremely limited card set. And as to deck construction - well,
choosing the disciplines with which to salt the weenie gun hordes isn't
much variety.
If you usually play tight limits, I can see why you think of an Arson as a
must-block catastrophe. With tight limits, permanents are essential, so
you have to get things like the News Radio and hunting grounds. Without
limits, those destructable locations can be done without - they are nice,
not essential.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
PDB6
through you at high speed and make a RRRRRRR noise as they go. Ok, its
more like a " I bleed you for 5 at +4 stealth " noise, but after a while
it begins to sound like RRRRRRRRRR. :-)
And no, I don't really have anything against Maklkavians, and CERTANLY
would never attempt to say " Remove them from tournament play " as someone
above implied. And again, yes, a good Malk deck could beat all of the
decks I described above, but the last time we played with one, everyone
said " That Malkavian deck is going to kill us all. Lets get it! " It
didn't last very long.
So does anyone out there like playing with a 4 card limit? Any card limit?
Anyone? Or am I just a bad person. These limits were not imposed upon
anyone around here. We just all play that way, and we have a fine time.
I'd hate to have to go out and round up all those extra cards. I'd be
pissed too if anyone said " You must play this way! " We always ask new
players very nicely how their deck is set up.
Peter D Bakija
Shane Travis
: And again, yes, a good Malk deck could beat all of the
: decks I described above, but the last time we played with one, everyone
: said " That Malkavian deck is going to kill us all. Lets get it! " It
: didn't last very long.
So you are effectively admitting that under 4-card, nobody can play an
_effective_ Malkavian deck, or else all normal predator/prey
relationships take a holiday until they are ousted. (Sure we're cripples,
but the four of us can beat you to death with our crutches!)
: So does anyone out there like playing with a 4 card limit? Any card limit?
Some people play with it because they have never tried no-limit. Some
people play because they don't _like_ having to think hard and make
subtle design decisions, like 'Which do I want more of: Threats, Bonding
or Conditioning?' This decision is already made by the restrictions you
place on yourselves; just throw in four of each.
I have yet to hear of someone who was playing 4-card go to no-limits and
hate it so much they went back to four-card...
: These limits were not imposed upon
: anyone around here. We just all play that way, and we have a fine time.
<bobbitt>
: We always ask new
: players very nicely how their deck is set up.
So what do you do if their deck is set up under no-limits then? Let them
play anyway because they're new, and never make them play 4-card? Let
them play it this time, but they have to rebuild for next time? Or
simply say, "Sorry... we play with limits so you can't use that deck."
Saying 'You can't play on our team unless you play by our rules' is still
imposing restrictions on people - they just have a choice as to whether
or not they want to stay in the situation. (The choice is often moot - if
this is your regular gaming group and/or the only group in town that
plays Jyhad, where else are you gonna go?)
Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Errol T
>Every deck faces a huge plethora of complex design decisions. With card limits, most of these decisions are made for you with any =
given deck - the cards just aren't there.
Yes you do have a plethora of deck designs some are fun,some are themes
and unfortunatly not all are winners.
>A lot of people are surprised when I refuse to block their actions. But
>it works very well against the right decks. Combat decks that rely on
>somebody else's blocks to use their combat cards turn into a giant hand
>jam if you don't block them - they don't even get to draw any actions to
>take. Really, there are very few actions which *have* to be blocked.
>Sticking your predator with a neverending hand jam is worth almost
>anything.
Actually not blocking is very common in our group, like you said go ahead
and bleed me for one big deal! Burn my location,so what.
>Actually I find rush works best with weenies or laptops, so once they face
>no opposition they can deal a lot of bleed.
>
>Combat decks, of any type, tend to lengthen games and to benefit from
>longer games.
The Gangrel combat is to weak to S:CE,and the lack of any real intercept
the infamous hand jam deck,also Combat decks do lengthen games which I
like.
Rush is a good stradegy to S&B but I have seen the Elysium,and Lady
Thunder,and S:CE bloat my Rush hand rather quickly letting the bleeder
run rampant.
NL with Malk Dem is the best stradegy against S&B.
>An expansion would be great, assuming it didn't unbalance the game (the
>three Inner Circle vampires listed in Duelist 7 really worry me, if they
>are any indication of what is to come). However, no limits, there are
>already many more themes than have been tried in my circle - I stand by my
>previous estimate of 100 fundamentally different decks. (With an
>expansion, I'd estimate about 150).
>
Yeah thats all we would need is to have them screw up the expansions, I
have read the Inner circle Vamps also I can Immediatly see these being
very popular, though I see they have taken away the Clan\Disciplines.
>If you usually play tight limits, I can see why you think of an Arson as a
>must-block catastrophe. With tight limits, permanents are essential, so
>you have to get things like the News Radio and hunting grounds. Without
>limits, those destructable locations can be done without - they are nice,
>not essential.
Yes 2CL can be a permanents driven game if you play that way,it doesn't
have to be though.
Actually I could care less if some own arsons me its only set backs not
game enders.
I have found burning Vamps in 2CL are game enders.
Errol
Errol T
>
>If everybody's vampires are torporized by Rush, although the game may
>go on for a number of turns, they're very fast turns in terms of
>real time ("Okay, my turn, I play a master, nobody has blood to get out
>of torpor, no transfers, and next person's turn while I'm discarding.")
> :-)
>
>--
>"Live Life with Heart."
>
>Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Heres where I disagree with you alan if all I'm doing for a few rounds is
gathering up speed so that I can go one whole round of combat with Bianca
then wait another however many rounds....Boring.
Errol
Steven Bauer
[Stuff deleted]
>
> >Against a low rush non-intercept combat deck there's really no action you
> >must block. If you refrain from blocking for any length of time, their
> >hand jams up and they can't do anything. There's no location so good I
> >won't give it up to shut down my predator.
>
> Then there not designing the decks right,if you attack your opponent
> properly then you would be a fool not to block,although I do agree under
> 4 card limit s&b Malks are unbalanced.
Bleed? Why block a one point bleed and risk that minion going to torpor. No bleeder deck I have ever
played would bother blocking a one point bleed (except maybe a minion deck but even then I am
going to block the smallest weekest vamps you have and unless all your combat cards are discplineless
your hand is going to jam)
>
> >Also, rush is a critical defense against S&B and vote decks. They will
> >cheerfully sack off locations, as they slaughter you with actions you
> >can't block.
>
> Rush decks have there problems also NL or 4CR if you have 1 or more
> people playing them in a game, then the game gets slow because while
> everyones vampires are either smoked,toporized,or so low on blood who the
> hell has time to bleed and with what Brujahs are'nt the best bleeders
> for 1 a round,yeah ok so you might have presence mods big deal if your
> hand is full of rush combat cards.
>
What is your defenition of slow? Sure a game with lots of comabt is going to
take alot longer than a game with nothing but bleeding(it don't see how it matters
if the combat is interecpt or rush driven) If the game had nothing but fast bleed decks it
would be very linear and uninteresting.
> >>2) It is just about as self balancing as the no limit game, but things
> >>like " The Freaky Bleed " are avoided, as are the " KRC Vote Pusher "
> >>decks.
> >
> > Vote pushing is a rules problem, and card limits don't fix it.
>
> I have had no Problem with vote pushing and have yet to see a logical
> problem with it.
>
Vote push is a problem because of the weenie vote deck. A deck with nothing but
one and two blood vamps and a library of all votes. Vote push gives the deck
8 votes per round which is almost always enough to get any vote passed.
Under a four card limit I would imangine a weenie vote deck would be even more
of a problem. There are enough offensive votes that the four card limit would
only slow him down slightly. While it's main weeknesses interecpt and rushes would
be much more limited.
> >The more fundamental problem with tight card limits is that there is much
> >less variety in deck designs - basically every deck is S&B or dreary,
> >slow, permanent-driven intercept combat.
>
> There is much less variety in deck design period Curt, 4CR and NL not
> because of either of these but because a lack of expansions has sent the
> game to limbo. To coin a phrase "All the great themes have been used"
> both 4CR and NL. Lets face it this game needs an expansion bad.
>
I totally agree the game needs an expansion.
> I agree with what you both said here NL the game breaks down 4CR the game
> breaks down again.
>
> 2 CR the game doesn't breakdown but you do end up with a little bit of
> "luck of the draw" But deck creation is at its finest and is only for
> those with a little patience.
>
> Errol
I don't like the 4 card limit because it favors certain deck types that have lots of cards
that do basically the same thing while crippling the deck types that relly on card effects only
found on one card.
The problems with no card limits games are (as I see it) Untapping, I think most the untapping
cards are to cheap an decks built around these cards are very hard to stop.
The 2 CR does fix this problem, but it is not the best solution in my opnion.
Steven
Errol T
>So does anyone out there like playing with a 4 card limit? Any card limit?
>anyone around here. We just all play that way, and we have a fine time.
>players very nicely how their deck is set up.
>
>
>
I think you said it all just play the game the way you enjoy playing it.
Errol
Neil Bernstein
: In article k...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
: What action can a combat deck take that any other deck is going to want to
: block?
Well, a Brujah/Toreador deck has Presence-increased bleeds. But you're right,
the Gangrels do need to rush.
- Neil
--
nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu, lentus in umbra | nudus ara, sere nudus...
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
CurtAdams
>In article <46jtsg$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com
>(CurtAdams) wrote:
>> If different limits were
>> proposed for each game, the whole business wouldn't be so preposterous
-
>> although it would still be a lousy way to fix things.
>Around here at least, they are. Jyhad is played anything-goes, Rage uses
>the tournament limits of 3 sept and 2 combat, and Shadowfist uses the
>book's 5.
You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible.
I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly
both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
PDB6
While trying to avoid the lamest of decks, I guess we inadvertenly wiped
out many perfectly reasonable design strategies. Kind of like cutting off
your hand to cure a wart. It certanly gets rid of the wart, but it kinda
hurts.
So has anyone come up with some sort of card limit on the game that is a
good compromise between strict and none? Sort of a built in way to avoid
the all KRC decks or S:CE decks? Some sort of a reasonable percentage
based system perhaps.
I'm primarily interested in balancing the game for players who have 3
starters and some boosters vs. Mr. I've got 52 torn signposts, and
avoiding the real ringer decks. I'd like to rely on the inteligence and
good will of my fellow gamers, but its always good to have something to
fall back on ( maybe for our local tourneys. )
Any other " reasonable home brewed " card fixes that I seemed to have
missed might also help, like what fixes S:CE and vote pushing.
Thanks for the help.
Peter D Bakija
Brian Wilson
> You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible.
> I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly
> both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing.
I also wonder if they didn't build in the card limits just to avoid this
particular controversy in their games. It certainly came up in Magic, and
it's an oft-beaten horse in Jyhad. Even if they had done "more design and
testing," doubtless the same issue would have arisen the minute somebody
found some wicked KRC-type combo with a bunch of dupe cards. They
probably saved themselves a lot of heartache by throwing the card limits
in early.
--
"It's at the end of his arm," thought Frito, nervously | Brian
shaking it, "it's got to be a hand." | Wilson
James R. McClure Jr.
>Alan Kwan said:
>>If everybody's vampires are torporized by Rush, although the game may
>>go on for a number of turns, they're very fast turns in terms of
>>real time ("Okay, my turn, I play a master, nobody has blood to get out
>>of torpor, no transfers, and next person's turn while I'm discarding.")
Peace Errol,
>Heres where I disagree with you alan if all I'm doing for a few rounds is
>gathering up speed so that I can go one whole round of combat with Bianca
>then wait another however many rounds....Boring.
No more boring than being the prey of a Malk S&B when you don't have much
intercept or rush. No more boring than being the target of a vote deck
when you don't have votes/titles yourself.
James R. McClure Jr.
>Regardless of what anyone says though, no possible argument can be made
>that a deck of 30 bum rush and 30 claws-o-dead is clever. Effective, yes,
>but definitely not clever. ( Heh, Heh. That oughta make someone mad...
Peace Peter,
Such a deck would not be as effective as one might believe. Against
another combat deck, it would be crushed. Against a wienie deck, it might
do OK. Against an anti-combat deck (S:CE, the Dom card that slips my mind,
etc.), it will also do poorly. It can't eliminate players very fast (no
enhanced bleed). If someone wanted to play this deck against me, I wouldn't
mind. BR & CoD are not part of the problem card set (a very small group,
I might add), so having lots of them does not present a problem.
Joseph Cochran
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>ew...@chattanooga.net (J. Andrew Lipscomb) writes:
>>Around here at least, they are. Jyhad is played anything-goes, Rage uses
>>the tournament limits of 3 sept and 2 combat, and Shadowfist uses the
>>book's 5.
>
>I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly
>both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing.
I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist
was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had
plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I
don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it
was intentional. Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid
to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better
to design to no limits?
Basically, Curt, I agree that FIST fails no-limit, but I'm not
sure that extra design and testing would've gotten you any closer to
passing a no-limit test.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to
see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone
Brian Wilson
> I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist
> was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had
> plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I
> don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it
> was intentional. Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid
> to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better
> to design to no limits?
I think it's better to design with limits in mind these days. I would
wager that any game will include cards that can be abused in quantity,
and that the card limit controversy is a natural offshoot of that.
Building the limit in stops the controversy cold. There's not a single
message in the .misc newsgroup that asks, "Why does Shadowfist have card
limits?," while there are plenty of posts here asking, "Why doesn't Jyhad
(VTES) have card limits?"
Errol T
>What is your defenition of slow? Sure a game with lots of comabt is going to
>take alot longer than a game with nothing but bleeding(it don't see how it matters
>if the combat is interecpt or rush driven) If the game had nothing but fast bleed decks it
>would be very linear and uninteresting.
>
My Definition of slow is sitting round after round building back up after
one serious offence. You must have mistaken me for someone who likes
heavy bleed decks.
>
>Vote push is a problem because of the weenie vote deck. A deck with nothing but
>one and two blood vamps and a library of all votes. Vote push gives the deck
>8 votes per round which is almost always enough to get any vote passed.
>
Mabe if it is the only wennie vote deck at the table, What if there is 3
or two and one of them happens to be the prey\predater I no for a fact
that he\she is not going to get all the votes through, so again I say
that the vote push is not a problem.
>Under a four card limit I would imangine a weenie vote deck would be even more
>of a problem. There are enough offensive votes that the four card limit would
>only slow him down slightly. While it's main weeknesses interecpt and rushes would
>be much more limited.
Here is where you are totally wrong I have played many a 4CL vote deck
they were not a problem, 2\3 players you can win a few games 4+ you don't
have the the endurance, trust me I know, and if your playing 4CL then if
theres a Malk a the table and he happens to be your pred,your dead,4CL
sucks.
Errol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Errol T
Errol
Errol T
are both great games with CR, Why do they NEED to be NL.
Errol
Charles T. Schwope
>>Vote push is a problem because of the weenie vote deck. A deck with nothing but
>>one and two blood vamps and a library of all votes. Vote push gives the deck
>>8 votes per round which is almost always enough to get any vote passed.
>>
>Mabe if it is the only wennie vote deck at the table, What if there is 3
>or two and one of them happens to be the prey\predater I no for a fact
>that he\she is not going to get all the votes through, so again I say
>that the vote push is not a problem.
Speaking from exprience of 4CL, the problem I have with vote pushing
is that unless you are also a vote deck, there is no way to deal with
it. When a good vote deck sits down at the table, its just a tiny
step below S/B in nastyness. We have one player in our group who
plays vote decks fairly often, and he is one of the 2 players I don't
want being my predator, no matter what. (The other likes S/B.)
>>Under a four card limit I would imangine a weenie vote deck would be even more
>>of a problem. There are enough offensive votes that the four card limit would
>>only slow him down slightly. While it's main weeknesses interecpt and rushes would
>>be much more limited.
>Here is where you are totally wrong I have played many a 4CL vote deck
>they were not a problem, 2\3 players you can win a few games 4+ you don't
>have the the endurance, trust me I know, and if your playing 4CL then if
>theres a Malk a the table and he happens to be your pred,your dead,4CL
>sucks.
Case in point, I ran a tight as hell S/B deck this week. (@ 50 cards
in it) There was (IMHO) no way I was not going to oust my 1st prey.
I always had 3 stealth cards in my hand plus one or more bleed
boosters. Granted, I ran out of steam fast, but the main reason was I
had a version of S/B as my predator. Also, after putting it together
and playing it once, I know I can make it a lot nastier, b/c I had
some cards that I quickly realized I wasn't going to use.
One thing I definately don't like about 4CL is that I'm starting to
make MtG style decisions on deck size. I doubt that I will ever run a
deck with more than @60 in it in a 4CL enviro, just so I have the
consistency I want.
-CT
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
Kevin Lowe
: You folks are playing by the written rules, which is eminently sensible.
: I do fault Rage and Shadowfist for using card limits, although clearly
: both games fail no-limit. They should've done more design and testing.
Normally I agree with most things you write, Curt, but here I've just got
to speak up (even if we're a bit off topic).
Rage, okay, fair cop. I hate Rage anyway :>.
In Shadowfist, though, card limits have been in the game since the first
release, and it certainly looks to me as if it was always designed to be
played with a 5 card limit. This isn't my _ideal_ way of setting up a
CCG (Jyhad is much closer to that, at the moment), but it's certainly a
valid one. As posters to the recurring chess thread have pointed out,
built-in limits can make a great game.
Unlike Jyhad, Shadowfist has "something-for-nothing" cards, with no play
cost and big effects. If it wasn't for card limits, you would see decks
bulging with the things. This is the flip side of your own argument (I
believe) against card limits in Jyhad. In Jyhad, most things are worth
what you pay for them, in terms of effect and deck space, so there is no
reason for card limits. I agree with that position, so I find it a
little odd you found fault with Shadowfist.
(returning to his lurking)
Kevin Lowe (Brisbane, Australia).
CurtAdams
> I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist
>was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had
>plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I
>don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it
>was intentional.
Quite possibly.
>Which brings up an entirely new question: is it valid
>to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better
>to design to no limits?
Is it "valid"? Well, yes, a game designed with card limits can still be a
good game. But a game designed for no-limits will inherently be deeper,
more varied, and more robust. It is a significantly more difficult task,
although clearly not impossible.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
CurtAdams
>In article <46mr2a$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes:
>>Regardless of what anyone says though, no possible argument can be made
>>that a deck of 30 bum rush and 30 claws-o-dead is clever. Effective,
yes,
>>but definitely not clever. ( Heh, Heh. That oughta make someone mad...
>>;-)
>Of course it isn't clever. Effective? Neither. I can just think
>of a dozen ways to stop such a deck ...
>(any damage prevention, manuevers, weenies, ...)
I got an email from someone a while back mentioning that a 25-rush deck
had served the purpose of toasting the sneak deck which had previously
been dominating his group. In an environment of completely
combat-innocent sneak decks, it might well be the right thing to do.
As people started playing more combat decks (i.e., the variety increased)
he was forced to drop down to about 15.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
CurtAdams
>In Shadowfist, though, card limits have been in the game since the first
>release, and it certainly looks to me as if it was always designed to be
>played with a 5 card limit. This isn't my _ideal_ way of setting up a
>CCG (Jyhad is much closer to that, at the moment), but it's certainly a
>valid one. As posters to the recurring chess thread have pointed out,
>built-in limits can make a great game.
>Unlike Jyhad, Shadowfist has "something-for-nothing" cards, with no play
>cost and big effects. If it wasn't for card limits, you would see decks
>bulging with the things.
Caveat: I've only played a little Shadowfist.
When I looked at my Shadowfist, I immediately spotted those cards. For
those not familiar with the system, there are certain cards whose only
cost is that at any point in the game you played a character from the
faction the card comes from. You redraw your hand to full early each
turn.
So I built a deck based on those cards. It does indeed bulge with them.
Lo and behold, it obliterated one deck, played by an experience
Fist-playing friend of mine. Against another deck, which contained a
hoser for mine, it just barely lost.
It shouldn't be so easy to build good decks. Further, cards like that
make the system very fragile - it's very close to being a spoiler
strategy. Even with limits, someone may well be able to make a genuine
spoiler with those cards. If someone finds a clever combination, or they
add the wrong card - there will be a big problem.
The value of these cards is such that few decks don't benefit from the
limit maximum of all usable 0-cost cards. Hence you can only build about
5 top-flight decks from 2 booster boxes (assuming monofaction decks; half
that for duofaction decks). This means you can only use 75-150 cards per
box, leaving the rest of the 432 unused. This is similar to the Wake
problem with Jyhad, although markedly less severe. (Does anybody remember
that problem now? Back in the old days when Jyhad was list price?)
>This is the flip side of your own argument (I
>believe) against card limits in Jyhad. In Jyhad, most things are worth
>what you pay for them, in terms of effect and deck space, so there is no
>reason for card limits. I agree with that position, so I find it a
>little odd you found fault with Shadowfist .
I'm not claiming SF would be better without limits, I'm saying it would be
better if it had been designed without limits.
Incidentally, (I don't know whether the SF designers did this or not) even
if you're planning for limits, it's a good idea to test with no limits or
with more relaxed limits. This is basic quality control - you need to
make sure that a small playtesting error won't leave you with a broken
game.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Thomas R Wylie
Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
> I can't speak to Rage, but I'm pretty certain that Shadowfist
>was designed with the card limits in mind from the start. Robin Laws had
>plenty of CCG design experience to bring to the table with him, and I
>don't see him being satisfied with a limit as a crutch. I think that it
>to design a game with card limits in mind? And is it inherently better
>to design to no limits?
IMHO, built-in card limits are a bad thing. About the last thing you
want to do is to say to someone "Sorry, but you can't legally play with
the cards you just bought." If you design a game and its cards properly,
there's no need for it to have card limits at all as a means of imposing
game balance. Implementing card limits to get rid of boring decks is
reasonable; imposing card limits for game balance reasons is pointless,
since that encourages you to be lazy about eliminating the abusive combinations
that crop up in a game, especially after the third or fourth expansion, and
especially if you're allowing people to dig through their deck in any way,
shape, or form.
Type I Magic, sadly, will always require card limits. However, we can ideally
get Type II Magic down to where they're not necessary for reasons of balance,
and will probably be able to at least get standalones to that point. VTES
is not too far off from being able to dodge card limits entirely, and hopefully
Netrunner won't require any.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.