Portions of the materials are the copyrights and trademarks of White Wolf Publishing AB, and are used with permission. All rights reserved. For more information please visit
Is it time to introduce a card limit?
Sure, you can build ridiculously expensive trick decks but mostly you'll do way better with sticking with commons.
A very solid feature of the game from day 1.
And it has always been a popular thing with the people I've demoed the game to.
NC, Finland
Politics!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Very few even commercially supported ccg can show this.
It's not a time to make fundamental changes - in complex systems it's impossible to predict results of it, and, when the system is in a fine spot, usually changes are to the worse.
Start with banning conditioning
NC Russia
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
jamesatzephyr wrote: That you didn't even address it in your proposal - despite the fact that it has come up in every single discussion of 4CL ever - suggests that you shouldn't be anywhere near as casual about rejecting the problem that has been encountered when it's been tried.
First of all, I don't reject any problems, I just state they're not insurmountable. Second, yeah... my apologies, I haven't seen any discussion about 4CL, my bad.
jamesatzephyr wrote: Because letting stealth-bleed run rampant over everyone and everything is exactly the situation we have now? Stealth-bleed is playable right now, but it is beatable - which is what the situation should be. Why is it beatable? Because other decks still work. The outcome with 4CL is that almost every deck strategy is hurt in a potentially significant way, but the troubles that stealth bleed faces are almost entirely inconsequential in comparison. Sometimes it bleeds for 4 or 5 instead of 6, whoop-de-doo. By comparison, other deck styles just simply cannot function because you've just said they can't include the cards they're supposed to include, that the designers intended they include, and that they've included for years.
I completely agree. I just don't think the problems are insurmountable and need to be addressed anyway. Which is easier with 4CL.
jamesatzephyr wrote: Your proposal is bad. It will remain bad even if you pretend that somehow 4CL makes Dominate worse, even when all the evidence when people have tried it is that it makes Dominate wildly better. It doesn't tone Dominate down, even remotely. That's why it's a bad a proposal.
I don't pretend. It DOES make Dominate worse, it just so happens it makes other disciplines more worse. 4CL is not the means to tone down stealth bleed decks, it's a means to more easily balance the game. You still HAVE to balance the game, but can now do it without banning cards.
I am not saying 4CL is THE answer to all problems, it MIGHT be a step in the right direction.
Obviously opinions diverge.
... hand-waving away the horrifying problems you introduce, and pretending it is isn't bad. It's just awful.
I do no such thing, you're attributing bad behavior to my character to draw attention away from what I am actually saying. In fact I acknowledge most if not all problems, I merely think they can be solved and the forum is a tool to discuss this.
-1 Strength
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Anyway, the game wasn't designed with a card limit in mind, so no, it isn't a good idea to introduce card limit. It was already done in the past with some house rules, with awful results as I said, and heavily discussed before.
Anyway, what is the point you're trying to fix?
It turns plenty of decks in non-viable decks I'd say, and completely wrecks combat decks (Only 4 Concealed Weapons? Only 4 Grapple? Only 4 Aid from Bats?)GreyB wrote: Cons
- Lots of decks need to be revised, but still fixable.
- Wrecks certain decks (tupdogs(some will judge this as a pro), Orun/Aye)
- Eliminates a rule that kinda made Vtes special.
- Wrecks the super Animalism combat combo (Aid of Bats + Carrion Crows).
- Makes combat decks a lot more challenging.
4 Protect thine Own or 4 Return to Innocence would still be overpowered. Dramatic Upheaval would steal have the same "vp sniping" problem. Banning of cards has nothing to do with the number of copies you can include.GreyB wrote: Pro's
- No need to ban power cards.
- Tones down Imbueds (don't know this actually, I don't know imbueds)
- Tones down Turbo decks (the ones that rely on just freak drive).
- Tones down power cards such as Conditioning, Govern the unaligned, Immortal Grapple.
- Tones down pool bloating (slightly)
- Easier to balance (Mister Peal?)
- Everyone suddenly has a lot of spare cards, opening a potential card pool to new players.
- Easier for new players to build competitive decks as they don't need 10+ of super card X.
- More card diversity in decks.
I'm surprised that you think it would tone down Imbued if you don't know what you're talking about :/
Toning down Immortal Grapple is an awful idea. Even CEL/POT with 4 Immortal Grapple and 4 Psyche! would be screwn by combat ends.
It won't make things easier to balance. As I said, the whole game was designed to include unlimited copies of a card from the start.
The card pool requirement seems artificial. If you manage to find 4 Aid from Bats, you'll surely be able to find 10 more. And if you need 4 Enkil Cog, it will be as hard as before.
So yes, it would have impact on dominate decks (though limited), but at the cost of ruining plenty of other decks, and the game in general. It doesn't seem a good path to follow (once again, it has already been considered before).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Card Balance & Strategy Discussion
- Is it time to introduce a card limit?