Is it time to introduce a card limit?

ankha wrote: When I started, the players who introduced me to the game were playing with a 4 cards limit. Needless to say that my uncompetitive Corruption deck was not viable. Combat decks were crap (4 Immortal Grapple? I play with 12 combat ends, good luck!) The whole thing was crap.
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.

True, just introducing 4CL without adding cards to balance things out is a bad idea. However it's possible to introduce it in a set where you balance the problems out. CE is a great example as with 4CL there won't be enough CE busters. I envision (for example) adding 1 card each to celerity and potence that works against CE, or perhaps a non-discipline CE buster.

Point is, with 4CL this is manageable, problems are more easy to oversee and solve. I know the game is designed with limitless cards in mind, but I do see a potential to introduce a card limit and that it would solve some problems without requiring further bans or even retooling.

ankha wrote: 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?)

I cannot dispute this, though I still see a way to design this away. It wouldn't probably take that many card designs. Could start to compile a list of what cards would be needed, though I already sense the sentiment towards 4CL is a bigger obstacle than possibilities.

ankha wrote: 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.

Whoops, I only meant "further" bans. You know, the posts calling for bans of "conditioning", "govern the unaligned". This whole topic was meant as an alternative to those possibilities.

ankha wrote: I'm surprised that you think it would tone down Imbued if you don't know what you're talking about :/

Yeah doh, just had a look at a couple of decks, 4CL does nothing to tone down imbueds.

ankha wrote: Toning down Immortal Grapple is an awful idea. Even CEL/POT with 4 Immortal Grapple and 4 Psyche! would be screwn by combat ends.

As I mentioned before, can be designed away, but also have to say; I know some decks lean heavily on IG or Psyche, just as some decks lean heavily on 10+ copies of card XYZ. Balance and playtime problems in Vtes can mostly be homed in on the fact that you can include 10+ copies of a card.
- Ashur's (liquidation)
- Freakdrive turbo
- Consangeous boon bloat
- govern/conditioning

There's a thin line between strategies based on just a couple of cards and rule abuse.

ankha wrote: 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.

I currently don't have spares. If 4CL is introduced, I suddenly have many spares to give away to new players. New players that probably wouldn't even consider browsing e-bay and spend hours in buying a deck together. And thats just me. It might be the little bump to start the momentum of getting more players. Perhaps too positive thinking from my side.

ankha wrote: 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).

Has it ever been considered alongside releasing a balancing set? Or was the general consensus that it's too much of an effort without even looking at what the effort would be? Just from the top of my head, most issues can be solved with 10-20 card designs, add 10-20 cards for issues I can't think of right now and we have a 40 card set.

Again, I really think the only thing holding back 4CL is the sentiment towards it. And to be fair, it's a just sentiment. I also like the unrestricted card limit. But objectively it does solve some issues, creates more deck/card diversity and makes the game easier to balance.

GreyB wrote: Again, I really think the only thing holding back 4CL is the sentiment towards it. And to be fair, it's a just sentiment. I also like the unrestricted card limit.

It's experience, not sentiment that causes people to object to a 4 card limit.

No unique card limits is one of VTES' strengths and unique selling points. You're only limited by your imagination — more so now that proxies are becoming more common place.

GreyB wrote: Just from the top of my head, most issues can be solved with 10-20 card designs, add 10-20 cards for issues I can't think of right now and we have a 40 card set.

It'll take way more than a 40-card set. Take a look at the TWDA and all the decks that include 4+ cards other than dominate/Ashur's/Freak Drive et al. It'd be more like a 500-card set.

GreyB wrote: True, just introducing 4CL without adding cards to balance things out is a bad idea. However it's possible to introduce it in a set where you balance the problems out. CE is a great example as with 4CL there won't be enough CE busters. I envision (for example) adding 1 card each to celerity and potence that works against CE, or perhaps a non-discipline CE buster.

So your plan is to randomly mess up the game, and then frantically try to patch the holes that you have just created. Or we could, you know, not break things in the first place, so we don't have to fix them.

this very much feels like trying to fix something that isn't acrually broken.

GreyB wrote: *hands over topic to community*

*hands it back and says* why dont you and your play group try it out and report back.