In Defense of a Card Limit

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt of a message between Tom Doehne (doehne@cse.ogi.edu) and B. D. Redmond (GEN4BDR@leeds.ac.uk). It may be a little incoherent due to lack of context [which has been munched] but B.D.'s reply is the best defense of the 4 Card Limit I've seen so far. Tom's statements are in italics, B.D.'s rebuttal are in plaintext.

In Defense of a Card Limit

Of course it's no problem under CL. Instead of having problems with individual cards, you have:

1. Domination of the game by Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (and now probably Setite Sneak and Bleed).

Wrong, no one plays S&B, because its boring as hell and spoils the game for everyone - there's no challenge to winning with a S&B deck, and it has also become equally easy to loose with one - its all down to the luck of the card spread. Wow that's exciting!!! Also the permanents based enviroment CL tends to generate make S&B less powerful, especially with Heidelburg.
2. Evisceration of numerous competing strategies:
Ways of dealing with S&B
Rush combat: no longer effective, since you can't put enough get-in-combat cards in the deck.

wrong. you just have to be clever about it - use more permanent and semi permanent rush - make sure that when you do use rush it counts, theres no problem of rush hand jam under CL. Bleed bounce, except for Tremere and Malks, since you can't put enough bounce cards in your deck
You've got as many as your predator has bleed modifiers, normally. If not it's a case of making them count. AI means that no one risks a bleed of three or more, so telepathic counter becomes useful too. using two clan decks, or common secondary skills with skill card bonuses in there makes Toreador and ventrue and giovanni reasonable - even nosferatu, brujah and gangrel could get out one vampire to act as a bleed bouncer. But then, if no one is playing S&B, theres no real need for a deck solely devoted to bleed bounce. Ways of dealing with combat:
Run-away combat, for clans without celerity.
I have had many succesful ranged combat decks. Protean is almost as good at getting to range, as is thaumaturgy. Fortitude can get you there also (if you really need to), as can obfuscate, serpentis, animalism, auspex and potence. Its just a case of being prepared and using the cards you have available to you to their best capacity. And *then* there's fake out.

Shall we just do the sums here:

Celerity: Flash, alacrity (sup only, only if acting)
Obfuscate: Behind you (sup only - I think)
Protean: form of ghost, Gleam of the red eye (sup only), claws of the dead (sup only).
Serpentis: Form of the serpent (sup only)
Animalism: aid from bats
Potence: Thrown gate
Thaumaturgy: Movement of the mind (sup only)
Auspex: the spirits touch (sup only. only if blocking)

so there are many cards available, its just a case of making your deck better - not relying on inferior levels of disciplines.

Offensive strategies
Rush combat: As above, not enough get-in-combat cards.

not true, see above. 'Pitch' combat decks: can't put in enough maneuvers or enough long-range combat cards to be effective.
Not true, I have made a successful cel/pot/ani deck that did just this Voting: A limited number of damaging vote cards. Especially if you want to play Presence voting, rather than Princely vote, since you can't use Parity Shift or Sabbat Threat. Presence voting also gets hosed because you have only 4 Bewitching Orations and 4 Bribes, both necessary to help get those votes passed.
Voting is probably more difficult, but there have been four good vote decks made, all of which are capable of getting a full sweep of victory points Presence vote is not unworkable, you'll just have to make the most of your votes and use some praxis siesures, clan justicar cards and, especially, command the Harpies. I made a settite vote deck that was pretty evil. We also play a house rule for Charming lobby that makes it worth while. Tap-and-Vote/Bleed. These rely heavily on the combat untap cards, Majesty/Earth Meld, to tap out the prey. With >only four, you can't make it work.
Wrong again. You should also add to this list mummify, freak drive, day operation, horrid form, form of mist, Force of will, blood bond, incriminating video tape and change of target (if a stealthy action, ie tap & vote). and thats with out using the banned Thoughts betrayed and misdirestion. all of these cards can be used to great effect in a tap and bleed / vote deck, and with only four wakes, theres no real problem with anyone waking. 3. Rare cards become more valuable.
Since you can only have a limited number of each card, the rare stand-ins become much more valuable: Fists of Death in place of Torn Signpost and Undead Strength, Kine Dominance in place of Govern the Unaligned, etc. This favors Mr. Suitcase over the beginning player, a bad thing IMO.
I would have to begrudgingly agree with you on this point. Yes it will favour the player with the most cards, and yes, this is a bad thing. However everyone in our game group has a very similar amount of cards, and those of us who have slightly more than the others will often give away cards if someone requires then for a deck concept. 4. Because S&B is dominant, everyone ends up playing intercept. This slows the game down a lot. Also a bad thing, IMO.
I suppose it would slow the game down, however with no one playing S&B its not a big problem. We, as a group, enjoy longer games. We are all good friends and we don't like to see someone sitting out for large lengths of time, so generally people work to try and keep others in the game, and keep the game even. we like our games to last a long time so that we can get an evenings entertainment for free. Well, okay maybe not entirely free, but even if you spend large amounts of money, its still cheaper than beer, in the long run. Standard responses to CL arguments:

1. If you have a jerk playing Sneak & Bleed, just gang up, or use social pressure to make them quit.
Answer: If you have to resort to the metagame of social pressure or ganging up, the game is broken. Most of us would rather it worked without having to resort to this. And NL/Golden Tenets does.
Alternative answer. There is no need to gang up. Predator and prey can cope with an S&B deck quite hapily, given card spread. People who enjoy the game of Jyhad will *not* enjoy a game with an S&B deck involved in it, even if they are playing the S&B deck. Therefore the S&B deck is a dead idea. There is no need to revert to social pressure or ganging up, because the S&B deck as an idea is avoided like the plague. People who create S&B decks are usually NL players who want to show everyone how degenerate an S&B deck can be, and so aren't really in the right mindset to be playing with CLs anyway. if they continue to play S&B then they themselves will become bored with the game and either stop playing or build a more fun, more challenging deck.

2. CL is more creative, because you have to be more inventive in combining cards.
Answer: CL shuts off a lot of otherwise effective strategies. What you're doing is agreeing to play with relatively ineffective decks. The game's not broken, so you don't need to do this. (As long as you use the Golden Tenets.) Basically, any deck you can build under CL you can use under NL. And under NL, you don't have to rely on intercept for defense, which lets you be more creative, not less.
This is the argument of the unimaginative. there are many ways to create the deck you want, you just have to use the cards more effectively. if you want to challenge me feel free. Come up with a deck idea that is plausible in NL and I reckon that I could make it.
3. Well, we just play for fun. CL is better for that.
Answer: So do NL players. The range of possible decks is much wider under NL.
Voting and rush combat are now workable deck concepts.
The games are quicker.
And you don't have to wean new players off of Sneak & Bleed to preserve balance.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about which is more fun.
Not true. The range of possible decks is not much wider under NL, and voting and rush decks are workable concepts under CL. Quick games are less fun (in the opinion of our gaming group), and sneak and bleed is boring and not challenging at all. Players will wean themselves of them of their own accord (as did two of our players, including myself)

Both sides will have to agree to disagree, but the NL camp have a lot of preconcieved conceptions of CL games that are just untrue.

4. We don't have to worry about broken cards.
Answer: Well, then the game becomes more like Magic -- whoever draws their broken cards first wins. We don't really want that kind of a game, do we? But yes, you don't have to worry as much about them.

Actually we do have to worry about broken cards, its just that we have so few of them: Thoughts betrayed is just outright banned because it has no counter at all. Misdirection is banned because it is one card that can oust a player, and has very little in the way of counter - its more of a voluntary banning as it makes the games boring. we are currently debating Kiss of Ra and Blood to water, but I think bth of these are probably likely to stay. There have been few broken cards, and they have been fixed by errata or the Golden Tenets. Those methods are far preferable to the Procrustean bed of Card Limits.

Erratas are erratas and they affect us all, CL or no CL. Golden Tenets or CL its a simple choice, one that no one can out rightly say that any one is any better than the other. Both are very slight modifications to the rules of Jyhad because it doesn't work properly without one of the two. Its just a matter of personal preference which one you want to use. To say that one is far preferable to another is just a matter of opinion, and should stay as such. Personally I prefer CL, you, presumably, prefer the Golden Tenets.

All I can say is that all the arguments that you have placed against Card Limits are either irrelevant or untrue. I do not wish to grace you with a reply that tells you everything that is wrong with the NL game, as I haven't played it in a long time and both my skill level, and that of out playing group has improved dramatically since then. I would probably get my facts as wrong as you have about CL.

The only thing that I will say is that looking at the decks that I have seen both printed up on the newsgroup and on various web pages, I think that our group at least seems to be playing at a far higher skill level than most of the decks that I have seen. I'm not saying that all NL players are thick at all, I'm saying that our group is of a high standard and will have the deck building, and game playing, skill to work around any problems that other CL players, that you have had experience in dealing with, may create. I don't want to flame people for playing NL, I would much rather have people understand that its purely down to personal choice. I wouldn't like to come out right and say that NL is an inferior to CL as I don't have enough experience of NL to say it with enough confidence, and could well end up getting my facts as wrong as you seem to have. Its not simply a question of NL is good and CL is bad, or vice versa; its a case of accepting that both games are slightly different, both games are still Jyhad (or V:tES). When you get down to it theres really only one fundamental difference; proponents of both variants accept that Jyhad needs some tweaking from how it is origionally written - the errata half covers this, but not entirely, therefore some other restrictions are needed the choice is either to restrict the number of cards that you have available to you, the othetr is to restrict the viability of certain tactics using the "golden Tenets" rules modifications. Its all down to personal choice and I chose CL. If you're not happy with that, fine, just get your facts straight about the "problems" with CL before you open your mouth.