Converted to html by Mark Langsdorf
This is an article which explores the difference between Magic and Jyhad, explains why Jyhad is a better game (rather than a $$$-making scheme) than Magic, and, as the goal of this article, explains why an arbituary, global card limit (such as a 4-card limit) attempting to "fix" the game balance would be undesirable for Jyhad, even though the same method (seemingly) worked for Magic. The article looks at the games from the viewpoint of game resources, in particular Library cards as a game resource.
This article is coupled with a following article that discusses some game balance issues concerning specific card(s), based on the concepts explained in this article.
The author humbly asks to be excused for the lengthliness of this article.
In Magic, Library cards (in the hand) are generally replaced at the rate of one card per turn. Only a few card-effects would allow you to draw more. This means that in Magic, a (useful) card in the hand is a very precious resource, a resource that is used up and lost when the card is played. One card played is one less card in the hand.
True, there are Mana and Sequence of Play constraints on spell-casting, but Mana is just Mana-source cards with a good break in the draw, and Sequence of Play and other constraints are usually not as tight and critical a constraint as are cards in the hand. Players usually find that it is the existence of a card in the hand that defines or constraints what a player can or cannot do.
In Jyhad, it is a totally different story. Library cards are replaced as soon as they are played or discarded (or, in some cases, no later than the completion of the current combat, action, or vote), and are drawn /only/ when a card is played or discarded. In other words, Library cards are a resource which is replenished at exactly the rate it is used. When you play a card, you immediately draw another to fill up your hand; this means that library cards are not as precious a resource as it used to be in Magic. Although a played card is burnt, the card you draw as its replacement may be (and should be, in a well-constructed library, unless the played card is rare) as useful as the one you just played.
In other words, in general, when you use up a common card, you don't really use up any of your constrained resources. A card played does not mean one less card in the hand, unlike the case in Magic. On the contrary, there are very real game resource constraints which regulate the play of library cards: the Sequence of Play (such as a Master Phase), Blood, and untapped, ready minions (especially untapped, ready vampires with a certain discipline).
Library cards in Jyhad may be looked at as vehicles or opportunities that allow you to utilize those constrained resources in a more effective way, rather than being a constrained resource itself. This is especially true of cards that require a discipline: without Library cards, a Discipline is useless, yet with a deck with a significant proportion of cards in the discipline, the discipline can be counted on to work reliably. And pool, a resource constraint which is limited and not "replenished at the rate it is used", is required to bring out the vampire with the discipline so as to create more opportunities for which the cards can be played. Hence, in this case, the real resource constraint is the availiability of a vampire with the required skill. (There is a constraint as to deck composition, as the total ratio of the various cards in the deck cannot exceed 100%, but this is different from counting a played card as an expended resource. Deck composition defines the effectiveness of the skills of your vampires, but even if you played the only "Conditioning" card in your deck, you'll immediately draw a replacement which is "supposed" to be as useful.) You don't worry about "using up" a minion card by a skillful vampire; you'll draw another one, similar or even identical, in no time, and if not it'll be (ideally) another useful card taking up its place in the interrim.
Rare cards may be an exception to this idea; see argument further down below.
There are maximum deck size limits in Jyhad, but for the sake of simplicity, in this argument we assume that a Library rarely runs out of cards during a game, so we can ignore this factor for now.
One of the reasons why many think that Jyhad is a better game than Magic is this difference in the emphasis of the game. Vampire skills, backed by a plentiful supply of minion cards, really work and feel like a skill: you don't worry about "using up" the common minion cards, if you have a fair proportion of them in the deck. (Even if you don't, whatever card you draw as a replacement should be as useful, or else you should reconsider your deck composition.) Players are free to choose between concentrating on a few disciplines, or diversifying on multiple disciplines, which although may cause the effectiveness of each discipline to "fluctuate" during the game, would make it harder for your opponent to predict your play and defend against it.
In Magic, each player must build his deck based mainly on the effectiveness of each card; in Jyhad, not only the card's effect must be considered, but also its cost and the opportunities which regulate the playing of each card. For example, compare a KRCG radio and an Enhanced Senses. The KRCG radio, as a card, is no doubt more effective than the Enhanced Senses, and if Library cards are indeed replaced at a fixed rate (such as one per turn) then one would see little reason why anyone would ever use an Enhanced Senses card. However, not only does the KRCG costs 2 pool, it is only useable during a Master Phase, which may be expended on some other useful Master card in lieu of the KRCG, while the Enhanced Senses is played as a reaction, usually in a situation when few cards other than "action-temporary" intercept cards can be played. Hence the Enhanced Senses allows you to utilize a resource (Auspex skill) which is likely to be otherwise useless, while the KRCG is likely to be competing with other important Master cards in your hand. Therefore, under the game system framework of Jyhad, which has vast internal differences from Magic, an Enhanced Senses is as useful a card as the KRCG.
To (attempt to) give a player without a $1000 $$$ deck nor a degenerate deck a chance for a fight, the famous 4-card limit was introduced. Since Magic is not as much "a game for serious gamers" as Jyhad, this method of restricting the player's resources (seemed to) work well.
Since the cards were "balanced" with appeals to rarity, one would conclude that the game was designed to be played by players who have a (reasonably) limited supply of cards. Putting a 4-card limit is a "realistic" way of simulating this constraint when very $$$ rich players come onto the scene. The 4-card limit has very little impact on the game system and structure, and, since it simulated an assumed constraint of the game that had been physically removed (by $$$), seemed to work well in terms of "balancing" the game.
Unfortunately, some players quickly find that some library cards, though common (or uncommon), are in general much more powerful than the others (which, IMHO, is true). The drop of a single card may give a player a considerable advantage in the game (EX: Misdirection). Some players begin to find the game being dominated by those cards, and had to find a way to control and limit the use of those cards. With an attempt to preserve "game balance" but without a deep understanding of the game system and its differences with Magic, a 4-card, or some other arbituary number, limit was imposed.
This "solution", while admitting that there are some cards which are more powerful than others, and hence such cards are as valuable, of themselves, a game resource as other resources (such as pool, minions, etc.), limits the number of those cards in a deck.
The first result is that, since those (common) cards that were considered powerful are now restricted by number, their role as a constrained game resource is highlighted more than ever: if a player draws one of those spoilers into his hand, the spoiler card is now a constrained game resource, which is lost (and replaced by an expectedly "less powerful" card) when used. He couldn't have put in a larger number of those "spoiler" cards, so that the constraint for using those cards fall back on the other game resources (Master Phase and pool, for example) rather than the number of those cards in the deck (and hence the frequency that such cards are drawn into the hand). This violates the fundamental principle of the game, that an individual common Library card is not a constrained game resource.
The effect of this is that, while game balance is "restored", in a sense and to a certain extent, the concept of the game is changed in a fundamental way. The need for a spoiler to be (luckily) drawn into the hand may now be as great as the need for an extra point of pool or an extra minion. The game, where even common Library cards become a constrained game resource, is no longer Jyhad - it has captured an essential element of Magic.
The second result is that, it now becomes difficult to concentrate a deck on a few disciplines, simply because the game was designed to NOT be confined by a global card limit. Unlike Magic, in Jyhad, many of the useful, important cards are common. This reflects the designer's idea that players should be able to work with an abundence of each of those common cards, and freely construct their deck and concentrate where they want.
Sometimes, an important concept of a discipline, or otherwise, is represented by only 1 or 2 cards. Examples are the Protean Claws and the non-discipline combat cards "Fake Out" and "Dodge". If an arbituary number limit is placed on those cards, some perfectly innocent deck strategies become impossible. Also, in cases where cards of similar functions are availiable (Undead Strength vs. Growing Fury; Social Charm vs. Legal Manipulations), the player has to make a careful decision as to what proportion of each card he should use; an arbituary number limit makes the decision more or less trivial: he uses the maximum allowed for each card. This makes some fine deck strategies impossible.
When the number of each common discipline card, most of which being very useful, is limited to an arbituary amount, the card also becomes a constrained game resource. You no longer can count on your Brujahs to have "Undead Strength" consistently (by putting 10 in the deck); with only 4 in the deck, you may have to conserve it in "but slightly useful" situations, because if you played it, you'll likely draw another card which is much less useful in combat (hard to build 60%+ combat decks). This kind of arbituary constraints, contrary to the original concept of the game, bogs down the game and slows its pace.
Another important concern is that in the original design, certain strategies are powerful but can be countered by some other strategy effectively; the artificial card number limit may rule out the countering strategy, but doesn't inhibit the first strategy too much, hence leaving the first strategy unopposed (EX: Stealth-and-Bleed vs. Bum's Rush/Haven Uncovered combat).
While it is true (IMHO) that some common cards, especially some Master cards, are more powerful than others, and the game may be improved by modifying/banning, or barring the above, restricting those cards (which is IMO not an elegant solution because it turns individual common cards into a constrained game resource), a global card limit violates the fundamental concept of the game even more, disables vampire skills and disrupts game balance more than fixing it.
Jyhad intentionally has many of the basic, essential cards common. Some rare cards may be powerful, but it is assumed (as in the case of Magic, see above argument) that their rarity would create a barrier against building a degenerate deck using an absurd number of those cards. In tournament situations (or otherwise) where this may not be true because of $$$ rich players, we may have to restrict the number of some of the rare cards. However, to blindly extend this limit to every common card is IMO both unnecessary and damaging.
As mentioned above, common Library cards are not designed to be a constrained game resource. This concept may also be extended to some cards which are not common. Instead of putting a limit of "one per deck" (or any number), and thereby turning the Library card itself into a constrained game resource, the designer of the game opted to limit the use of the card via the "uniqueness" idea, thus (effectively, IMO) preventing degenerate decks. In this case, because there is no actual limit of how many you can put in the deck, the Library card itself, in theory, is not a constrained game resource, because you could have put in more copies so that you'll get it as often as you like. If you think your Hunting Ground is precious and having it Sudden Reversal'ed would really hurt you, why not put in a second, or a third, or more, so that you can be sure that you'll get it out. Since you think the Hunting Ground card is so much better than other cards, by all means put in more.
This scheme allows for some interesting strategy options. First, the player can count on a unique card to be reliably drawn into his hand as part of his strategy. This places the game's emphasis back onto the other resources which allow you to play the unique card, rather than the unique card itself. It also leaves the game more in control of the players' strategies (if I really need it I'll put in more) rather than the luck of the draw.
Let's look at an example. Assume that for a Brujah player, he has two slots in his deck with which to fill with locations. Assume that he feels that he'd like to put KRCG's and Mob Connections in those two slots. Further assume that either of these locations have to get out within a half- transversal of the deck in order to be effective. Now, he thinks that the KRCG (cost accounted for) is more important than the Mobs. He has two options:
In short, enforcing a 1-card limit on uniques puts the game's emphasis back to the Library cards themselves as a constrained game resource. This leads players to focus their strategies on countering the Library cards themselves rather than the other resources which allow his opponent to use them. This shifts the game's emphasis away from its original design and intent. In addition, such card-countering playing style puts more emphasis on the luck of the draw (and also the "power" of the cards) rather than careful strategic management of one's other game resources.
Finally, it is hard to predict the impact that limiting uniques, and hence making them much less reliable as part of a strategy, has on the game. A deck concentrated in certain Disciplines will often inevitably be weak in certain aspects of the game. It may need a unique card to help it in those weak areas. For example, Brujahs are usually weak in intercept. Instead of being able to count reliably on bringing out the KRCG by putting in more, he can only put in one and hope for the best. Thus, more emphasis is placed on the luck of the draw, rather than the player's strategic planning and careful evaluation of what is important for his strategy.
Alan Kwan kwan@cs.cornell.edu