This document is a list of Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions that people
have given to improve the game. This document will attempt to discuss
both sides of the story, ending with the official answers wherever possible.
Suggestion:
To follow the storyline / background of the role-playing game better,
you should not be able to burn a unique card (location / vampire / ally)
and then bring it back into play. This will reduce the number of unique
cards you put into a deck and better follow the storyline / fit the background
material.
Response:
How does burning a bank I control (Corporate Hunting Ground burned by Arson) prohibit
me from gaining control of a different bank? (Another Corporate Hunting Ground)
The value that might be given to increased adherence to the storyline concept
doesn't make up for the possibilities of story creation made possible by using
multiple copies of unique cards so that you can be certain to get them in play
and keep them in play. Not implementing this rule also prevents applying it in
a piecemeal fashion. Equipment burned for Horrid Reality shouldn't count,
nor should cards burned by their controller being ousted, but this sets up a situation
where cards can't be brought into play if they were controlled by someone else
that can't be applied fairly in all situations.
Suggestion:
Playing with a card limit provides the following benefits:
a) Increased Creativity
b) Helps players with fewer cards (ie those who have spent less)
c) Decreases the possibility of Boring Decks (ie cheese decks / degenerate decks)
d) Cards that are "Broken", aren't "Broken" if you only see 4 per game
Response:
a) Reducing the number of copies of a particular card you can play in a deck
has nothing to do with increasing creativity. Some very creative decks can
only be made effectively with large quantities of specific cards, ie Cryptic Mission,
Corruption, Shadow Twin, Enticement. If a card or strategy exists, you can
make creative use of it using any number of copies, the only question is how many
copies does it take for that strategy to be effective, and artificially limiting
or prohibiting those decks takes away from the creativity of the game.
b) "If you limit the number of commons that someone can play, you eliminate the
effectiveness of someone who favors paying rent over buying lots of cards."
- jonathan bradford bailey 8/18/1995
If you are playing a vote deck that would like to increase its votes with action
modifiers, the new player with Eight Bewitching Oration cards and Zero Awe cards is
hampered completely by a card limit while the person with a little more money spent
and 4 Awe and 20 Bewitching Oration isn't hurt by a 4 card limit at all. The one
who spent more money can put in 8 vote modifiers while the new player can only put
in 4. Clearly, a card limit does not help those players who have spent less money.
c) A card limit does not prohibit a deck from being boring. If every action of
every vampire is the same (ie, bleed with an action card) it is no more boring
if the action card is the same card every time (32 Computer Hacking) or if it is
a different card every time (4 Media Influence, 4 Social Charm, 4 Legal Manipulations,
4 Intimidation, 4 Enchant Kindred, 4 Entrancement, 4 Propaganda, 4 Computer Hacking).
The only part that may be boring is that your deck may not be prepared for 32 +bleed
actions so you will be sitting out the rest of the game waiting for the game to finish.
d) Whether or not a particular card is balanced is not in any way affected by
the number of times per game you see it played. As an example, it is only
necessary for a Return to Innocence to played one time for a 11-17 pool swing
to take place. This swing is too much for one card, regardless of the number
of times it happens in a game. As such, card limits will not fix the card, nor
will card limits prevent this card from being "broken". As such, the card is banned
and the rest of the set is not affected.
For more views on card limits, read Mark Langdorf's archive of articles on the subject.
You can find that archive here: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/.
James Coupe also wrote a compelling recap of the arguments against card limits here: http://www.TheLasombra.com/card-limits-coupe.txt.
Suggestion:
There should be no upper limit on the number of cards in a deck, we should be able
to play decks with 150 or 300 cards if we want to.
Response: The game was designed to be played with 40 cards, with up to 10 more per player.
This balances the effects of permanent cards (ie equipment) against the effects
of the transient cards (ones that you play and discard). The costs of the cards
would have to be re-evaluated, re-playtested, and in many cases changed entirely
to achieve balance in a game with no limit on the total number of cards that are
in your deck.
Part of the strategy of the game is to manage your dwindling resources. How much
pool do you spend to bring out vampires, how many cards do you play to have an effective
combat, how many pieces of equipment do you play with. By allowing a tower rule,
you eliminate this part of the strategy element of the game.
Suggestion:
First Strike should work like "First Strike" from Magic: The Gathering.
You should not be able to Dodge and/or End Combat before the a strike
done with First Strike is resolved.
Response:
Richard Garfield, the designer of both games, clearly disagrees with
this position. See the Jyhad rulebook, section 15.3 and the discussion
of special combat effects. Dodge always negates the effect of the
opponent's strike. Strike: Combat Ends always ends combat before any
damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place.
The Current Rules Team / Design Team, has re-emphasized this and made
it even more explicit in the Sabbat War/Final Nights rulebooks.
See section 6.4.5 Strike Effects in either rulebook for the following quotes:
"A dodge protects even from the effects of a strike done with first strike."
"[Combat Ends] is always the first strike to resolve, even before a strike
done with first strike, and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved
or any damage dealt."
and finally:
"A strike done with first strike will still not resolve before a combat ends
effect (which always resolves first), and a dodge still cancels the effects
of a strike done with first strike."
And now, for a real world scenario / explanation from Reyda:
two people fight.
One punches faster than the other.
Both attempt to strike simultaneously.
The fastest puncher hit the other first. The second blow lands on him
normally though.
Now...
two people fight.
One punches faster than the other.
the fast puncher attempts to strike, while the other runs away.
no matter how fast is the punch, it will hit thin air.
"Jyhad", "V:tES", "White Wolf", etc. are copyrighted terms/names and
are used with permission from Vampire: Elder Kindred Network.
Maintainer: Jeffrey Thompson
Last Updated July 30th, 2006.