Coming back to the game

desmondkenny wrote:

Anyone want to provide any general comments on this? My response is that getting rid of the arbitrary limit would allow a much bigger variety of decks, open us up to more clans and styles of play, while keeping it means that only a few types of play are actually viable.

The unlimited library card rule is major part of VTES' unique charm. It is quite interesting how it has not broken the game. It is also a testament to the game itself that there is no singular "best strategy" despite the lack of limit. I think its because the actions you can perform in a game are limited by your minions, and there are some other important limits such as the limit of specific playable action modifiers and reactions during an action (can only play one specific action modifier or reaction per action). You cannot play 20 conditionings on one bleed.

The grouping rule I would rather keep in place, as I think it would be too easy to create optimized crypts per decktype without the grouping rule. This would push most crypt compositions out of the meta and we would be seeing same vampires over and over. So the grouping rule actually promotes versatility because you are forced to make choices in deckbuilding. For example, I'm currently working on a Setite vote deck. I have to make a choice whether I want to play Sarrasine or Neferu. I can't just slap them both into same crypt which would be an obvious choice if we had no grouping rule. So because of grouping, there is actually two distinctly different decks instead of just one in this example.

Just forget the card limits.
Doesn't really matter especially if you proxy.

Proxying has become acceptable, for official tournaments.
But it'll end sooner or later now that the game is back in print.

No one will ever stop you from proxying all you want for your casual games...

If they would make everything print on demand I would pay for new cards as opposed to proxy but Im okay with proxies in the mean time. Its good for the health of the game in the short term.

As for card limits Ive played magic and there it at least limits deck costs. Only $500 for a good deck as opposed to $1000....


Yeah I'll stick with vtes.

Most of the best cards in the game are commons so the lack of card limits doesn't really make it more expensive, quite the contrary, it might make it more expensive since you would then need to get all the rare alternatives to the commons that do same thing slightly differently.

I should clarify I'm not against VTES having no card-copy limit. I actually think it is a testament to the game's core mechanics / structure that it can have no card-copy limits AND the instant draw-replace cycling rule, and still not be 'broken' (the closest thing might be the Una Freak Drive combo?)

I would say experiment with card limits. Do 5-ofs, 6-ofs, 7-ofs, etc. But my prediction is that once you remove the card limit, you'll find entire swaths of cards being completely abandoned (becoming wall-paper) for cards that are strictly better or more general use. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it brings me to the point I was making earlier:

Why do people argue against implementing a card-copy limit but won't advocate removing the grouping rule?

Let's look at BloodArtist's response and tweak it a little.

BloodArtist wrote:

The card-copy limit I would rather keep in place, as I think it would be too easy to create optimized libraries per decktype without the card-copy limit rule. This would push most library cards out of the meta and we would be seeing same library cards over and over. So the card-copy limit rule actually promotes versatility because you are forced to make choices in deckbuilding. For example, I'm currently working on a Setite vote deck. I have to make a choice whether I want to play Awe or Bewitching Oration or Perfect Paragon or Business Pressure. I can't just slap x8 Bewitching Oration into same library which would be an obvious choice if we had no card-copy limit rule. So because of card-copy limits, there is actually several distinctly different decks instead of just one in this example.

Other arguments are also weak IMO:

AceFranklin wrote:

As for card limits Ive played magic and there it at least limits deck costs. Only $500 for a good deck as opposed to $1000.... Yeah I'll stick with vtes.

That's entirely due to Magic's business model of intentionally producing "chase rares". Magic isn't even engaged in power-creep, they've moved on to power-jog. It's a blatant money grab tactic. However, VTES has also had individual cards with ridiculous prices in the past due to limited print-runs and secondary market demand.

Lonkka wrote:

Just forget card limits.

Doesn't even offer pros or cons or reasons why. I imagine if he did it would be "because that's the way it has been for 25 years" (which is apparently called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy - suitable for an immortal, no?)

Ankha wrote:

You can always tell them that decks have been built without limit for 25 years and yet, it has never been broken. But it all depends on what you call a "power deck".

This goes back to the core structure and mechanics of the game, as well as the card-design which was pretty tame during the WW era, with a few exceptions here and there. It's often held as a strength of the game that you can still use Jyhad cards and be competitive. But that's a testament to the general power-level of the initial set and the subsequent WotC sets. The vast majority of cards WW put out were pretty weak by comparison. I think it's evident that VEKN / Black Chantry has put out some pretty powerful cards compared to what WW was doing, and that this increase in power-level was generally welcomed and well received by the community.

Klatial wrote:

Most of the best cards in the game are commons so the lack of card limits doesn't really make it more expensive, quite the contrary, it might make it more expensive since you would then need to get all the rare alternatives to the commons that do same thing slightly differently.

In a world where the contents of the packs not randomized and are known beforehand, as Black Chantry's print-on-demand is currently doing, there is no rarity among cards. Some cards may be more or less powerful in certain situations, but everyone has the exact same odds of getting the exact same cards. Which should make the expense easily calculable (and arguably less expensive) for buyers, since they're no longer praying you'll get the copies of the card you need.

Card limits would also prevent you from buying 4x Keepers of Tradition Bundle No.1 just so you can get the 8x copies of Deep Song you need for your Animalism deck (and thus ending up with 8x copies of some random vampire you don't need that many copies of.) As far as cards that do the same thing slightly differently, that's the best thing about these kinds of card games IMO. Having cards that encapsulate different ideas and themes and execute on that in unique ways within the game, that result in different options for play.

---
But DesmondKenny, you should do whatever your group thinks will result in the most fun and such, as Kraus suggests.

Doesn't even offer pros or cons or reasons why. I imagine if he did it would be "because that's the way it has been for 25 years" (which is apparently called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy - suitable for an immortal, no?)

I have one for you:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

It's actually as simple as that, really.

There is no possible way to avoid wallpaper and failed card designs from time to time. VtES' system is good for what it tries to accomplish.