Jyhad/VTES "done right"

This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of them be significantly overpowered. I don't expect that any of this ever would happen now that the game has progressed so far beyond that point, but it might have been cool if the game had originally been written this way. :-) Computer Hacking: Costs 1 blood, do not replace until the end of the action. Dominate Kine/Kine Dominance: Costs 3 blood. The Embrace: Costs 3 blood, gets a discipline, no vampire can perform more than one Embrace action per game. Enchant Kindred: Costs 1 blood; superior is at +1 stealth (as current). Entrancement: Costs 1 blood. The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality: Choose another younger vampire (fill to capacity). The Fourth Tradition: The Accounting: Move 2 blood. Govern the Unaligned: +1 bleed. Move 2 blood at superior. Graverobbing: Inferior is burn the target vampire (not diablerie); superior is equivalent to former inferior, and costs 2 blood. Legal Manipulations: Bleed at +1. Pulse of the Canaille: Costs 2 blood, superior is +1 bleed. Social Charm: Doesn't exist. (Replaced by reworded Legal Manipulations.) The Third Tradition: Progeny: Costs 2 blood; no vampire can create more than one Progeny per game. Bewitching Oration: 1 vote/3 votes. Bonding: Costs 1 blood. Conditioning: Does not exist. (Replaced by reworded Threats.) Threats: Costs 1 blood. Cryptic Rider: Must be played before votes are cast. Day Operation: Costs 2 blood. Doesn't work on allies (as current). Faceless Night: Burn 1 blood for superior effect. Freak Drive: A vampire may play only one per turn. Spying Mission: Superior is burned for +1 bleed. Voter Captivation: Gain X * 0.5 blood (round down). Superior, move up to 1 to your pool. Renegade Garou: 1 strength, 4 pool cost. Amaranth: Does not exist. Concealed Weapon: Disciplineless, but limit 1 pool or 3 damage (non-agg only). Dragon's Breath Rounds: +1 aggravated damage, not +2 (and Jyhad agg damage rules, so 1 point can't burn you even if you're already going to torpor). Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. Form of Mist: Strike: go to press step; superior can burn 1 blood to continue the action after combat at no added stealth. Majesty: Strike: go to press step (0 blood cost, burn 1 to untap at superior). Taste of Vitae: As currently written. Drawing out the Beast: One per combat. Weather Control: One per combat. Nosferatu Putrescence: Does not exist. Zip Gun: Doesn't count as a gun. Ivory Bow: Costs 2 pool. Monocle of Clarity: As currently written. Rowan Ring: As currently written. Soul Gem of Etrius: Move the vampire into play with 1 blood. Aching Beauty: A vampire may have only one Aching Beauty. Anarch Revolt: A Methuselah may lose only one pool per turn to Anarch Revolts. Anarch Troublemaker: Costs 1 pool. Archon Investigation: Costs 1 pool. Usable on a bleed for more than 2; reduces that bleed to 1. Does not burn the bleeding vampire. The Barrens: Costs 1 pool. Betrayer: Guessing is free. Blood Doll: Does not exist. Brainwash: No Methuselah may have more than one Brainwash. Brujah Frenzy: Does not exist. Cultivated Blood Shortage: Does not exist. Fame: As currently written, but burn 2 pool when going to torpor. Game of Malkav: Play 1-4, 1-5 for you. Gangrel Atavism/De-Evolution: Does not exist. Giant's Blood: 4 blood from the blood bank max. Still once per game. Golconda: Gain pool equal to half capacity. Can be canceled by paying 1 pool. Hostile Takeover: Can only target a vampire of capacity below 5. Information Highway: Costs 1 pool. Letter from Vienna: Does not exist. Life Boon: Burn 2X pool to give X pool. You get no VP benefit (just the pool in future). Madness Network: Costs 2 pool. Malkavian Dementia: Does not exist. Malkavian Prank: If you guess correctly, you gain half that much pool (round up) from their pool. Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter: Sends to torpor (Millicent still burns). Minion Tap: Move up to 4 blood. Misdirection: As currently written. The Rack: Costs 1 pool. Smiling Jack the Anarch: Each other Methuselah burns X/2 blood or pool, where X is the number of counters on Jack (round down). Society of Leopold: Burn 1 blood or be sent to torpor. Succubus Club: Does not exist. Temptation of Greater Power: Costs 2 pool, can only target non-titled vampires below 7 capacity. Only one ToGP can be played on a Methuselah per game. Tragic Love Affair: Does not exist. Ventrue Headquarters: Tap for 2 votes. Ancilla Empowerment: May only be played once per turn. Autarkis Persecution: May only be played once per turn. [X] Justicar: Choose a vampire of capacity above 6. Conservative Agitation: Allocate X-1 points, where X is the number of players in the game. May only be played once per turn. Domain Challenge: May only be played once per turn. Dramatic Upheaval: Does not exist. The First Tradition: The Masquerade: Burn 1 pool to take your turn. Burned when the playing Meth has skipped 3 turns or burned 3 pool, or any combination adding to 3. Justicar Retribution: Sends to torpor. Only one may be played per game. Kindred Restructure: Does not exist. Kine Resources Contested: Allocate 3 points. May only be played once per turn. Parity Shift: Allocate X-1 points between at least two Methuselahs; at least one point must go to the Methuselah with the lowest pool in the game. Praxis Seizure [X]: Requires a vampire of capacity above 4. Deflection: The bleed is reduced to 1 and the stealth is reduced to 0. Delaying Tactics: Costs 1 blood (as currently written). Obedience: Costs 1 blood. Superior still untaps the acting vamp, but he or she also burns a blood. The Second Tradition: Domain: Costs a blood to untap (as currently written). Telepathic Misdirection: Superior reduces the bleed to 1 and the stealth to 0. Wake with Evening's Freshness: Costs 1 blood. Do not replace until next untap phase. I don't know that all of these are the best solutions, and I haven't even touched on all the cards that were printed *after* VTES. :-) And I'm sure a lot of people like the game enough as it is that they don't think this would be an improvement. But you can probably see some of the principles I'm thinking about: that no single card should have too large an effect is the main one. Josh mind rape: does not exist.

snip your great "suggestions" none of those cards is right now overpowered, and with your changes all deck types except combat would be screwed. so maybe you like combat decks but just don´t change cards based on your prefs. the cards are fine as they are. stefan by the way your cards would be wallpaper

>I don't know that all of these are the best solutions, and I haven't >even touched on all the cards that were printed *after* VTES. I'm surprised you had the energy to go through so many cards, especially knowing that not only won't the changes get made but people won't like fundamental shifts in the game because, in order to be playing the game now, they must like something about it. >But you can probably see some of >the principles I'm thinking about: that no single card should have too >large an effect is the main one. It seems like you went overboard though. With Computer Hacking, I could see limiting to once per turn, but adding a blood cost to all the bleed stuff just means people become much harder to oust (still going to have people Minion Tapping left and right) which means longer games which means fewer players as the number one complaint I've heard with the game is length of play. In addition, all of the changes produce a cumulative effect. Sure, I think Conditioning is bad for the game, but one blood for Threats and one blood for Scouting Mission, aka Govern, and it becomes prohibitive to do things that oust people. I'm not particularly bothered by a deck that (currently) plays Scouting Mission and Threats - you don't see them. Govern/Conditioning is so far and away better which means there's plenty of middle ground room for changing the game.

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950586...@unet.univie.ac.at> kirjoitti viestissä news:3ffb3b24$0$8840$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Other people. You can always count on them to make your day. :)

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I don't know that all of these are the best solutions, and I haven't > even touched on all the cards that were printed *after* VTES. :-) And > I'm sure a lot of people like the game enough as it is that they don't > think this would be an improvement. But you can probably see some of > the principles I'm thinking about: that no single card should have too > large an effect is the main one. Right? Seems to me you'd be encouraging weenie decks, and, uh, that's about it. The vast majority of the cards are powered down -- so, in effect, any given action becomes weaker, and/or more expensive. The weaker an action is, the more you need. You could have an instrinsic +1 bleed DOM fatty play govern and threats and bleed for 4, or you could have two normal DOM midcaps each bleed with threats for 6. Similarly, it becomes more important to call more votes if each vote has lesser effect. So, more minions needed. Limiting the Praxis and the Justicars to higher cap vampires is good, IMHO, but the limiting of votes to 1/turn each pretty much makes voting support-only -- you'd have to have the right mix of cards in hand, and even then you won't do that much damage. Better to go with bleeding. Finally, by toning down the effects of the cards, the game's brought closer to a war of attrition. You reduce the "lunge" factor, sure, but you end up drawing out the length of the game. And, since there's less swing, once someone is noticable weaker, they're going to stay that way. Which makes the game more predictable -- which may be what you want -- but also makes it more boring. IMNSHO. --Colin McGuigan

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > snip your great "suggestions" Clearly, you missed the point. > none of those cards is right now overpowered, Compared to the game as it is now, you are mostly correct. Josh's point was that had the game been designed from the get go where no single card could cause *that* big of a swing, the game would have been a better place all together. To that point, a list of possible places that the game could have started out, rather than somewhere that the game should go now. But then, I'm fairly certain that he explained that at the start of the post. > and with your changes all deck > types except combat would be screwed. Not really--I mean, yeah, S:CE becomes Strike: End Round, which seems reasonable (and makes Presses useful, overall), but all Fortitude was left alone. And Fame was downpowered in his fantasy world. > so maybe you like combat decks but > just don´t change cards based on your prefs. the cards are fine as they are. Yes. Yes they are. But if they had all been different from day one, the world might have been a better place. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > them be significantly overpowered. I don't expect that any of this ever > would happen now that the game has progressed so far beyond that point, > but it might have been cool if the game had originally been written this > way. :-) <snip> I've often wondered about this myself. In fact, this would make for an interesting JOL experiment. When I have some time, maybe I will set up a game using this limited set. Preferrably after the new JOL tournament, which we will be starting very soon. Cheers, WES

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm really not sure why you're being condescending here. Josh's point is that the game suffers from being stuck with cards that were created long ago and that are problematic. If the game were to be changed to account for these problems, it would involve more than just simple errata. To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive options just don't cut it. One way to resolve that (which seems to be reflected in Josh's post) is to reduce the amount of bleed possible in the game. However, the problem with that is that the game would be even slower than it is now. What I think is needed in this case is to keep the big bleed (in the interests of keeping game length down), but create ways for other disciplines (aka not Dom and Aus) to viably defend themselves against it. But that's just one issue, and there are many. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > them be significantly overpowered. I don't expect that any of this ever > would happen now that the game has progressed so far beyond that point, > but it might have been cool if the game had originally been written this > way. :-) Alright, I'll take a crack at this: > Computer Hacking: Costs 1 blood, do not replace until the end of the > action. I like the "do not replace..."; it sets up a theme with the other "no discipline required cards" such as Arson, Bum's Rush, Fake out, etc. However, I don't agree with the blood cost. I think that allies with an inherent 0 bleed should be able to bleed for 1 "with a little help from a Methuselah", both from a mechanic standpoint and a thematic one. > Dominate Kine/Kine Dominance: Costs 3 blood. Nah. Unless it's 3 blood with the superior at +1 stealth. > The Embrace: Costs 3 blood, gets a discipline, no vampire can perform > more than one Embrace action per game. I like only one per vampire per game; brings it closer to storytelling and creates bigger distinction with Legion storywise. I say 2 blood, discipline, must hunt, and a Prince can call a referendum to burn an Embrace once per game. > Enchant Kindred: Costs 1 blood; superior is at +1 stealth (as current). I'm vacillating on this one. Bleed disciplines should have a +1 bleed action at no cost; it's all about how you weight the superior. > Entrancement: Costs 1 blood. Yes, especially due to the superior. > The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality: Choose another younger vampire (fill > to capacity). I prefer "another CAMARILLA vampire" and 4 blood. Leave the orgy of blood drinking to the Sabbat. > The Fourth Tradition: The Accounting: Move 2 blood. Due to the old Jyhad/VTES capacity equation, I would prefer "3 blood to a younger uncontrolled CAMARILLA vampire." Because we're talking about using the old Jyhad vamps with these card printings, right? Make Appolonius (as Brujah Justicar) worth playing with. > Govern the Unaligned: +1 bleed. Move 2 blood at superior. See Enchant Kindred commentary. > Graverobbing: Inferior is burn the target vampire (not diablerie); > superior is equivalent to former inferior, and costs 2 blood. I really like the inferior giving a non-diablerie option (again storytelling), but I disagree on the superior. Surely a vampire "graverobbing" another vampire could also awaken him from torpor if he so chooses during the same action. Perhaps 2 blood and "Move a YOUNGER vampire from another Methuselah's torpor area to your ready region, tap that vampire and remove all blood counters from it. You now control that vampire." Has anyone else thought it weird that Graverobbing is a dominate card? I can see Ozmo being graverobbed, awakening from torpor and telling his rescuer Didi Meyers, "OMFG! You so dominated me! I now fight for YOU!" Maybe it could be an Auspex card. "OMFG! You so SAW WHERE I WAS LYING UNDER THE GROUND!" > Legal Manipulations: Bleed at +1. Vacillate. > Pulse of the Canaille: Costs 2 blood, superior is +1 bleed. Yes. Hell, I'd use Pulse more now with this cost. > Social Charm: Doesn't exist. (Replaced by reworded Legal > Manipulations.) Actually I'd keep the name Social Charm (with your costing) and ditch Legal Manipulations (thematic). > The Third Tradition: Progeny: Costs 2 blood; no vampire can create more > than one Progeny per game. Sure. > Bewitching Oration: 1 vote/3 votes. Assuming no old school Jyhad vote card pushing, yes. > Bonding: Costs 1 blood. Yes. > Conditioning: Does not exist. (Replaced by reworded Threats.) No. Dominate still needs to be the king of bleed. Presence gives you vote and combat defense, let Dominate still give you a bleed for 4+. > Threats: Costs 1 blood. As long as you keep the rest of the OLD Jyhad text on it... <snicker> > Cryptic Rider: Must be played before votes are cast. No. I like the table interaction with the current version: "Why are you voting me down cross table? -Because you might play a Cryptic Rider. What if I promise not to? -Okay, I'll vote for it then. Vote passes, and I'll play this Cryptic Rider. -YOU COCK! I WILL MAKE IT MY SINGULAR GOAL THIS GAME TO DESTROY YOU CROSS TABLE! NO ONE FUCKS WITH APPOLONIUS AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!" [ quoted text not captured ]

> To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is > the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. > However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- > bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive > options just don't cut it. One way to resolve that (which seems to > be reflected in Josh's post) is to reduce the amount of bleed > possible in the game. However, the problem with that is that the > game would be even slower than it is now. > > What I think is needed in this case is to keep the big bleed (in > the interests of keeping game length down), but create ways for > other disciplines (aka not Dom and Aus) to viably defend themselves > against it. > I KNEW IT!!I KNEW IT!! I AM NOT ALONE!!!!!! Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just couldn't get anyone to agree on this. At least, in such clear a way. Would you agree on an expensive but disciplineless/clanless bleedbounce card( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only viable option I've been able to come up with..) > But that's just one issue, and there are many. agreed greetz Jo [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... I will continue on from previous post that was sent accidentally. > Day Operation: Costs 2 blood. Doesn't work on allies (as current). Sure. > Faceless Night: Burn 1 blood for superior effect. With which text? Jyhad: +1 stealth. A VAMPIRE that attempts to block this action is tapped, whether or not the block is successful. VTES: +1 stealth, and tap any VAMPIRE that attempts to block this action regardless of whether the block is successful. Current: +1 stealth, and any MINION that attempts to block this action AND FAILS becomes tapped when the action is resolved (before resolving the action). Like the burn 1 blood. Just curious as to which effect you'd prefer in your Dream Jyhad. > Freak Drive: A vampire may play only one per turn. Nice. > Spying Mission: Superior is burned for +1 bleed. In keeping with your across the board bleed reduction, yes. Otherwise, no. > Voter Captivation: Gain X * 0.5 blood (round down). Superior, move up > to 1 to your pool. I like limiting it, but maybe "This vampire gains x blood up to half its capacity rounded down" and the superior is just "Gain 2 pool." Make them choose. > Renegade Garou: 1 strength, 4 pool cost. Nah. He needs to be able to rip a hand-jammed vampire up. And the price a Methuselah should pay to control such a beast = current pool cost. As printed. > Amaranth: Does not exist. Instead, let it give one vote to burn in the blood hunt AND make blood-hunt immune vampires go through a blood hunt. > Concealed Weapon: Disciplineless, but limit 1 pool or 3 damage (non-agg > only). Depends on what weapon set. Jyhad only, yes. Current set, current text. > Dragon's Breath Rounds: +1 aggravated damage, not +2 (and Jyhad agg > damage rules, so 1 point can't burn you even if you're already going to > torpor). I prefer "All damage from this gun's current strike is aggravated. Burn the weapon after playing this card." > Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. With your Majesty, Earth Meld should untap at superior "at the end of combat if this vampire is ready." > Form of Mist: Strike: go to press step; superior can burn 1 blood to > continue the action after combat at no added stealth. Sure. > Majesty: Strike: go to press step (0 blood cost, burn 1 to untap at > superior). Yes. > Taste of Vitae: As currently written. Yeppers. > Drawing out the Beast: One per combat. Assuming other current text, affirmiatto. > Weather Control: One per combat. Concurrence is happening on this end of my internet connection. > Nosferatu Putrescence: Does not exist. I think the effect is dumb (a dripping Nos is still going to shred you), but I've always liked the possibility of playing combat cards on someone else's combat. > Zip Gun: Doesn't count as a gun. My neck hurts from nodding. > Ivory Bow: Costs 2 pool. Really hurts from nodding. > Monocle of Clarity: As currently written. No. It should be "This vampire may burn a blood and tap during its controller's untap phase to allow its controller to look at any Methuselah's hand. The Monocle may be stolen by any vampire as a (D) action. The questioning is still problematic, as there's no rule to the length or complexity of the question other than requiring a "yes or no" answer. Fighting over the Monocle also enhances the storytelling aspect of the game. > Rowan Ring: As currently written. Yip. > Soul Gem of Etrius: Move the vampire into play with 1 blood. Damn straight! > Aching Beauty: A vampire may have only one Aching Beauty. Hot damn yes! > Anarch Revolt: A Methuselah may lose only one pool per turn to Anarch > Revolts. What about the cost x: where x is the number of Anarch Revolts in play? Didn't you propose that change? I could swear... > Anarch Troublemaker: Costs 1 pool. Any card that auto-passes should not cost. I prefer tapping ONE minion as a fix instead. > Archon Investigation: Costs 1 pool. Usable on a bleed for more than 2; > reduces that bleed to 1. Does not burn the bleeding vampire. Fits with your bleed reduction. > The Barrens: Costs 1 pool. Yes. > Betrayer: Guessing is free. Nyah. > Blood Doll: Does not exist. Nizzle. I prefer "The controller of this (Blood Doll) card may move 1 blood from the vampire to his or her blood pool or from his or her blood pool to the vampire." That way, if someone wants to steal the vampire, they still have to contend with the amount of control you have over the minion. Like when someone steals your girlfriend/boyfriend/itfriend. They still have to deal with your baggage. > Brainwash: No Methuselah may have more than one Brainwash. Yessah! > Brujah Frenzy: Does not exist. You're talking about my favorite clan hoser in the game, but I see where you are going with this. So, if no clan hosers: yessir. Otherwise: Out-of-Turn. Only usable when a ready Brujah controlled by another Methuselah attempts an action. Cancel that action. Choose a ready minion in play; the minion and the Brujah cannot have the same controller. The Brujah enters combat with the chosen minion. > Cultivated Blood Shortage: Does not exist. With no other clan hosers: yessir. Otherwise: current text. > Fame: As currently written, but burn 2 pool when going to torpor. Yippies. > Game of Malkav: Play 1-4, 1-5 for you. Should not exist! > Gangrel Atavism/De-Evolution: Does not exist. WNOCH: shurpies. Otherwise: Unique. Put this card on a Gangrel. This Gangrel cannot block. This Gangrel can remove this card by burning (some) blood as a +1 stealth action. > Giant's Blood: 4 blood from the blood bank max. Still once per game. I say 5. Just to make it different from my 5th Trad. > Golconda: Gain pool equal to half capacity. Can be canceled by paying 1 > pool. <slight nod, tap to ash cigarette, hand motion to have you continue with what you were saying> > Hostile Takeover: Can only target a vampire of capacity below 5. Why not current text? > Information Highway: Costs 1 pool. Yes. > Letter from Vienna: Does not exist. Yes/or Current Text. > Life Boon: Burn 2X pool to give X pool. You get no VP benefit (just the > pool in future). Burn X pool to give X pool. No VP. No taking pool. One Life Boon per game. > Madness Network: Costs 2 pool. Hurk? It's burnable. Smart players always burn it. If you're cutting pool gain, why add cost to this? > Malkavian Dementia: Does not exist. Yes/or Unique: Place this card on a Malkavian. Tap that vampire. This Malkavian cannot act. This card maybe burned by this Malkavian's controller by burning 2 pool during his or her discard phase. > Malkavian Prank: If you guess correctly, you gain half that much pool > (round up) from their pool. Yassah. > Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter: Sends to torpor (Millicent > still burns). But she knows how to burn vampires! She burns them with her Purity (of the Non Beast). How about: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. While in play, this card represents a mortal ally with 1 life, 0 strength and 0 bleed. Millicent may not act or block. If the Methuselah controlling Millicent has any of his or her actioning vampires blocked, then Millicent and the acting vampire are burned without combat. During your discard phase, your predator takes control of Millicent. > Minion Tap: Move up to 4 blood. Oh so YESSAH! > Misdirection: As currently written. Slappity slap-thigh-slaps. > The Rack: Costs 1 pool. Free, stealable, gives 1 blood. > Smiling Jack the Anarch: Each other Methuselah burns X/2 blood or pool, > where X is the number of counters on Jack (round down). Or: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. During your untap phase, move 1 blood from your pool to Jack. EACH Methuselah during his or her untap phase burns 1 pool or burns 1 blood from a vampire he or she controls for each blood on Jack. Any vampire may burn this card as a (D) action. > Society of Leopold: Burn 1 blood or be sent to torpor. Unique. Put this card on a vampire. During his or her controller's untap phase, the vampire with this card either burns 1 blood or is burned (the controller's choice). The vampire with this card can move it to any other vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire may take this card and place it on themselves as a +1 stealth (D) action. > Succubus Club: Does not exist. Tru dat. > Temptation of Greater Power: Costs 2 pool, can only target non-titled > vampires below 7 capacity. Only one ToGP can be played on a Methuselah > per game. Nah. Current text. > Tragic Love Affair: Does not exist. Yes/ or current text. > Ventrue Headquarters: Tap for 2 votes. sure > Ancilla Empowerment: May only be played once per turn. yip > Autarkis Persecution: May only be played once per turn. no problems here > [X] Justicar: Choose a vampire of capacity above 6. So tru. > Conservative Agitation: Allocate X-1 points, where X is the number of > players in the game. May only be played once per turn. Nah. With all votes being once per turn, you are forcing all decks to be more toolboxy. Don't mind the powering down, though. Votes that can cause big non-predator-prey related swings could be once per turn. > Domain Challenge: May only be played once per turn. Sure. > Dramatic Upheaval: Does not exist. No. If you pack this, you can actually play with your deck's foil on either side of you in the hopes that you can change the seating. Without it, more games will be won by pure seating luck. > The First Tradition: The Masquerade: Burn 1 pool to take your turn. > Burned when the playing Meth has skipped 3 turns or burned 3 pool, or > any combination adding to 3. Should not exist. Apart from seat switching snafuery, nothing should allow/force players to skip their turn. > Justicar Retribution: Sends to torpor. Only one may be played per game. Requires a ready Justicar. Burn A vampire with current bleed of 3. Only one per game. > Kindred Restructure: Does not exist. Yes. Dramatic Upheaval should remain, this card should not. > Kine Resources Contested: Allocate 3 points. May only be played once > per turn. Yes with the power down, no to the once per turn. > Parity Shift: Allocate X-1 points between at least two Methuselahs; at > least one point must go to the Methuselah with the lowest pool in the > game. This card should not exist. > Praxis Seizure [X]: Requires a vampire of capacity above 4. Yes, "unless you control a ready Justicar of the same clan." > Deflection: The bleed is reduced to 1 and the stealth is reduced to 0. Current text. This is a major mechanic of VTES, and one that new players understand quickly. > Delaying Tactics: Costs 1 blood (as currently written). Tru to tha U. > Obedience: Costs 1 blood. Superior still untaps the acting vamp, but he > or she also burns a blood. Oh, you mean Voice of Madness? ; ) > The Second Tradition: Domain: Costs a blood to untap (as currently > written). Tru to tha dubba U. > Telepathic Misdirection: Superior reduces the bleed to 1 and the stealth > to 0. Current text. See Deflection. > Wake with Evening's Freshness: Costs 1 blood. Do not replace until next > untap phase. Current text. > I don't know that all of these are the best solutions, and I haven't > even touched on all the cards that were printed *after* VTES. :-) And > I'm sure a lot of people like the game enough as it is that they don't > think this would be an improvement. But you can probably see some of > the principles I'm thinking about: that no single card should have too > large an effect is the main one. I think that using that philosophy really cuts into the storytelling aspects of the game. I am an advocate of "Event" type cards which can shape and shake a game and improve general enjoyment, curbing their abusiveness by limiting them to once a game. And they can make for some fond memories. One of my ToGPs (pre Cam edition, but I only owned 3 anyway) played on my prey that my grandprey (and he knows who he is) bid a few too high for, combined with some other interactions, made for a very memorable experience. And it amazes me what I remember about games with other people and what they remember about games with me. Sure, the original stackable Jyhad power cards have been found to be horrific; most likely they escaped neutering during play test because either the collectible card game and its mechanics were so new (think pre-Magic infinite loop super death combo nastiness) that they couldn't fathom where we ended up taking this game, or they actually wanted the game to have that "trumping" effect (someone builds nasty win-all-the-time deck, plays it until someone else builds the counter) and shorter games. > Josh I wouldn't change this at all. ; ) > mind rape: does not exist. Change the name to Rape. And that's much closer to the truth of the card. -Mike Ooi Unique Master -"I am such a dumbass!" -Mike Ooi

I screwy uppy. Accidentally sent premature post. Hey, it's been a while. -Mike Ooi "Unique Master" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:3ffbd16b$0$6753$61fe...@news.rcn.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > > them be significantly overpowered. I don't expect that any of this ever > > would happen now that the game has progressed so far beyond that point, > > but it might have been cool if the game had originally been written this > > way. :-) [blah de blah]

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote > > What I think is needed in this case is to keep the big bleed (in > > the interests of keeping game length down), but create ways for > > other disciplines (aka not Dom and Aus) to viably defend themselves > > against it. > > I KNEW IT!!I KNEW IT!! I AM NOT ALONE!!!!!! > Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just > couldn't get anyone to agree on this. It's because you never asked the good person =)

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950586...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:3ffb3b24$0$8840$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] "Amaranth: Does not exist." Wallpaper compared to *what*? If all the cards in a set are "weak", then none of them are weak. I probably did go too far in some "fixes". Kine Resources Contested and Conservative Agitation probably shouldn't be limited to one per turn, with the reduced damage quantities. And some other things. They were just off the top of my head, really. But you seem to have missed the point that I wasn't suggesting wholesale errata to the actual game as we have it. I was suggesting another approach to the original design that might have made the entire game better balanced: if it weren't possible to easily bleed for 1/5 of a player's starting pool (Govern + Conditioning), or Parity Shift for 1/6, or steal people's vampires left and right, or Anarch Revolt them out of existence in six turns... the game might have been better for it. Josh revolutionary

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040106185147...@mb-m10.aol.com... [I wrote] > >I don't know that all of these are the best solutions, and I haven't > >even touched on all the cards that were printed *after* VTES. > > I'm surprised you had the energy to go through so many cards, especially > knowing that not only won't the changes get made but people won't like > fundamental shifts in the game because, in order to be playing the game now, > they must like something about it. Yes. Even I probably wouldn't like such a fundamental shift in the game at this point. It'd have to be a whole new game, really, instead of a modification to the one we have. :-) It didn't take *that* much energy, but I was inspired by the PTO-thread topic of "single card effects that are too strong" and just leapt into it. > >But you can probably see some of > >the principles I'm thinking about: that no single card should have too > >large an effect is the main one. > > It seems like you went overboard though. With Computer Hacking, I could see > limiting to once per turn, but adding a blood cost to all the bleed stuff just > means people become much harder to oust (still going to have people Minion > Tapping left and right) which means longer games which means fewer players as > the number one complaint I've heard with the game is length of play. I think you're right that I went overboard some places. Specifically, Kine Resources Contested and Conservative Agitation probably shouldn't be "once per turn" with the points allocable reduced; not *all* the bleed stuff should cost blood (Govern as Scouting Mission could be free, likewise Enchant Kindred and Social Charm, Legal Manipulations should still not exist). The idea of ditching a good amount of the pool *gain* was to try to keep people relatively similar on the ousting-difficulty scale. Minion Tapping left and right is a lot less efficient, card-wise, than playing Blood Dolls, especially for weenies. (Tribute to the Master, in "Jyhad la la land", would let you select up to three minions (maybe four?) and move 1 blood from each of them to your pool.) Adding a blood cost to Computer Hacking is actually one of the things I like most - it makes weenie bleed a lot weaker, I think. If they can only bleed for 1 without having to hunt all the time, non-weenie strategies are a lot stronger in comparison. Hey Noal, I have you to thank for the idea that Computer Hacking is too strong. ;-) > In addition, all of the changes produce a cumulative effect. Sure, I think > Conditioning is bad for the game, but one blood for Threats and one blood for > Scouting Mission, aka Govern, and it becomes prohibitive to do things that oust > people. I'm not particularly bothered by a deck that (currently) plays > Scouting Mission and Threats - you don't see them. Govern/Conditioning is so > far and away better which means there's plenty of middle ground room for > changing the game. I think you *would* see Scouting Mission + Threats if Govern + Conditioning didn't exist. I think it wouldn't be *quite* as bad but it wouldn't be far behind. Archon Investigation is already a (slight) limiting factor on Govern + Conditioning; it wouldn't limit Scouting + Threats that much. I honestly do think that an unrestricted action modifier +bleed needs to cost blood. The effect of being able to add bleed after blocks are declined is huge, especially with bounce de-powered. The cumulative-effect part is really hard to judge without actual playtesting, and this thought experiment will probably never go that far (unless JOL tests it at some point, and even then, I doubt that enough games could be played that way to do enough testing - and it still wouldn't address everything post-VTES). I know you're right that it's there, though. Josh

"Colin McGuigan" <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:vCOdnfhRhb-...@speakeasy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I don't know that all of these are the best solutions, and I haven't > > even touched on all the cards that were printed *after* VTES. :-) And > > I'm sure a lot of people like the game enough as it is that they don't > > think this would be an improvement. But you can probably see some of > > the principles I'm thinking about: that no single card should have too > > large an effect is the main one. > > Right? Seems to me you'd be encouraging weenie decks, and, uh, that's > about it. Weenie decks are hurt by all the cards they want to play costing blood, though. Well, I guess weenie potence not so much, but (a) it can't burn vampires (without taking blockable diablerie actions), and (b) the vampires to make really "weenie" potence don't exist in the set I'm talking about. > The vast majority of the cards are powered down -- so, in effect, any > given action becomes weaker, and/or more expensive. The weaker an > action is, the more you need. You could have an instrinsic +1 bleed DOM > fatty play govern and threats and bleed for 4, or you could have two > normal DOM midcaps each bleed with threats for 6. This is all true, but on the one hand, DOM mid-caps don't really exist at this point (and probably still shouldn't?), and on the other, mid-caps aren't weenies. Can I add Masquerade Enforcement's effect to the basic rulebook? I always liked that "fix" for the weenie problem. :-) > Similarly, it becomes more important to call more votes if each vote has > lesser effect. So, more minions needed. Limiting the Praxis and the > Justicars to higher cap vampires is good, IMHO, but the limiting of > votes to 1/turn each pretty much makes voting support-only -- you'd have > to have the right mix of cards in hand, and even then you won't do that > much damage. Better to go with bleeding. Yes, KRC and Con Ag should probably not be 1/turn. Mike Ooi may be right that Parity Shift just plain shouldn't exist. It's kind of like vampire stealing in its "you're weaker, I'm stronger" effect. > Finally, by toning down the effects of the cards, the game's brought > closer to a war of attrition. You reduce the "lunge" factor, sure, but > you end up drawing out the length of the game. And, since there's less > swing, once someone is noticable weaker, they're going to stay that way. > Which makes the game more predictable -- which may be what you want -- > but also makes it more boring. IMNSHO. My goal is to keep the game the same length (if not shorter) by making it harder to bloat at the same time it becomes harder to do massive pool damage all at once. And another major goal is for it to be perfectly reasonable for everyone to play with all the (relatively) high-damage stuff they want, because it's not "too easy" anymore (whereas, as I perceive it, a lot of players in the current game don't like to play the "heavy bleed at stealth" or "lots of damaging votes" decks because they're boringly effective and same-y). I don't want it to be *too* much like draft, where (in my experience) there's a ton of "stay untapped to block" and games can drag on because there's just not enough punch-through available to oust people very quickly if at all. But I guess I was trying to make it *more* like draft than it is now. Josh live free or be ousted

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.0401...@posting.google.com>... > > To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is > > the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. > > However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- > > bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive > > options just don't cut it. One way to resolve that (which seems to > > be reflected in Josh's post) is to reduce the amount of bleed > > possible in the game. However, the problem with that is that the > > game would be even slower than it is now. > > > > What I think is needed in this case is to keep the big bleed (in > > the interests of keeping game length down), but create ways for > > other disciplines (aka not Dom and Aus) to viably defend themselves > > against it. > > > I KNEW IT!!I KNEW IT!! I AM NOT ALONE!!!!!! > Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just > couldn't get anyone to agree on this. At least, in such clear a way. > Would you agree on an expensive but disciplineless/clanless > bleedbounce card( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > viable option I've been able to come up with..) I think i have expressed myself in a similar way, i am all in favor of that. W

"Joshua Duffin" wrote: > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > them be significantly overpowered <snip> > Computer Hacking: Costs 1 blood, do not replace until the end of the > action. I win!!! I knew that if I waited long enough that this nonsense would inevitably lead to people suggesting that Computer Hacking is broken. JESUS MOTHER FUCKING CHRIST ON A POGO STICK HOPPING DOWN ROUTE 66!!! THE GAME IS NOT BROKEN!!! STOP TRYING TO FIX THE FUCKING THING!!! Regards, Noal

Josh wrote: >It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets >and suggestions of how the cards could have been >written differently to avoid having any of them be >significantly overpowered. Just as interesting an experiment would be to create some new texts for cards from the recent sets such that the newer cards matched the power levels of the first set. Even more interesting would be to print new cards that were as strong as the classics. Jay Kristoff

On 6 Jan 2004, Ben Peal wrote: > To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is > the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. > However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- > bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive > options just don't cut it. I believe that if you just nerfed *Dominate's* ability to bounce, the situation would self-regulate. Then, players would be faced with the dillema of choosing to bleed well, or defend against bleed well. I believe this dichotomy would self regulate and result in a more balanced and interesting play environment, but it's such an extreme step that I'd have to test it before I would defend it too vehemently. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Joshua Duffin wrote: > The cumulative-effect part is really hard to judge without actual > playtesting, and this thought experiment will probably never go that far > (unless JOL tests it at some point, and even then, I doubt that enough > games could be played that way to do enough testing - and it still > wouldn't address everything post-VTES). I know you're right that it's > there, though. A deckbot test would go much faster, but there can currently only be one game at a time. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > them be significantly overpowered. ... IMHO, any such effort is somewhat misguided, because any attempt to depower or rebalance the most effective cards or combos in the game will simply put other cards or combos at the top of the power curve. > Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. For example, this creates an incredible power combo for Bear Paw and other ANI/pro vampires: Conquer the Beast (or Trap)/Drawing Out the Beast/Earth Meld. > Form of Mist: Strike: go to press step; superior can burn 1 blood to > continue the action after combat at no added stealth. Even more powerful in the combo above. You could claim that playtesting would help weed out these interactions, but I would argue that there will always be cards that prove significantly more powerful than others. Besides, depowering disciplines empowers weenies.

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04010...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > > them be significantly overpowered. ... > > IMHO, any such effort is somewhat misguided, because any attempt to > depower or rebalance the most effective cards or combos in the game > will simply put other cards or combos at the top of the power curve. Sure. The idea, though, is to have the power curve be much flatter than it is now (ie the strongest cards shouldn't be much stronger than the weakest cards, or to put it the other way around, the weakest cards should be about as strong as the strongest cards). > > Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. > > For example, this creates an incredible power combo for Bear Paw and > other ANI/pro vampires: Conquer the Beast (or Trap)/Drawing Out the > Beast/Earth Meld. "Incredible power combo"? One damage per round? For one card per round? You have to play an Earth Meld every round to avoid getting hit for 2 (minimum) in return. > > Form of Mist: Strike: go to press step; superior can burn 1 blood to > > continue the action after combat at no added stealth. > > Even more powerful in the combo above. How so? Sorry, by the way, FoM inferior is still a dodge. I guess you're saying that FoM would allow continuing the action after hypothetically torporizing your Trap/DotB/FoM victim, but you'd still have to play a FoM every round to torporize people without going to torpor yourself, and you need PRO/ANI to do it (compared to pro/ANI for the Earth Meld version). Compare to [pro] Claws of the Dead torporization...? A little simpler...? > You could claim that playtesting would help weed out these > interactions, but I would argue that there will always be cards that > prove significantly more powerful than others. The whole idea was for there to be no cards that are *significantly* more powerful than others. :-) They're supposed to all be *balanced* against each other. To say that there will always be a most powerful card is probably true, but I don't accept that as a good reason to have "power" cards that are out of line with the vast majority of cards in print. > Besides, depowering disciplines empowers weenies. Non-disciplines are depowered a little too. I still like the "Masquerade Enforcement effect is in the rulebook" idea, as well. Josh masquerading in force

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bth3s2$77jlg$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > > if it weren't possible > to easily bleed for 1/5 of a player's starting pool (Govern + > Conditioning), or Parity Shift for 1/6, or steal people's vampires left > and right, or Anarch Revolt them out of existence in six turns... the > game might have been better for it. I think not. Speed may be the essence for some type of decks. Not all decks want to install with big vampires, locations and so on... Some of them rely on weaker, expandable minions. Why an early bleed for 5 should be worst for the game than a same bleed for 5 on turn 10 ? because you have a big blocker out ? What if people rediscovered archon investigation, Pack tactics or major boon instead of complaiing about big bleeds ?

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Weenie decks are hurt by all the cards they want to play costing blood, > though. > > Well, I guess weenie potence not so much, but (a) it can't burn vampires > (without taking blockable diablerie actions), and (b) the vampires to > make really "weenie" potence don't exist in the set I'm talking about. Right, but everyone can still hunt, and everyone hunts at the same pace. Since playing weenies gives you more actions, you hunt more than the person playing the larger caps, ergo, you can play more of the cards over time. And, in addition, since everyone can also bleed for one, it's better to have 4 1-cap weenies than just about any bleeder. And the 4 1-caps would be using no cards themselves. > This is all true, but on the one hand, DOM mid-caps don't really exist > at this point (and probably still shouldn't?), and on the other, > mid-caps aren't weenies. Mid-caps aren't weenies; I was just demonstrating why I think you'd see even less high caps than you do now. But, to reiterate the point about weenies: You have two DOM vamps (Didi Meyers 5 cap, Luccia Paciola 6 cap) bleeding for 3 each (and costing each a blood). With that 11 pool, I can have 7 1-caps, bleeding for one each (and free in terms of cards and blood). > Can I add Masquerade Enforcement's effect to the basic rulebook? I > always liked that "fix" for the weenie problem. :-) Sure. But then won't you just see Embrace decks (where the Embraces do the Embracing, due to the 1-per-vampire-per-game limit)? > Yes, KRC and Con Ag should probably not be 1/turn. Mike Ooi may be > right that Parity Shift just plain shouldn't exist. It's kind of like > vampire stealing in its "you're weaker, I'm stronger" effect. I think Parity Shift's idea is fine, but just needs to be toned down. In a 5-player game, A KRC peaks at 3 damage, ConAg peaks at 4, and Parity Shift peaks at 5 _and_ gives it to someone else. I think # of Meths/2 (round down) would be good. You peak at 2 damage in a normal game, making it the least damaging of all the votes, but the giving it to someone else is an upside. > My goal is to keep the game the same length (if not shorter) by making > it harder to bloat at the same time it becomes harder to do massive pool > damage all at once. IMNSHO, and slightly off your topic, what I think is needed is some intrinsic way to make a higher capacity's vampires actions more powerful. Currently, the only difference between a 1-caps actions and a 10-caps are the cards they can play; and a 10-cap DOM plays cards at the same level as a 5-cap DOM. Sure, the 10 cap gets more disciplines to play around with, but most decks concentrate on only two, or sometimes three, disciplines anyway -- so that only affects deck design, not actual play. But what I see in the proposed cards are cards that just aren't worth it, compared to the ability to bring out another weenie who can bleed for 1 and hunt for 1 for free. --Colin McGuigan

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] mmm very colorful expression indeed =) i'll say (mmm, say by mariah mother of the christ doing hula hoop on a random cancoon beach) that i agree totally with noal for once. If you start that basic action that exist since the beginning of the game like Computer hacking are broken, well you'd better change the whole damn game. By the same reasonment, the "recent" change to wake with the evening's freshness (do not replace until the untap phase) was not so necessary imho... Was it broken in the first place ?

"Wes" wrote: > I've often wondered about this myself. Why? Trying out for the design team? Or maybe just to irritate LSJ? > In fact, this would make for an interesting JOL experiment. No, it wouldn't. Don't encourage them. > Preferrably after the new JOL tournament, which we will be starting very > soon. How soon? Perhaps I may be interested in entering. Regards, Noal

>The idea, though, is to have the power curve be much flatter than >it is now (ie the strongest cards shouldn't be much stronger than the >weakest cards, or to put it the other way around, the weakest cards >should be about as strong as the strongest cards). Note that it would also be necessary to elevate some really bad cards to flatten out the curve. Also, there's another area with retconning V:TES (can't really stop with the original set) that I'd want to see addressed, namely cutting down on the massive redundancy in the game. What tends to happen with having a bunch of cards that do similar things is that only the best of the bunch get played. Then, having a bunch of cards do similar things means that there's not a lot of ideas in the game. For example, in the current game, if cards such as Submachinegun, Threats, Growing Fury, Blood Rage, and Dead-end Alley were replaced with good, interesting cards, wouldn't the game be better off?

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > Then, having a bunch of cards do similar things means that there's not a lot of > ideas in the game. you may also want to keep cards that add an extra effect for a blood cost (like govern vs scouting or undead strength vs pushing the limit) and allows you more "intelligent blood managment" on your vampires. Having analogous effect for a slightly different blood cost is good imho. > For example, in the current game, if cards such as Submachinegun, Threats, > Growing Fury, Blood Rage, and Dead-end Alley were replaced with good, > interesting cards, wouldn't the game be better off? Actually blood rage in any tremere deck (if they S:ce you didnt spend a blood) and Threats (especially in the blood intensive giovanni power bleed) are quite good. For Submachin gun, well for this price you should have like 2 maneuvers or a +1 damage if used at close range ? i dunno.

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > I've often wondered about this myself. > > Why? Just for fun, as an experiment. Same reason we recently tried out different influencing rules. I don't really have any serious issues with the game as it is really. I do think that there were some fundamental design flaws in the original game, some of which have been corrected to my satisfaction, and some... not so much. The slant towards weenies still exists, for example. But this experiment wouldn't really be about fixing the game... just a fun little experiment. > Trying out for the design team? Are their tryouts for this??? Damn, did I miss the deadline to apply? LSJ??? > Or maybe just to irritate LSJ? Nah, I have no need to do that. Why would I? Besides, I half expect LSJ to join in on said experiment, for the same reasons it interests me. What do you think Scott? > > In fact, this would make for an interesting JOL experiment. > > No, it wouldn't. Don't encourage them. It would be interesting for me. And possibly others. You are welcome to sit it out. > > Preferrably after the new JOL tournament, which we will be starting very > > soon. > > How soon? Perhaps I may be interested in entering. Probably later this month I think. I'm a little swamped with stuff right now, but hopefully shouldn't take too much longer. You are welcome to join of course, as is anyone who has the time and inclination. It's a "storyline-format" tournament, with three different decks (if you want) and we will hopefully have some kind of prize support... still working on that. Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote > > "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > > > I've often wondered about this myself. > > > > Why? By the way... I will be attending the Ann Arbor tournament on the 17th. You should come out and play, Noal. I haven't seen you since your wedding! Should be a few of us from Windsor this time. It's a growing scene (finally)! Cheers, WES

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.0401...@posting.google.com>... > Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just > couldn't get anyone to agree on this. At least, in such clear a way. > Would you agree on an expensive but disciplineless/clanless > bleedbounce card( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > viable option I've been able to come up with..) I think this is a pretty solid idea; or perhaps some sort of disciplineless/clanless bleed reduction. I've always thought some "bounce to prey but reduce bleed to 1 and/or stealth to 0" cards would be interesting, too (probably want some disciplines/clans mixed in that one). Vendetta is a hysterical step in the right direction too. Dunno how good it is yet, but the card makes me laugh every time I see it. -- -Snapcase

Wes wrote: >>Or maybe just to irritate LSJ? > > Nah, I have no need to do that. Why would I? Besides, I half expect LSJ to > join in on said experiment, for the same reasons it interests me. What do > you think Scott? I've chimed in before on tangental/piecemeal approaches to this topic. Suffice to say that, as a thought experiment, it doesn't irritate me. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > viable option I've been able to come up with..) > you don´t believe in intercept, maybe you should change your opinion about that. :-))) stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > I win!!! You certainly win something. I'm not quite sure what it is, but it is certainly something. > > I knew that if I waited long enough that this nonsense would > inevitably lead to people suggesting that Computer Hacking is broken. Once again--this is not a suggestion to change all the cards. It is a thought experiment that Josh was bouncing around as tohow the game might have worked better if, from day 1, all the cards worked differently, possibly in the way he suggested. A thought experiment. > > JESUS MOTHER FUCKING CHRIST ON A POGO STICK HOPPING DOWN ROUTE 66!!! > THE GAME IS NOT BROKEN!!! STOP TRYING TO FIX THE FUCKING THING!!! Whoa. Have some coffee, dude. This post is not an attempt to fix anything. It is a goofy thought experiment. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... There are two basic non-card vampire actions which you can quantify: 1) Bleed for 1 pool at zero stealth. 2) Hunting for 1 blood at +1 stealth. Any action which requires a card should be strictly better than this IMO (or do something else). Therefore, I am not so keen on almost all of your changes to cards like Computer Hacking where they now cost blood because it's basically a net zero of blood/pool around the table. This would slow the game down too much IMO as others have noted. I have strong feelings about some of the cards so I'll comment on them. > Computer Hacking: Costs 1 blood, do not replace until the end of the > action. Cost zero blood but DNR until end of turn (or discard phase). > The Embrace: Costs 3 blood, gets a discipline, no vampire can perform > more than one Embrace action per game. I think this one should have been left alone but the new Embrace comes into play tapped. > The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality: Choose another younger vampire (fill > to capacity). And still costs 1 blood. > Graverobbing: Inferior is burn the target vampire (not diablerie); > superior is equivalent to former inferior, and costs 2 blood. I like this except for the 2 blood cost for the superior. > The Third Tradition: Progeny: Costs 2 blood; no vampire can create more > than one Progeny per game. I think this should just be new Progeny comes into play tapped but the Sire can still give blood to it. > Faceless Night: Burn 1 blood for superior effect. Totally agree here. > Freak Drive: A vampire may play only one per turn. Perhaps this should be played as the action is announced? Freak Drives are nice but I don't think they're that abusive. > Amaranth: Does not exist. I don't think this card is as problematic as other people do. Keep as is. > Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. > Form of Mist: Strike: go to press step; superior can burn 1 blood to > continue the action after combat at no added stealth. > Majesty: Strike: go to press step (0 blood cost, burn 1 to untap at > superior). If only. :) > Anarch Revolt: A Methuselah may lose only one pool per turn to Anarch > Revolts. Lots of good fixes to this out there. I still prefer changing AR cost to "X" where "X" is number of ARs in play as opposed to the Army of Rats fix. > Anarch Troublemaker: Costs 1 pool. Perhaps if this card had a burn option like: Any Methuselah may take an MPA and discard a Master card to burn AT it would be sufficient. > Archon Investigation: Costs 1 pool. Usable on a bleed for more than 2; > reduces that bleed to 1. Does not burn the bleeding vampire. I kind of like this card as it is though it is pretty darn powerful. > The Barrens: Costs 1 pool. And Elder Library is now free (but still Unique)? > Blood Doll: Does not exist. Oh come now. :) Blood Doll is very powerful but I'd hardly call it a game-breaker. Though if there were no Dolls then the added blood cost to many bleed/influence actions wouldn't be quite so bad since there would be less bloat. > Brainwash: No Methuselah may have more than one Brainwash. Then you'd have to remove the "prey only" text or it would be pointless. > Fame: As currently written, but burn 2 pool when going to torpor. Burn 3 pool is necessary to keep it balanced now, though in your world of lessened bleeds this makes sense. > Giant's Blood: 4 blood from the blood bank max. Still once per game. I suppose, but it's pretty much like Jake Washington then (except for the empty vampire clause). How about this vampire gains half it's capacity in blood rounded up? > Golconda: Gain pool equal to half capacity. Can be canceled by paying 1 > pool. Hm. Maybe leave it the same but you may not Golconda a vampire that has already been removed from the game? ;) > Information Highway: Costs 1 pool. This card is OK IMO. No one would ever bothering to contest it if it cost 1 pool. > Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter: Sends to torpor (Millicent > still burns). I like this one. > The Rack: Costs 1 pool. I think the steal clause is sufficient. > Smiling Jack the Anarch: Each other Methuselah burns X/2 blood or pool, > where X is the number of counters on Jack (round down). Still think burn option is sufficient. > Ancilla Empowerment: May only be played once per turn. > Autarkis Persecution: May only be played once per turn. Not sure if these really need a restriction. > [X] Justicar: Choose a vampire of capacity above 6. What if the restriction were choose *another* vampire of the same clan as acting vampire? Can you really be the Justicar of a clan of one? > Praxis Seizure [X]: Requires a vampire of capacity above 4. Not sure how to deal with PS votes. I don't think this is best but don't have better idea now. > Conservative Agitation: Allocate X-1 points, where X is the number of > players in the game. May only be played once per turn. > Dramatic Upheaval: Does not exist. > Kindred Restructure: Does not exist. I don't have a serious problem with these but they are annoying. What if they were written: Switch places at the end of your discard phase. That way, you couldn't steal VPs as easily, though you could still set yourself up for it one turn later. > Parity Shift: Allocate X-1 points between at least two Methuselahs; at > least one point must go to the Methuselah with the lowest pool in the > game. I think this should just be X points between two Meths. > Deflection: The bleed is reduced to 1 and the stealth is reduced to 0. I'd be fine with banning this card entirely actually. Redirection is plenty IMO. > Obedience: Costs 1 blood. Superior still untaps the acting vamp, but he > or she also burns a blood. I like this fix. > Telepathic Misdirection: Superior reduces the bleed to 1 and the stealth > to 0. This is fine as is. > Wake with Evening's Freshness: Costs 1 blood. Do not replace until next > untap phase. Wake is strong, but you can't guarantee a block will work whereas you can almost always guarantee that you'll take an action after a Freak Drive. Ok as is.

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<x0WKb.3666$_w....@fe1.columbus.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] That is a similiar pursuit but slightly different. A bunch of low(er) power cards creates a game in which no single card can produce a huge effect on the game by itself. I group of high power cards creates a scenario where one can routinely win because they play a single card.

"Colin McGuigan" <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:kUGdnXhUlK8...@speakeasy.net... [snip] > IMNSHO, and slightly off your topic, what I think is needed is some > intrinsic way to make a higher capacity's vampires actions more > powerful. Currently, the only difference between a 1-caps actions and a > 10-caps are the cards they can play; and a 10-cap DOM plays cards at the > same level as a 5-cap DOM. Sure, the 10 cap gets more disciplines to > play around with, but most decks concentrate on only two, or sometimes > three, disciplines anyway -- so that only affects deck design, not > actual play. There's a game variant printed in one of the players' guides that does just that. Bleed and maybe strength ("hand damage") and votes are affected by capacity. Never tried it because I thought it look crap. The capacity balance currently in the game works pretty well. Especially with the current design team. Higher cap means more disciplines/superior levels, a title, +bleed, +strength, and some crazy cool specials, which adds to the variety and flavor of the game. We've all heard of Cailean decks. But do we hear about Brazil decks? > But what I see in the proposed cards are cards that just aren't worth > it, compared to the ability to bring out another weenie who can bleed > for 1 and hunt for 1 for free. True, right now having a sheer buttload of actions can ensure victory. What we all want is a way to balance it out, so that it becomes an even spectrum, with one end being a high number of actions with very limited yield per action and the other end being a low number of actions with temendous yield. That way everything is worth playing. Weenies, mid-caps, fatty mono mcfattburger, and the "balanced" crypt of 6 4-caps or less, 4 5-7 caps, and 2 8+caps (as stated in the players' guides). > --Colin McGuigan -Mike Ooi Unique Master "I am less of a dumbass today. But that can change." -Mike Ooi

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bth5ke$6mcep$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... [snip] > Yes, KRC and Con Ag should probably not be 1/turn. Mike Ooi may be > right that Parity Shift just plain shouldn't exist. It's kind of like > vampire stealing in its "you're weaker, I'm stronger" effect. Correct. -LSOoi

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > ( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > > viable option I've been able to come up with..) > > > you don´t believe in intercept, maybe you should change your opinion about > that. :-))) Intercept by itself just doesn't cut it. A strong stealth-bleed deck will make a mockery of intercept, and as such, fears only bleed bounce, seat-switching, or multiple combat decks curb-stomping it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20040106185147...@mb-m10.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >In addition, all of the changes produce a cumulative effect. Sure, I think >Conditioning is bad for the game, but one blood for Threats and one blood for >Scouting Mission, aka Govern, and it becomes prohibitive to do things that oust >people. I'm not particularly bothered by a deck that (currently) plays >Scouting Mission and Threats - you don't see them. Govern/Conditioning is so >far and away better which means there's plenty of middle ground room for >changing the game. Not true. I won DragonCon with a deck that used mostly Scouting Missions, Bonding, and Foreshadowing Destruction. I didn't put Threats in because I wanted the stealth. The free-card approach was critical, as it allowed me to gain enough pool via Blood Dolls to ignore slow-mover decks. While Govern and Conditioning can be used to make big honkin' bleeds, they are NOT automatically the best cards for the job. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

>> For example, in the current game, if cards such as Submachinegun, Threats, >> Growing Fury, Blood Rage, and Dead-end Alley were replaced with good, >> interesting cards, wouldn't the game be better off? > >Actually blood rage in any tremere deck (if they S:ce you didnt spend a >blood) and Threats (especially in the blood intensive giovanni power bleed) >are quite good. > >For Submachin gun, well for this price you should have like 2 maneuvers or a >+1 damage if used at close range ? i dunno. Blood Rage offers an "option" compared to Blood Fury. Just like Scouting Mission compared to Govern. Threats to Conditioning. Exuding Blood to Blood Sweat. Undead Strength to Pushing the Limit. Even though many players prefer to go with the "more bang for the buck" approach (I've always preferred Blood Fury, Conditioning, and Governs myself), it's always nice to have the *option* to choose among the levels. In regards to the guns, I think the designers just decided to draw a line between the 2R and 3R line. Just like with how there are discrete cutoff values for vampire capacities and points, it seems like they determined that 3R was more significantly powerful compared to 2R than 2R was compared to 1R. And truth be told, I'd probably agree with them. One would think that a 2R gun with two manuevers would similarly cost 4 pool. Halcyan 2

>Blood Rage offers an "option" compared to Blood Fury. Just like Scouting >Mission compared to Govern. Threats to Conditioning. Exuding Blood to Blood >Sweat. Undead Strength to Pushing the Limit. > >Even though many players prefer to go with the "more bang for the buck" >approach (I've always preferred Blood Fury, Conditioning, and Governs >myself), >it's always nice to have the *option* to choose among the levels. The intent wasn't to name some crap cards that were in all cases useless and say "why couldn't we have better?". The intent was to name some of the cards that could be replaced with more interesting effects without having substantial impact on the game from their absence. I can actually see some value in having "20" different: Celerity cards that give a press; Auspex cards that give intercept; Obfuscate cards that give stealth; weapons that cause you to do more than one damage. But, such cards don't lead to a variety of archetypes. All they tend to do is change minor details within archetypes. There is a point to keeping the number of mechanics under control both to keep CCGs from getting too complex and for keeping the proliferation of abusive card combinations under control. But, V:TES has a relatively low number of effective things to do in part due to how many cards essentially do the same thing.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is > > the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. > > However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- > > bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive > > options just don't cut it. > > I believe that if you just nerfed *Dominate's* ability to bounce, the > situation would self-regulate. That doesn't address the problem that other disciplines (saving Auspex's ability to bounce) have an extremely difficult time putting together a viable defense against big bleed. > Then, players would be faced with the dillema of choosing to bleed well, > or defend against bleed well. I believe this dichotomy would self regulate > and result in a more balanced and interesting play environment, but it's > such an extreme step that I'd have to test it before I would defend it too > vehemently. I think you'd instead see a big shift towards AUS for defense (and bounce). That's happened to a small extent already due to the Perfect Clarity bleedzookas. I don't think there's a quick and easy fix to the problem. I think that there need to be good bleed defense options for disciplines other than Dominate and Auspex. Of course, any increase in defensive options will also slow the game down, so presumably an increase in offensive options would also be needed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Snapcase wrote: > Wolflord Jo wrote: > > Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just > > couldn't get anyone to agree on this. At least, in such clear a way. > > Would you agree on an expensive but disciplineless/clanless > > bleedbounce card( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > > viable option I've been able to come up with..) > > I think this is a pretty solid idea; or perhaps some sort of > disciplineless/clanless bleed reduction. I've always thought some > "bounce to prey but reduce bleed to 1 and/or stealth to 0" cards would > be interesting, too (probably want some disciplines/clans mixed in > that one). Why make a disciplineless version, when you could make a bunch of such cards for various disciplines, increasing the number of cards WW can sell to us? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:58:22 +0000, Curevei wrote: > I can actually see some value in having "20" different: Celerity cards that > give a press; Auspex cards that give intercept; Obfuscate cards that give > stealth; weapons that cause you to do more than one damage. But, such cards > don't lead to a variety of archetypes. All they tend to do is change minor > details within archetypes. With the limitation that you can't play the same action modifier or reaction during the same action, having redundant stealth/intercept cards also tweaks the upper bounds of those two paramaters. David Cherryholmes

On 7 Jan 2004 19:51:04 -0800, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) scrawled: [snip] >... bleedzookas. can we get this term archived somewhere? please? :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

>> I can actually see some value in having "20" different: Celerity cards >that >> give a press; Auspex cards that give intercept; Obfuscate cards that give >> stealth; weapons that cause you to do more than one damage. But, such >cards >> don't lead to a variety of archetypes. All they tend to do is change minor >> details within archetypes. > > >With the limitation that you can't play the same action modifier or >reaction during the same action, having redundant stealth/intercept cards >also tweaks the upper bounds of those two paramaters. Sure. Keeping with the theme of ranting against extremes, I find there to be far too much stealth/intercept potential in the game. An extreme amount of one kills the usefulness of the other - the only time a deck extreme in one interacts interestingly is against another extreme deck. Not to say it's a problem as too much of either/both means deficiencies in other, essential areas, but I don't see anything gained either by the existence of the current potentials or by the expansion of them. (And, yet, of course, I got to thinking about a card idea today and thought up an intercept card that used the mechanic I would feature.)

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bf72a12e.04010...@posting.google.com... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > ( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > > > viable option I've been able to come up with..) > > > > > you don´t believe in intercept, maybe you should change your opinion about > > that. :-))) > > Intercept by itself just doesn't cut it. A strong stealth-bleed deck > will make a mockery of intercept, and as such, fears only bleed bounce, > seat-switching, or multiple combat decks curb-stomping it. > 2 intercept decks made it to the ec finals so it can´t be that bad. the problem is many people think including 6 enhanced senses and 6 telepathic misdirections is enough to call a deck an intercept deck. 95% of the S&B decks don´t stand a chance against a good intercept deck. the hard part is making the vp´s stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BC20C3F3.12D73%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Clearly, you missed the point. Screw you, hippie! ;) > Not really--I mean, yeah, S:CE becomes Strike: End Round, which seems > reasonable (and makes Presses useful, overall), but all Fortitude was left > alone. And Fame was downpowered in his fantasy world. Man, End Round would have been so good. Then presses wouldn't be (mostly) wallpaper. That's definitely what Mercy for the Weak should have been. Xian

"Xian" <xb...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:dbc1153.04010...@posting.google.com... > Man, End Round would have been so good. Then presses wouldn't be > (mostly) wallpaper. > > That's definitely what Mercy for the Weak should have been. Oooh! And then it could have cost 1 blood instead of 2, and not required that you have *more* blood than the opposing vampire... See, we don't *just* want to make all the old overpowered cards suck more. We want the sucky cards to be better, too! :-) Josh screwed by a hippie

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > 2 intercept decks made it to the ec finals so it can´t be that bad. They were weenie decks. That is as significant a characterization of the deck archetype as anything you say about the contents of their library. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

Xian wrote: > Screw you, hippie! > > ;) Hey! I'm being kept down by The Man! > Man, End Round would have been so good. Then presses wouldn't be > (mostly) wallpaper. I know! How cool would that have been? [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Intercept by itself just doesn't cut it. A strong stealth-bleed deck > > will make a mockery of intercept, and as such, fears only bleed bounce, > > seat-switching, or multiple combat decks curb-stomping it. > > 2 intercept decks made it to the ec finals so it can愒 be that bad. And if you stripped out the Telepathic Misdirections from those decks, how well do you think the decks would have fared? Again, it's not intercept as a strategy, but rather intercept as the _only_ defensive strategy (i.e. taking away bounce and other measures). > 95% of the S&B decks don愒 stand a chance against a good intercept deck. Again, good stealth-bleed decks don't care about the intercept component of the defense. They care about the bounce (which is typically combined with intercept in the defense package). > the hard part is making the vp愀 Yup...you and the other finalist obviously did a great job of that. However, suppose you chose a different intercepting discipline. One without bounce. Do you think you could build a deck that was just as strong? Nearly as strong? [ quoted text not captured ]

Just because I can't resist responding point by point to the person (quite possibly the closest man to Steven Hawking in VTES) who went ahead and started that... :-) I did cut a bunch of the cards that we agreed on already, though. "Unique Master" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:3ffbd16b$0$6753$61fe...@news.rcn.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > > them be significantly overpowered. I don't expect that any of this ever > > would happen now that the game has progressed so far beyond that point, > > but it might have been cool if the game had originally been written this > > way. :-) > > Alright, I'll take a crack at this: > > > Computer Hacking: Costs 1 blood, do not replace until the end of the > > action. > > I like the "do not replace..."; it sets up a theme with the other "no > discipline required cards" such as Arson, Bum's Rush, Fake out, etc. > However, I don't agree with the blood cost. I think that allies with an > inherent 0 bleed should be able to bleed for 1 "with a little help from a > Methuselah", both from a mechanic standpoint and a thematic one. I agree that it's nice for allies to be able to benefit from Computer Hacking, but I really do think that weenies without a bleed discipline benefit from it too much. How about "requires an ally or a vampire of capacity above 2"? I do dislike proposing lots more text for cards, though Computer Hacking isn't really one that would run into trouble with having more text. I also like the "do not replace", I kind of think almost all the "basic" no-discipline effects should be "do not replace" and it's odd that this one wasn't (especially when Arson was). Do not replace until end of turn, as someone else suggested, might substitute somewhat well for the blood cost, although I'm not sure if it's anti-weenie enough. Might be. > > Dominate Kine/Kine Dominance: Costs 3 blood. > > Nah. Unless it's 3 blood with the superior at +1 stealth. Well, this was by parallel to my Govern the Unaligned change; if Govern costs 1 for +1 bleed and Bonding costs 1 for +1 bleed/+1 stealth at [DOM], Dominate Kine should cost more than 2 for its effect. But you may be right, 2 blood is fairly steep already. 2 blood to steal a location, on the other hand, is probably a bargain, even at 0 stealth. > > The Embrace: Costs 3 blood, gets a discipline, no vampire can perform > > more than one Embrace action per game. > > I like only one per vampire per game; brings it closer to storytelling and > creates bigger distinction with Legion storywise. I say 2 blood, discipline, > must hunt, and a Prince can call a referendum to burn an Embrace once per > game. That would work for me as well, although part of what I like about 3 blood is that it makes it harder for an Embrace to create an Embrace. And adding new rules to the rulebook (or more text to Embrace?) for the "Prince burn vote" thing, well, let's not go overboard while we're going overboard, right? ;-) > > Enchant Kindred: Costs 1 blood; superior is at +1 stealth (as current). > > I'm vacillating on this one. Bleed disciplines should have a +1 bleed action > at no cost; it's all about how you weight the superior. You're probably right. (I give in too easily.) Enchant and Govern-nee-Scouting-Mission should probably both be free. It's the action modifiers where (I think) there really needs to be a blood cost. And then, Intimidation might exist in my world, but cost a blood... > > The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality: Choose another younger vampire (fill > > to capacity). > > I prefer "another CAMARILLA vampire" and 4 blood. Leave the orgy of blood > drinking to the Sabbat. I liked the simplicity (and closeness to the original) of filling to capacity, but it's true that setting a cap on the blood gained is more sure to balance the card. Another "Camarilla" I certainly endorse. > > The Fourth Tradition: The Accounting: Move 2 blood. > > Due to the old Jyhad/VTES capacity equation, I would prefer "3 blood to a > younger uncontrolled CAMARILLA vampire." Because we're talking about using > the old Jyhad vamps with these card printings, right? Make Appolonius (as > Brujah Justicar) worth playing with. Sure, yeah. Appolonius probably gets errataed to have Anvil's disciplines and vice versa in my world, I guess. :-) Well, actually, I'd probably prefer even more to redesign all the Jyhad/VTES vamps to fit the current capacity/points equation - I think it's a more reasonable equation (ie overcosts big vampires less) than the original one. That said, 1 blood for 3 blood to younger uncontrolled Camarilla would probably be fine. > > Govern the Unaligned: +1 bleed. Move 2 blood at superior. > > See Enchant Kindred commentary. Yeah. Still reduce it to Scouting Mission, but make it free like Scouting Mission. Old Govern doesn't exist. > > Graverobbing: Inferior is burn the target vampire (not diablerie); > > superior is equivalent to former inferior, and costs 2 blood. > > I really like the inferior giving a non-diablerie option (again > storytelling), but I disagree on the superior. Surely a vampire > "graverobbing" another vampire could also awaken him from torpor if he so > chooses during the same action. Perhaps 2 blood and "Move a YOUNGER vampire > from another Methuselah's torpor area to your ready region, tap that vampire > and remove all blood counters from it. You now control that vampire." Eh, thematically maybe he could, but I think Graverobbing (as with pretty much all vampire-stealing effects) is just substantially overpowered with the "rescue and steal in one card and one action" mechanic. Younger and the target loses blood might do it, but I do think it should at least still cost 1 blood plus the 2 to rescue, if not 2 plus 2. > Has anyone else thought it weird that Graverobbing is a dominate card? I can > see Ozmo being graverobbed, awakening from torpor and telling his rescuer > Didi Meyers, "OMFG! You so dominated me! I now fight for YOU!" Maybe it > could be an Auspex card. "OMFG! You so SAW WHERE I WAS LYING UNDER THE > GROUND!" Yeah, I know. I don't know what other discipline it would be more appropriate for? But there's no reason, IMO, for Dominate to have yet *another* really good card. :-) > > Legal Manipulations: Bleed at +1. > > Vacillate. Social Charm exists (free), Legal doesn't? I could deal with that, probably. > > Conditioning: Does not exist. (Replaced by reworded Threats.) > > No. Dominate still needs to be the king of bleed. Presence gives you vote > and combat defense, let Dominate still give you a bleed for 4+. Bleeds above 4 is exactly what I don't want to see. You start with 30 pool. To be able to lose 1/6 of that (or more) in a single action is (IMO) not desirable. Even with only Threats and not Conditioning, Dominate is still the king of bleed (only marginally compared to Presence once it gets Aire of Elation, but still). > > Cryptic Rider: Must be played before votes are cast. > > No. I like the table interaction with the current version: > "Why are you voting me down cross table? > -Because you might play a Cryptic Rider. > What if I promise not to? > -Okay, I'll vote for it then. > Vote passes, and I'll play this Cryptic Rider. -YOU COCK! I WILL MAKE IT MY > SINGULAR GOAL THIS GAME TO DESTROY YOU CROSS TABLE! NO ONE FUCKS WITH > APPOLONIUS AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!" Well sure, that's funny, but I don't think it's as balanced as it ought to be. Auto-passing votes is a very powerful effect. (even in a world where Protect Thine Own doesn't exist... ;-) [part deux] > I will continue on from previous post that was sent accidentally. > > Faceless Night: Burn 1 blood for superior effect. > > With which text? > Jyhad: +1 stealth. A VAMPIRE that attempts to block this action is tapped, > whether or not the block is successful. > VTES: +1 stealth, and tap any VAMPIRE that attempts to block this action > regardless of whether the block is successful. > Current: +1 stealth, and any MINION that attempts to block this action AND > FAILS becomes tapped when the action is resolved (before resolving the > action). > > Like the burn 1 blood. Just curious as to which effect you'd prefer in your > Dream Jyhad. I'd probably go with "current text", I never had the impression that it was intended as something that only works against vampires. Not that I know the RPG background of the power. > > Voter Captivation: Gain X * 0.5 blood (round down). Superior, move up > > to 1 to your pool. > > I like limiting it, but maybe "This vampire gains x blood up to half its > capacity rounded down" and the superior is just "Gain 2 pool." Make them > choose. Oh, that I like. Good idea. > > Renegade Garou: 1 strength, 4 pool cost. > > Nah. He needs to be able to rip a hand-jammed vampire up. And the price a > Methuselah should pay to control such a beast = current pool cost. As > printed. I'm kind of just trying to reduce the "swing" effect that he produces, really. At 5 pool, he's a ridiculously large investment that's wasted if he gets killed. I wonder if 3 pool, 1 strength, 2 life would work? Or even 3 pool, 1 strength, 3 life, no maneuver? He could still rip people up pretty well with Trap or just some press cards. Though come to think of it, the more "abusive" ways I've seen of using Garou tend to revolve around Parity Shift and/or Autarkis Persecution, both of which are rather depowered in my versions, so maybe "original Garou" is fine. :-) > > Amaranth: Does not exist. > > Instead, let it give one vote to burn in the blood hunt AND make blood-hunt > immune vampires go through a blood hunt. Hmm, that might work. I'm leery of there existing cards to burn (formerly) ready vampires without taking an actual diablerie action, though. This is one of the less problematic ones since you have to already be sending to torpor in combat, can't be going to torpor, and have to go through a blood hunt, but I still consider it problematic for vampires to be burned "that easily". > > Concealed Weapon: Disciplineless, but limit 1 pool or 3 damage (non-agg > > only). > > Depends on what weapon set. Jyhad only, yes. Current set, current text. Eh, I don't know. I'm not enamored of the weenie CEL/.44 Magnum archetype. (I mean, I like it in the sense of finding it a worthwhile/strong/kinda fun thing to play, but I don't really think it needs to exist the way it does right now.) > > Dragon's Breath Rounds: +1 aggravated damage, not +2 (and Jyhad agg > > damage rules, so 1 point can't burn you even if you're already going to > > torpor). > > I prefer "All damage from this gun's current strike is aggravated. Burn the > weapon after playing this card." That's pretty good too. Not giving additional damage makes it at least harder to burn vamps with small guns. > > Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. > > With your Majesty, Earth Meld should untap at superior "at the end of combat > if this vampire is ready." Sure...? I don't think Majesty is restricted on being ready at the end of combat. > > Nosferatu Putrescence: Does not exist. > > I think the effect is dumb (a dripping Nos is still going to shred you), but > I've always liked the possibility of playing combat cards on someone else's > combat. Yeah, me too. It's just cut for being a clan hoser. Too bad Save Face isn't more playable. > > Monocle of Clarity: As currently written. > > No. It should be "This vampire may burn a blood and tap during its > controller's untap phase to allow its controller to look at any Methuselah's > hand. The Monocle may be stolen by any vampire as a (D) action. The > questioning is still problematic, as there's no rule to the length or > complexity of the question other than requiring a "yes or no" answer. > Fighting over the Monocle also enhances the storytelling aspect of the game. That's a very good point. I like your idea. Well, actually, burning a blood and tapping might be more than necessary if it can be stolen. Just tapping, perhaps? > > Anarch Revolt: A Methuselah may lose only one pool per turn to Anarch > > Revolts. > > What about the cost x: where x is the number of Anarch Revolts in play? > Didn't you propose that change? I could swear... I might have endorsed that change at one point, but I think this one is better. The X cost reduces the desire to play multiples, to some extent, but I think not to *enough* of an extent - the game can still be "shamble-ized" quite a bit by multiples. "Unique" is another decent fix, to my mind. (It worked for Antediluvian Awakening!) > > Anarch Troublemaker: Costs 1 pool. > > Any card that auto-passes should not cost. I prefer tapping ONE minion as a > fix instead. Hmm, another good idea. I think that works. It kind of seems like you should have to pay some price for blowing up somebody's equipment, though (even if someone will eventually get the chance to blow up *your* equipment). > > Archon Investigation: Costs 1 pool. Usable on a bleed for more than 2; > > reduces that bleed to 1. Does not burn the bleeding vampire. > > Fits with your bleed reduction. Doesn't it, though? It's like a grand scheme. > > Betrayer: Guessing is free. > > Nyah. OK, post-grouping-rule, Betrayer decks probably aren't that good anymore. But assuming no grouping problem, I'd rather not see people be screwable for 2 pool per card minimum with Betrayers. 1 per card seems decent enough - that's all Anarch Revolt is guaranteed to do to your prey, and people certainly play with that... > > Blood Doll: Does not exist. > > Nizzle. I prefer "The controller of this (Blood Doll) card may move 1 blood > from the vampire to his or her blood pool or from his or her blood pool to > the vampire." That way, if someone wants to steal the vampire, they still > have to contend with the amount of control you have over the minion. Like > when someone steals your girlfriend/boyfriend/itfriend. They still have to > deal with your baggage. Heh, your solution is funny, but I don't think the drawback when your vampire is stolen is going to come up quite enough to make it matter that much. My idea here is that Blood Doll is simply too universally good: it's such a staple that it makes vast quantities of masters unplayably weak by comparison. It should either be a lot narrower or not exist at all. Hmm. Maybe if there were one card "Blood Straw" and another card "IV Bag", and the Straw only let you pull blood off like Doll does, and the IV only let you push blood on like Doll does? > > Game of Malkav: Play 1-4, 1-5 for you. > > Should not exist! Mmm, maybe not. > > Giant's Blood: 4 blood from the blood bank max. Still once per game. > > I say 5. Just to make it different from my 5th Trad. 5 is probably acceptable. > > Hostile Takeover: Can only target a vampire of capacity below 5. > > Why not current text? Well, in order to make it playable more than once per game. Current text works OK, I just thought this might also work. > > Life Boon: Burn 2X pool to give X pool. You get no VP benefit (just the > > pool in future). > > Burn X pool to give X pool. No VP. No taking pool. One Life Boon per game. That would work too, I think. > > Madness Network: Costs 2 pool. > > Hurk? It's burnable. Smart players always burn it. If you're cutting pool > gain, why add cost to this? Well, it's possible for Madness Network to start giving you benefits before anyone gets to burn it (Masika the Malkavian, Rachel Brandywine + Homunculus, etc), and for it to be very hard for others to burn. 2 pool is probably over the top, but I would stand behind 1 pool. The effect is at least that good - are Paths worth playing with at 1 pool? > > Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter: Sends to torpor (Millicent > > still burns). > > But she knows how to burn vampires! She burns them with her Purity (of the > Non Beast). > > How about: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. While in play, this card > represents a mortal ally with 1 life, 0 strength and 0 bleed. Millicent may > not act or block. If the Methuselah controlling Millicent has any of his or > her actioning vampires blocked, then Millicent and the acting vampire are > burned without combat. During your discard phase, your predator takes > control of Millicent. Isn't this functionally equivalent to the current card, except that she's an actual ally this way? Or am I missing something? I actually object to both the too-easy burning of vampires and the slowing down of the game that Millicent produces, which is why I'd much rather see her be less intimidating. > > The Rack: Costs 1 pool. > > Free, stealable, gives 1 blood. Another good idea, yep. More like the "Universal Hunting Ground" that way. > > Smiling Jack the Anarch: Each other Methuselah burns X/2 blood or pool, > > where X is the number of counters on Jack (round down). > > Or: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. During your untap phase, move 1 blood > from your pool to Jack. EACH Methuselah during his or her untap phase burns > 1 pool or burns 1 blood from a vampire he or she controls for each blood on > Jack. Any vampire may burn this card as a (D) action. That could also work, but takes away almost all of the incentive to play a Smiling Jack deck, since you pay *more* than everyone else. I was thinking I'd leave at least *some* of the incentive in place. :-) > > Society of Leopold: Burn 1 blood or be sent to torpor. > > Unique. Put this card on a vampire. During his or her controller's untap > phase, the vampire with this card either burns 1 blood or is burned (the > controller's choice). The vampire with this card can move it to any other > vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire may take this card and place > it on themselves as a +1 stealth (D) action. Cute, yeah, that could work too. Again I still don't like the possibility of burning vampires with a single card, but it wouldn't be *as* bad. > > Temptation of Greater Power: Costs 2 pool, can only target non-titled > > vampires below 7 capacity. Only one ToGP can be played on a Methuselah > > per game. > > Nah. Current text. Current text is OK, but I was thinking it should be hard to tempt fatties with titles with any more power than they've already got. Plus this way makes it a little more possible to play with multiples in a deck. > > Conservative Agitation: Allocate X-1 points, where X is the number of > > players in the game. May only be played once per turn. > > Nah. With all votes being once per turn, you are forcing all decks to be > more toolboxy. Don't mind the powering down, though. Votes that can cause > big non-predator-prey related swings could be once per turn. I think you were right here, and while Con Ag and KRC should be powered down slightly, letting them be played more than once a turn is probably fine. > > Dramatic Upheaval: Does not exist. > > No. If you pack this, you can actually play with your deck's foil on either > side of you in the hopes that you can change the seating. Without it, more > games will be won by pure seating luck. Well... true to some extent, but the VP-stealing uses are an *awfully* powerful effect for a single card, even if it *is* a vote. Besides, decks without vote power are still stuck with the seating luck they draw... > > The First Tradition: The Masquerade: Burn 1 pool to take your turn. > > Burned when the playing Meth has skipped 3 turns or burned 3 pool, or > > any combination adding to 3. > > Should not exist. Apart from seat switching snafuery, nothing should > allow/force players to skip their turn. Maybe, but it's kind of an interesting unique effect, and not *that* powerful at 1 pool per turn, I'd think. > > Justicar Retribution: Sends to torpor. Only one may be played per game. > > Requires a ready Justicar. Burn A vampire with current bleed of 3. Only one > per game. Aha, another good idea. Once again I object in principle to burning a vampire with a single card, but requiring Justicar and once per game is somewhat reasonably balancing. > > Parity Shift: Allocate X-1 points between at least two Methuselahs; at > > least one point must go to the Methuselah with the lowest pool in the > > game. > > This card should not exist. You may well be right. How about X/2 points (round down) and at least one has to go to the lowest Methuselah? Pool stealing is undeniably a hugely powerful effect, but I was figuring at least *some* vamp stealing will probably be left in and that's at least as powerful. > > Praxis Seizure [X]: Requires a vampire of capacity above 4. > > Yes, "unless you control a ready Justicar of the same clan." Hmm, funny and appropriate, might work. It kind of rewards "the guy who already has votes", but since your Justicar has to be at least a 7-cap, it's probably not too problematic. > > Deflection: The bleed is reduced to 1 and the stealth is reduced to 0. > > Current text. This is a major mechanic of VTES, and one that new players > understand quickly. It's major because it's overpowered, though... intuitive, sure, but just too strong for a single card. (At least as much as Parity Shift, and easier to play! ;-) I really like the "you just became a responsible bleeder even if you didn't want to" aspect, honestly. > > Obedience: Costs 1 blood. Superior still untaps the acting vamp, but he > > or she also burns a blood. > > Oh, you mean Voice of Madness? ; ) Ha, yeah, I guess so. Actually, hmm. I don't know if I think it should be better than Voice of Madness or not, but Voice of Madness always seems to kind of really suck, so maybe Obedience shouldn't let you untap at superior. Ah, but then again, maybe the suckage is because Voice always taps the Voicing vamp. > > Telepathic Misdirection: Superior reduces the bleed to 1 and the stealth > > to 0. > > Current text. See Deflection. I don't object to this *quite* as much in theory, since at least it's not in the same damn discipline as all that +bleed, but I do still think bounce "as is" is a stronger single-card effect than the game should probably have. > > Wake with Evening's Freshness: Costs 1 blood. Do not replace until next > > untap phase. > > Current text. Eh, I dunno. Current text is all right, but it's still a "staple". Could be 1 blood and replace at end of action, probably. > > no single card should have too large an effect is the main one. > > I think that using that philosophy really cuts into the storytelling aspects > of the game. I am an advocate of "Event" type cards which can shape and > shake a game and improve general enjoyment, curbing their abusiveness by > limiting them to once a game. And they can make for some fond memories. One > of my ToGPs (pre Cam edition, but I only owned 3 anyway) played on my prey > that my grandprey (and he knows who he is) bid a few too high for, combined > with some other interactions, made for a very memorable experience. And it > amazes me what I remember about games with other people and what they > remember about games with me. This is true, no doubt. But I think it's an important facet of making the game work as a CCG: the extent to which it works well *now* is in no small part (IMO) due to the "really powerful single cards" having been drastically reduced in power (if not banned). Ideally (to me?) "event" type cards could be balanced by having their effects be cool and "earthshaking", but balanced in terms of affecting all the players in a not-very-unequal fashion. (and being hard to "break symmetry in your favor" with.) That's certainly a hard thing to do, though. > > mind rape: does not exist. > > Change the name to Rape. And that's much closer to the truth of the card. heh. Yeah, no kidding. I had it played on me... once or twice? under original text. Man, that hurt. (hardly anybody owned any copies, back then.) > -Mike Ooi > Unique Master Truly, you are the unique master. :-) Josh tap to make a snarky comment and gain +2 fun

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.0401...@posting.google.com... [Ben Peal wrote] > > To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is > > the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. > > However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- > > bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive > > options just don't cut it. One way to resolve that (which seems to > > be reflected in Josh's post) is to reduce the amount of bleed > > possible in the game. However, the problem with that is that the > > game would be even slower than it is now. > > > > What I think is needed in this case is to keep the big bleed (in > > the interests of keeping game length down), but create ways for > > other disciplines (aka not Dom and Aus) to viably defend themselves > > against it. > > I KNEW IT!!I KNEW IT!! I AM NOT ALONE!!!!!! > Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just > couldn't get anyone to agree on this. At least, in such clear a way. > Would you agree on an expensive but disciplineless/clanless > bleedbounce card( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > viable option I've been able to come up with..) Wow, you don't think Protect Thine Own is unfair but you do think it's unfair that only Dominate and Auspex have bleed bounce? (Not a slam, I just find it funny. :-) Anyway, even if you disregard every other point I was trying to make in this thread, I am absolutely in favor of (as long as bleed bounce has to exist) other disciplines (or non-discipline cards) getting access to it. Maybe not quite as strong as the Aus/Dom versions, but at least in the ballpark. Of course, I'm not so sure that keeping the big bleed is really the good thing to do - yes it keeps game length down... somewhat... but I'm not sure it's worth the cost (the vast quantities of pool that can be lost in a single action are still, IMO, harmful to the game as a whole). :-) Josh sure it's a big bleed, but don't worry, you'll get used to it

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:x0WKb.3666$_w....@fe1.columbus.rr.com... > Josh wrote: > >It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets > >and suggestions of how the cards could have been > >written differently to avoid having any of them be > >significantly overpowered. > > Just as interesting an experiment would be to create > some new texts for cards from the recent sets such > that the newer cards matched the power levels of the > first set. Even more interesting would be to print new > cards that were as strong as the classics. Why yes, yes it would. While philosophically I kind of prefer the "make everything not have TOO huge an effect" approach, given that that isn't possible with the game as we have it, the "make some new cards that can compete around the same level with the existing "nigh-power cards"" approach definitely seems worthwhile. Josh perhaps you'd like to start with some suggested cardtexts for recent cards? you can start with the anarchs vehicles... :-)

In article <btkt9j$8e4bv$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, jtdu...@yahoo.com says... > Has anyone else thought it weird that Graverobbing is a dominate card? > I can see Ozmo being graverobbed, awakening from torpor and telling his > rescuer Didi Meyers, "OMFG! You so dominated me! I now fight for YOU!" Maybe > it could be an Auspex card. "OMFG! You so SAW WHERE I WAS LYING UNDER THE > GROUND!" Make it disciplineless, cost 3 blood and ONLY WORK ON YOUNGER VAMPIRES. > How about: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. While in play, this card > represents a mortal ally with 1 life, 0 strength and 0 bleed. > Millicent may not act or block. If the Methuselah controlling Millicent has any of > his or her actioning vampires blocked, then Millicent and the acting vampire > are burned without combat. During your discard phase, your predator takes > > control of Millicent. > > Isn't this functionally equivalent to the current card, except that > she's an actual ally this way? Or am I missing something? I actually > object to both the too-easy burning of vampires and the slowing down of > the game that Millicent produces, which is why I'd much rather see her > be less intimidating. I think the idea was make her rushable from some other spot on the table. > Conservative Agitation: Allocate X-1 points, where X is the number > of players in the game. May only be played once per turn. > > > > Nah. With all votes being once per turn, you are forcing all decks to > > be more toolboxy. Don't mind the powering down, though. Votes that can > > cause big non-predator-prey related swings could be once per turn. > > I think you were right here, and while Con Ag and KRC should be powered > down slightly, letting them be played more than once a turn is probably > fine. Perhaps a clause forcing you to target your prey in some fashion? -- -Snapcase

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:btkt9j$8e4bv$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > Just because I can't resist responding point by point to the person > (quite possibly the closest man to Steven Hawking in VTES) who went > ahead and started that... :-) I did cut a bunch of the cards that we > agreed on already, though. Closest to Steven Hawking? Does he live in Lincoln Park, Chicago? I didn't realize... > "Unique Master" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message > news:3ffbd16b$0$6753$61fe...@news.rcn.com... > > > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... [snip] > > > Computer Hacking: Costs 1 blood, do not replace until the end of the > > > action. > > > > I like the "do not replace..."; it sets up a theme with the other "no > > discipline required cards" such as Arson, Bum's Rush, Fake out, etc. > > However, I don't agree with the blood cost. I think that allies with > an > > inherent 0 bleed should be able to bleed for 1 "with a little help > from a > > Methuselah", both from a mechanic standpoint and a thematic one. > > I agree that it's nice for allies to be able to benefit from Computer > Hacking, but I really do think that weenies without a bleed discipline > benefit from it too much. How about "requires an ally or a vampire of > capacity above 2"? I do dislike proposing lots more text for cards, > though Computer Hacking isn't really one that would run into trouble > with having more text. I also like the "do not replace", I kind of > think almost all the "basic" no-discipline effects should be "do not > replace" and it's odd that this one wasn't (especially when Arson was). > > Do not replace until end of turn, as someone else suggested, might > substitute somewhat well for the blood cost, although I'm not sure if > it's anti-weenie enough. Might be. We also musn't forget that Computer Hacking is a necessity for clans that don't have access to bleed disciplines. We've all been preyed upon by the Gangrel wall deck that ruined our game but couldn't oust us. After revisiting Jyhad allies, it seems that the ones meant to bleed already have a bleed of at least 1 (the Garou is meant to bleed by trashing minions). So I will reverse my position on the blood cost. Post-Jyhad, your "cooler" allies get the ability to burn life for blood costs (requiring disciplines, I know, but maybe "our" expansions would have them being able to pay life for cards that have blood cost that don't require disciplines) so they could maybe use this version. > > > Dominate Kine/Kine Dominance: Costs 3 blood. > > > > Nah. Unless it's 3 blood with the superior at +1 stealth. > > Well, this was by parallel to my Govern the Unaligned change; if Govern > costs 1 for +1 bleed and Bonding costs 1 for +1 bleed/+1 stealth at > [DOM], Dominate Kine should cost more than 2 for its effect. But you > may be right, 2 blood is fairly steep already. 2 blood to steal a > location, on the other hand, is probably a bargain, even at 0 stealth. Let's see: current Dominate Kine: +1 bleed at +1 stealth, not +2 bleed at +1 stealth = 2 blood Add proposed Bonding: +2 bleed at +2 stealth = 3 blood proposed DK: +1 bleed at +1 stealth = 3 blood add proposed Bonding: +2 bleed at +2 stealth = 4 blood. Paying 3-4 blood for an action should be a pretty good action. 3 blood actions currently seem to focus on denial (denial of vampires, denial of blood) with the exception being Pulse of Canaille, which we've already discussed. The only 4 blood action is banned. So in Duffy the Vampire Slayer Jyhad, is +1 bleed at +1 stealth worth 3 blood? +2 bleed at +2 stealth worth 4? Interesting enough, Pulse is the only 3 blood action that is at +1 stealth. And Pulse's inferior (being able to see EVERY Methuselah's hand for the remainder of the turn) is pretty powerful in old Jyhad. And it was the only 3 blood action in Jyhad. I generally put 1 copy of DK in DOM decks that use stealth specifically for the superior. > > > The Embrace: Costs 3 blood, gets a discipline, no vampire can > perform > > > more than one Embrace action per game. > > > > I like only one per vampire per game; brings it closer to storytelling > and > > creates bigger distinction with Legion storywise. I say 2 blood, > discipline, > > must hunt, and a Prince can call a referendum to burn an Embrace once > per > > game. > > That would work for me as well, although part of what I like about 3 > blood is that it makes it harder for an Embrace to create an Embrace. > And adding new rules to the rulebook (or more text to Embrace?) for the > "Prince burn vote" thing, well, let's not go overboard while we're going > overboard, right? ;-) But remember we have more rulebook space! No "burn option", "flight", "Sabbat titles", "Archbishop-Prince Autorush", "Wild Hunt", and only 10 disciplines! And 3 blood is right. Requires another skill card & another 2 blood to find their way onto the new vamp. Surely slows down a Huggies Diaper deck. 3 blood, gets a discipline, must hunt, can only make one Embrace a game, Prince can attempt to burn an Embrace once per game. [snip] > > > Graverobbing: Inferior is burn the target vampire (not diablerie); > > > superior is equivalent to former inferior, and costs 2 blood. > > > > I really like the inferior giving a non-diablerie option (again > > storytelling), but I disagree on the superior. Surely a vampire > > "graverobbing" another vampire could also awaken him from torpor if he > so > > chooses during the same action. Perhaps 2 blood and "Move a YOUNGER > vampire > > from another Methuselah's torpor area to your ready region, tap that > vampire > > and remove all blood counters from it. You now control that vampire." > > Eh, thematically maybe he could, but I think Graverobbing (as with > pretty much all vampire-stealing effects) is just substantially > overpowered with the "rescue and steal in one card and one action" > mechanic. Younger and the target loses blood might do it, but I do > think it should at least still cost 1 blood plus the 2 to rescue, if not > 2 plus 2. Maybe this could be another 3 blood action. Or the card could cost 1 with the superior requiring burning 2 blood to activate it. [snip] > > > Conditioning: Does not exist. (Replaced by reworded Threats.) > > > > No. Dominate still needs to be the king of bleed. Presence gives you > vote > > and combat defense, let Dominate still give you a bleed for 4+. > > Bleeds above 4 is exactly what I don't want to see. You start with 30 > pool. To be able to lose 1/6 of that (or more) in a single action is > (IMO) not desirable. Even with only Threats and not Conditioning, > Dominate is still the king of bleed (only marginally compared to > Presence once it gets Aire of Elation, but still). Perhaps the superior could require burning 1 blood to activate, as opposed to the whole card (with Threats effect) costing 1. > > > Cryptic Rider: Must be played before votes are cast. > > > > No. I like the table interaction with the current version: > > "Why are you voting me down cross table? > > -Because you might play a Cryptic Rider. > > What if I promise not to? > > -Okay, I'll vote for it then. > > Vote passes, and I'll play this Cryptic Rider. -YOU COCK! I WILL MAKE > IT MY > > SINGULAR GOAL THIS GAME TO DESTROY YOU CROSS TABLE! NO ONE FUCKS WITH > > APPOLONIUS AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!" > > Well sure, that's funny, but I don't think it's as balanced as it ought > to be. Auto-passing votes is a very powerful effect. (even in a world > where Protect Thine Own doesn't exist... ;-) Possible fix: 1 Cryptic Rider per turn, all other current text. I still like the table deciding not to let you pass votes because you might cryptic rider it. Whether you've got it in your deck or not. > [part deux] Indeuxd. [snip] Faceless night: > > Current: +1 stealth, and any MINION that attempts to block this action > AND > > FAILS becomes tapped when the action is resolved (before resolving the > > action). > > > > Like the burn 1 blood. Just curious as to which effect you'd prefer in > your > > Dream Jyhad. > > I'd probably go with "current text", I never had the impression that it > was intended as something that only works against vampires. Not that I > know the RPG background of the power. Me either. 'Tis a strange Obfuscate power to make others suddenly reorient themselves 90 degrees. To further clarify: only failed blockers are forced to tap? [snip] > > > Renegade Garou: 1 strength, 4 pool cost. > > > > Nah. He needs to be able to rip a hand-jammed vampire up. And the > price a > > Methuselah should pay to control such a beast = current pool cost. As > > printed. > > I'm kind of just trying to reduce the "swing" effect that he produces, > really. At 5 pool, he's a ridiculously large investment that's wasted > if he gets killed. I wonder if 3 pool, 1 strength, 2 life would work? > Or even 3 pool, 1 strength, 3 life, no maneuver? He could still rip > people up pretty well with Trap or just some press cards. > > Though come to think of it, the more "abusive" ways I've seen of using > Garou tend to revolve around Parity Shift and/or Autarkis Persecution, > both of which are rather depowered in my versions, so maybe "original > Garou" is fine. :-) Maybe a 3 strength, no additional strike. Like Lazverinus with no cards played. > > > Amaranth: Does not exist. > > > > Instead, let it give one vote to burn in the blood hunt AND make > blood-hunt > > immune vampires go through a blood hunt. > > Hmm, that might work. I'm leery of there existing cards to burn > (formerly) ready vampires without taking an actual diablerie action, > though. This is one of the less problematic ones since you have to > already be sending to torpor in combat, can't be going to torpor, and > have to go through a blood hunt, but I still consider it problematic for > vampires to be burned "that easily". It's a required mechanic to flush out possible resolutions of combat, though. Possible resolutions of combat: 1. We walk away, nothing happened. 2. We walk away, one or both of us a little wounded. 3. One of us walks away, the other in torpor. 4. Both of us in torpor. 5. One of us walks away, the other in ashes. 6. Both of us in ashes. (Boy wouldn't it be cool if this happened more often?!?) 7. One of us walks away, the other now living inside of the other. I've always had a problem with how Amaranth works with other combat cards. Which could be fixed by Disarm, etc. working more like Rotshrek, ie: "Only usable at the end of a round of combat in which this vampire successfully inflicted more damage at close range than the opposing vampire; not usable by a vampire going into torpor. COMBAT ENDS. Put this card on the opposing vampire and send that vampire into torpor. The vampire [blah blah blah] 1 Disarm." Superior: "As above, and the vampire has superior blah blah." Back to the subject: Amaranth is a big story element, and could be represented in-game in a balanced way. I see it as a heat of the moment effect, hence the possible suspension of Archon immunity. Diablerizing a vampire in torpor seems more like a mission that could be handed down by a Justicar, hence the Archon immunity. > > > Concealed Weapon: Disciplineless, but limit 1 pool or 3 damage > (non-agg > > > only). > > > > Depends on what weapon set. Jyhad only, yes. Current set, current > text. > > Eh, I don't know. I'm not enamored of the weenie CEL/.44 Magnum > archetype. (I mean, I like it in the sense of finding it a > worthwhile/strong/kinda fun thing to play, but I don't really think it > needs to exist the way it does right now.) > > > Dragon's Breath Rounds: +1 aggravated damage, not +2 (and Jyhad agg > > > damage rules, so 1 point can't burn you even if you're already going > to > > > torpor). > > > > I prefer "All damage from this gun's current strike is aggravated. > Burn the > > weapon after playing this card." > > That's pretty good too. Not giving additional damage makes it at least > harder to burn vamps with small guns. I think also having to burn the weapon immediately makes you lose it even if you play Rotshrek, which should happen. How can I frenzy you by showing you a box of Phosphorus Rounds? Don't you need a demonstration first? Same with a White Phosphorus Grenade. Though with current VTES, I'm perfectly happy playing rotschrek and not losing my grenade. > > > Earth Meld: Strike: Go to press step. > > > > With your Majesty, Earth Meld should untap at superior "at the end of > combat > > if this vampire is ready." > > Sure...? I don't think Majesty is restricted on being ready at the end > of combat. Right, with the "Go To Press Step" mechanic, these untap effects should take into account possible torping via press step damage ie DOtB. Also, if the untap effects are kept, it should be more difficult for you to rush and send someone to torpor and be untapped at the end of combat. Right now you have to rush, strike:untap, Psyche! or TT at superiors, and go at it again. With GTPS mechanic, I strike:untap, press (think of all the protean presses...), dunk you, I'm already untapped. Perhaps changing "this vampire untaps before combat ends" to "and untap this vampire if combat ends this round" to make it work with the GTPS. [snip] > > > Monocle of Clarity: As currently written. > > > > No. It should be "This vampire may burn a blood and tap during its > > controller's untap phase to allow its controller to look at any > Methuselah's > > hand. The Monocle may be stolen by any vampire as a (D) action. The > > questioning is still problematic, as there's no rule to the length or > > complexity of the question other than requiring a "yes or no" answer. > > Fighting over the Monocle also enhances the storytelling aspect of the > game. > > That's a very good point. I like your idea. Well, actually, burning a > blood and tapping might be more than necessary if it can be stolen. > Just tapping, perhaps? As long as we remove the questioning. Other possibility: burn a blood and tap the Monocle not the minion -prevents Heidelburg weirdness and doesn't let you keep empty minions from hunting. If we keep the questioning, it should be expanded to allow non-game questions. "Do you think I'm sexy?" "No." "LIAR!" > > > Anarch Revolt: A Methuselah may lose only one pool per turn to > Anarch > > > Revolts. > > > > What about the cost x: where x is the number of Anarch Revolts in > play? > > Didn't you propose that change? I could swear... > > I might have endorsed that change at one point, but I think this one is > better. The X cost reduces the desire to play multiples, to some > extent, but I think not to *enough* of an extent - the game can still be > "shamble-ized" quite a bit by multiples. "Unique" is another decent > fix, to my mind. (It worked for Antediluvian Awakening!) Yes. Another possible is to require one Anarch for each revolt, ie "Place on a ready Anarch you control." So you can't Turn One it, and you need to be playing an anarch deck in the first place, which means you're already playing with a handicap (sorry Eric ; ) ) And it could burn if the Anarch leaves the ready region. "Torpor sucks! I revolt against this!" > > > Anarch Troublemaker: Costs 1 pool. > > > > Any card that auto-passes should not cost. I prefer tapping ONE minion > as a > > fix instead. > > Hmm, another good idea. I think that works. It kind of seems like you > should have to pay some price for blowing up somebody's equipment, > though (even if someone will eventually get the chance to blow up *your* > equipment). Maybe burn 1 pool to activate burn equipment function? > > > Archon Investigation: Costs 1 pool. Usable on a bleed for more than > 2; > > > reduces that bleed to 1. Does not burn the bleeding vampire. > > > > Fits with your bleed reduction. > > Doesn't it, though? It's like a grand scheme. To make the costing work (2 pool burned total), it needs to be "after a bleed is successful" so you can't play this AND then play an inferior Telepathic Counter. You still need to reward a Methuselah that can work to get a big bleed in Duffy Jyhad. > > > Betrayer: Guessing is free. > > > > Nyah. > > OK, post-grouping-rule, Betrayer decks probably aren't that good > anymore. But assuming no grouping problem, I'd rather not see people be > screwable for 2 pool per card minimum with Betrayers. 1 per card seems > decent enough - that's all Anarch Revolt is guaranteed to do to your > prey, and people certainly play with that... Assuming no-grouping rule, perhaps tapping a minion to guess. And burn the uncontrolled vampire, so only one correct guess rids you of the problem. Of course, then I could build a Betrayer-Possession-Contest deck. > > > Blood Doll: Does not exist. > > > > Nizzle. I prefer "The controller of this (Blood Doll) card may move 1 > blood > > from the vampire to his or her blood pool or from his or her blood > pool to > > the vampire." That way, if someone wants to steal the vampire, they > still > > have to contend with the amount of control you have over the minion. > Like > > when someone steals your girlfriend/boyfriend/itfriend. They still > have to > > deal with your baggage. > > Heh, your solution is funny, but I don't think the drawback when your > vampire is stolen is going to come up quite enough to make it matter > that much. My idea here is that Blood Doll is simply too universally > good: it's such a staple that it makes vast quantities of masters > unplayably weak by comparison. It should either be a lot narrower or > not exist at all. Hmm. Maybe if there were one card "Blood Straw" and > another card "IV Bag", and the Straw only let you pull blood off like > Doll does, and the IV only let you push blood on like Doll does? If it is universally good, why not make it a game mechanic? Eliminate the card. Every vampire being a blood doll, no stacking possible. When my friends and I first started learning the game (from the original Jyhad rulebook with no other help) we thought we could take blood off of controlled minions during Influence phase via transfers. I'm not saying we were the brightest bananas in pajamas, but it did seem a little intuitive... [snip] > > > Madness Network: Costs 2 pool. > > > > Hurk? It's burnable. Smart players always burn it. If you're cutting > pool > > gain, why add cost to this? > > Well, it's possible for Madness Network to start giving you benefits > before anyone gets to burn it (Masika the Malkavian, Rachel Brandywine + > Homunculus, etc), and for it to be very hard for others to burn. 2 pool > is probably over the top, but I would stand behind 1 pool. The effect > is at least that good - are Paths worth playing with at 1 pool? 1 pool. The Path of Madness. And I think it should damage vampires who successfully burn it, as with other Paths. > > > Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter: Sends to torpor (Millicent > > > still burns). > > > > But she knows how to burn vampires! She burns them with her Purity (of > the > > Non Beast). > > > > How about: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. While in play, this card > > represents a mortal ally with 1 life, 0 strength and 0 bleed. > Millicent may > > not act or block. If the Methuselah controlling Millicent has any of > his or > > her actioning vampires blocked, then Millicent and the acting vampire > are > > burned without combat. During your discard phase, your predator takes > > control of Millicent. > > Isn't this functionally equivalent to the current card, except that > she's an actual ally this way? Or am I missing something? I actually > object to both the too-easy burning of vampires and the slowing down of > the game that Millicent produces, which is why I'd much rather see her > be less intimidating. This way, she's an actual minion. She can be rushed, stolen, kill herself via Zip Gun, etc. Flipside - she would count during an Autarkis Persecution. But so do Arms Dealers, so... [snip] > > > Smiling Jack the Anarch: Each other Methuselah burns X/2 blood or > pool, > > > where X is the number of counters on Jack (round down). > > > > Or: Unique. PUT THIS CARD IN PLAY. During your untap phase, move 1 > blood > > from your pool to Jack. EACH Methuselah during his or her untap phase > burns > > 1 pool or burns 1 blood from a vampire he or she controls for each > blood on > > Jack. Any vampire may burn this card as a (D) action. > > That could also work, but takes away almost all of the incentive to play > a Smiling Jack deck, since you pay *more* than everyone else. I was > thinking I'd leave at least *some* of the incentive in place. :-) Perhaps instead, current text + you may also burn a vampire you control during your untap to burn Smiling Jack. I thought about making this one an ally card to (like Millicent), but quickly remembered HE'S A VAMPIRE! > > > Society of Leopold: Burn 1 blood or be sent to torpor. > > > > Unique. Put this card on a vampire. During his or her controller's > untap > > phase, the vampire with this card either burns 1 blood or is burned > (the > > controller's choice). The vampire with this card can move it to any > other > > vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire may take this card and > place > > it on themselves as a +1 stealth (D) action. > > Cute, yeah, that could work too. Again I still don't like the > possibility of burning vampires with a single card, but it wouldn't be > *as* bad. Maybe "either burns 1 blood, 1 pool, or is burned"? Or the famous once-per-game. > > > Temptation of Greater Power: Costs 2 pool, can only target > non-titled > > > vampires below 7 capacity. Only one ToGP can be played on a > Methuselah > > > per game. > > > > Nah. Current text. > > Current text is OK, but I was thinking it should be hard to tempt > fatties with titles with any more power than they've already got. Plus > this way makes it a little more possible to play with multiples in a > deck. Missed your addition of "per Methuselah". I like it with that. [snip] > > > Dramatic Upheaval: Does not exist. > > > > No. If you pack this, you can actually play with your deck's foil on > either > > side of you in the hopes that you can change the seating. Without it, > more > > games will be won by pure seating luck. > > Well... true to some extent, but the VP-stealing uses are an *awfully* > powerful effect for a single card, even if it *is* a vote. Besides, > decks without vote power are still stuck with the seating luck they > draw... True, most games are won/lost retaining their original seating. But I like to make people get up and move around. And that way I can cheat during the chaos. > > > The First Tradition: The Masquerade: Burn 1 pool to take your turn. > > > Burned when the playing Meth has skipped 3 turns or burned 3 pool, > or > > > any combination adding to 3. > > > > Should not exist. Apart from seat switching snafuery, nothing should > > allow/force players to skip their turn. > > Maybe, but it's kind of an interesting unique effect, and not *that* > powerful at 1 pool per turn, I'd think. What exactly is this card supposed to represent? Granted, this is from a thematic standpoint. Perhaps a "skip your minion phase or pay one pool". That way you can still be playing, taking Methuselaic actions while your minions are hiding. Or even a "Burn 1 pool or vampires cannot act during your turn. Burned b;ah b;ah b;ah..." Still prevents Madness Network actions, still allowing you to untap, play master cards, bring up another defender. And makes allies more useful. > > > Justicar Retribution: Sends to torpor. Only one may be played per > game. > > > > Requires a ready Justicar. Burn A vampire with current bleed of 3. > Only one > > per game. > > Aha, another good idea. Once again I object in principle to burning a > vampire with a single card, but requiring Justicar and once per game is > somewhat reasonably balancing. Other option: Requires a ready Justicar. Place this card on a ready vampire with a current bleed of 3. Any vampire may enter combat with this vampire as a +1 stealth action. If this minion is diablerized, no one can call a Blood Hunt against the diablerist. > > > Parity Shift: Allocate X-1 points between at least two Methuselahs; > at > > > least one point must go to the Methuselah with the lowest pool in > the > > > game. > > > > This card should not exist. > > You may well be right. How about X/2 points (round down) and at least > one has to go to the lowest Methuselah? Pool stealing is undeniably a > hugely powerful effect, but I was figuring at least *some* vamp stealing > will probably be left in and that's at least as powerful. At the least, the pool should be split between at least 2 Methuselahs, with the Methuselah being stole from a valid recipient (in the interest of 2 player games). [snip] > > > Deflection: The bleed is reduced to 1 and the stealth is reduced to > 0. > > > > Current text. This is a major mechanic of VTES, and one that new > players > > understand quickly. > > It's major because it's overpowered, though... intuitive, sure, but just > too strong for a single card. (At least as much as Parity Shift, and > easier to play! ;-) I really like the "you just became a responsible > bleeder even if you didn't want to" aspect, honestly. And now I vacillate. Possible fixes for Duffy Jyhad: Redirection (if Deflection and TM is as you wish): Only usable when a younger vampire is attempting to bleed you. Tap this reacting vampire TO choose another Methuselah other than the acting vampire's controller. The acting vampire is now bleeding the chosen Methuselah. Superior: can be younger I think there should still be a "sucker" element in the game. Players eventually realize they can't tap all their minions and bleed and stealth and hope to win. Without the possibility of being big bounced at big stealth to my grand prey, I don't have to think while playing. And rewards people who play inventive "short leash" decks. > > > Obedience: Costs 1 blood. Superior still untaps the acting vamp, > but he > > > or she also burns a blood. > > > > Oh, you mean Voice of Madness? ; ) > > Ha, yeah, I guess so. Actually, hmm. I don't know if I think it should > be better than Voice of Madness or not, but Voice of Madness always > seems to kind of really suck, so maybe Obedience shouldn't let you untap > at superior. Ah, but then again, maybe the suckage is because Voice > always taps the Voicing vamp. You're on to something. They should at least cost the same. > > > Telepathic Misdirection: Superior reduces the bleed to 1 and the > stealth > > > to 0. > > > > Current text. See Deflection. > > I don't object to this *quite* as much in theory, since at least it's > not in the same damn discipline as all that +bleed, but I do still think > bounce "as is" is a stronger single-card effect than the game should > probably have. I see an interesting interaction here: Bounce, Eagle's Sight, which will be easier with your text. > > > Wake with Evening's Freshness: Costs 1 blood. Do not replace until > next > > > untap phase. > > > > Current text. > > Eh, I dunno. Current text is all right, but it's still a "staple". > Could be 1 blood and replace at end of action, probably. Changing the current text amplifies tapping effects. And will slow down the game, as I would not act until I get a 2nd minion out and then leaving minions more and more untapped trying to gauge my predator's upcoming turn, in fact trying to make my minions more untapped if possible. More minions acting (not more minions) will make games faster. I don't know how to fix it to make it less of a staple. Maybe give each clan access to different kinds of wakes. Gangrel & Nossies have animalism untaps against bleed, maybe make untaps for D actions, untaps against political actions, untaps and DIs against Forgotten Labyrinth Serpentis actions...that are better than wakes. With wakes being the general "no discipline" do not replace card. Waking is more or less a game mechanic now, like Bounce, which capitalized is actually a fabric softener. [snip] > This is true, no doubt. But I think it's an important facet of making > the game work as a CCG: the extent to which it works well *now* is in no > small part (IMO) due to the "really powerful single cards" having been > drastically reduced in power (if not banned). 2Tru. > Ideally (to me?) "event" type cards could be balanced by having their > effects be cool and "earthshaking", but balanced in terms of affecting > all the players in a not-very-unequal fashion. (and being hard to > "break symmetry in your favor" with.) That's certainly a hard thing to > do, though. Hopefully things like May Not Be Suddened Master: Destroy. -Burn everything in play. "What does this button <fhhhhhtt--->" -Rex the Necronomist will be printed someday. Hopefully other people will also discuss these card ideas we've bounced, otherwise I should have just emailed this to you. Or maybe I'm the kind of guy who likes to shout into his cell phone in crowded areas. -Mike Oioioi Ps. Perhaps people will read this long post while sitting on the john, or at least, some guy named john.

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a67ff953...@news.optonline.net... > In article <btkt9j$8e4bv$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, > jtdu...@yahoo.com says... > [snip] > > Conservative Agitation: Allocate X-1 points, where X is the number > > of players in the game. May only be played once per turn. > > > > > > Nah. With all votes being once per turn, you are forcing all decks to > > > be more toolboxy. Don't mind the powering down, though. Votes that can > > > cause big non-predator-prey related swings could be once per turn. > > > > I think you were right here, and while Con Ag and KRC should be powered > > down slightly, letting them be played more than once a turn is probably > > fine. > > Perhaps a clause forcing you to target your prey in some fashion? But how would Chicago players oust Boris across the table? > -- > -Snapcase -MO

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yes. Yes they are. But if they had all been different from day one, the > world might have been a better place. > Yeah, and if Kennedy hadn't gone to Dallas... chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) prince of torrance, california *** Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus Into the eyes of the night - watching me go Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple Enter the risen Osiris - risen again - Dickinson

>My idea here is that Blood Doll is simply too universally >good: it's such a staple that it makes vast quantities of masters >unplayably weak by comparison. It should either be a lot narrower or >not exist at all. Hmm. Maybe if there were one card "Blood Straw" and >another card "IV Bag", and the Straw only let you pull blood off like >Doll does, and the IV only let you push blood on like Doll does? If Blood Doll had some of the limitations that newbies occasionally think it does, such as lacking the ability to push blood and only being limited to one per vampire, it would still be an awesome card, likely still remain the best card in the game. This relates to why I think it's a problematic card. Other blood moving cards would become better if it had such limitations, if only slightly. There would be more room in the game for new blood moving cards.

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.0401...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] With the current Disciplinespread .. no. Auspex has 2 major advantages: 1. It has most interceptcards (i mean variety), which prevents you from getting too many of the same in hand. 2. Many weenies have it. IIRC most even counting 4caps with a superior Discipline. (A third would be Eagles Sight. I know that there is also Falcon's eye, but there #2 kicks in)

mine was definatly weenie, but jays was not really weenie (he had a lot of 5 caps even a 6 cap) it was a midsize deck. and they were still intercept decks stefan "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3FFD96FA...@duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bf72a12e.0401...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] auspex is not that strong because it has bounce (when used in intercept decks), but because there are a lot of vamps with aus, and there are great cards like enhanced senses, eagle sight and such. now i do think one could build great intercept decks with ministry. (but there are not enough vamps that are blackhand) the real problem for intercept decks is forgotten labyrinth+lost in crowds. but take a lock at johannes walchs deck, he almost made it to the finals with an ahrimanes intercept deck without bounce although i admit his deck would have been beaten by a hardcore S&B deck (i think) stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

wolflord expounded: > > To wit, I don't think anyone here disputes that bleed bounce is > > the most card efficient defense to the point of ridiculousness. > > However, if you got rid of it, the game would degenerate to stealth- > > bleed mania (even more than it is now), because the other defensive > > options just don't cut it. One way to resolve that (which seems to > > be reflected in Josh's post) is to reduce the amount of bleed > > possible in the game. However, the problem with that is that the > > game would be even slower than it is now. > > > > What I think is needed in this case is to keep the big bleed (in > > the interests of keeping game length down), but create ways for > > other disciplines (aka not Dom and Aus) to viably defend themselves > > against it. > > > I KNEW IT!!I KNEW IT!! I AM NOT ALONE!!!!!! > Finaly I find someone with exactly the same idea.Until now, I just > couldn't get anyone to agree on this. At least, in such clear a way. > Would you agree on an expensive but disciplineless/clanless > bleedbounce card( As I do not believe in intercept, its the only > viable option I've been able to come up with..) I think bleed reduction would be much better. More bounce would not be an improvement imo.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:57:22 +0100, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > mine was definatly weenie, but jays was not really weenie (he had a lot of 5 > caps even a 6 cap) it was a midsize deck. OK, but he had a lot of small guys, too, right? Fine, his might have been slightly over the line of weenie-ness, but the general point stands.... with a lot of minions, no one minion needs to be capable of much. > and they were still intercept decks Yes, they were that, too. The point I was trying to make with the weenie comment was that, with sufficient numbers of minions you can still achieve forward momentum, regardless of the contents of your library. Contrast that with, say an Omaya Wall or a big Tzimisce deck. David Cherryholmes

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btfc70$6dkvi$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > This isn't exactly tongue-in-cheek, but it isn't exactly serious either. > It's an examination of the original Jyhad/VTES sets and suggestions of > how the cards could have been written differently to avoid having any of > them be significantly overpowered. I don't expect that any of this ever > would happen now that the game has progressed so far beyond that point, > but it might have been cool if the game had originally been written this > way. :-) > <..> > Soul Gem of Etrius: Move the vampire into play with 1 blood. nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! That makes turbo decks waaaay to easy. BTW, what about a rules change in the imaginary rulebook? something like: a vampire can never bleed for more than his capacity. Jeroen

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3ffe8b38$0$30786$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] He didn't say that auspex doesn't have good cards. He said that weenie auspex decks need the bounce to protect them from a hard core S&B deck. > now i do think one could build great intercept decks with ministry. (but > there are not enough vamps that are blackhand) > the real problem for intercept decks is forgotten labyrinth+lost in crowds. nah, IMO the biggest problems for intercept decks: 1. seduction, Pentex Subversion (or even The Sleeping Mind) and blocking attempt fails. 2. unblockable actions 3. the fact that stealth is easier to get (card wise) than intercept (that's what you said, I guess) 4. the "OK I've blocked we're in combat now, hands for one?" moment OR try intercept+combat and jam either on combat or on intercept. Jeroen

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > And if you stripped out the Telepathic Misdirections from those decks, > > how well do you think the decks would have fared? Again, it's not > > intercept as a strategy, but rather intercept as the _only_ defensive > > strategy (i.e. taking away bounce and other measures). > > > > > 95% of the S&B decks don“t stand a chance against a good intercept deck. > > > > Again, good stealth-bleed decks don't care about the intercept > > component of the defense. They care about the bounce (which is > > typically combined with intercept in the defense package). > > > > > the hard part is making the vp“s > > > > Yup...you and the other finalist obviously did a great job of that. > > > > However, suppose you chose a different intercepting discipline. > > One without bounce. Do you think you could build a deck that was > > just as strong? Nearly as strong? > > auspex is not that strong because it has bounce (when used in intercept > decks), but because there are a lot of vamps with aus, and there are great > cards like enhanced senses, eagle sight and such. > now i do think one could build great intercept decks with ministry. (but > there are not enough vamps that are blackhand) You're missing the point: there is a very serious lack of viable defensive options if you remove bounce from the equation. You might be able to get by with just using intercept if you choose Auspex, but I think it's very clear that Auspex becomes seriously weakened if you remove Telepathic Misdirection (and My Enemy's Enemy) from the equation. > the real problem for intercept decks is forgotten labyrinth+lost in crowds. Don't forget Elder Impersonation. Or Seduction + Call of the Hungry Dead. Or Earth Control + Form of Mist. Or Daring the Dawn. Though, more accurately, the real problem for intercept decks is combat. Stealth and combat are both delivery systems, but intercept (a delivery system based defense) only works against stealth. However, bleed bounce is a payload based defense, and that payload is far and away the most commonly used. On top of that, it's extremely card- efficient, unlike intercept, and as such, can be bolted on to most decks. > but take a lock at johannes walchs deck, he almost made it to the finals > with an ahrimanes intercept deck without bounce although i admit his deck > would have been beaten by a hardcore S&B deck (i think) Heh...I was in Johannes's third game that day. He missed the finals because he chose not to break a deal, and breaking the deal would have given him the 1 VP he would have needed to make the finals (though obviously he didn't know that). And yes, you can come up with a lot of examples of decks that have won tournaments or decks that have made the finals of championships without using bounce. However, I got bored and took a look at the Tournament Winning Deck Archive and found that in 2003, of 115 decks, 88 of them (76.5%) used bounce. 76.5% of winning decks used either Telepathic Misdirection or Deflection (decks that used My Enemy's Enemy or Redirection also used Telepathic Misdirection or Deflection). Think about that. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bf72a12e.04010...@posting.google.com... > > 76.5% of winning decks used either Telepathic Misdirection or > Deflection (decks that used My Enemy's Enemy or Redirection also > used Telepathic Misdirection or Deflection). > > Think about that. > i know bounce is great .all i said is that even without bounce, intercept decks are more than able to win against a S&B deck stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > 76.5% of winning decks used either Telepathic Misdirection or > > Deflection (decks that used My Enemy's Enemy or Redirection also > > used Telepathic Misdirection or Deflection). > > > > Think about that. > > > i know bounce is great .all i said is that even without bounce, intercept > decks are more than able to win against a S&B deck You mean _auspex_ intercept decks, presumably. At any rate, I disagree. Elder Impersonation, Call of the Hungry Dead, and Form of Mist do a very good job at trumping intercept decks. Also, the amount of intercept you'd have to be packing in order to try to shut down a stealth-bleed deck would cause problems with finding space for the offense in the deck. You might be able to stop or slow down a stealth-bleed predator, but being able to _win_ is a whole other matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bf72a12e.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] that愀 why i choose the weenie approach (gives me enough forward movement) and enough minions against elder imp, call of the hungry and seduction stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

this "done right" post got me to remembering how another playgroup dealth with the whole game balance thingie. I see there's a lot of toning down of most of the cards' power and it relates to the interesting house rule this group used. tell me if any of you have used a similar thing. what they did was play with each methuselah starting with 60 pool. this way weenie vamps, which are deadly useful now, become far more tame. their ousting power is hampered by that extra wall of 30 pool. also it made larger vampires an easier investment, naturally diversifying the crypts. also hits from vote pool damage and s&b damage hurt, but were mitigated by the huge cushion available. naturally the game went a bit longer, but since they were experienced players they played quickly and table talks were of the more pertinent kind. also a broken deal or two wasn't of such critical importance, so the game became more lighthearted. so in relation to all this rewording of text to lower the power curve of the game (in a parallel universe), does anyone else find as interesting this more easily implemented rule? it's a house rule, but somehow it corrected a lot of the abuses regularly debated here in their playgroup. i'd like to playtest it with more people - or offer to more people - to see what their experiences are like.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:45:54 -0800, "Azel" <opao...@comcast.net> scrawled: [snip] >what they did was play with each methuselah starting with 60 pool. [snip] > does anyone else find as interesting this >more easily implemented rule? it's a house rule, but somehow it corrected a >lot of the abuses regularly debated here in their playgroup. i'd like to >playtest it with more people - or offer to more people - to see what their >experiences are like. While it sounds neat, and i'd be willing to give it a go, it unfortunately does smack into the thing that seems to be a big barrier to getting more people to play: the length of games. A fix of the abuses that are regularly debated here, if indeed they need fixing, probably should not hamper the efforts of getting new players into the game. So, while i think it sounds like a fun house rule for a long afternoon, I don't think i'd like to see it become the standard. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

they actually found it better because they could still go back to 3 player games and it not be a total wash. but yeah, time dynamic does play a key. even fast playing games, when you got 5 players it definitely ties up the time. remember playing magic and other card games and those 5 player games were always a huge investment of time. imagining VtES with another hour or two more tacked on sounds more like an exhausting task than a pleasurable pasttime... ;) but for those wanting to play old 3 player pickup games it might be an interesting variant :)

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > > i know bounce is great .all i said is that even without bounce, > > > intercept decks are more than able to win against a S&B deck > > > > You mean _auspex_ intercept decks, presumably. > > > > At any rate, I disagree. Elder Impersonation, Call of the Hungry Dead, > > and Form of Mist do a very good job at trumping intercept decks. > > > > Also, the amount of intercept you'd have to be packing in order to try > > to shut down a stealth-bleed deck would cause problems with finding > > space for the offense in the deck. You might be able to stop or slow > > down a stealth-bleed predator, but being able to _win_ is a whole other > > matter. > > that愀 why i choose the weenie approach (gives me enough forward movement) > and enough minions against elder imp, call of the hungry and seduction And that's also why you chose to include 10 bounce cards in a 75 card deck (1/3 of your Auspex cards). *rolls eyes* [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote > At any rate, I disagree. Elder Impersonation, Call of the Hungry Dead, > and Form of Mist do a very good job at trumping intercept decks. i said basically the same thing a month ago, adding that "you have almost no chance to intercept actions backed with something like lost in crowds + elder impersonation at superior" and of course someon came with "one word : draba". I'm curious to know why this guy didn't show up yet...

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4002c9b3$0$26399$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] One word: "Good to see you again on Sunday, and sorry about the Confusion." O wait, that's 12 words. Anyway, also good that you got home again, despite gales. Who won?

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:22fea992.04011...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] héhé... It was a pleasure to see you again ! Denis won the finals with 3VP. I let Antoine retire from the jyhad (1VP + 1 for Withdrawal), showing him i was a gentleman, and then the duel started between me and Denis with an empty library. Alas with his terrible set up (nosferatu labyrinth, laptopt, Js simmons and lots of minion) i resisted as much as i could but had almost no chances to oust him. Anyway it's a miracle i survived so long after having eaten an early 5 pool bleed and influenced a vampire that popped up cross table, so no regrets =) results : Denis with Nosfe & friends potence deck : 3VP Antoine with Sneaky tha/dom/pre : 2VP Reyda with dom/aus/nec shambling hordes deck : 0VP Anthony with dom/for/pre royalty ventrues : 0VP David with brujah+assamites cel/qui/pre fighters : 0VP t'was a nice tournament =) reyda

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4003e33f$0$9287$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well done, Denis! > Antoine with Sneaky tha/dom/pre : 2VP > Reyda with dom/aus/nec shambling hordes deck : 0VP So *That's* what you were playing! Oddly enough, i went with the Shamblers, too. Never got one out, though! > Anthony with dom/for/pre royalty ventrues : 0VP > David with brujah+assamites cel/qui/pre fighters : 0VP > > t'was a nice tournament =) Yes, excellent fun, like the battle of hastings but with none of that nasty poke-in-eye stuff. Do we have to give you our manors and wives, AGAIN? > > reyda