Alright, Genius...

Given the spate of complaints over the grouping ruling for crypt construction, I thought it might be interesting to see what other theoretical solutions people might come up with to address the problem "3" was designed to solve. Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? * by Custom, I mean that you have the ability to select the capacity and disciplines of your own choosing, and merely fit in vampires that meet your criteria (rather than having a limited number of minions, and being forced to choose from the best suited among them). I think it'd be interesting to see what else could be suggested (as a little productive brain exercise :-) DaveZ Atom Weaver ...A chocolate bunny, and a VTES rare to the best answer :-)

atomweaver wrote: > Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the > easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge > of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with > each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition > of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which > would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? My answer: 1. Don't print a lot of new vampires. There's plenty of Camarilla vampires in existence now. Reprint some, maybe add a few. After all, they're mainly reprinting library cards with only a few new additions in Camarilla Edition. I'm absolutely mystified why should the policy on vampires should have been any different. 2. Don't sweat the problem. We're a long, LONG ways off from any point where we have to start worrying that it's too easy to make up a crypt. There's lots of different disciplines and a zillion combinations of those disciplines and I think we're several orders of magnitude of numbers away the "Custom Crypt" problem. Simple. In fact, so simple it's probably not very appealing to the pro-active armchair game-designers out there. But sometimes that's the reality of the situation. Fred

Fred, There are a few problems with your answers. > 1. Don't print a lot of new vampires. There's plenty of Camarilla > vampires in existence now. Reprint some, maybe add a few. After all, > they're mainly reprinting library cards with only a few new additions > in Camarilla Edition. I'm absolutely mystified why should the policy > on vampires should have been any different. Why would anyone buy this product if it is just a reprint of readily availible and less expensive substitutes? Jyhad boxes are still out there at relatively inexpensive prices. > 2. Don't sweat the problem. We're a long, LONG ways off from any point > where we have to start worrying that it's too easy to make up a crypt. > There's lots of different disciplines and a zillion combinations of those > disciplines and I think we're several orders of magnitude of numbers > away the "Custom Crypt" problem. It is a good time to implement the changes. A new base set is the chance to implement changes. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On 8 Jul 2002 07:31:36 -0700, guenhwyvar@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote: >Given the spate of complaints over the grouping ruling for crypt >construction, I thought it might be interesting to see what other >theoretical solutions people might come up with to address the problem >"3" was designed to solve. > >Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the >easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge >of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with >each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition >of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which >would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? > >* by Custom, I mean that you have the ability to select the capacity >and disciplines of your own choosing, and merely fit in vampires that >meet your criteria (rather than having a limited number of minions, >and being forced to choose from the best suited among them). > >I think it'd be interesting to see what else could be suggested (as a >little productive brain exercise :-) > >DaveZ >Atom Weaver > >...A chocolate bunny, and a VTES rare to the best answer :-) I was actually working this out Dave, but the result was much broader sweeping changes that it would create an even bigger bitch-fest than what is currently being bandied about. Changes so sweeping that it would become a different game entirely (though possibly fun as a special format). In short, if it wasn't for the new Grouping Rule the amount of new vampires ever to see print would be few indeed. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

XZealot wrote: > > Fred, > There are a few problems with your answers. > > > 1. Don't print a lot of new vampires. There's plenty of Camarilla > > vampires in existence now. Reprint some, maybe add a few. After all, > > they're mainly reprinting library cards with only a few new additions > > in Camarilla Edition. I'm absolutely mystified why should the policy > > on vampires should have been any different. > > Why would anyone buy this product if it is just a reprint of readily > availible and less expensive substitutes? Jyhad boxes are still out there > at relatively inexpensive prices. I don't know. Why do they expect us to buy this product now? On the basis of new vampires alone? Over 80% of the cards are library cards which are mostly reprints (apparently), so I don't think vampires alone are suppose to be the basis of its marketability. I was never real sure what the angle was supposed to be in coming out with a new base set. My assumption was the WW wanted to see that some sort of a "base set" remained in print after Jyhad was sold out (if that ever happens :-P ). One that they had conceived and controlled. But until Jyhad sells out, selling a new printing that contains mainly reprints is necessarily problematic. > > > 2. Don't sweat the problem. We're a long, LONG ways off from any point > > where we have to start worrying that it's too easy to make up a crypt. > > There's lots of different disciplines and a zillion combinations of those > > disciplines and I think we're several orders of magnitude of numbers > > away the "Custom Crypt" problem. > > It is a good time to implement the changes. A new base set is the chance > to implement changes. Hey, it's a great time to implement the changes. What I just said above, however, was that no changes need be implemented. Not now, not later. Fred

>Fred Said: > I don't know. Why do they expect us to buy this product now? On the basis > of new vampires alone? Over 80% of the cards are library cards which are > mostly reprints (apparently), so I don't think vampires alone are suppose to > be the basis of its marketability. I say: I personally see the reprinting of the base set as nothing more than a way to rope in new players, something which I support wholeheartedly. I was discussing the reasons for Vampire's floundering in its early days, and we decided that the lack of preconstructed starters led to its near demise. If you think about it, one really needs a lot of cards to make a competative deck out of random starters and boosters. My friend and I bought a box of first edition Jyhad, and out of the half box my friend opened he could not construct a viable deck. Imagine the agony of paying full price for each starter and booster and trying to make it in this game. I cannot, I purchased the bulk of my collection from someone who was "cashing out" on Jyhad. The camarilla edition reprints all the cards that I want while luring new players into the game with preconstructed starter. For the average kid who doesn't know that you can get boxes of Jyhad on ebay for thirty bucks this seems like a really good time to get in the game. I agree. I do not, however, agree with the crypt restrictions. This reeks terribly of the Magic "block rotation" scheme, which scares the living hell out of me. The less this game resembles Magic the better. In my opinion, the lack of restrictions in library and crypt construction make this game one of the best out there. Any break from this trend I see as a bad move. -Tim Bowen Columbus, OH

guenhwyvar@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote: > Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the > easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge > of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with > each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition > of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which > would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? I gave this a lot of thought since I first mused about his in April. Obviously, any product line that wants to sell you new products (and thus retaining a profit) will have to have some form of planned obsolesence. Further, they will want the old product to be at least nominally useful as it can be a bad PR move to do otherwise. Customers get irate after spending a lot of money and stop spending money on that product, perhaps even all of the company's products, and intead spend it on the competition. Software companies have been struggling with this issue for decades. That's why backwards compatibility in software is so important. Some companies have had wild success and some have had colossal failure. So...here's my idea: First, the library cards. Some cards are too far from the average of the power scale, so those cards will be modified to bring them closer to sane, rather than banned, and those modfications will usually only be issued with reprints. Library cards with older text versions will still be playable, but only as if the new text was stated on the card. Now, the vampire cards. Balancing this can be very difficult and you don't want to outright ban older cards, but still give incentive to purchse new ones. The best way to do this...and see if you follow with me now...would be to divide the sets into "groups". For example, we'll put Jyhad/VTES in group 1, DS thru BL in group 2 and Camarilla/Anarchs and possibly the expansion after that into group 3. If there's another primarily Sabbat expansion, that will probably begin group 4. Now, what you do is say that vampires from sets that are not adjacent (i.e., 1 & 3) cannot be mixed in the same deck. You can still use the older cards for decks, esp. if it uses the basics that were the focus of the first sets, but if the vampires in the newer sets are more useful to you, say if you wanted to make a Potence/Presence/Serpentis deck, you would use them instead. Lots of options and the entire VTES community would unite in a mass group hug and cheer your creativity to give them lots of options while being able to continue to make a profit. > ...A chocolate bunny, and a VTES rare to the best answer :-) What do you think? Did I win? :-D Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

Fred writes: >2. Don't sweat the problem. We're a long, LONG ways off from any point >where we have to start worrying that it's too easy to make up a crypt. >There's lots of different disciplines and a zillion combinations of those >disciplines and I think we're several orders of magnitude of numbers >away the "Custom Crypt" problem. We've been in the Custom Crypt era for years. A lot of vampires like Jazz Wentworth which used to be important for balancing crypts have long been wallpapered. Weenie monodiscipline decks have likewise long been trouble. Custom duodiscipline decks, superior decks, and P/J decks aren't far off and would probably have happened with CE without this rule. It's important to stop the madness now! I posted an analysis last year on how the expansion of crypt availability has reduced the effective cost of vampires by 1 pool (since you have less need to accept inferior vampires to round out your crypt.) This change is a substantial part of the power of weenie decks, which almost everybody agrees are a problem. Even existing availability bloat causes trouble. Curt Adams (curtadams@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

CurtAdams wrote: > > Fred writes: > > >2. Don't sweat the problem. We're a long, LONG ways off from any point > >where we have to start worrying that it's too easy to make up a crypt. > >There's lots of different disciplines and a zillion combinations of those > >disciplines and I think we're several orders of magnitude of numbers > >away the "Custom Crypt" problem. > > We've been in the Custom Crypt era for years. A lot of vampires like > Jazz Wentworth which used to be important for balancing crypts have > long been wallpapered. Weenie monodiscipline decks have likewise > long been trouble. Custom duodiscipline decks, superior decks, and > P/J decks aren't far off and would probably have happened with CE > without this rule. It's important to stop the madness now! Hmmm. Tastes I guess. I've never cared for the idea that one has to fill out a crypt with nearly useless vampires or risk drawing several copies of the same vampire - which your predator just brought out the turn before you could - in order to make certain decks work. I think depending on bad crypt draws as a balancing function in the game is a poor design idea and I think such things are already exert far too powerful an influence on the game. If anything, I would much rather have more vampires made available in all the current clans in order to reduce this effect. > I posted an analysis last year on how the expansion of crypt availability > has reduced the effective cost of vampires by 1 pool (since you > have less need to accept inferior vampires to round out your > crypt.) This change is a substantial part of the power of weenie decks, > which almost everybody agrees are a problem. Even existing availability > bloat causes trouble. Weenie decks may be a problem but crypt-fucking players is not a good solution to it. There's plenty of other ways to stop weenies. If there's a problem in the game, to me it's that the very largest vampires are not powerful enough. The mid-caps are mostly OK because if you need to combine two disciplines, you generally need to go to 5, 6, and 7 caps to find the right ones. The problem is when you get over 7 (and to 7, to some extent), many vampires are overcosted in terms of capacity because combinations of 3 or more disciplines just doesn't do much. So unless a vampire had a great special or was a Prince or Justicar and could thus use the tradition cards, generally he wasn't worth the capacity. (Inner Circle members had 4 votes and some fantastic specials, so were costed appropriately.) The answer to this problem is to adjust the formula used to create high-cap vampires to make them more worthwhile. (Sorry, I never did follow the threads about costing vampires, so if this was all discussed elsewhere, I missed it.) Fred

bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote in message news:<3d29c156.8561523@netnews.attbi.com>... > In short, if it wasn't for the new Grouping Rule the amount of new > vampires ever to see print would be few indeed. Yes, its actually quite a complex problem. There would be waay too many duplicate skills at the lower ends. One of the first things you think about is adding wierd skills. Unfortunately, adding celerity to a 3 cap Ventrue, for example, would eventually lead to the Ventrue losing their "Ventruishness". Beginning immediately with the small vampires and eventually occurring with the big vampires, all skills become available for all clans. Add in the fact that the Camarilla Edition has to stand on its own and not be more or less powerful than the old Cam. Vamps and you've got yourself quite a mess. Tricky. -Robert Robert Goudie robertg@vtesinla.org

"atomweaver" wrote... > Given the spate of complaints over the grouping ruling for crypt > construction, I thought it might be interesting to see what other > theoretical solutions people might come up with to address the problem > "3" was designed to solve. > > Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the > easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge > of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with > each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition > of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which > would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? Print less new vampires. Doing so eliminates the need for a new game mechanic (grouping*) and allows room for the creation of all new library cards for publication in the Camarilla Expansion. The reprinting of Jyhad/V:TES/DS/AH Camarilla vampires to serve as the bulk of the vampires in the Camarilla Expansion, with perhaps three or four new vampires for each clan, would allow room for more Independent and Sabbat vampires in the set and, much more importantly, room for more new library cards. The Camarilla Expansion consists of 385 cards**. Of these 385 cards, 115 are brand new. This seems quite impressive until your consider the fact that only fifteen of the 385 cards are new library cards. Rather than focus on promoting the set through the creation of new library cards, White Wolf chose to introduce one hundred new vampires, a new game mechanic to deal with the sudden influx of minions, and a new card design. Many players feel that there is little incentive to purchase the new set. One hundred new vampires that aren't needed and aren't playable with a good portion of pre-existing collections, a terrible lack of new library cards (remember, fifteen of 385), and a new card design that sticks out like a sore thumb amidst pre-existing decks. Had fewer new vampires been created for the Camarilla Expansion, the grouping game mechanic could have been avoided, a number of new library cards greater than fifteen could have been created, additional incentive to purchase mass amounts of the new set would exist as a result and public opinion amongst the V:TES community would still be firmly behind White Wolf. All the very best, M. * http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/Preview_CENewRules.html ** http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/Preview_Camarilla.html

guenhwyvar@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote in message news:<4c6f3f3e.0207080631.10530e7c@posting.google.com>... > Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the > easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge > of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with > each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition > of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which > would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? A good question. Off the top of my head: Make the new set all reprints, but make them all different from the originals (but don't have the originals count as the new ones, as is done with changed library cards). Print a new Jazz Wentworth, with another basic discipline, a basic turned to superior or something similar along with a higher capacity, the same for all the rest. That way you cannot mix the old versions of each one with new versions of each one without contesting yourself. Old players will want the new versions for those occasions when the additional disciplines fit their deck, but the old versions will still be useful for the decks that don't need the additional disciplines. This idea would also reflect the changes to the World of Darkness. Some of the vampires might even lose titles, and be *lower* capacity as a result. JSpektr

"atomweaver" <guenhwyvar@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4c6f3f3e.0207080631.10530e7c@posting.google.com... > Given the spate of complaints over the grouping ruling for crypt > construction, I thought it might be interesting to see what other > theoretical solutions people might come up with to address the problem > "3" was designed to solve. Change the requirements of crypt size. Instead of no upper limit and 12 minimum, set the crypt to 6 vampires fixed. Most people want to have certain vampires. At a certain point all the extra crypt does is allow weenie and Baron-Combo type decks limitless amounts of minions. When playing mid caps you really only need to have 2-4 vampires out anyway. I'm sure there are enough mid caps that this would be EASY to field with any #1/2 grouping or #2/3 or whatever.(making them unnecessary) When playing larger vampires, all you need is 1-2 big guys and you rely on tooling him up. Again easy to get 2 different vampires with similar disciplines to play. On the other hand a weenie deck wants an optimal 12+ *different* small vampire with its discipline. Imagine a crypt with only presence vampires. With the ability to bring out only 6 of them the weenie hoard is limited without limiting vampire creation. If you are bringing out little guys there is no endless source of actions comming your way. Once your first 4 very fragile weenie presence bleeders are killed, your ability to run the table is ended. You can only get a max of 2 more. It also removes a huge random element from the game that isn't really needed. While your library is something that you need different at different points and needs to be balanced...I have never figured out why an elder vampire doesn't have better control over who he is going to influence out? This improves the playability of multi-discipline decks. Discourages weenie creations. While leaving the market open for vampire creation. Brujah/!Brujah Toreador/!Toreador Ventrue/!Ventrue Followers of set Daughters Ahrimanes True Brujah Baali Thats 11 clans which have presence! If each of them had a 2 cap with pre it would be a mess. Grouping keeps that from happening. However it screws over certain clan combinations if they dont happen to fall in the right grouping. With a fixed 6 crypt the weenie presence deck never gets any worse. After the camarilla/sabbat the independents just add more of the same. Only the clan decks benifit from this, not weenie decks. -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

Robert Goudie wrote: > One of the first things you > think about is adding wierd skills. Unfortunately, adding celerity to > a 3 cap Ventrue, for example, would eventually lead to the Ventrue > losing their "Ventruishness". Hey Itzahk Levine is the bombay, and a damn upstanding member of the Ventrue clan, y'all! chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

"mattrim.dixon" wrote: > Print less new vampires. That just delays the problem or makes the problem less acute. The problem still lingers, however. Unless you *never* print any new vampires (that would be the other way to solve the problem). -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

> Why would anyone buy this product if it is just a reprint of readily > availible and less expensive substitutes? Jyhad boxes are still out there > at relatively inexpensive prices. I'd buy reprints of Jyhad vamps, IF they featured NEW ARTWORK. I was actually looking forward to old library cards with new artwork, although now that Derange has been posted with the same old artwork, I'm concerned. I had assumed incorrectly that they'd make this an all new set, meaning new artwork. This combined with the horrible new look to the cards makes me question my five box preorder. I really can't believe anyone with a design background actually thought the green bar looks good. Still, I'm not cancelling...

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:41:39 -0400, "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roansteele@yahoo.com> wrote: >"atomweaver" <guenhwyvar@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:4c6f3f3e.0207080631.10530e7c@posting.google.com... >> Given the spate of complaints over the grouping ruling for crypt >> construction, I thought it might be interesting to see what other >> theoretical solutions people might come up with to address the problem >> "3" was designed to solve. > >Change the requirements of crypt size. Instead of no upper limit and 12 >minimum, set the crypt to 6 vampires fixed. Most people want to have >certain vampires. At a certain point all the extra crypt does is allow >weenie and Baron-Combo type decks limitless amounts of minions. When >playing mid caps you really only need to have 2-4 vampires out anyway. I'm >sure there are enough mid caps that this would be EASY to field with any >#1/2 grouping or #2/3 or whatever.(making them unnecessary) > >When playing larger vampires, all you need is 1-2 big guys and you rely on >tooling him up. Again easy to get 2 different vampires with similar >disciplines to play. > >On the other hand a weenie deck wants an optimal 12+ *different* small >vampire with its discipline. Imagine a crypt with only presence vampires. >With the ability to bring out only 6 of them the weenie hoard is limited >without limiting vampire creation. If you are bringing out little guys >there is no endless source of actions comming your way. Once your first 4 >very fragile weenie presence bleeders are killed, your ability to run the >table is ended. You can only get a max of 2 more. > >It also removes a huge random element from the game that isn't really >needed. While your library is something that you need different at >different points and needs to be balanced...I have never figured out why an >elder vampire doesn't have better control over who he is going to influence >out? This improves the playability of multi-discipline decks. Discourages >weenie creations. While leaving the market open for vampire creation. > >Brujah/!Brujah >Toreador/!Toreador >Ventrue/!Ventrue >Followers of set >Daughters >Ahrimanes >True Brujah >Baali >Thats 11 clans which have presence! If each of them had a 2 cap with pre it >would be a mess. Grouping keeps that from happening. However it screws >over certain clan combinations if they dont happen to fall in the right >grouping. With a fixed 6 crypt the weenie presence deck never gets any >worse. After the camarilla/sabbat the independents just add more of the >same. Only the clan decks benifit from this, not weenie decks. >-- >Aaron >The Nosferatu Stuff Not a bad idea, but would render MANY cards to wallpaper status. Effective Management (and other go get'm cards) Honor the Elders Illusions of the Kindred and so on.. I'm more behind your arguement that 12 in the crypt is an arbitrary number, but shouldn't be reduced so much as to relegate crypt building to "no-brainer" status. Would've preferred that crypt size=10 Vamps, but that's not likely to happen either. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > I'm more behind your arguement that 12 in the crypt is an arbitrary > number, but shouldn't be reduced so much as to relegate crypt building > to "no-brainer" status. Would've preferred that crypt size=10 Vamps, > but that's not likely to happen either. 'K. I'll bite: Is 10 somehow less arbitrary or more approriate than 12 (or 13 or 11 or 9)? -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roansteele@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:agdio0$kj068$1@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de... > Change the requirements of crypt size. Instead of no upper limit and 12 > minimum, set the crypt to 6 vampires fixed. Most people want to have > certain vampires. At a certain point all the extra crypt does is allow > weenie and Baron-Combo type decks limitless amounts of minions. When > playing mid caps you really only need to have 2-4 vampires out anyway. I'm > sure there are enough mid caps that this would be EASY to field with any > #1/2 grouping or #2/3 or whatever.(making them unnecessary) This is a really interesting idea. I can see this working pretty well. As LSJ says, whatever number you pick would be arbitrary, but six feels like it'd probably be in the neighborhood. Fits well with weakened Embrace, too, if that's true. :-) Josh i knew a lady who came from duluth who got bit by a dog with a rabid tooth

On 8 Jul 2002 07:31:36 -0700, guenhwyvar@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote: >Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the >easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge >of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with >each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition >of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which >would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? In general, I like the new grouping rule, for the reasons given by its advocates. My only real concern is that it hurts the veteran-but-casual player who only plans to buy a few booster packs of CE. Such a player would acquire only a handful of "3" vampires, which would be useless to him, since he wouldn't have enough "3" vampires to replace all of the "1" vampires he currently uses. My suggested modification of the rule: Require that all but one (or maybe two?) of the vampires in the crypt follow the grouping rule as stated. The final vampire can come from any group, regardless of the two sequential groups chosen for the rest of the crypt. This would move in the direction of allowing a custom crypt, but should impose sufficient restrictions to prevent the trivialization of the crypt selection problem that many of us fear. The big advantage of this approach is that it allows existing players to experiment by buying or trading for a small amount of the new set, without having to commit an all-or-nothing decision (either buy enough of the new set to be able to replace your current "1" vampires, or don't buy any of the new set, and stick to the old stuff). Not only would this make the "casual" purchaser of CE happier, a successful experiment might encourage such a player to become a "heavy" purchaser. Steven Joyce

"LSJ" wrote... > "mattrim.dixon" wrote: > >> Print less new vampires. > > That just delays the problem or makes the problem less acute. The problem > still lingers, however. > > Unless you *never* print any new vampires (that would be the other way to > solve the problem). Precisely. New cards, yes. New vampires and new game mechanic, no. As I stated in my original post, I would have preferred that of all the new cards in the Camarilla Expansion the vast, vast majority be new library cards. Cheers, M.

>I would have preferred that of all the new > cards in the Camarilla Expansion the vast, vast majority be new library > cards. > > Cheers, > M. > Sabbat War anyone? Reprint some vampires but not all and stick em in the starters. Add some new ones for boosters, maybe 3 for each clan, and 1 new Vamp in each starter. Put 1 Vamp in each booster in a second rare spot. Do you need the new vampires? No, there are plenty. Do you want them? Hell yeah!! Starters can be mostly reprints with hunting grounds and Justicar cards. Boosters 50/50 reprint/new with mostly staple cards getting the new release. I would much much much rather see 100 new library cards as opposed to 15. However I will say that for some of us some of the reprints are not reprints, if you know what I'm saying. Apportations? Deranges? Freak Drives? Yes please!

"Dave Brereton" wrote... >>I would have preferred that of all the new >> cards in the Camarilla Expansion the vast, vast majority be new library >> cards. >> >> Cheers, >> M. > > Sabbat War anyone? Reprint some vampires but not all and stick em in the > starters. Add some new ones for boosters, maybe 3 for each clan, and 1 > new Vamp in each starter. Put 1 Vamp in each booster in a second rare > spot. Do you need the new vampires? No, there are plenty. Do you > want them? Hell yeah!! Starters can be mostly reprints with hunting > grounds and Justicar cards. Boosters 50/50 reprint/new with mostly > staple cards getting the new release. I would much much much rather > see 100 new library cards as opposed to 15. However I will say that > for some of us some of the reprints are not reprints, if you know what > I'm saying. Apportations? Deranges? Freak Drives? Yes please! You and I, sir, are on precisely the same wavelength in regards to the creation of new library cards and the reprinting of pre-existing Camarilla vampires. Sabbat War was brilliantly done because of the way reprints and new material, both vampires and library cards alike, were handled. Best, M. PS. I notice you have an @shaw.ca email address. Where in Canada are you? I am in Edmonton.

"mattrim.dixon" wrote: > > "LSJ" wrote... > > > "mattrim.dixon" wrote: > > > >> Print less new vampires. > > > > That just delays the problem or makes the problem less acute. The problem > > still lingers, however. > > > > Unless you *never* print any new vampires (that would be the other way to > > solve the problem). > > Precisely. > > New cards, yes. New vampires and new game mechanic, no. > > As I stated in my original post, I would have preferred that of all the new > cards in the Camarilla Expansion the vast, vast majority be new library > cards. You say: Print fewer new vampires. I say: That retards the problem, but doesn't overcome it. Only printing *no* new vampires would solve the problem. You misunderstand the difference between "few" and "none". -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:30:19 -0400, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote: >bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: >> I'm more behind your arguement that 12 in the crypt is an arbitrary >> number, but shouldn't be reduced so much as to relegate crypt building >> to "no-brainer" status. Would've preferred that crypt size=10 Vamps, >> but that's not likely to happen either. > >'K. I'll bite: > >Is 10 somehow less arbitrary or more approriate than 12 (or 13 or 11 or 9)? It's Aaron's theory, so will leave it for him for response. >LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:30:19 -0400, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > >> I'm more behind your arguement that 12 in the crypt is an arbitrary > >> number, but shouldn't be reduced so much as to relegate crypt building > >> to "no-brainer" status. Would've preferred that crypt size=10 Vamps, > >> but that's not likely to happen either. > > > >'K. I'll bite: > > > >Is 10 somehow less arbitrary or more approriate than 12 (or 13 or 11 or 9)? > > It's Aaron's theory, so will leave it for him for response. I thought Aaron's theory was for 6. -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

"Steven Joyce" <joyce@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:3d2b4850.30339422@news.fas.harvard.edu... > On 8 Jul 2002 07:31:36 -0700, guenhwyvar@mindspring.com (atomweaver) > wrote: > >Here's your problem: Given that the more vampires you print, the > >easier it is to design a Custom Crypt*, how do you keep the challenge > >of crypt selection in the game, while still printing new vampires with > >each set? Alternate problem to solve: How do you prevent repetition > >of in-clan disciplines just among small and mid cap vampires (which > >would lead to a proliferation of redundant-minion crypts)? > > In general, I like the new grouping rule, for the reasons given by its > advocates. My only real concern is that it hurts the > veteran-but-casual player who only plans to buy a few booster packs of > CE. Such a player would acquire only a handful of "3" vampires, which > would be useless to him, since he wouldn't have enough "3" vampires to > replace all of the "1" vampires he currently uses. How do we know that ALL the vampires coming out ARE in group 3? We don't, so I don't see where this argument is taking us. Perhaps there will be some group 2 vampires in the set...no one has said there wouldn't be (that I've read at this point...mind you I was on vacation for 2 weeks and away when this shitstorm started, so perhaps this has been stated). > My suggested modification of the rule: Require that all but one (or > maybe two?) of the vampires in the crypt follow the grouping rule as > stated. The final vampire can come from any group, regardless of the > two sequential groups chosen for the rest of the crypt. So let's say that they reprint Anson, but he's not a prince anymore and has a new discipline. Do you REALLY want old Ansons mixed in with new Ansons? Seems a bit ridiculous to me... Remember, kids...we're talking roughly 13 to 15 vampires for each clan that are NOT usable with the new vampires in CE. > This would move in the direction of allowing a custom crypt, but > should impose sufficient restrictions to prevent the trivialization of > the crypt selection problem that many of us fear. > > The big advantage of this approach is that it allows existing players > to experiment by buying or trading for a small amount of the new set, > without having to commit an all-or-nothing decision (either buy enough > of the new set to be able to replace your current "1" vampires, or > don't buy any of the new set, and stick to the old stuff). Not only > would this make the "casual" purchaser of CE happier, a successful > experiment might encourage such a player to become a "heavy" > purchaser. Uh...wait... Maybe the new vampires will have such kick-ass specials that you'll (gasp) want to buy them anyway!? Nevermind...LSJ obviously doesn't know what he's doing with the game. Let's all sell our cards on Ebay! > Steven Joyce >

Jon Stahler wrote: > Remember, kids...we're talking roughly 13 to 15 vampires for each clan that > are NOT usable with the new vampires in CE. Group 1 vampires already in print: 15 each for Bru,Mal,Nos,Tre,Ven 16 each for Gan,Tor 7 for Caitiff -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

"LSJ" wrote... >>> Unless you *never* print any new vampires (that would be the >>> other way to solve the problem). >> >> Precisely. >> >> New cards, yes. New vampires and new game mechanic, no. >> >> As I stated in my original post, I would have preferred that of all the >> new cards in the Camarilla Expansion the vast, vast majority be >> new library cards. > > You say: Print fewer new vampires. > I say: That retards the problem, but doesn't overcome it. > Only printing *no* new vampires would solve the problem. > > You misunderstand the difference between "few" and "none". Nay, I simply perceive the problem differently. You say that only with the printing of no new vampires can the 'grouping' mechanic be avoided. I disagree. People have often complained about the high-cost-to-low-power ratio of large capacity vampires. The creation of a few (there's that word again) powerful high capacity vampires for each clan would not lead to degenerative, custom, all-mighty, >insert buzzword here< crypts. For example, the inclusion of Esau* as one of 'few' new high-cap vampires is not going to tip any scales were he to be included as one of (arbitrarily speaking) five new Malkavians in a set of consisting of primarily reprinted vampires. Regardless, the point is moot. The Camarilla Expansion is not going to change for the better or for the worse based upon our conversation or the writings of anyone on this newsgroup. All the best, M. * http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/images/CardCE2es.jpg

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D2C535C.ECB9310F@white-wolf.com... > Jon Stahler wrote: > > Remember, kids...we're talking roughly 13 to 15 vampires for each clan that > > are NOT usable with the new vampires in CE. > > Group 1 vampires already in print: > > 15 each for Bru,Mal,Nos,Tre,Ven > 16 each for Gan,Tor > 7 for Caitiff Well...I was close to the mark at least. Besides...1 of those caitiff and 1 of the Toreador are promo vamps that the common player may or may not have. And the Gangrel only have 1 extra because of the Raven/Camille debacle.

"mattrim.dixon" <mattrim8@hotmail.communist> wrote in message news:D1SW8.47518$8H1.2523737@news1.calgary.shaw.ca... > "Dave Brereton" wrote... > > > I would much much much rather > > see 100 new library cards as opposed to 15. However I will say that > > for some of us some of the reprints are not reprints, if you know what > > I'm saying. Apportations? Deranges? Freak Drives? Yes please! > > You and I, sir, are on precisely the same wavelength in regards to the > creation of new library cards and the reprinting of pre-existing Camarilla > vampires. Sabbat War was brilliantly done because of the way reprints and > new material, both vampires and library cards alike, were handled. I'm not so sure this would be a good thing. In my opinion, the only reason Sabbat War worked so well is because Sabbat was relatively underprinted and there were lots of people who never got as much Sabbat as they would have liked. So, an almost-all- reprint set was good for not only new players but older players who still wanted more Sabbaty stuff. For Camarilla, it seems to me that most existing players have been able to buy about as much Jyhad/VTES stuff as they've been interested in getting. So, for Camarilla Edition to be interesting to them, it needs to have new stuff. New vampires is a good solution to that, in my opinion. The reprints you mention you'd still want to buy Camarilla for are mostly Sabbat reprints, too! Apportation and Derange are in-demand right now because they were in Sabbat but not Sabbat War. If Freak Drive were the only major reason any existing player had to buy Camarilla Edition, would current players really buy enough to make it profitable? I'm not so sure. Yes, making a huge number of new library cards and reprinting vampires instead might have "worked" for this. But if they'd done that, new players would be mostly unable to get Jyhad/ VTES library cards (without (a) paying fairly high prices to get them and (b) spending money on VTES that doesn't go to White Wolf). Not, IMO, a better idea. Plus, printing "a few" new vampires wouldn't *solve* the "dial-a-vamp" problem, it would just put it off until some future date. Josh hello operator can you get me number nine

"mattrim.dixon" wrote: > "LSJ" wrote... > > I say: That retards the problem, but doesn't overcome it. > > Only printing *no* new vampires would solve the problem. > > > > You misunderstand the difference between "few" and "none". > > Nay, I simply perceive the problem differently. > > You say that only with the printing of no new vampires can the 'grouping' > mechanic be avoided. > > I disagree. People have often complained about the high-cost-to-low-power > ratio of large capacity vampires. The creation of a few (there's that word > again) powerful high capacity vampires for each clan would not lead to > degenerative, custom, all-mighty, >insert buzzword here< crypts. For > example, the inclusion of Esau* as one of 'few' new high-cap vampires is not > going to tip any scales were he to be included as one of (arbitrarily > speaking) five new Malkavians in a set of consisting of primarily reprinted > vampires. Again just postponing the problem. Sure, you can print a few 5+ vampires. Then later a few more. Eventually, you'll have to restrict it to 7+. Then 8+. Then 9+. And so on. Until you're not printing any more vampires. -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:49:17 -0400, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote: >bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: >> >> On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:30:19 -0400, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> >bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: >> >> I'm more behind your arguement that 12 in the crypt is an arbitrary >> >> number, but shouldn't be reduced so much as to relegate crypt building >> >> to "no-brainer" status. Would've preferred that crypt size=10 Vamps, >> >> but that's not likely to happen either. >> > >> >'K. I'll bite: >> > >> >Is 10 somehow less arbitrary or more approriate than 12 (or 13 or 11 or 9)? >> >> It's Aaron's theory, so will leave it for him for response. > >I thought Aaron's theory was for 6. Has to do with a seperate discussion he and I had a couple of months ago about how the crypt size of 12 was an arbitrary number. I'm not a statistician (you're the math expert, not me) but it stands to reason that with fewer cards in your starting crypt the better chance of getting a specific vampire in the opening draw (presuming multiples of that particular vampire in the crypt). With a 10 Vampire Crypt, deck design doesn't become an automatic no-brainer and you're more likely to get a key Vampire as needed. We used the 10 Vampire crypt in the Michigan Draft format and it worked out pretty well. Have not tried it out in constructed format, but don't see how/why it would break anything other than allow some decks to obtain a more reliable opening draw. If you go less than 10, then a Discipline-based deck's power level/consistency starts to dramatically increase with each less card in the crypt. Crypt being set to 6 is not a good way to go . Hosing at least 14 cards and a couple of vamp's abilities is not a good thing. And that's not taking into account of the power shift due to discipline spread. As said before though, I don't expect Crypt sizes to change. I did create a Mulligan house rule to allow for a better crypt/hand draw. Worked well, but we ended up not using it much as my group goes by the current rules for constructed play. Link to Mulligan house rule for your perusal http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/house.html >LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

<bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3d2c5546.2439567@netnews.attbi.com... > If you go less than 10, then a Discipline-based deck's power > level/consistency starts to dramatically increase with each less > card in the crypt. Consistency, yes, sort of like dialing a vamp. But not quite as much so. > Crypt being set to 6 is not a good way to go . Hosing at least 14 cards > and a couple of vamp's abilities is not a good thing. And that's not > taking into account of the power shift due to discipline spread. It would definitely be a major change to the game. I kind of like the idea, though. As Aaron said, it would somewhat depower weenie decks since they could never get more than 6 vamps out of their crypt. (This would probably be only a minor depowering; it's a very weeniefied deck that gets 8 or more vamps from its crypt in a typical game.) It would also derandomize the crypt quite a bit, which may or may not be a good thing but would at least be interesting. And, it could at least hypothetically reduce the need for "group numbers" since you could never dial- a-vamp to get more than 6 of your choice in a single crypt. Even that might be considered too many dial-a-vamps, though, so it might not resolve that issue, and in that case it might not be worth using. Josh interested in weird variant rules

In message <3d2c5546.2439567@netnews.attbi.com>, bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: >With a 10 Vampire Crypt, deck design doesn't become an automatic >no-brainer and you're more likely to get a key Vampire as needed. >We used the 10 Vampire crypt in the Michigan Draft format and it worked >out pretty well. Dropping the number in draft, separate from constructed, could be a goer. With the same number of boosters/starters drafted, it would limit competition a little (on the vampire front), up the likelihood of a coherent-ish crypt, and allow a little more cross-over between two decks (as some vampires that would be used currently aren't). -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

> "mattrim.dixon" wrote: >> "LSJ" wrote... >>> I say: That retards the problem, but doesn't overcome it. >>> Only printing *no* new vampires would solve the problem. >>> >>> You misunderstand the difference between "few" and "none". >> >> Nay, I simply perceive the problem differently. >> >> You say that only with the printing of no new vampires can the 'grouping' >> mechanic be avoided. >> >> I disagree. People have often complained about the high-cost-to-low-power >> ratio of large capacity vampires. The creation of a few (there's that >> word again) powerful high capacity vampires for each clan would not >> lead to degenerative, custom, all-mighty, >insert buzzword here< >> crypts. For example, the inclusion of Esau* as one of 'few' new high-cap >> vampires is not going to tip any scales were he to be included as one >> of (arbitrarily speaking) five new Malkavians in a set of consisting of >> primarily reprinted vampires. > > Again just postponing the problem. By printing a number of new high capacity vampires for each clan you are avoiding, not postpoing, the problem of high-power low-capacity custom crypts. Doing so gives players the new vampires they want (in the short-term, admittedly), makes room for more new library cards and avoids the grouping methodology that has so many people up-in-arms. > Sure, you can print a few 5+ vampires. Then later a few more. > Eventually, you'll have to restrict it to 7+. Then 8+. Then 9+. > And so on. Until you're not printing any more vampires. I presume that by 5/7/8/9+ you are referring to capacity? End the printing of new Camarilla vampires with the Camarilla Expansion and include only reprints in each set thereafter. Cheers, M.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:29:54 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3d2c5546.2439567@netnews.attbi.com>, >bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: >>With a 10 Vampire Crypt, deck design doesn't become an automatic >>no-brainer and you're more likely to get a key Vampire as needed. >>We used the 10 Vampire crypt in the Michigan Draft format and it worked >>out pretty well. > >Dropping the number in draft, separate from constructed, could be a >goer. With the same number of boosters/starters drafted, it would limit >competition a little (on the vampire front), up the likelihood of a >coherent-ish crypt, and allow a little more cross-over between two decks >(as some vampires that would be used currently aren't). >-- >James Coupe That was the idea of why we dropped it to 10 in Draft, though when WW incorporated Michigan Draft over to Restricted Trade they re-upped the crypt size back to 12. Would figure that it was to retain consistency with the standard constructed format. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

"mattrim.dixon" wrote: > > > "mattrim.dixon" wrote: > >> "LSJ" wrote... > >>> I say: That retards the problem, but doesn't overcome it. > >>> Only printing *no* new vampires would solve the problem. > >>> > >>> You misunderstand the difference between "few" and "none". > >> > >> Nay, I simply perceive the problem differently. > I presume that by 5/7/8/9+ you are referring to capacity? End the printing > of new Camarilla vampires with the Camarilla Expansion and include only > reprints in each set thereafter. Exactly. No new vampires. As I've been saying - that's the (single) other way to avoid the problem currently being avoided by the grouping rule. -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > As said before though, I don't expect Crypt sizes to change. I did > create a Mulligan house rule to allow for a better crypt/hand draw. > Worked well, but we ended up not using it much as my group goes by the > current rules for constructed play. > > Link to Mulligan house rule for your perusal > http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/house.html Yeah, I've seen your mulligan rule before. Good stuff. -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

LSJ wrote: > > > You say that only with the printing of no new vampires can the 'grouping' > > mechanic be avoided. > > > > I disagree. People have often complained about the high-cost-to-low-power > > ratio of large capacity vampires. The creation of a few (there's that word > > again) powerful high capacity vampires for each clan would not lead to > > degenerative, custom, all-mighty, >insert buzzword here< crypts. For > > example, the inclusion of Esau* as one of 'few' new high-cap vampires is not > > going to tip any scales were he to be included as one of (arbitrarily > > speaking) five new Malkavians in a set of consisting of primarily reprinted > > vampires. > > Again just postponing the problem. A couple of key questions though: how large a problem is it and how long could any real problem be postponed? If we can postpone it five or six hundred expansions until it actually becomes bothersome, we might be on to something. Fred

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D2C675F.73FE85CB@white-wolf.com... > bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > > Link to Mulligan house rule for your perusal > > http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/house.html > > Yeah, I've seen your mulligan rule before. Good stuff. Hm, that's an interesting rule. It'd be nice for most decks to have the option. It would definitely make it "easier" to play decks that rely on some particular combo, though - I would probably mulligan at least half the time when playing my "1-800-GRATBST" (Huitzilopochtli Calls the Great Beast with Soul Gem, getting fresh Huitzi for free) deck, for example. Which is to say, the 3-vampires-uncontrolled drawback is irrelevant to any deck that relies on just one vampire, and probably small enough to be overlooked by quite a few others that focus on some particular combo. I don't mean to trash the idea here, just pointing out some issues that might make it unsuitable (as currently written) for tournament play. Josh wouldn't mind seeing some form of mulligan rule in tournaments

> > Yes, making a huge number of new library cards and reprinting > vampires instead might have "worked" for this. But if they'd > done that, new players would be mostly unable to get Jyhad/ > VTES library cards (without (a) paying fairly high prices to > get them and (b) spending money on VTES that doesn't go to > White Wolf). Not, IMO, a better idea. Actualy my suggestion was to reprint almost all of Vtes in starters. And not bother to reprint hunting grounds and other clan specific cards in booster. Then the new-b can get all the stuff he "needs" from the starter decks and the veterans get what they need from the boosters. WW supplys both the starters and the boosters and nobody is left out of the loop. WW cleans up (seriously!!! The new-b's buy out the starters and vets do the same to the boosters) and everyone has access to pretty much what they want be it new cards or old cards. Is there a precident? Yes. The Final Night starters/boosters did it this way with reprints in the starters and new cards in the boosters. > > Plus, printing "a few" new vampires wouldn't *solve* the > "dial-a-vamp" problem, it would just put it off until some > future date. > OK. I agree. I think that several people (not including myself here, but voicing the thoughts of others) strongly dislike the idea of crypt restrictions. Maybe these people are not even opposed other possable crypt restrictions but strongly dislike the crypt restrictions as they have been done. Very subjective issue and it comes down to "you like it or you don't". Do I like it? I'm holding back and waiting to see what can be done with the new cards. I'm cautiously optomistic that the CE will be a solid set. I'm really hopeing it is. I would have gone about it a diffrent way and if anybody thinks my idea are bad/wrong/only delaying a problem/full of shit or whatever I'm sorry. I'll do better next time I have to design a card set. Dave B. he thinks his 2 cents is worth a dime.

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:KKy2NTiCEGL9Ew0D@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3d2c5546.2439567@netnews.attbi.com>, > bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: > >With a 10 Vampire Crypt, deck design doesn't become an automatic > >no-brainer and you're more likely to get a key Vampire as needed. > >We used the 10 Vampire crypt in the Michigan Draft format and it worked > >out pretty well. > > Dropping the number in draft, separate from constructed, could be a > goer. With the same number of boosters/starters drafted, it would limit > competition a little (on the vampire front), up the likelihood of a > coherent-ish crypt, and allow a little more cross-over between two decks > (as some vampires that would be used currently aren't). I'm not sure how important/significant/worthwhile it would turn out to be, though. I've played quite a bit of draft lately, and have had no problem getting enough vampires to make a pretty focused crypt. At least as focused as my library cards, anyway. It could theoretically let you use fewer boosters for the draft, but that would reduce the number of playable library cards you'd have. So I'm kind of skeptical that reducing minimum crypt size in limited but not in constructed would be worth the effort/confusingness (even if there's not that much of those) of creating another difference between the formats. Josh sometime reactionary

mattrim.dixon <mattrim8@hotmail.communist> wrote in message news:D1SW8.47518$8H1.2523737@news1.calgary.shaw.ca... > "Dave Brereton" wrote... > > >>I would have preferred that of all the new > >> cards in the Camarilla Expansion the vast, vast majority be new library > >> cards. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> M. > > > > Sabbat War anyone? Reprint some vampires but not all and stick em in the > > starters. Add some new ones for boosters, maybe 3 for each clan, and 1 > > new Vamp in each starter. Put 1 Vamp in each booster in a second rare > > spot. Do you need the new vampires? No, there are plenty. Do you > > want them? Hell yeah!! Starters can be mostly reprints with hunting > > grounds and Justicar cards. Boosters 50/50 reprint/new with mostly > > staple cards getting the new release. I would much much much rather > > see 100 new library cards as opposed to 15. However I will say that > > for some of us some of the reprints are not reprints, if you know what > > I'm saying. Apportations? Deranges? Freak Drives? Yes please! > > You and I, sir, are on precisely the same wavelength in regards to the > creation of new library cards and the reprinting of pre-existing Camarilla > vampires. Sabbat War was brilliantly done because of the way reprints and > new material, both vampires and library cards alike, were handled. > > Best, > M. > > PS. I notice you have an @shaw.ca email address. Where in Canada are you? I > am in Edmonton. > Victoria BC. We are having a tourney tonight if you can make it. Hey do you know Bob in Edmonton? He wears a hat sometimes and works in a office. Jokeing. Shameless rippoff of that molson TV ad where that ditzy girl says to this guy "Oh your from Canada, do you know Bob? He , like, works in this office." Then the guys says "Oh yeah, office Bob. I know him. I think he's dead." Then the girl looks all upset and the guy walks away shakeing his head. Presuming this happens in the US. I got a kick out of that one I'll tell ya.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:03:42 -0400, "Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:3D2C675F.73FE85CB@white-wolf.com... >> bernietime@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > >> > Link to Mulligan house rule for your perusal >> > http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/house.html >> >> Yeah, I've seen your mulligan rule before. Good stuff. > >Hm, that's an interesting rule. It'd be nice for most decks >to have the option. It would definitely make it "easier" to >play decks that rely on some particular combo, though - I >would probably mulligan at least half the time when playing >my "1-800-GRATBST" (Huitzilopochtli Calls the Great Beast >with Soul Gem, getting fresh Huitzi for free) deck, for >example. > >Which is to say, the 3-vampires-uncontrolled drawback is >irrelevant to any deck that relies on just one vampire, and >probably small enough to be overlooked by quite a few others >that focus on some particular combo. > >I don't mean to trash the idea here, just pointing out some >issues that might make it unsuitable (as currently written) >for tournament play. > > >Josh > >wouldn't mind seeing some form of mulligan rule in tournaments The concept of the Mulligan rule is to give players the ability to maximize their decks effectiveness. So while it could be a bit of enabler to a "trick" deck, it also enables others to maximize their decks potential. Let's say You and I get to the finals having played each other in a previous round. I know you want to call the Great Beast with soul gem, so I opt to mulligan my first hand trying to draw into a counter strategy (or a better crypt draw) It's about the best I could come up with while retaining "simplicity". Bernie Who also wouldn't mind a mulligan rule in tournament play

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:55:45 -0400, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >Exactly. No new vampires. As I've been saying - that's the (single) >other way to avoid the problem currently being avoided by the >grouping rule. > Too some degree there are advantages of the rule besides the 'custom crypt solution. I could see the need for new vampires. And the need to restrict the above problem. I can also see that over time not all vampires will survive...some meet final death, some withdraw from the jyhad, some cannot 'get with the times' and go into the earth. But why restrict every single one of the older set vamps from playing with the new ones? Why not select some old favorites and either allow players to treat them as scarce vampires or some other mechanic, or perhaps even better, reprint newer, updated versions of them to represent what has happened to them in the meantime? I mean wouldnt it be cool if you could play your fav vampire with the new ones? Wouldn't it be even cooler if that fav vamp also had a new discipline or new title? C'mon, just imagine if Emerson bridges had lost his princely title and was now an archon or something. =] I really think such an idea would be better accepted by the community, rather than a flat ban on mixing. T

Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > You say that only with the printing of no new vampires can the 'grouping' > > > mechanic be avoided. > > > > > > I disagree. People have often complained about the high-cost-to-low-power > > > ratio of large capacity vampires. The creation of a few (there's that word > > > again) powerful high capacity vampires for each clan would not lead to > > > degenerative, custom, all-mighty, >insert buzzword here< crypts. For > > > example, the inclusion of Esau* as one of 'few' new high-cap vampires is not > > > going to tip any scales were he to be included as one of (arbitrarily > > > speaking) five new Malkavians in a set of consisting of primarily reprinted > > > vampires. > > > > Again just postponing the problem. > > A couple of key questions though: how large a problem is it and how long could > any real problem be postponed? If we can postpone it five or six hundred > expansions until it actually becomes bothersome, we might be on to something. It is a bit of a problem already (pre-CE). The number of expansions is a function of number of vampires per expansion. If CE didn't print any 1-5s, it might not cause chaos. Then if the next didn't print any 1-8s, likewise. And then you'd be pretty much done. Depends on your tastes, of course - monkey with the numbers all you like. -- LSJ (vtesrep@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/

> > C'mon, just imagine if Emerson bridges had lost his princely title and > was now an archon or something. =] > Stop the presses!! How bout a mechanic where under the new vampire's name there is another name of a older vampire (vampire from a non-current set that is). The mechanic would be if you have one in your crypt you couldn't have the other. Fluff reason? Sure, the vampires don't like each other and won't work together. Game effect would be far less widespread and would do something about the problem of custom crypts. Take a 5 cap Jyhad vamp with 4 points of clan skills. Now in the CE you could release a 5 cap with a similar skill set up or neat special or a vote but you would have to use one or the other, not both. Wouldn't even have to do it on every vampire. Just a thought. I'm sure somebody is going to poke holes in it but I think somebody could turn it into something if they wanted. Dave.

LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D2C6711.2B0DC8C9@white-wolf.com>... > "mattrim.dixon" wrote: > > > > > "mattrim.dixon" wrote: > > >> "LSJ" wrote... > > >>> I say: That retards the problem, but doesn't overcome it. > > >>> Only printing *no* new vampires would solve the problem. > > >>> > > >>> You misunderstand the difference between "few" and "none". > > >> > > >> Nay, I simply perceive the problem differently. > > > I presume that by 5/7/8/9+ you are referring to capacity? End the printing > > of new Camarilla vampires with the Camarilla Expansion and include only > > reprints in each set thereafter. > > Exactly. No new vampires. As I've been saying - that's the (single) > other way to avoid the problem currently being avoided by the > grouping rule. I wouldn't have a problem with stopping the printing of new vampires. If you put the upper limit at say 30 per clan then that still leaves a few hundred to go (assuming no new ones for the bloodlines and no new clans). I would rather have a limited pool of vampires that can all mix together than groups that i cannot mix. but as mattrim says it's probably moot as the new group rule is here and changing it now would be difficult. Chris.