The Sabbat Expansion & Proliferation of Clans

In light of rumors (they're just rumors!) about the possibility of a new expansion, I would like to say something about the issue of the proliferation of clans (and of disciplines) in the Vampire expansions, most specifically the Sabbat. I strongly agree with those who argue that there should be no new clans or disciplines added to the game. However, I would like to carry that argument a step further. I believe that there are already too many clans, and perhaps too many disciplines as well, and that this state of affairs will cause serious problems for the selling of any new expansion. The problem is basically this. A player is more likely to go out and buy cards from an expansion if the cards that he buys are likely to be of some use to him. A good proportion of the cards that he buys should be capable of enhancing or adding variety to such decks as he is fond of playing. Thus, if I like playing Gangrel, Ravnos, and Nosferatu, and I buy a pack of 15 cards in a booster, I should get a fair proportion of cards that stand a chance of being useful in Nosferatu and Gangrel decks. If instead of that I get... 1. A Giovanni Vampire 2. A Ventrue-Antitribu Vampire 3. A Toreador Vampire 4. A Caitiff with Necromancy and Celerity 5. An Ally that requires a Settite. 6. A minion card requiring Obtenebration. 7. A minion card requiring Presence 8. A minion card requiring Vicissitude 9. A Unique location requiring a ready Malkavian 10. A minion card requiring Dementation. 11. Equipment that gives +1 stealth on Auspex actions. 12. A unique location requiring ready Tremere Antitribu 13. A minion card requiring Thaumaturgy 14. A master card that helps make Assamite Contracts more useful 15. A minion card requiring ready cardinal or archbishop. ...then I would think that this would rather lessen the likelyhood that I will go out and buy more. In other words, there are already 22 clans and 17 disciplines in the game. Any expansion that attempts to enhance and service them all will be dreadfully fragmented. Adding 3 new vampires to each clan would mean 66 vampires -- (more than the 50+ that were in DS or AH). If you give more support to the clans that really need it (Settites, Assamites, Lasombra, etc) you end up leaving other clans out completely (the popular ones that most people now play and presumably want new cards for). 51 discipline minion cards (more than the 44 provided by AH) would provide only 3 cards for each discipline). There are many ways such a problem could be addressed. But I want to present the problem first. I am a little annoyed at the Sabbat Expansion for unecessarily adding to this problem. There are only supposed to be 13 clans in the World of Darkness Universe, but with the Sabbat Expansion we suddenly had 21 clans in V:tES (plus the clanless Caitiff). It did not have to be this way. Brujah Antitribu could have been regarded as a subset of the Brujah clan, and Pander a subset of Caitiff. Had this been done, I think the set might have sold better, as many clan-specific cards could have been used to enhance current decks. This would not have prevented sect-specific and clan/sect-specific cards where appropriate. There is currently no terminology that would allow a future expansion to refer to briefly refer to Brujah and Brujah Antitribu as a single grouping. (Any suggestions on this?) Any thoughts? Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980915212409.596A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > I strongly agree with those who argue that there should be no new clans or > disciplines added to the game. However, I would like to carry that > argument a step further. I believe that there are already too many clans, > and perhaps too many disciplines as well, and that this state of affairs > will cause serious problems for the selling of any new expansion. For your standard sort of expansion, I would definitely agree. There are more than 20 clans, counting antitribu as different clans, and 17 disciplines. Giving each of those something new in a new expansion while still being useful is a lesson in futility. To effectively expand on the game, expansions are going to have to be narrower in the future. A periodic release of an expansion focused entirely on a few clans at most is really the only way to expand from where we are now. The original 13 clans all have over 20 vampires, right? So the under- represented clans would need to be seen first. Each expansion for the underrepresented clans could be solely for them. So a Lasombra expansion would be mainly Obtenebration and Lasombra clan cards with a smattering of Dominate and Potence with about 12 vampires. Tzimisce would be mainly Vicissitude and Tzimisce clan cards with a smattering of Auspex and Animalism and 12 vampires. When you get around to the already well- represented clans, you do them and their antitribu. So you'd have a Ventrue and !Ventrue expansion with mainly !Ventrue cards, a few Ventrue cards to give Camarilla/Sabbat interaction, Dominate, Auspex, Fortitude, and a little Presence, and maybe 10 !Ventrue and 2 Ventrue that have special abilities for interaction with the Sabbat. So, you have 6 expansions of one clan and 8 expansions of clan/!clan including Caitiff/Pander. > There is currently no terminology that would allow a future expansion to > refer to briefly refer to Brujah and Brujah Antitribu as a single > grouping. (Any suggestions on this?) From the game's world perspective, why would you need this? Most of the clans and their antitribu rarely interact except to possibly fight. Otherwise, why couldn't you just use their clan symbols, with and without blood drop, to refer to them? Personally, I like having the regular and antitribu of the clans. Because otherwise, why do you need the sect distinctions? Plus, when you throw the regular with the antitribu all together, you give some clans more than double the number of vampires available to them than other clans. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Lupus Australis wrote in message ... > >In light of rumors (they're just rumors!) about the possibility of >a new expansion, I would like to say something about the issue of the >proliferation of clans (and of disciplines) in the Vampire expansions, >most specifically the Sabbat. > >I strongly agree with those who argue that there should be no new clans or >disciplines added to the game. can I hear an amen? Too many options really hurt explaining the game to my friends. They are overwhelmed by such possibility and just quit. However, I would like to carry that >argument a step further. I believe that there are already too many clans, >and perhaps too many disciplines as well, and that this state of affairs >will cause serious problems for the selling of any new expansion. >The problem is basically this. A player is more likely to go out and buy >cards from an expansion if the cards that he buys are likely to be of some >use to him" ... >In other words, there are already 22 clans and 17 disciplines in the game. >Any expansion that attempts to enhance and service them all will be >dreadfully fragmented. True, but perhaps you are not familiar with Five Rings Publishing Group recent style of set releases. Being a Legends of the Five Ring player as well, I was aware when they changed their publishing format. No longer do they make 300+ card sets, they release them in batches of fifty to seventy. And these cards must hold a central theme to advance an ongoing story (I know I may be boring you with already known facts, but for those who don't know...). So.... > If you give more support to the clans that really need it (Settites, Assamites, >etc) Oh, I hope they do! 10-13 vampires in these clan compared to the mammoth 7 clans, no wonder most don't play them. Less back-up, less discipline cards for their special discipline, it really is sad. I don't like them being kicked around. you end up leaving other clans out completely (the popular ones that >most people now play and presumably want new cards for). 51 discipline >minion cards (more than the 44 provided by AH) would provide only 3 cards >for each discipline). Well there's the crux of the matter, you're comparing past set stats to a possible (please oh please!) expansion. I hope FRPG continues with their publishing style, as they have been for the past year (and to great success, it seems). Wouldn't it just be fantastic if you could have one month expansion set dedicated to, lets say, one clan? 50-70 some cards related to their strength and as a bonus maybe a story line developed within? I don't know you, but for me a beginner, having a chance to *find*, let alone have enough quality cards to play settites or ravnos is a huge jump in fun and playability. >There are many ways such a problem could be addressed. But I want to >present the problem first. Good that you did. Let's hope FRPG, actually makes an expansion first, but also use the potential answer available - the monthly release system. It might even bring new players due to it's greater visibility! Yeay, I always loved fresh blood.... >I am a little annoyed at the Sabbat Expansion for unecessarily adding to >this problem. There are only supposed to be 13 clans in the World of >Darkness Universe, but with the Sabbat Expansion we suddenly had 21 clans >in V:tES (plus the clanless Caitiff). It did not have to be this way. >Brujah Antitribu could have been regarded as a subset of the Brujah clan, >and Pander a subset of Caitiff. Had this been done, I think the set might >have sold better, as many clan-specific cards could have been used to >enhance current decks. This would not have prevented sect-specific and >clan/sect-specific cards where appropriate. > >There is currently no terminology that would allow a future expansion to >refer to briefly refer to Brujah and Brujah Antitribu as a single >grouping. (Any suggestions on this?) About this I can't think of what can be done. Rule lawyers will be rule lawyers. I thought the set was good in that you didn't really need the old set to play. And considering how long the time between sets, this opened the door for me to even think of playing. New recruits are important, it's always fun to share a favorite pasttime. But veterans play to different criteria I guess. >Any thoughts? > >Lupus Australis >____ ____ > \ \----/ / > |()__()| > __\ __ /__ > / __\()/__ \ > |/ \==/ \| > | || | > - By the one who wants to play a "Goodnight Sweet Prince, Brainwash" deck

Lupus Australis wrote in message ... > >In light of rumors (they're just rumors!) about the possibility of >a new expansion, I would like to say something about the issue of the >proliferation of clans (and of disciplines) in the Vampire expansions, >most specifically the Sabbat. > >I strongly agree with those who argue that there should be no new clans or >disciplines added to the game. However, I would like to carry that >argument a step further. I believe that there are already too many clans, >and perhaps too many disciplines as well, and that this state of affairs >will cause serious problems for the selling of any new expansion. > BIG SNIP > >Any thoughts? > >Lupus Australis >____ ____ > \ \----/ / > |()__()| > __\ __ /__ > / __\()/__ \ > |/ \==/ \| > | || | I can understand the point that Lupus Australis is trying to make, but I still feel that Jyhad can use expansion. I fully agree that Jyhad should not go into any of the stranger bloodlines from V:TM, like the daughters of Concolany, and the Samdie (I know I murdered the spelling). Nor should we add some of the stranger disciplines from those clans. However I think that since Sabbat clans have such a different outlook, the anti bloodlines should be treated as a separate clan in Jyhad. And to this point I think it would be great if Jyhad added the last of the anti bloodlines; Assamite, Serpents of Light, and Ravnos. Adding these clans can very easily add power the existing non anti clans purely by virtue of having more vampires with the required disciplines. I also agree that this could result in adding only a few discipline cards to each discipline and only a few (maybe only 1) new vampire to each other clan. Well that may be the price we have to live with to finish all the major clans/bloodlines. It is sad to think but if there is another expansion (I doubt it) it will probably be the last. Therefore it would be nice to get the last of the clans/bloodlines into the game. Personally if they do an expansion I hope it is a larger one, 150+ cards. Further I hope they don't do any "stand alone" expansions like magic is full of. I feel that is a waste of money. Sabbat duplicated far too many cards for my taste just to be stand alone. (and 28 card packs suck) On another point LA made, I agree there should be a way that certain cards can target both regular and Anti bloodlines. This is more needed for the cards that hit weaknesses than for beneficial cards. Example, Brujah Frenzy, Sabbat Brujah are just as susceptible to frenzy as regular Brujah. On the other hand the differences in ideology of Ventrue and Anti Ventrue means that each would maintain a separate Ventrue Headquarters. Well thats my two cents worth. I hope there is a new expansion and I hope it has the last major bloodlines in it, but I wouldn't be to depressed if it only has enhancements to old clans. McEwen the Mad, Malkavian Elder of Toledo

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : The problem is basically this. A player is more likely to go out and buy : cards from an expansion if the cards that he buys are likely to be of some : use to him. A good proportion of the cards that he buys should be capable : of enhancing or adding variety to such decks as he is fond of playing. : Thus, if I like playing Gangrel, Ravnos, and Nosferatu, and I buy a pack : of 15 cards in a booster, I should get a fair proportion of cards that : stand a chance of being useful in Nosferatu and Gangrel decks. If instead : of that I get... I can see how this could be a problem. Personally, though, I pretty much like all the clans. I'm not sure how many people feel that way, but it seems like the marketing so far has been designed as if they expect everyone to play every clan. The L5R/Babylon 5/etc model of specific starters works rather differently, and maybe better for a lot of players. But even in those games, the boosters are (as far as I know) always completely random assortments of card from every faction. Now, as you say, Jyhad has wound up with an awfully large number of different clans, which is a difficulty if people like to specialize. I don't know to what extent that's the case. Anyone else have any idea? : I am a little annoyed at the Sabbat Expansion for unecessarily adding to : this problem. There are only supposed to be 13 clans in the World of : Darkness Universe, but with the Sabbat Expansion we suddenly had 21 clans : in V:tES (plus the clanless Caitiff). It did not have to be this way. : Brujah Antitribu could have been regarded as a subset of the Brujah clan, : and Pander a subset of Caitiff. Had this been done, I think the set might : have sold better, as many clan-specific cards could have been used to : enhance current decks. This would not have prevented sect-specific and : clan/sect-specific cards where appropriate. : There is currently no terminology that would allow a future expansion to : refer to briefly refer to Brujah and Brujah Antitribu as a single : grouping. (Any suggestions on this?) I agree that it would have been more useful to have had Antitribu count as members of the 'standard' clan. But as it stands, I'm not sure it's a big problem. Most of the anti-clans are close enough in skills and flavor to their Camarilla counterparts that they probably wouldn't have many dedicated players (as in they like anti-Gangrel but not Gangrel). So I would think that it's okay if there aren't a whole lot of clan- specific cards for the anti-clans (or the Camarilla clans either, since they have a lot of cards already). I think what really needs filling in are the underpopulated expansion clans: Lasombra, Tzimisce, Followers of Set, Assamites, Giovanni, and Ravnos. An expansion dealing with these six clans would still be somewhat fragmented in terms of focus, but could give them a reasonable number of cards for their unique disciplines, as well as filling them out to a reasonable number of vampires. It might not make everyone thrilled, but hopefully there would be a lot of people who like at least one of these clans. Josh 'it occurred to me that suckers have authority...'

> I am a little annoyed at the Sabbat Expansion for unecessarily adding to > this problem. There are only supposed to be 13 clans in the World of > Darkness Universe, but with the Sabbat Expansion we suddenly had 21 clans > in V:tES (plus the clanless Caitiff). It did not have to be this way. > Brujah Antitribu could have been regarded as a subset of the Brujah clan, > and Pander a subset of Caitiff. Had this been done, I think the set might > have sold better, as many clan-specific cards could have been used to > enhance current decks. This would not have prevented sect-specific and > clan/sect-specific cards where appropriate. > > There is currently no terminology that would allow a future expansion to > refer to briefly refer to Brujah and Brujah Antitribu as a single > grouping. (Any suggestions on this?) > > Any thoughts? > Actually, (i know some rules lawyers are going to be upset about this) I think that some of the cards should not be clan/anticlan specific, ie..Brujah Frenzy...Labyrynth....common sense should say which ones can and cannot be used. Most people I know, play with a fairly regular group of friends, If everyone you play with agrees it should not be an issue. Any response

du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > The L5R/Babylon 5/etc model of specific starters works rather differently, > and maybe better for a lot of players. But even in those games, the > boosters are (as far as I know) always completely random assortments > of card from every faction. One difference between VTES and Bab5/L5R is that in the latter, the players plays exactly one faction (I believe). In VTES, you are not restricted to playing with just one clan in your crypt. So single-faction starters are not necessary (or even desirable, IMHO) in VTES, whereas they are in B5/L5R. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: : > The L5R/Babylon 5/etc model of specific starters works rather differently, : > and maybe better for a lot of players. But even in those games, the : > boosters are (as far as I know) always completely random assortments : > of card from every faction. : One difference between VTES and Bab5/L5R is that in the latter, the players : plays exactly one faction (I believe). In VTES, you are not restricted to : playing with just one clan in your crypt. : So single-faction starters are not necessary (or even desirable, IMHO) : in VTES, whereas they are in B5/L5R. True for Babylon 5; as far as I know (I only played it a few times) you can't have characters from the other factions in your deck. But in L5R (which I haven't played for a few years), as I recall you can hire characters from any faction; you can get a discount by using your clan stronghold to bring out ones that belong to your clan. Also, in B5, only one person can play a particular faction in each game; in L5R, I think any number of people can use the same strongholds. It's still true that in L5R single-faction starters are desirable because there are benefits to using things from your clan. But they don't actually force you to play with only one clan in your deck. I agree that VtES is good without single-faction starters, but allegedly having some kind of clan-identified (semi-)preconstructed decks is good for sales, since many players supposedly like to have a particular group they identify with. If this is equally the case for VtES players as it's said to be for the rest of the CCG world, it could be a good thing for VtES to get clan starters, at least from a marketing standpoint. Josh half of every dollar is spent on marketing you know...

whrayburn wrote: > > True, but perhaps you are not familiar with Five Rings Publishing Group > recent > style of set releases. Being a Legends of the Five Ring player as well, I > was > aware when they changed their publishing format. No longer do they make 300+ > card sets, they release them in batches of fifty to seventy. And these cards > must > hold a central theme to advance an ongoing story (I know I may be boring you > with > already known facts, but for those who don't know...). So.... Simmilar to this but I think a bit more "traditional" would be if they released expansions (even small expansions) based on groups. There could be a "Camarilla", "non-Camarilla", and "Sabat" - of course you would give them some sort of cool name. They probably don't need a "Camarilla" expansion but the other two would be great. They *could* add additional clans but I would hope they wouldn't. Kevin

JASON MARKS <akhe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Actually, (i know some rules lawyers are going to be upset about this) I think >that some of the cards should not be clan/anticlan specific, ie..Brujah >Frenzy...Labyrynth....common sense should say which ones can and cannot be >used. ?? Do you mean that clan-specific cards shouldn't require the clan to bring into play (presumably due to card text that makes it usable by only a specific clan, and is thus restictive enoug.) or do you want to remove the specificity of which vamps can use the effect, or both? BTW, Brujah Frenzy (like most clan hosers) I believe has errat to allow anyone to use it (so too, Malk Dementia, etc.) >Most people I know, play with a fairly regular group of friends, If everyone >you play with agrees it should not be an issue. > Any response Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Richard D. Zopf wrote: > JASON MARKS <akhe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > >Actually, (i know some rules lawyers are going to be upset about this) I think > >that some of the cards should not be clan/anticlan specific, ie..Brujah > >Frenzy...Labyrynth....common sense should say which ones can and cannot be > >used. > > ?? Do you mean that clan-specific cards shouldn't require the clan to > bring into play (presumably due to card text that makes it usable by > only a specific clan, and is thus restictive enoug.) or do you want > to remove the specificity of which vamps can use the effect, or both? What he is saying, I believe, is that for certain cards, the relevant reference to a specific clan should apply equally to the opposing anti-clan. Thus, Brujah Frenzy should affect Anti-Brujah just as it effects Brujah. The Labyrinth should also be playable if you have a ready Anti-Nosferatu, and should give +1 stealth to both Nosferatu and Anti-Nosferatu. I believe that this, in many ways, would not be a bad idea. However, it would have to be an across-the-board decision, and not determinable by "common sense". It has to be clear what is meant when a card refers to a "Nosferatu". Either it includes Anti-tribu members, or it doesn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 mboh...@shout.net wrote: > For your standard sort of expansion, I would definitely agree. There > are more than 20 clans, counting antitribu as different clans, and 17 > disciplines. Giving each of those something new in a new expansion while > still being useful is a lesson in futility. To effectively expand on the > game, expansions are going to have to be narrower in the future. A periodic > release of an expansion focused entirely on a few clans at most is really > the only way to expand from where we are now. > > The original 13 clans all have over 20 vampires, right? No. Only the 7 clans of he Camarilla have over 20 members. The "Thirteen Clans" are as follows: 1. Assamite 10 members 2. Brujah 23 members plus 11 Antitribu 3. Gangrel 24 members plus 11 Antitribu 4. Giovanni 13 members 5. Lasombra 11 members 6. Malkavian 23 members plus 11 Antitribu 7. Nosferatu 23 members plus 11 Antitribu 8. Ravnos 13 members 9. Settites 10 members 10. Toreador 24 members plus 11 Antitribu 11. Tremere 23 members plus 11 Antitribu 12. Tzimisce 11 members 13. Ventrue 23 members plus 11 Antitribu Pander are not properly one of the 13 clans. They are just Sabbat Caitiff and are not consanguinous. They are only considered a clan within the context of Sabbat politics (and it is thus questionable whether they should be considered a "clan" outside the Sabbat-only version of the game-- though that is how it stands currently.) The Antitribu "clans" are not really clans per se. At least, they are not counted among the "13 clans" descended from the original children of Caine. Anti-tribu are more properly considered to be "bloodlines" derived from the parent clan, and so can either be thought of as traitorous members of that original clan...or, like the caitiff, as clanless. (I'm not deeply familiar with the WOD, so someone please correct me if any of the above is inaccurate.) > So the under- > represented clans would need to be seen first. Each expansion for the > underrepresented clans could be solely for them. So a Lasombra expansion > would be mainly Obtenebration and Lasombra clan cards with a smattering of > Dominate and Potence with about 12 vampires. Tzimisce would be mainly > Vicissitude and Tzimisce clan cards with a smattering of Auspex and > Animalism and 12 vampires. When you get around to the already well- > represented clans, you do them and their antitribu. So you'd have a > Ventrue and !Ventrue expansion with mainly !Ventrue cards, a few Ventrue > cards to give Camarilla/Sabbat interaction, Dominate, Auspex, Fortitude, > and a little Presence, and maybe 10 !Ventrue and 2 Ventrue that have special > abilities for interaction with the Sabbat. > > So, you have 6 expansions of one clan and 8 expansions of clan/!clan > including Caitiff/Pander. This is a bad scheme. There are not enough Jyhad players to support such fragmented marketing scheme. Each expansion will have to be aimed at all possible V:tES players, not a tiny segment of the available pool. V:tES would have to be twice as popular as Magic to still make money off so narrowly focussed an expansion. We are hoping against hope for one more expansion, and if we get it, it will have to be a good expansion that will sell well and appeal to all players, and help recruit new ones. The problem of fragmentation will have to be addressed if this is to be achieved. Die hard players will of course purchase box after box, until they have full sets of 40 separate clans/bloodlines and 30 separate disciplines...but who else will??? The greater the number of clans and disciplines, the greater the number of cards you need to purchase to be able to create a focussed deck. Since V:tES already has a large number of clans and disciplines (even if you discount the Antitribu versions of standard clans), and there is no going back, a future expansion will have to try to print cards that will help refocus and interrelate with cards currently in the game. We do not need another Hunting Grounds for another new clan that you don't have enough cards for. Nor do we need another useless clan-hoser card that will help you only if your predator or prey is playing one specific clan out of 22 possible. Cards need to be designed so that they have a fair chance of being able to interrelate with other cards that are likely to see play. I do have a few ideas on how this could be done. One minor example might be to allow certain new discipline cards that have a disciplineless level in addition to the inferior and superior levels, allowing it to be usable even if you don't play with, say, Obtenebrate. You might print disciplineless minion cards that are hosed if an opposing vampire has a certain discipline. Numerous other ideas are possible. But any new expansion must address the problem. > > There is currently no terminology that would allow a future expansion to > > refer to briefly refer to Brujah and Brujah Antitribu as a single > > grouping. (Any suggestions on this?) > > From the game's world perspective, why would you need this? Most of the > clans and their antitribu rarely interact except to possibly fight. It is needed from a game mechanic's perspective, so that we can condense the excessive 22 divisions into a slightly more managable 14 (13 clans plus clanless). In this way, when an expansion printed a clan-specific card, it could be applicable to and useful for a greater variety of players, and would stand a greater chance of being usable in combination with one of the vampires you find in the same booster. Sect-specific cards could still exist to emphasise enmity between the sects and discourage cooperation between Regular and Sabbat clan members. This is a good idea to adress in any future expansion. > Otherwise, why couldn't you just use their clan symbols, with and without > blood drop, to refer to them? Because you might want to indicate both, and might need a symbol to represent this. > Personally, I like having the regular and > antitribu of the clans. You can still have them. They just don't need to be thought of as separate clans. > Because otherwise, why do you need the sect > distinctions? I don't understand your point. To my mind, the existence of sect distinctions makes it absolutely unnecessary to divide vampires into separate clans when they can just as easily be distinguished by sect. When a card designer wants to refer to only Camarilla Brujah, he can specify "Camarilla Brujah". If he wants to specify non-Sabbat Brujah, he can specify "Non-Sabbat Brujah" (assuming such things as Independent Brujah exist). If he wants to indicate only Sabbat Brujah, he can do so by saying "Sabbat Brujah" or "Brujah Antitribu". And if he just says "Brujah", then it seems only logical that this should refer to everybody (Sabbat, Camarilla, and Independent) that is descended from the Brujah clan, regardless of their sect allegiance. The current situation is much less convenient and versatile, while still being very wordy. If I want to indicate both clans, I must say "Gangrel or Gangrel Antitribu", and there is no symbol that I can use. > Plus, when you throw the regular with the antitribu all > together, you give some clans more than double the number of vampires > available to them than other clans. This is already a problem, which the current 22-clan division does not solve. Players are already mixing Nosferatu with Nosferatu Antitribu with impunity in their decks. (I play Camarilla-only Nosferatu, but I'm the exception). If anything, the current system *encourages* the mixing of clan with anti-clan, so that you can make use of the best clan-specific cards from either sect. In this way, your Nosferatu deck can have TWO Hunting Grounds Cards, which do not contest eachother. I think it would be alot more fitting if Nos and Anti-Nos were able to contest eachother's clan-specific cards. They inhabit much the same haunts, so why shouldn't they struggle for control of locations like Labyrinth or Storm Sewers. Surely an AntiNos can creep through Storm Sewers as well as a Camarilla Nos can. Consider the following change: The term "Nosferatu" is henceforth thought of as referring to vampires of both sects, unless otherwise specified. This would give, at this point, a slight advantage to the Sabbat, as they could use standard clan cards, whereas Camarilla clan members could not use those specific to their Camarilla counterparts. The counterpoint to this, though a minor one, is that the Sabbat members are more vulnerable to existing clan-hosers. Cards that ask you to refer to a clan would have to name one of the 13, and not be allowed to further specify by sect. This seems fitting to me actually. Being corrupt always gives you more options, as you are not restrained by moral codes. Thus, if I am a camarilla Gangrel, both my conscience and the code of the Masquerade may prevent me from munching on Boy Scouts, so I might instead chose to dine on animals at the local zoo. A sabbat Gangrel, however, can munch at the zoo on animals just as easily as his camarilla counterpart, but he can also dine on Boy Scouts. (This storyworld analogy refers to the cards Zoo Hunting Ground, a "Gangrel" card, and Campground Hunting Ground, a "Gangrel Antitribu" card). There is little danger that this would make the Antitribu too powerful at this point. They are still too badly outnumbered. Future expansions could always ensure that the balance remains. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, McEwen the Mad wrote: > I can understand the point that Lupus Australis is trying to make, but I > still feel that Jyhad can use expansion. So do I. That is why I am trying to make the points I am making. I believe that if a new expansion takes card to print cards that interrelate well, and do not require excessive focus to be useful, then it will sell better, and this will further increase the chance that there will be more expansions in future. > I fully agree that Jyhad should > not go into any of the stranger bloodlines from V:TM, like the daughters of > Concolany, and the Samdie (I know I murdered the spelling). Nor should we > add some of the stranger disciplines from those clans. However I think that > since Sabbat clans have such a different outlook, the anti bloodlines should > be treated as a separate clan in Jyhad. I believe that if the Anti-tribu kept all their Antitribu-specific cards, this would be achieved. Expansion cards could further encourage clan enmity. This will be done more easily if anti-tribu and parent clans are conceived as being related in some way. For instance you could have cards that penalize methuselahs for having vampires "of the same clan but of opposing sects", which terminology is meaningless under the current setup. Or you could put a card in play which allows vampires to rush other vampires of the same clan but different sect. Under the current setup it is very hard do word such things. Current rules state that Nosferatu and Nosferatu Antitribu are different clans. Period. As far as the rules are concerned, they are not related in any way except for the odd coincindence that their names sound similar, and their symbols look somewhat alike. > And to this point I think it would > be great if Jyhad added the last of the anti bloodlines; Assamite, Serpents > of Light, and Ravnos. I still think this is the last think we need, considering that the next expansion will be hard put to service existing clans. Do you also want to devote space to print 3 new "Hunting Grounds" cards, to add to the 20 we already have? I think there are better uses to which the space in a new expansion could be put. > Adding these clans can very easily add power the > existing non anti clans purely by virtue of having more vampires with the > required disciplines. If that is their purpose, then why not have them just be regular Ravnos? This way, you will not have to devote so much space to them, you will not have to print a whole bunch of clan-specific cards for them, and they will interact better with cards currently printed. However, if you did want to include Sabbat Ravnos in a hypothetical future expansion, this could be done more efficiently under a 13-clan conceptualization. This way, any anti-tribu Ravnos you print could still be able to hunt in Park Hunting Grounds, and you would not be automatically obliged to print a new Hunting Grounds card for them (further wasting future expansion space). They would be considered Sabbat, but still interact well enough with Ravnos cards currently printed. > I also agree that this could result in adding only a > few discipline cards to each discipline and only a few (maybe only 1) new > vampire to each other clan. Well that may be the price we have to live with > to finish all the major clans/bloodlines. It is sad to think but if there > is another expansion (I doubt it) it will probably be the last. Therefore > it would be nice to get the last of the clans/bloodlines into the game. If there is another expansion (I doubt it), then this sort of plan will increase the odds that it will indeed be the last. In fact, I suspect that the current level of fragmentation is a large part of the reason that there will not be a future expansion. Even I, a fairly devoted player, have a large portion of my card collection that I have been unable to make use of, as I have an inadequate supply to make what I would consider a focused deck. The current level of fragmentation cannot help but discourage new players, who find that most of the cards are useless to them when they sample the newer sets in their efforts to compete. > Personally if they do an expansion I hope it is a larger one, 150+ cards. > Further I hope they don't do any "stand alone" expansions like magic is full > of. I feel that is a waste of money. Sabbat duplicated far too many cards > for my taste just to be stand alone. (and 28 card packs suck) The Sabbat expansion made many mistakes. One of them, I strongly feel, was the 22-clan division, when only 14 were necessary. > On another point LA made, I agree there should be a way that certain cards > can target both regular and Anti bloodlines. This is more needed for the > cards that hit weaknesses than for beneficial cards. Example, Brujah > Frenzy, Sabbat Brujah are just as susceptible to frenzy as regular Brujah. Well, I'm glad we agree to some degree. However, I think it is necessary for both the beneficial as well as the "hosers". The "hosers" are almost unsalvageable at this point, as even with a 13-clan conceptualization, their opportunity cost will be too high to allow them to be worth playing. Even when there were only 7 clans, most hosers were not considered worth playing. > On the other hand the differences in ideology of Ventrue and Anti Ventrue > means that each would maintain a separate Ventrue Headquarters. I don't see why. Let them both play Ventrue HQ, and let them contest eachother. In the mixed game (as opposed to the Sabbat only, or Sabbat only version), the Ventrue and the Anti-Ventrue will both be jockeying for political power within the arena of Vampiredom as a whole. They should be competing for the same political resources. Having a separate Ventrue HQ for each will only encourage me to use Ventrue of both sects so I can use both Ventrue HQs. > Well thats my two cents worth. I hope there is a new expansion and I hope > it has the last major bloodlines in it, but I wouldn't be to depressed if it > only has enhancements to old clans. Would you be satisfied with a single token addition to each (one Sabbat Settite, one Sabbat Ravnos, and one Sabbat Assamite -- each with titles to make them useful for Sabbat political decks), within a 13-clan setup that allows them to still use existing clan cards, while not requiring them to be supported by a host of clan-specific cards of their own? [ quoted text not captured ]

The only point I want to contribute to this thread is that Sabbat is rather a good stand-alone game, and that as such it plays somewhat differently from Jyhad/VTES - much bloodier and [usually] quicker. But I think Lupus is right about the undesirability of further proliferating clans and disciplines .... it's remarkable really that there are so few problems. Alright, maybe i do have one other point, relevant to Lupus' complaint about having a load of cards he can't use fully. Sometimes a card from an expansion makes a previously-useless card into gold-dust. The best example I can think of, fom my own experience, is Betrayer. REALLY rubbish card from the original set. DEADLY with Recruitment and a crypt containing all the vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980917221331.1553D-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > The original 13 clans all have over 20 vampires, right? > > No. Only the 7 clans of he Camarilla have over 20 members. The "Thirteen > Clans" are as follows: I miscounted it, and forgot to go back. For some reason, I was thinking their were 13 clans in Jyhad. *bonk self* > > So, you have 6 expansions of one clan and 8 expansions of clan/!clan > > including Caitiff/Pander. > > This is a bad scheme. There are not enough Jyhad players to support such > fragmented marketing scheme. Each expansion will have to be aimed at > all possible V:tES players, not a tiny segment of the available pool. > V:tES would have to be twice as popular as Magic to still make money off > so narrowly focussed an expansion. But I think that some form of focuses expansion is the only way to go. It doesn't have to be expansions dedicated only to one clan. Group clans together that have similar disciplines. > We are hoping against hope for one more expansion, and if we get it, it > will have to be a good expansion that will sell well and appeal to all > players, and help recruit new ones. The problem of fragmentation will > have to be addressed if this is to be achieved. Die hard players will of > course purchase box after box, until they have full sets of 40 separate > clans/bloodlines and 30 separate disciplines...but who else will??? I'm not proposing going beyond the current clans....and I'm not even sure you're saying I was. > The greater the number of clans and disciplines, the greater the number of > cards you need to purchase to be able to create a focussed deck. It would depend on your definition of focused. This is not an issue of for Jyhad, but of all CCG's. The more I think about it, the more likely it is that even if there is another expansion, it is already doomed. Why? When was the last time you saw V:tES starters or boosters in a local game store? I haven't for a long time. With the hope of adding new players to the game via a new expansion, how are they going to get core cards unless they are included in the expansion? They are going to have trouble finding the Blur's they need to actually make a Brujah deck. Sure, this problem can be alleviated by suitcase players, but new players aren't always going to have someone around to give them all those commons they need to actually make a deck. So unless V:tES gets reprinted or there is enough stock of it already, an expansion isn't going to have the effect of an increased player base. We'll only continue to grow at a slow and steady rate. > > Otherwise, why couldn't you just use their clan symbols, with and without > > blood drop, to refer to them? > > Because you might want to indicate both, and might need a symbol to > represent this. If you're talking about card requirements, this could go in the ample space in the left border. > > Because otherwise, why do you need the sect > > distinctions? > > I don't understand your point. To my mind, the existence of sect > distinctions makes it absolutely unnecessary to divide vampires into > separate clans when they can just as easily be distinguished by sect. When > a card designer wants to refer to only Camarilla Brujah, he can specify > "Camarilla Brujah". If he wants to specify non-Sabbat Brujah, he can > specify "Non-Sabbat Brujah" (assuming such things as Independent Brujah > exist). Yes, they do. But we already have that confusion. I constantly have to tell people that "Non-Camarilla" would have better been written as "Independent." Just consider the clan symbols, both regular and Antitribu, and the Sabbat label on the Antitribu redundant. > If he wants to indicate only Sabbat Brujah, he can do so by > saying "Sabbat Brujah" or "Brujah Antitribu". And if he just says > "Brujah", then it seems only logical that this should refer to everybody > (Sabbat, Camarilla, and Independent) that is descended from the Brujah > clan, regardless of their sect allegiance. To me, it is not always logical because of the way things started. If the game had been designed from the get-go with all of the expansions in mind, we wouldn't have these "problems." > The current situation is much less convenient and versatile, while still > being very wordy. If I want to indicate both clans, I must say "Gangrel > or Gangrel Antitribu", and there is no symbol that I can use. Or you could print both clan symbols. There's no other way to do this right now without making a sweeping change saying that all cards requiring a clan can be used by both regular and antitribu. > If anything, the current system *encourages* the mixing of clan with > anti-clan, so that you can make use of the best clan-specific cards from > either sect. In this way, your Nosferatu deck can have TWO Hunting > Grounds Cards, which do not contest eachother. I think this would depend on what kind of mix you are using. If I'm only putting 2 Nosferatu in a Nos/!Nos deck, I'm not going to put any Nosferatu only cards in it. The odds are just too great that I won't have a Nosferatu. When I build my decks, they are prepared so that the only time I ever discard is if I got a bad mix and handjammed on masters, drew a second copy of a unique master, or need to draw a specific card. I _never_ discard a playable card that is useless because I am careful to not put cards that might be useless into my decks. > I think it would be alot more fitting if Nos and Anti-Nos were able to > contest eachother's clan-specific cards. They inhabit much the same > haunts, so why shouldn't they struggle for control of locations like > Labyrinth or Storm Sewers. Surely an AntiNos can creep through Storm > Sewers as well as a Camarilla Nos can. Ok, so what about Wasserschloss Anif, Austria. It requires Tremere and benefits Tremere. How would you decide if it was usable by both Tremere and !Tremere? As I have a little knowledge of the WOD, I would say that it is only usable by Tremere because they control pretty much all of Austria and southern Germany (you're sleeping Antideluvian kinda requires that:). But how is someone who doesn't have that knowledge going to make the same conclusion with any certainty? They can't. > Consider the following change: The term "Nosferatu" is henceforth thought > of as referring to vampires of both sects, unless otherwise specified. But how often do you see the word Nosferatu used? And since KoKo is Nosferatu, does that mean he's both Camarilla and Sabbat? Or something weird? For seasoned players, this isn't a problem. It's the newbies that will have a problem with it. I like the separation of regular and antitribu. New cards could be made that refer to both, and new cards could be made to play up emnity between both. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980917221331.1553D-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >Pander are not properly one of the 13 clans. They are just Sabbat Caitiff >and are not consanguinous. They are only considered a clan within the >context of Sabbat politics (and it is thus questionable whether they >should be considered a "clan" outside the Sabbat-only version of the >game-- though that is how it stands currently.) As you say, in V:TES, they are considered a clan. The only vampires who are not considered consanguineous are Caitiff. Though they do not share common disciplines etc. the Pander are "organised" as a clan within the Sabbat, having had their position secured by Joseph Pander. Of course, in any group, other groups look down on other groups so they can be treated badly in the Sabbat but then so can any clan. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, James Coupe wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980917221331.1553D-100000@amanda>, Lupus > Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes > >Pander are not properly one of the 13 clans. They are just Sabbat Caitiff > >and are not consanguinous. They are only considered a clan within the > >context of Sabbat politics (and it is thus questionable whether they > >should be considered a "clan" outside the Sabbat-only version of the > >game-- though that is how it stands currently.) > > As you say, in V:TES, they are considered a clan. The only vampires who > are not considered consanguineous are Caitiff. > > Though they do not share common disciplines etc. the Pander are > "organised" as a clan within the Sabbat, having had their position > secured by Joseph Pander. Of course, in any group, other groups look > down on other groups so they can be treated badly in the Sabbat but then > so can any clan. Many vampiric groups within the World of Darkness are "organized as a clan". Most of these are not considered "clans", but rather as "bloodlines", because they are not one of the "13 Clans". But I'm not sure that Pander even qualify as a "bloodline". They are a "clan" only because the Sabbat recognizes them as such, but I imagine other sects would have other opinions. I have no real problem with the Pander being treated as a clan within V:tES, except that I would have preferred a 13-clan conceptualization, and a Pander Clan violates that. What I *would* prefer is that Pander be considered to be a sub-group of Caitiff (in addition to whatever else they are recognized as being). This allows cards that affect Caitiff to remain viable after inclusion of the Sabbat expansion. Caitiff hosers would not have too high an opportunity cost. It is also supportable by reference to the Sabbat insert, which refers to the Pander as a type of Caitiff. It's just one of those little steps that would help increase the interactivity of cards in the game, and enable one to construct playable decks with a smaller mixed collection. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980919013605.18563A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >What I *would* prefer is that Pander be considered to be a sub-group of >Caitiff (in addition to whatever else they are recognized as being). This >allows cards that affect Caitiff to remain viable after inclusion of the >Sabbat expansion. Caitiff hosers would not have too high an opportunity >cost. Clan hosers in general are crap, methinks. Even when there were only thirteen clans, how often did you put them in? Maybe a Malk Dementia but that's about it, in my experience. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: "Clan hosers in general are crap, methinks. Even when there were only thirteen clans, how often did you put them in? Maybe a Malk Dementia but that's about it, in my experience." Yah. As has been bandied about before, Clan Hosers were pretty much a bad idea from the get go, but now are even harder to use with the 20 Clans that there are. I am fairly certain that Lupus and I hashed this one out a while ago. The problem with Clan Hosers is that they are generally very powerful (Malk Dementia, Out of Control) but have a very high opportunity cost which should balance them out. However, if you know before a game what Clans your opponent is playing, and have the ability to include Clan Hosers to specifically screw him as a result, you are completely nullifying the opportunity cost of these cards, making them way too useful. Sure, Letter from Vienna isn't _that_ useful, but if you know there will be a Tremere in the game you are about to play and consequently add Letters from Vienna to your deck, they will be far more useful then they should be. Many players will chalk this up to "Punishing your friends for being too predictable", but it strikes me as just trying to solve strategy problems with Trump cards, which is never good for this game. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I burn my fingers, burn my toes Burn my uncle, burn his books" -Eno

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, James Coupe wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980919013605.18563A-100000@amanda>, Lupus > Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes > >What I *would* prefer is that Pander be considered to be a sub-group of > >Caitiff (in addition to whatever else they are recognized as being). This > >allows cards that affect Caitiff to remain viable after inclusion of the > >Sabbat expansion. Caitiff hosers would not have too high an opportunity > >cost. > > Clan hosers in general are crap, methinks. Even when there were only > thirteen clans, how often did you put them in? Maybe a Malk Dementia > but that's about it, in my experience. There were never only 13 clans. They jumped from 11 to 21 with the Sabbat expansion. But you are right, of course, about the too-high opportunity cost of clan hosers, which will not be fixed with a 13 clan conceptualization. Malk Dementia was useful in a 7-clan environment, but is dubious otherwise, unless you are playing a 9-player game, or know your enemies too well. But not all cards that effect Caitiff are hosers. Revelation of the Sire is a good card...I've used it effectively in one of my decks. However, it is possible that Caitiff hosers too might have found a place. No matter how many clans there are, there always will be a demand for 1-capacity minions. They can be used in almost any deck, and often are. Depending on the game enviroment, I could see Caitiff hosers possibly being effective....until, that is, the Sabbat expansion came along and created a situation where 1-capacity minions were not necessarily Caitiff. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980917221331.1553D-100000@amanda>, > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > So, you have 6 expansions of one clan and 8 expansions of clan/!clan > > > including Caitiff/Pander. > > > > This is a bad scheme. There are not enough Jyhad players to support such > > fragmented marketing scheme. Each expansion will have to be aimed at > > all possible V:tES players, not a tiny segment of the available pool. > > V:tES would have to be twice as popular as Magic to still make money off > > so narrowly focussed an expansion. > > But I think that some form of focuses expansion is the only way to go. > It doesn't have to be expansions dedicated only to one clan. Group clans > together that have similar disciplines. That's a nice suggestion, but how would you divide them? It is easier said than done, methinks. It's not as easy as "Alien Predator". I think that, with V:tES's small player base, any future expansion has to be designed so as to appeal to all players. This does not mean that it will not have some quantity of specialized cards, but that most cards will be designed so as to be of some general use. Most vampires fit this requirement. Some small few cards, for flavor, could be specific to a specialized sub-group. I have no problem with this provided it is kept to a minimum. Where appropriate however, cards that could reasonably have a wider applicability should be given one. There is no excuse for designing new cards like Gang Tactics or Steam Tunnels, and making them usable ONLY by Nosferatu Antitribu. Surely Camarilla Nossies can sometimes use gang tacktics and creep through steam tunnels as well, right? A determined effort should be made to avoid excessive specificity unless the flavor demands it. > > We are hoping against hope for one more expansion, and if we get it, it > > will have to be a good expansion that will sell well and appeal to all > > players, and help recruit new ones. The problem of fragmentation will > > have to be addressed if this is to be achieved. Die hard players will of > > course purchase box after box, until they have full sets of 40 separate > > clans/bloodlines and 30 separate disciplines...but who else will??? > > I'm not proposing going beyond the current clans....and I'm not even sure > you're saying I was. No, I was not saying you were. I was merely giving an exaggerated assessment of the sort of investment the ultimate "die hard" might be willing to make, and arguing that it is a mistake to assume that such die hards can support the game on their own. To a lesser extent, the argument applies also to 22 clans and 17 disciplines, or even 13 clans and 17 disciplines. This is daunting to new players. > > The greater the number of clans and disciplines, the greater the number of > > cards you need to purchase to be able to create a focussed deck. > > It would depend on your definition of focused. This is not an issue of > for Jyhad, but of all CCG's. This is true. Perhaps a word like "playable" would have been more appropriate than "focussed". Cards like "The Khabar: Honor" are simply not playable until you have made a significant investment in Ancient Hearts expansion, so that you have a fair number of Assamites and Contracts to play. Most clan-specific cards are not very playable if you do not put at least 4 of that clan in your crypt. > The more I think about it, the more > likely it is that even if there is another expansion, it is already > doomed. Why? When was the last time you saw V:tES starters or boosters > in a local game store? I haven't for a long time. With the hope of adding > new players to the game via a new expansion, how are they going to get > core cards unless they are included in the expansion? They are going > to have trouble finding the Blur's they need to actually make a Brujah > deck. Sure, this problem can be alleviated by suitcase players, but > new players aren't always going to have someone around to give them all > those commons they need to actually make a deck. > > So unless V:tES gets reprinted or there is enough stock of it already, > an expansion isn't going to have the effect of an increased player base. > We'll only continue to grow at a slow and steady rate. Whether it increases the "slowly growing" player base or not, a new expansion will sell better to that same player base if those players find they can use a goodly portion of the cards that they buy, rather than looking at them, sighing, and saying, "Oh, I guess I might be able to use that card someday when I finally get around to creating my Ventrue Anti-tribu deck." > > > Otherwise, why couldn't you just use their clan symbols, with and without > > > blood drop, to refer to them? > > > > Because you might want to indicate both, and might need a symbol to > > represent this. > > If you're talking about card requirements, this could go in the ample > space in the left border. I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that if a card is usable by both Brujah and Brujah Antitribu, it should have the symbols for both clans in the ample space mentioned? Without clarification, however, it is not self evident what 2 different requirement symbols would mean. If a card has both a Nosferatu symbol and an Animalism symbol in the requirement space, does this mean it requires a Nosferatu Vampire OR a vampire with animalism,... or that it requires a Nosferatu with Animalism? And how would you say it in the text section. Would you say "Choose a Nosferatu or a Nosferatu Antitribu". Or perhaps: "Choose a Nosferatu of any clan" to overcome the default assumption that it is only the Main Clan that is intended to be included. Or perhaps: "Choose a Nosferatu regardless of sect", which unfortunately would not work under the current rulings, in which each clan remains distinct from its antitribu regardless of sect, as when an Antitribu or Pander gains a writ of acceptance. The problem with the first option is that it would make it hard to express certain concepts in a general sense. Take the following: "As a directed action, enter combat with a vampire of the same clan but opposing sect". You all know what I mean by this instruction, but technically reading it according to current rules it's only appication would be to allow a Sabbat vampire to attack a member of the same Sabbat clan who had a writ of acceptance. The intent is to allow a Brujah to attack a Brujah Anti, or vice-versa, and so on and so on, but how would you word it? How about "...enter combat with a vampire of an opposing bloodline within the same clan", but that too is incorrect under current terminology, which does not recognize that opposing bloodlines ARE the same clan. > > > Because otherwise, why do you need the sect > > > distinctions? > > > > I don't understand your point. To my mind, the existence of sect > > distinctions makes it absolutely unnecessary to divide vampires into > > separate clans when they can just as easily be distinguished by sect. When > > a card designer wants to refer to only Camarilla Brujah, he can specify > > "Camarilla Brujah". If he wants to specify non-Sabbat Brujah, he can > > specify "Non-Sabbat Brujah" (assuming such things as Independent Brujah > > exist). > > Yes, they do. That's nice. If you were to incorporate them into V:tES, would that mean you would have to create a new clan, with its own derivative symbol and and waste expansion space printing a Hunting Ground Card for it? Seems to me it might be simpler just to use the words "Non-Camarilla" in the text section, and let it remain fully a Brujah for all that. > But we already have that confusion. I constantly have > to tell people that "Non-Camarilla" would have better been written as > "Independent." There are defaults in V:tES which are defined by the rules. The rules state that all vampires are Camarilla vampires, unless there is card text to the contrary. They further default that all "Non-Camarilla" vampires are Independent, unless card text indicates an alternate sect. In spite of this, the word "vampire" does not mean "Camarilla Vampire". When I am asked to choose a "vampire" by a library card, I can chose Independent and Sabbat vampires as well as Camarilla. Similarly, "Non-Camarilla" and "Independent" do not mean the same thing. Sabbat vampires are indeed "Non-Camarilla", and cards that effect "Non-Camarilla" vampires effect them as well. I would have liked that this same logic were to apply to clan designations such as "Brujah". Brujah are Camarilla, and of the primary (as opposed to the Antitribu) bloodline by default, unless there is indication to the contrary. But this is not how it works currently. > Just consider the clan symbols, both regular and Antitribu, > and the Sabbat label on the Antitribu redundant. The "Sabbat" label on the "Antitribu" is not redundant. A "Brujah Antitribu" without the "Sabbat" label would be a Camarilla vampire, and would have the same status as a Brujah Antitribu with a Writ of Acceptance. He still would not be a Brujah, just a Brujah-Antitribu who happens to be a member of the Camarilla. At least, that's the way it was last time I checked with LSJ. > > If he wants to indicate only Sabbat Brujah, he can do so by > > saying "Sabbat Brujah" or "Brujah Antitribu". And if he just says > > "Brujah", then it seems only logical that this should refer to everybody > > (Sabbat, Camarilla, and Independent) that is descended from the Brujah > > clan, regardless of their sect allegiance. > > To me, it is not always logical because of the way things started. If > the game had been designed from the get-go with all of the expansions > in mind, we wouldn't have these "problems." True. But these problems exist and now must be dealt with. For me, maintaining the interactibility and playabitlity of the cards is the most important consideration, with strict faithfulness to the WOD being strictly secondary. > > The current situation is much less convenient and versatile, while still > > being very wordy. If I want to indicate both clans, I must say "Gangrel > > or Gangrel Antitribu", and there is no symbol that I can use. > > Or you could print both clan symbols. There's no other way to do this > right now without making a sweeping change saying that all cards requiring > a clan can be used by both regular and antitribu. I do not think such a sweeping change would cause as many problems as you suspect. Overall, I suspect it would improve the game. There will always be some cards that are somewhat less appropriate under the proposed "same clan" interpretation, but they are outnumbered by those that are more appropriate, with the added bonus that the interactivity of cards is improved. > > If anything, the current system *encourages* the mixing of clan with > > anti-clan, so that you can make use of the best clan-specific cards from > > either sect. In this way, your Nosferatu deck can have TWO Hunting > > Grounds Cards, which do not contest eachother. > > I think this would depend on what kind of mix you are using. If I'm > only putting 2 Nosferatu in a Nos/!Nos deck, I'm not going to put any > Nosferatu only cards in it. The odds are just too great that I won't have > a Nosferatu. When I build my decks, they are prepared so that the only > time I ever discard is if I got a bad mix and handjammed on masters, drew > a second copy of a unique master, or need to draw a specific card. I > _never_ discard a playable card that is useless because I am careful to > not put cards that might be useless into my decks. > > > I think it would be alot more fitting if Nos and Anti-Nos were able to > > contest eachother's clan-specific cards. They inhabit much the same > > haunts, so why shouldn't they struggle for control of locations like > > Labyrinth or Storm Sewers. Surely an AntiNos can creep through Storm > > Sewers as well as a Camarilla Nos can. > > Ok, so what about Wasserschloss Anif, Austria. It requires Tremere > and benefits Tremere. How would you decide if it was usable by both > Tremere and !Tremere? As I have a little knowledge of the WOD, I would > say that it is only usable by Tremere because they control pretty much > all of Austria and southern Germany (you're sleeping Antideluvian kinda > requires that:). But how is someone who doesn't have that knowledge > going to make the same conclusion with any certainty? They can't. Well, this is one of the few cards where the "same clan" interpretation seems less appropriate than the "separate clan interpretation". As I have argued before, it is outnumbered by those cards where the "same clan" interpretation is more appropriate. But let me argue briefly for it's justification. In my opinion, each game of V:tES does not need to coincide exactly with the WOD reality. I imagine each Jyhad game as sweeping in scope, and manipulated by great powers. Depending on how the Methuselahs act to influence events, the world they create *might* correspond to the WOD setup, or it might not. Thus, that Austrian place *might* be controlled by the Camarilla Tremere, as it is in the WOD, or it might be controlled by the Antitribu (due to the manipulative influences of a powerful Methuselah. Similarly, the Ravnos *might* be an independent clan, as they are in the WOD, or they might be a Camarilla Clan throught the successful play of Ravnos Acceptance. The major problem with this card and a few other cards is that under a "same clan" ruling it would promote clan-anticlan cooperation. But clan-anticlan cooperation is already a problem which will need cards from a future expansion to remedy, so I don't think it can be put forth as a major objection. The problem already exists, and my proposal would not substantially increase it. > > Consider the following change: The term "Nosferatu" is henceforth thought > > of as referring to vampires of both sects, unless otherwise specified. > > But how often do you see the word Nosferatu used? I good number of times. -- Selma has extra intercept against Nossies. Methinks it would be more fitting if this were read to include her Sabbat enemies, and not merely her Camarilla friends. -- The Labyrinth: taps to give Nossies +1 stealth. If mr. Methuselah controls the Labyrinth, and a Nos-Anti, why can't he have his anti-Nos sneak through those tunnels as well? -- The Spawning Pool: tranfers blood from a Nossie you control onto the Spawning Pool. If this were also do-able with anti-Nossies, that might promote clan-anticlan cooperation, but that's not so much of a problem with the Nossies, as such cooperation is possible in the WOD setup. -- Nosferatu Putrescence: Lame hoser would be ever so slightly less lame if it could "putresce" anti-Nos as well as Nos. -- Patagia: Refers to the "acting Nosferatu". Is there any reason why Camarilla Nossies should be the only one's with access to "flaps allowing limited flight" -- Consanguinous Boon: Asks you to name a clan. If "Nosferatu" were named, then why not have it effect all nosferatu regardless of sect of clan? -- Consanguinous Condemnation: Asks you to name a clan to hose. Rarely used, it is now much less useful now that the Nosferatu deck you want to tap out is mixing Uglies with Evil-Uglies. I think it would be more appropriate if it affected both. -- Nosferatu Justicar: Asks you to "chose a ready Nosferatu" to gain the title. With the proposed change, Anti-Nos could be targeted as well, but only if they had a Writ of Acceptance due to the rulings on Camarilla Titles. More importantly, Anti Nos as well as Nos would each get an extra vote. Perhaps this might seem inappropriate to some, but it is hardly shocking in an environment where intersect influence on eachothers politics is already an inseperable part of the game. If you want to exclude the Anti-Nos, (not to mention Prisci and Cardinals) one could always play Closed Session. -- Nikolaus Vermeulen: Can move a blood to an uncontrolled Nos. If he could also do so to Anti-Nos, would that be a terrible thing? -- Sigrid Bekker: has +1 bleed against a prey with a ready Nosferatu. Her bonus reflects clan enmities, which should be just as applicable if the Nosferatu is also of an opposing sect. -- Whispers of the Niktuku: Nossie hoser. Maybe those scary Niktuku are also terrifying to the Sabbat Nossies? Why not? -- Destructive Secrets: Makes the target unable to block Nosferatu. Seems it might also make target unable to block Anti-Nos, especially if the secrets got shared somehow. -- Praxis Siezure: Brussels: Increases your capacity if you were a Nosferatu. This might now effect Anti-Nos, except he would need a writ of acceptance first, as non-camarilla vampires cannot call praxis siezures. -- Marcellus: His special ability inconveniences Nossies who perform political actions. Why not allow this also to effect Anti-Nossies. > And since KoKo > is Nosferatu, does that mean he's both Camarilla and Sabbat? No. All vampires are Camarilla by default, unless there is contrary text. > Or something > weird? For seasoned players, this isn't a problem. It's the newbies > that will have a problem with it. No. You just have to explain the rules to them. The rules state that the vampires you control will all be members of the Camarilla. As always, specific card text can override this rule. Similarly, the rules say that all bleeds must be directed against your prey and remove 1 pool, but card text again can alter this. > I like the separation of regular and antitribu. > New cards could be made > that refer to both, and new cards could be made to play up emnity between > both. Sure, that would be great, but you still have not helped much to create a terminology that would make this less horribly cumbersome. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > The "Sabbat" label on the "Antitribu" is not redundant. A "Brujah > Antitribu" without the "Sabbat" label would be a Camarilla vampire, and > would have the same status as a Brujah Antitribu with a Writ of > Acceptance. He still would not be a Brujah, just a Brujah-Antitribu who > happens to be a member of the Camarilla. At least, that's the way it was > last time I checked with LSJ. That is still the way it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980921215917.22531A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > But I think that some form of focuses expansion is the only way to go. > > It doesn't have to be expansions dedicated only to one clan. Group clans > > together that have similar disciplines. > > That's a nice suggestion, but how would you divide them? It is easier > said than done, methinks. It's not as easy as "Alien Predator". That is true. And some clans just aren't going to overlap. Tzimisce, Assamites, and Setites come to mind. > I think that, with V:tES's small player base, any future expansion has to > be designed so as to appeal to all players. This does not mean that it > will not have some quantity of specialized cards, but that most cards will > be designed so as to be of some general use. Most vampires fit this > requirement. It's a tricky situation really. I would think that other games have shown that people do like buying things that are focused on a sub-group. Reference L5R starters, Tempest starters (I think it was Tempest for MtG), and even the newer Battletech expansions. Of course, most of us that already play would probably just buy all of them. [ big snip of general agreement ] > Without clarification, however, it is not self evident what 2 different > requirement symbols would mean. If a card has both a Nosferatu symbol and > an Animalism symbol in the requirement space, does this mean it requires a > Nosferatu Vampire OR a vampire with animalism,... or that it requires a > Nosferatu with Animalism? Good point. There's still lots of room in that border, and something could be come up with. > And how would you say it in the text section. Would you say "Choose a > Nosferatu or a Nosferatu Antitribu". I think the clan symbols would be fine in place of the words. > The problem with the first option is that it would make it hard to express > certain concepts in a general sense. Take the following: "As a directed > action, enter combat with a vampire of the same clan but opposing sect". > You all know what I mean by this instruction, but technically reading it > according to current rules it's only appication would be to allow a Sabbat > vampire to attack a member of the same Sabbat clan who had a writ of > acceptance. The intent is to allow a Brujah to attack a Brujah Anti, or > vice-versa, and so on and so on, but how would you word it? How about > "...enter combat with a vampire of an opposing bloodline within the same > clan", but that too is incorrect under current terminology, which does not > recognize that opposing bloodlines ARE the same clan. I think you're getting into detail that is unnecessary. Do we really want cards that allow, say, a Ventrue to steal the votes of a Ventrue Antitribu? That's a pretty limited card. More limited than most clan hosers which this theoretical card would be. [ existence of indepenent Brujah affirmed ] > That's nice. If you were to incorporate them into V:tES, would that mean > you would have to create a new clan, with its own derivative symbol and > and waste expansion space printing a Hunting Ground Card for it? Seems to > me it might be simpler just to use the words "Non-Camarilla" in the text > section, and let it remain fully a Brujah for all that. I would agree that Non-Camarilla text (a poor choice of words by the DS and AH designers) would be best with the Brujah clan symbol. > There are defaults in V:tES which are defined by the rules. The rules > state that all vampires are Camarilla vampires, unless there is card text > to the contrary. They further default that all "Non-Camarilla" vampires > are Independent, unless card text indicates an alternate sect. > > In spite of this, the word "vampire" does not mean "Camarilla Vampire". > When I am asked to choose a "vampire" by a library card, I can chose > Independent and Sabbat vampires as well as Camarilla. > > Similarly, "Non-Camarilla" and "Independent" do not mean the same thing. > Sabbat vampires are indeed "Non-Camarilla", and cards that effect > "Non-Camarilla" vampires effect them as well. I've always thought that if a card referred to "Non-Camarilla" rather than "non-Camarilla" it referred only to those vampires labelled "Non-Camarilla." LSJ, can you straighten this out? This is the way I've always explained it to people. > I would have liked that this same logic were to apply to clan designations > such as "Brujah". Brujah are Camarilla, and of the primary (as > opposed to the Antitribu) bloodline by default, unless there is indication > to the contrary. But this is not how it works currently. The only way this is going to change is on new card printings. Unless you make a sweeping change that clan symbols and names refer to those of regular or antitribu descent, you have to introduce errata for every single card that should work for both. Plus, would it really be fair to those clans that would then have two Hunting Grounds or? True, people often combine both regular and antitribu in their crypt, but sometimes they don't. > > Just consider the clan symbols, both regular and Antitribu, > > and the Sabbat label on the Antitribu redundant. > > The "Sabbat" label on the "Antitribu" is not redundant. Which is why I said to "consider it as redundant" rather than saying that they are redundant. :) > A "Brujah > Antitribu" without the "Sabbat" label would be a Camarilla vampire, and > would have the same status as a Brujah Antitribu with a Writ of > Acceptance. He still would not be a Brujah, just a Brujah-Antitribu who > happens to be a member of the Camarilla. At least, that's the way it was > last time I checked with LSJ. This is true, and the way it should be. Brujah Antitribu are a technically separate bloodline from most Camarilla Brujah. There are some Camarilla Brujah Antitribu who have defected fromt he Sabbat and vice versa. When you get down to it, there are just several issues that WotC screwed up with the design of the Sabbat expansion. Making it standalone is what caused most of these problems. > > To me, it is not always logical because of the way things started. If > > the game had been designed from the get-go with all of the expansions > > in mind, we wouldn't have these "problems." > > True. But these problems exist and now must be dealt with. For me, > maintaining the interactibility and playabitlity of the cards is the most > important consideration, with strict faithfulness to the WOD being > strictly secondary. Unfortunately, without making sweeping changes to all cards that reference clans, we have to add errata to every single card that we want to have affect any Brujah. Here's a possible solution: Errata all Camarilla vampires to have Camarilla added to their text. Errata whatever cards that should only effect Camarilla clans to "Camarilla Brujah" or whatever. Still a tricky endeavor requiring a lot of extra errata. When the goal is to simplify the game, adding extra errata will only have the opposite effect. > I do not think such a sweeping change would cause as many problems as you > suspect. Overall, I suspect it would improve the game. There will always > be some cards that are somewhat less appropriate under the proposed "same > clan" interpretation, but they are outnumbered by those that are more > appropriate, with the added bonus that the interactivity of cards is > improved. But with your goal being to simplify the game, you're cancelling any such effect with the errata you have to add. > Well, this is one of the few cards where the "same clan" interpretation > seems less appropriate than the "separate clan interpretation". As I have > argued before, it is outnumbered by those cards where the "same clan" > interpretation is more appropriate. I think the margin would really be slim. And many cards would be difficult to determine if either side could use them. Spawning Pool - Sure, it could be played by both sides. But should it also benefit either side no matter which side played it? Tremere Convocation - The Sabbat are pretty leary of the Tremere Antitribu and their rituals. Would they want them having a big Convocation? Would it help !Tremere when it was played by Tremere? The emnity between the Tremere and !Tremere is extensive. Demonstration (!Ventrue card allowing tapping to cancel votes of a vampire) - Would Camarilla Ventrue really use it? This is one where I really have no clue if it should be allowed by both. Brujah Debate - The Sabbat Brujah really aren't very philosophical. Many Camarilla Brujah aren't either, but many elders are. > powers. Depending on how the Methuselahs act to influence events, the > world they create *might* correspond to the WOD setup, or it might not. I agree. But the initial setup is generally the same. > Thus, that Austrian place *might* be controlled by the Camarilla Tremere, > as it is in the WOD, or it might be controlled by the Antitribu (due to > the manipulative influences of a powerful Methuselah. But you could then extend the argument to make all cards playable by any Methuselah. After all, what's stopping a Methuselah from controlling an Art Museum even though he doesn't have any Toreador? Or what's stopping a Methuselah from spawning a Brujah Debate to tap some of those big Brujah? > -- Selma has extra intercept against Nossies. Methinks it would be more > fitting if this were read to include her Sabbat enemies, and not merely > her Camarilla friends. Maybe she has special contempt for her Camarilla people or has an information network that keeps her especially informed of their whereabouts. She doesn't have the same information on the Sabbat members of her clan. > -- The Labyrinth: taps to give Nossies +1 stealth. If mr. Methuselah > controls the Labyrinth, and a Nos-Anti, why can't he have his anti-Nos > sneak through those tunnels as well? Maybe the Nosferatu of the city where the Labyrinth is located do not allow the Sabbat Nosferatu to pass through their tunnels. > -- The Spawning Pool: tranfers blood from a Nossie you control onto the > Spawning Pool. If this were also do-able with anti-Nossies, that might > promote clan-anticlan cooperation, but that's not so much of a problem > with the Nossies, as such cooperation is possible in the WOD setup. But there'd have to be some pretty compelling reasons for the Nosferatu to do this. > -- Nosferatu Putrescence: Lame hoser would be ever so slightly less lame > if it could "putresce" anti-Nos as well as Nos. I've always wondered why being ugly made you hit softer.... > -- Patagia: Refers to the "acting Nosferatu". Is there any reason why > Camarilla Nossies should be the only one's with access to "flaps allowing > limited flight" Maybe the Sabbat Nosferatu don't know the methods for growing them. Maybe their bloodline is incapable of it. > -- Consanguinous Boon: Asks you to name a clan. If "Nosferatu" were > named, then why not have it effect all nosferatu regardless of sect of > clan? The Nosferatu and Nosferatu Antitribu are definitely not consanguinous. They are separate bloodlines. > -- Consanguinous Condemnation: Asks you to name a clan to hose. Rarely > used, it is now much less useful now that the Nosferatu deck you want to > tap out is mixing Uglies with Evil-Uglies. I think it would be more > appropriate if it affected both. See above. > -- Nosferatu Justicar: Asks you to "chose a ready Nosferatu" to gain the > title. With the proposed change, Anti-Nos could be targeted as well, but > only if they had a Writ of Acceptance due to the rulings on Camarilla > Titles. More importantly, Anti Nos as well as Nos would each get an extra > vote. Perhaps this might seem inappropriate to some, but it is hardly > shocking in an environment where intersect influence on eachothers > politics is already an inseperable part of the game. If you want to > exclude the Anti-Nos, (not to mention Prisci and Cardinals) one could > always play Closed Session. Once you get to Nosferatu Justicar, it gets really complex. > -- Nikolaus Vermeulen: Can move a blood to an uncontrolled Nos. If he > could also do so to Anti-Nos, would that be a terrible thing? Why would a Prince want to help you influence Sabbat vampires who would seek to usurp his power? > -- Sigrid Bekker: has +1 bleed against a prey with a ready Nosferatu. > Her bonus reflects clan enmities, which should be just as applicable if > the Nosferatu is also of an opposing sect. But would she have any knowledge or ability to know about the Sabbat Nosferatu you control and use that knowledge for extra effect? > -- Whispers of the Niktuku: Nossie hoser. Maybe those scary Niktuku are > also terrifying to the Sabbat Nossies? Why not? On the surface, they would not fear the Niktuku. Secretly, they may fear the Niktuku or might night. The effect would definitely not be the same as on Camarilla Nosferatu. > -- Destructive Secrets: Makes the target unable to block Nosferatu. > Seems it might also make target unable to block Anti-Nos, especially if > the secrets got shared somehow. Nosferatu are one of the few clans who get along with their Sabbat cousins to some extent. Whether they would share secrets is debatable. > -- Praxis Siezure: Brussels: Increases your capacity if you were a > Nosferatu. This might now effect Anti-Nos, except he would need a writ of > acceptance first, as non-camarilla vampires cannot call praxis siezures. Would whatever reason that gives a Nosferatu +1 capacity also affect a Nosferatu Antitribu? > -- Marcellus: His special ability inconveniences Nossies who perform > political actions. Why not allow this also to effect Anti-Nossies. Maybe because he has no experience or contact with them. > Sure, that would be great, but you still have not helped much to create a > terminology that would make this less horribly cumbersome. But in your attempt at a solution to make it less cumbersome (which I do not feel that it is), you are definitely going to make it more cumbersome unless every card that references a given clan or antitribu also references the opposite. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > I've always thought that if a card referred to "Non-Camarilla" rather > than "non-Camarilla" it referred only to those vampires labelled > "Non-Camarilla." LSJ, can you straighten this out? Non-Camarilla and non-Camarilla both refer to anything that it not in the Carmarilla. Capitalization is not important. > > -- Nosferatu Putrescence: [snip] > I've always wondered why being ugly made you hit softer.... Putrefy means decompose/rot. It isn't that he's becoming uglier - it's that he's decaying, becoming gangrenous, rotting, wasting away, decomposing or what have you. He may certainly become uglier in the process, but he also becomes weaker. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Greetings. Here's another long response. Please keep in mind that alot of what comes below is brainstorming, exploring various disparate proposals that are not entirely compatible with each other. On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980921215917.22531A-100000@amanda>, > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > > But I think that some form of focuses expansion is the only way to go. > > > It doesn't have to be expansions dedicated only to one clan. Group clans > > > together that have similar disciplines. > > > > That's a nice suggestion, but how would you divide them? It is easier > > said than done, methinks. It's not as easy as "Alien Predator". > > That is true. And some clans just aren't going to overlap. Tzimisce, > Assamites, and Setites come to mind. > > > I think that, with V:tES's small player base, any future expansion has to > > be designed so as to appeal to all players. This does not mean that it > > will not have some quantity of specialized cards, but that most cards will > > be designed so as to be of some general use. Most vampires fit this > > requirement. > > It's a tricky situation really. I would think that other games have > shown that people do like buying things that are focused on a sub-group. > Reference L5R starters, Tempest starters (I think it was Tempest for MtG), > and even the newer Battletech expansions. Of course, most of us that > already play would probably just buy all of them. Well, I'm willing to play with the idea: Charmers: Settites, Brujah, Toreador (Aus,Cel,Obf,Pot,Pre,Ser) Elites: Ventrue, Giovanni, Lasombra (Dom,For,Obt,Nec,Pot,Pre) Wierdos: Assamites, Malkavians, Tremere (Aus,Cel,Dom,Obf,Qui,Thau) Beastly Ones: Nosferatu, Ravnos, Gangrel (Ani,Chi,For,Obf,Pot,Pro) Sick Wierdos: Tzimisce, Anti-Malks, ? (Ani,Aus,Dem,Obf,Vic,?) Not bad, huh? Each group highlights 3 clans and 6 disciplines, except the last, which has only 2 and 5. Assamites fit well with the Malks and Tremere because Thaumaturgy is their most popular out-of-clan discipline, with Auspex a close second. For the Malks, Celerity often replaces Dominate, allowing the "Dancin Danas" to fit well with the Assamites as Celerity-Obfuscators. The problem is that this setup might discourage wierd sub-groupings like the City Gangrel, "Euro-Brujah", or any more of, say, Mirembe Kabbada's folk, none of which fit into any of the above 6-discipline setups. I'm still not sure the idea is viable though. [snip] > > And how would you say it in the text section. Would you say "Choose a > > Nosferatu or a Nosferatu Antitribu". > > I think the clan symbols would be fine in place of the words. That's not a defensible sentiment. Symbols must be verbally pronouncable, as well as typable as words. Let's not follow the precedent of That Artist Formerly Known as You-Know-Who. I can imagine internet discussions becoming quite awkward. > > The problem with the first option is that it would make it hard to express > > certain concepts in a general sense. Take the following: "As a directed > > action, enter combat with a vampire of the same clan but opposing sect". > > You all know what I mean by this instruction, but technically reading it > > according to current rules it's only appication would be to allow a Sabbat > > vampire to attack a member of the same Sabbat clan who had a writ of > > acceptance. The intent is to allow a Brujah to attack a Brujah Anti, or > > vice-versa, and so on and so on, but how would you word it? How about > > "...enter combat with a vampire of an opposing bloodline within the same > > clan", but that too is incorrect under current terminology, which does not > > recognize that opposing bloodlines ARE the same clan. > > I think you're getting into detail that is unnecessary. Do we really > want cards that allow, say, a Ventrue to steal the votes of a Ventrue > Antitribu? That's a pretty limited card. More limited than most clan > hosers which this theoretical card would be. Well, you have completely misunderstood me. I guess that just goes to prove my point that no vocabulary currently exists for what I was trying to express. I agree of course that the sort of card you mention is entirely too specific. That is why I am arguing the need for a vocabulary that would allow for the easier expression of broader generalizations. Let me try again..... Suppose I define a "Macro-clan" as including both a Primary Clan and its opposing Antitribu Clan, as well as any other bloodlines (from a theoretical future expansion) that might be derived from that Clan and include the primary Clan symbol against some other distinctive background. With this new terminology I could say "Do X to a vampire of the same Macro-clan as yourself". Without this terminology I would have to say, to express the same thing: "Do X to a vampire of the same clan as yourself; or if you are an Assamite, you may do X to an Assamite Antitribu; or if you are an Assamite Antitribu, you may do X to a Assamite; or if you are a Brujah, you may do X to a Brujah Antitribu; or if you are a Brujah Antitribu, you may do X to a Brujah; or if you are a Gangrel, you may do X to a Gangrel Antitribu; or if you are Gangrel Antitribu, you may do X to a Gangrel... ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ..................." [Three Clans down and Ten to go; I think you get the idea]" Another example. "Do X to a vampire who is of the same macro-clan, but of a different clan" Again, the above is almost inexpressible without terminology I just invented. You would need an entire page to define the conditions of use. These cards might not necessarily be hosers, as they might be usable on your own vampires. [snip stuff about defaults] > > I would have liked that this same logic were to apply to clan designations > > such as "Brujah". Brujah are Camarilla, and of the primary (as > > opposed to the Antitribu) bloodline by default, unless there is indication > > to the contrary. But this is not how it works currently. > > The only way this is going to change is on new card printings. Unless > you make a sweeping change that clan symbols and names refer to those > of regular or antitribu descent, you have to introduce errata for every > single card that should work for both. Why? What I suggested was that Brujah Antitribu *are* in fact Brujah, and can use *all* cards usable by Brujah. I am not suggesting the reverse (that any Brujah can use cards that specify the Brujah Antitribu bloodline.) This makes perfect sense to me, because Brujah Antitribu have the Brujah symbol printed right on them. Yes, I know it has this funny red background behind it (which when taken as a whole constitutes the symbol for the "Brujah Antitribu" bloodline), but you cannot deny that this is, undeniably, the exact same clan symbol. My proposal is that the sweeping changes that result be applied without exception, so there is no need for errata. I admit that this will not be entirely appropriate in all cases, but neither is the current situation. The sweeping changes *will* improve interactivity of cards. > Plus, would it really be fair > to those clans that would then have two Hunting Grounds or? Well, Gangrel Antitribu could use the Zoo Hunting Grounds, because Gangrel Antitribu *are* a type of Gangrel. However, a Gangrel that is not of the anti-tribu bloodline would not be able to use Campground Hunting Ground, because that cards specifies a specific bloodline of Gangrel: The Antitribu Bloodline. The depraved clans of the Sabbat would be the only ones that end up with 2 Hunting Grounds, and this is actually quite appropriate. Sabbat vampires are less inhibited and have more options when it comes to hunting, as they are not inhibitted by the masquerade, and less likely to be inhibited by considerations of morality. Being evil, corrupt and chaotic always gives you more options. An corrupt vampire can play at being moral, but it is difficult for a moral vampire to play at being corrupt without actually becoming corrupt in the process. The uncorrupt Gangrel feeds on Zoo Animals, and leaves the Boy Scouts alone. The Corrupt Anti-Gangrel can feed on Boy Scouts without hesitation, but nothing prevents him from snacking on Zoo Animals either, if he so chooses. > True, people > often combine both regular and antitribu in their crypt, but sometimes > they don't. OK. But I'm not sure what your point is here. > > > Just consider the clan symbols, both regular and Antitribu, > > > and the Sabbat label on the Antitribu redundant. > > > > The "Sabbat" label on the "Antitribu" is not redundant. > > Which is why I said to "consider it as redundant" rather than saying that > they are redundant. :) OK. But I'm still not sure precisely what you are proposing. > > A "Brujah > > Antitribu" without the "Sabbat" label would be a Camarilla vampire, and > > would have the same status as a Brujah Antitribu with a Writ of > > Acceptance. He still would not be a Brujah, just a Brujah-Antitribu who > > happens to be a member of the Camarilla. At least, that's the way it was > > last time I checked with LSJ. > > This is true, and the way it should be. Brujah Antitribu are a technically > separate bloodline from most Camarilla Brujah. There are some Camarilla > Brujah Antitribu who have defected fromt he Sabbat and vice versa. Well, I have no disagreement with you on this. I do not advocate that "Antitribu" be interpreted as meaning the same thing as "Sabbat". What I am advocating is that there be a flexible system of terminology that would allow you to refer to both Antitribu and Main Clan as a single group, or as separate groups, as desired. One idea: Perhaps "Nosferatu", when capitalized would refer to the Primary Clan only, whereas "nosferatu" without capitalization would refer to both. Perhaps then "nosferatu" could be represented (in a future expansion, say) by the clan symbol enclosed in a white-lined circle (symbolizing inclusion). However, I'm not sure I like distinctions that cannot be pronounced. To avoid confusion, when referring to "nosferatu", a new card might say "a nosferatu (of any bloodline)" or some such. > When you get down to it, there are just several issues that WotC screwed > up with the design of the Sabbat expansion. Making it standalone is what > caused most of these problems. I don't think it's "standalone" nature was the problem. > > > To me, it is not always logical because of the way things started. If > > > the game had been designed from the get-go with all of the expansions > > > in mind, we wouldn't have these "problems." > > > > True. But these problems exist and now must be dealt with. For me, > > maintaining the interactibility and playabitlity of the cards is the most > > important consideration, with strict faithfulness to the WOD being > > strictly secondary. > > Unfortunately, without making sweeping changes to all cards that reference > clans, we have to add errata to every single card that we want to have > affect any Brujah. > > Here's a possible solution: > > Errata all Camarilla vampires to have Camarilla added to their text. What would that accomplish? > Errata whatever cards that should only effect Camarilla clans to "Camarilla > Brujah" or whatever. I do not advocate errata at all. If it were ruled that the "Brujah" designation included both bloodlines, then we should let the chips fall where they may as far as previously printed cards are concerned. If this is unacceptable then the idea should be abandonned. [snip] > But with your goal being to simplify the game, you're cancelling any such > effect with the errata you have to add. See above. > > Well, this is one of the few cards where the "same clan" interpretation > > seems less appropriate than the "separate clan interpretation". As I have > > argued before, it is outnumbered by those cards where the "same clan" > > interpretation is more appropriate. > > I think the margin would really be slim. And many cards would be difficult > to determine if either side could use them. Again, I am not advocating any individual determination. The new ruling would be applied without exception, even if it does not seem totally appropriate in all cases. > Spawning Pool - Sure, it could be played by both sides. But should it also > benefit either side no matter which side played it? Why not? If a powerful Methuselah is manipulating both vampires, as well as in control of the Spawning pool, he ought to be able to make the necessary arrangements. This problem already exists with the Hunting Grounds Cards, and many others. If you want to discourage clan-anticlan cooperation this will require cards from a future expansion. > Tremere Convocation - The Sabbat are pretty leary of the Tremere Antitribu > and their rituals. Would they want them having a big Convocation? Would > it help !Tremere when it was played by Tremere? The emnity between the > Tremere and !Tremere is extensive. Good One! But I'll give it a shot anyway.... If a powerful Methuselah controls vampires of both Sects, and arranges a Convocation by one sect, he might well arange for it to be attended by spies of the other. Of course, they each think they are working against eachother, when the controlling Methuselah is actually arranging things for his own ends. > Demonstration (!Ventrue card allowing tapping to cancel votes of a vampire) - > Would Camarilla Ventrue really use it? This is one where I really have no > clue if it should be allowed by both. Not applicable to my proposal. A non-antitribu cannot use a card that specifies that it requires an antitribu, even under my proposal. > Brujah Debate - The Sabbat Brujah really aren't very philosophical. Many > Camarilla Brujah aren't either, but many elders are. > > powers. Depending on how the Methuselahs act to influence events, the > > world they create *might* correspond to the WOD setup, or it might not. > > I agree. But the initial setup is generally the same. What "initial setup"? In the initial setup, no cards have been played yet. By the time the first master card is played, the Antidiluvians may already be awake! By the time the first minion card is played, the Settites may be Camarilla, possibly before any Settites even enter play! What's the difference? > > Thus, that Austrian place *might* be controlled by the Camarilla Tremere, > > as it is in the WOD, or it might be controlled by the Antitribu (due to > > the manipulative influences of a powerful Methuselah. > > But you could then extend the argument to make all cards playable by > any Methuselah. No you couldn't. Because to do this, you would have to *violate* card text rather than merely effecting a reasonable alternate interpretation of card text. > After all, what's stopping a Methuselah from controlling > an Art Museum even though he doesn't have any Toreador? Because the card requires a Toreador. This could reasonably be interpreted as requiring a Toreador of either bloodline. By no logic can it be interpreted as requiring no Toreador at all. > Or what's stopping > a Methuselah from spawning a Brujah Debate to tap some of those big > Brujah? See above. > > -- Selma has extra intercept against Nossies. Methinks it would be more > > fitting if this were read to include her Sabbat enemies, and not merely > > her Camarilla friends. > > Maybe she has special contempt for her Camarilla people or has an information > network that keeps her especially informed of their whereabouts. She > doesn't have the same information on the Sabbat members of her clan. We could go on forever like this. I am merely pointing out that the alternate interpretation is perfectly acceptable in the majority of cases. Your argument is also acceptable, but less interactive. Selma's ability is not very interesting or game enhancing if she never gets to use it. > > -- The Labyrinth: taps to give Nossies +1 stealth. If mr. Methuselah > > controls the Labyrinth, and a Nos-Anti, why can't he have his anti-Nos > > sneak through those tunnels as well? > > Maybe the Nosferatu of the city where the Labyrinth is located do not > allow the Sabbat Nosferatu to pass through their tunnels. That would probably depend on the desires of the Methuselah manipulating them. Anyway, see above. > > -- The Spawning Pool: tranfers blood from a Nossie you control onto the > > Spawning Pool. If this were also do-able with anti-Nossies, that might > > promote clan-anticlan cooperation, but that's not so much of a problem > > with the Nossies, as such cooperation is possible in the WOD setup. > > But there'd have to be some pretty compelling reasons for the Nosferatu > to do this. Hows this for a reason: THEY ARE ALL BEING SECRETLY MANIPULATED BY THE SAME METHUSELAH. If the Methuselah wants the information shared, he can arrange it, and the vampires in question might or might not know how or even if the information got transfered. > > -- Patagia: Refers to the "acting Nosferatu". Is there any reason why > > Camarilla Nossies should be the only one's with access to "flaps allowing > > limited flight" > > Maybe the Sabbat Nosferatu don't know the methods for growing them. > Maybe their bloodline is incapable of it. Maybe, but unless you know this to be the case in the WOD (as apparently you do not), it is not much of an objection. > > -- Consanguinous Boon: Asks you to name a clan. If "Nosferatu" were > > named, then why not have it effect all nosferatu regardless of sect of > > clan? > > The Nosferatu and Nosferatu Antitribu are definitely not consanguinous. > They are separate bloodlines. Well, I'll have to defer to what I presume to be superior knowledge of the meaning of the word "consanguinous" within the WOD. I thought it might reasonably mean "same clan" in the expanded sense of the word, or that there might be varying degrees of consanguinuity. Are you sure I am wrong? > > -- Consanguinous Condemnation: Asks you to name a clan to hose. Rarely > > used, it is now much less useful now that the Nosferatu deck you want to > > tap out is mixing Uglies with Evil-Uglies. I think it would be more > > appropriate if it affected both. > > See above. Ditto. > > -- Nosferatu Justicar: Asks you to "chose a ready Nosferatu" to gain the > > title. With the proposed change, Anti-Nos could be targeted as well, but > > only if they had a Writ of Acceptance due to the rulings on Camarilla > > Titles. More importantly, Anti Nos as well as Nos would each get an extra > > vote. Perhaps this might seem inappropriate to some, but it is hardly > > shocking in an environment where intersect influence on eachothers > > politics is already an inseperable part of the game. If you want to > > exclude the Anti-Nos, (not to mention Prisci and Cardinals) one could > > always play Closed Session. > > Once you get to Nosferatu Justicar, it gets really complex. Not really. We already accept that Sabbat and Camarilla (somehow) influence eachothers politics within the larger world stage. After all, the Ayatollah Khomeini "voted" for Ronald Reagan in '76, though not, of course, by overtly expressing his support. We need not explain all the Machiavellian details in order to play the cards and follow their instructions. > > -- Nikolaus Vermeulen: Can move a blood to an uncontrolled Nos. If he > > could also do so to Anti-Nos, would that be a terrible thing? > > Why would a Prince want to help you influence Sabbat vampires who would > seek to usurp his power? Because the Prince is being manipulated by a powerful Methuselah. He believes he is manipulating other Sabbat Nossies for his own ends (gaining their secrets or whatever), when actually his efforts are (somehow) serving to bring those Sabbat nossies under the control of the manipulating Methuselah. > > -- Sigrid Bekker: has +1 bleed against a prey with a ready Nosferatu. > > Her bonus reflects clan enmities, which should be just as applicable if > > the Nosferatu is also of an opposing sect. > > But would she have any knowledge or ability to know about the Sabbat > Nosferatu you control and use that knowledge for extra effect? That would depend on whether my proposed ruling were adopted. If it were, then the answer is "yes"; if not, then "no". Either way is reasonable. However, my way makes her ability more interactive, and therefore more interesting, as it stands a slightly less insignificant chance of being relevant to the game. > > -- Whispers of the Niktuku: Nossie hoser. Maybe those scary Niktuku are > > also terrifying to the Sabbat Nossies? Why not? > > On the surface, they would not fear the Niktuku. Secretly, they may > fear the Niktuku or might night. The effect would definitely not be the > same as on Camarilla Nosferatu. Those Niktuku are not going to have *any* effect on the Camarilla Nosferatu if nobody plays the card. And nobody will, if it effects only one clan out of 22. Two clans out of 22 makes it slightly less marginal, though still hardly worth playing. > > -- Destructive Secrets: Makes the target unable to block Nosferatu. > > Seems it might also make target unable to block Anti-Nos, especially if > > the secrets got shared somehow. > > Nosferatu are one of the few clans who get along with their Sabbat cousins > to some extent. Whether they would share secrets is debatable. Again, if the same Methuselah controlled them both, they did not want to share secrets, their Methuselah could easily share it for them. If the Methuselah has access to the information he can spread it as he chooses. > > -- Praxis Siezure: Brussels: Increases your capacity if you were a > > Nosferatu. This might now effect Anti-Nos, except he would need a writ of > > acceptance first, as non-camarilla vampires cannot call praxis siezures. > > Would whatever reason that gives a Nosferatu +1 capacity also affect > a Nosferatu Antitribu? Only if the proposal is implemented. > > -- Marcellus: His special ability inconveniences Nossies who perform > > political actions. Why not allow this also to effect Anti-Nossies. > > Maybe because he has no experience or contact with them. If the proposal is not implemented, then evidently not. If it is, then apparently he does. > > Sure, that would be great, but you still have not helped much to create a > > terminology that would make this less horribly cumbersome. > > But in your attempt at a solution to make it less cumbersome (which I > do not feel that it is), you are definitely going to make it more cumbersome > unless every card that references a given clan or antitribu also references > the opposite. I see nothing cumbersome in the concept that a Nosferatu Antitribu is a sort of Nosferatu, especially when he has the Nosferatu symbol printed on him (against a red background that also indicates a Sabbat-altered bloodline). I have never argued that the Antitribu designation include non-Antitribu, as that would be a clear contradiction. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > The only point I want to contribute to this thread is that Sabbat is rather a > good stand-alone game, and that as such it plays somewhat differently from > Jyhad/VTES - much bloodier and [usually] quicker. I'll have to take your word on the merits of a Sabbat-only game, as I have never tried it. However, I would like to point out that Sabbat, as a stand-alone, suffers from many of the problems I have already discussed. It is so fragmented that one must buy much greater quantities before one has a chance to make a playable deck. This problem is a direct result of the division into 10 different clans and 13 different disciplines, and the need to print clan/discipline specific cards to fill them out, leaving little room for non-specific (clanless/disciplineless) cards that might be playable in a non-focussed deck. Imagine a sealed deck tournament where you had an option of playing either Sabbat or Camarilla. The Camarilla player must construct his deck out of a single Jyhad starter pack and 3 boosters (133 cards), whereas the Sabbat player uses 5 Sabbat boosters (140 cards). The Sabbat player has the advantage in card numbers, but I bet he'll have a much harder time constructing a playable deck. His cards will be scattered amongst too many clans and disciplines, and he will have too few "General Use" cards to fill in the gap. This is an experiment I would love to try. I'd bet good money that the Sabbat decks would be hosed by the Jyhad Decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980922201934.6817A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >I have never argued that the Antitribu designation include >non-Antitribu, as that would be a clear contradiction. So why argue that the non-Antitribu version should include the Antitribu? The Sabbat expansion was obviously not designed with that intention since it goes to great pains to point out that they are not the same clan and cannot interact. For my money, the problem with playing straight Anti-clan is not the lack of cards to play just for that clan, but simply that they don't have the vampires to play. Allowing them to play each others cards would mean that it is much easier to play the cards when you mix and match, but why not just give them more vampires so you don't have to mix and match, unless you want to? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980922201934.6817A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > Greetings. Here's another long response. Please keep in mind that alot > of what comes below is brainstorming, exploring various disparate > proposals that are not entirely compatible with each other. Disparity is fun. If everything were in parity, it'd be darn boring. :) > Well, I'm willing to play with the idea: > > Charmers: Settites, Brujah, Toreador (Aus,Cel,Obf,Pot,Pre,Ser) > Elites: Ventrue, Giovanni, Lasombra (Dom,For,Obt,Nec,Pot,Pre) > Wierdos: Assamites, Malkavians, Tremere (Aus,Cel,Dom,Obf,Qui,Thau) > Beastly Ones: Nosferatu, Ravnos, Gangrel (Ani,Chi,For,Obf,Pot,Pro) > Sick Wierdos: Tzimisce, Anti-Malks, ? (Ani,Aus,Dem,Obf,Vic,?) > > Not bad, huh? Each group highlights 3 clans and 6 disciplines, except > the last, which has only 2 and 5. Very nice, I must say. > I'm still not sure the idea is viable though. I think it's a lot more viable than printing an expansion that tries to cover even a majority of clans and/or disciplines is going to be too big or just suck because of the number of cards people don't want. So for instance, my current playing decks include: Setite - Corruption with S&B Assamites - with Disguised Weapons for maneuvers Cel / Tha - boy this one is fun, but doesn't win often Aus / Pre / Cel / Pot - great when it gets down to three players Lasombra - Political S&B weenie vote So the disciplines I use are Ser, Obf, Pre, Cel, Aus, Qui, Pot, Obt, Dom, and Obt. If I'm not interested in the others, I only have 3 expansions to collect. Being a devout player, I'd collect them all, but someone who's on limited funds could go for only the sets they really want. > That's not a defensible sentiment. Symbols must be verbally pronouncable, > as well as typable as words. Let's not follow the precedent of That Artist > Formerly Known as You-Know-Who. I can imagine internet discussions > becoming quite awkward. Well, you have a phrase that the symbol means. Kind of like the (D) symbol meaning directed action. Or all the discipline symbols meaning what they mean. > Suppose I define a "Macro-clan" as including both a Primary Clan > and its opposing Antitribu Clan, as well as any other bloodlines (from a > theoretical future expansion) that might be derived from that Clan and > include the primary Clan symbol against some other distinctive background. Ok, here's this for a try. For each clan, they are descended from one Antideluvian with a few exceptions. Your new symbol stands for the descendents of that Antideluvian. These symbols are strikingly similar to the clan symbols. So such-and-such card is usable against the Descendents of Triole (if I remember right). These are all the Brujah. Of course, there's some other blood in there, but their all essentially descended from Triole. > "Do X to a vampire who is of the same macro-clan, but of a different clan" "Do X to a vampire who is a Descendent of Triole but not of the same clan." [ big snip through our tit for tat on reasoning cards usable by Nosferatu and !Nosferatu ] My main point was that for every reason one of us can come up with for either side to be able to use a card, the other can come up with a counter reason. So in the next expansion(s), you introduce no new clans. You do, however, introduce the Descendents concept. However, trying to fix the round peg of the current card set into the square hole of your proposed desegregation of the clans, is unnecessary and difficult IMHO. With your next set, the Antedeluvians are awakening, and they're hungry. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, James Coupe wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980922201934.6817A-100000@amanda>, Lupus > Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes > >I have never argued that the Antitribu designation include > >non-Antitribu, as that would be a clear contradiction. > > So why argue that the non-Antitribu version should include the > Antitribu? I did not argue that "non-Antitribu" should include "Antitribu". That would be a contradiction in terms. I suggested, rather, than when a group is referred to, it be assumed to refer to both bloodlines (or both clans, if they remain defined as such) unless the "non-Antitribu" bloodline (or clan) is specified. It would still be possible, in a hypothetical future expansion, to still specify "non-Antitribu" much as the Sabbat cards now specify Antitribu. If you do not like that idea, then my alternate suggestion is that terminology allows reference to both bloodlines simultaneously be devised for a hypothetical future expansion -- to preserve the interactivity that causes problems for expansions. You could still be as specific as you like when it is more appropriate for flavor. There are two basic options, now that the Sabbat has introduced the concept of two opposing clans within each major grouping. Option A) Allow the old term to refer to both clans within that grouping, and invent a new term that specifies original clan only, or Option B) The old term refers to the original clan only. Invent a new term to refer to the larger grouping. Here's an example of Option A: "Nosferatu": A larger set that refers to members of both clans. "Nosferatu Proper": The original clan, excluding those with the Antitribu designation. "Nosferatu Antitribu": The Antitribu clan, including only those vampires with the Antitribu designation. Here's an example of Option B: "nosferatu (of any clan)" (not capitalized): A larger set that includes members of both clans. "Nosferatu": The original clan, excluding those with the Antitribu designation. "Nosferatu Antitribu": The Antitribu clan, including only those vampires with the Antitribu designation. Option A would, of course, result in a reinterpretation of all clan-specific cards printed prior to the Sabbat, such that the Antitribu vampires could use them as well. Option A has the advantage of making many clan-specific cards more interactive and potentially relevant. Another advantage is that the terminology used is now consistent with many card titles like "Nosferatu Kingdom". A disadvantage is that many of the cards so effected might seem less approprtiate from a story background POV. Also, an imbalance of priviledges would be created with the Sabbat, at least until a future expansion printed some "Non-Antitribu"-specific cards. Option B: would only effect a future expansion. > The Sabbat expansion was obviously not designed with that > intention since it goes to great pains to point out that they are not > the same clan and cannot interact. I agree about the intentions of the Sabbat. I am arguing that that was, at least in part, a mistake, which has unnecessarily fragmented the game, reduced card interactivity, etc. The fact that they are "not the same clan" does not prevent there being a word to refer to both simultaneously, or a card that describes the larger sub-group. I cannot imagine there being any rule that forbids them from interacting, in game terms. Please provide a quote. > For my money, the problem with playing straight Anti-clan is not the > lack of cards to play just for that clan, but simply that they don't > have the vampires to play. Allowing them to play each others cards > would mean that it is much easier to play the cards when you mix and > match, but why not just give them more vampires so you don't have to mix > and match, unless you want to? I am all for giving them more vampires, and this is one of the reasons why the proliferation of clans is a problem. No expansion will have enough space to adequately expand all of the clans. This is part and parcel of the same problem already discussed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 mboh...@shout.net wrote: > I think it's a lot more viable than printing an expansion that tries > to cover even a majority of clans and/or disciplines is going to be > too big or just suck because of the number of cards people don't want. > > So for instance, my current playing decks include: > Setite - Corruption with S&B > Assamites - with Disguised Weapons for maneuvers > Cel / Tha - boy this one is fun, but doesn't win often > Aus / Pre / Cel / Pot - great when it gets down to three players > Lasombra - Political S&B > weenie vote > > So the disciplines I use are Ser, Obf, Pre, Cel, Aus, Qui, Pot, Obt, Dom, > and Obt. If I'm not interested in the others, I only have 3 expansions > to collect. Being a devout player, I'd collect them all, but someone > who's on limited funds could go for only the sets they really want. > [snip] > > Suppose I define a "Macro-clan" as including both a Primary Clan > > and its opposing Antitribu Clan, as well as any other bloodlines (from a > > theoretical future expansion) that might be derived from that Clan and > > include the primary Clan symbol against some other distinctive background. > > Ok, here's this for a try. For each clan, they are descended from one > Antideluvian with a few exceptions. Your new symbol stands for the > descendents of that Antideluvian. I like this as a concept behind the wider groupings. But I'm not sure the terminology for the groupings should be directly based on this concept. The terminology should be as self-evident and self-explanatory as possible, and one should not need to be an expert in WOD lore to know who is being included when you refer to a "Descendent of So-And-So" I'm not saying I like the word "Macro-Clan", but I can't think of anything better at the moment. We need something that is less of a mouthful than "Descendents of the Same Antediluvian". Also there are, as you say, exceptions. How would you deal with them? Are the Giovanni descended from a particular Anti-diluvian? On this subject I need more guidance from someone with WOD knowledge. Out of curiosity, does anyone know the names of the Antediluvian ancestors of each clan? Also, what terminology would you use to refer to Caitiff and Pander as a single group? The "Antediluvian Descent" concept is hard to apply here. > These symbols are strikingly similar > to the clan symbols. Agreed...such as the basic clan symbol within a white circle, or something. Also, the basic clan symbol should be included in any future bloodlines that might be printed. For instance, if one were to print a few Ahrimanes, their bloodline symbol should have a small Gangrel symbol superimposed to designate their "macro-clan", just as it is on the Antitribu. > So such-and-such card is usable against the > Descendents of Triole (if I remember right). These are all the Brujah. > Of course, there's some other blood in there, but their all essentially > descended from Triole. OK, but this system of terminology seems to require that one remember the names of the 13 Antediluvians and relate them to each clan name and clan symbol. Could get confusing. > > "Do X to a vampire who is of the same macro-clan, but of a different clan" > > "Do X to a vampire who is a Descendent of Triole but not of the same clan." OK, but that is not a correct translation. I was aiming at something broader. I presume the correct translation, under your terminology would be: "Do X to a vampire who is a Descendant of the same Antediluvian, but not of the same clan" Still seems a little clumsy. "common Antediluvian descent" is not much better. Dammit, where's a thesaurus when you need one! > So in the next expansion(s), you introduce no new clans. You do, however, > introduce the Descendents concept. Fine. Anyone else like this idea? > However, trying to fix the round > peg of the current card set into the square hole of your proposed > desegregation of the clans, is unnecessary and difficult IMHO. I'm willing to surrender on this point. I still find it regrettable that so many cards are more specific than they need to be, but messing with the status quo would only get people confused and upset. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > -- Patagia: Refers to the "acting Nosferatu". Is there any reason why > > Camarilla Nossies should be the only one's with access to "flaps allowing > > limited flight" > > Maybe the Sabbat Nosferatu don't know the methods for growing them. > Maybe their bloodline is incapable of it. > > -- Consanguinous Boon: Asks you to name a clan. If "Nosferatu" were > > named, then why not have it effect all nosferatu regardless of sect of > > clan? > > The Nosferatu and Nosferatu Antitribu are definitely not consanguinous. > They are separate bloodlines. Actually, as someone with a lot of experience in WoD I would like to state that the above statement is false...They are not different bloodlines they are different sects...not all Antitribu are descended from the same person (Aside from their antideluvian which they share with all members Camarilla or Sabbat) I get my Information from all of the clanbooks, the players guide to the sabbat, and the storytellers guide to the sabbat. (and dirty secrets of the black hand) Hence, I do not see any reason why the two branches of the same bloodline cannot use the same cards. The only exception I can think of is if the card specifies Antitribu or camarilla Thank you for reading, i hope this either helps settle the arguments, or provides some good amunition to be used

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980923021145.10515A-100000@amanda>, [ quoted text not captured ] > Lupus Australis > ____ ____ > \ \----/ / > |()__()| > __\ __ /__ > / __\()/__ \ > |/ \==/ \| > | || | > As a friend, I'd advise you against that bet! I have played in 2 Sabbat and 1 VTES sealed-deck tournaments and won them all. And virtually all the sabbat decks i've seen were better than the VTES sealed decks. Not that your logic isn't good - what makes the difference is that most of the Sabbat vampires are all a Bit Good compared to similarly-priced VTES vamps, and that combat cards generally are commoner in Sabbat than in VTES. This more than makes up for the suckiness of the Sabbat voting system. Additionally, Sabbat masters are rather spendid. Still, all that is my subjective experience, and as i keep saying, we need to move on from this to real scientific approaches to card power ... and in this spirit i enthusiastically endorse your suggestion for an experiment! [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > I like this as a concept behind the wider groupings. But I'm not sure the > terminology for the groupings should be directly based on this concept. > The terminology should be as self-evident and self-explanatory as > possible, and one should not need to be an expert in WOD lore to know who > is being included when you refer to a "Descendent of So-And-So" > > I'm not saying I like the word "Macro-Clan", but I can't think of anything > better at the moment. We need something that is less of a mouthful than > "Descendents of the Same Antediluvian". Then how about making up some terms: Cousin: Member of the same "macro-clan" (or however you want to define that), but not of the same clan. Family: Of the same "macro-clan". (Note: I do not address the need for or utility of such concepts, just trying to offer some advice on how to implement the concepts.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | How you do anything is http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | how you do everything. Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | [ quoted text not captured ]

(Regarding the relative merits of sealed Jyhad and sealed Sabbat decks) Hmm. You may be right, Legbiter. I was starting to have second thoughts about what I had said, I started comparing the lists of commons from both sets (as opposed to the entire set), as I realized that these will be the biggest factor in any sealed deck game. To assist in my analysis, can anyone provide me a breakdown of the Sabbat cards by rarity? I believe Jyhad (per booster) is 4 vamps, 1 rare, 3 uncommons, 11 commons. and per starter is about 16 vamps, 2 rares, 12 uncommons, 46 commons [ quoted text not captured ] > > Lupus Australis > > ____ ____ > > \ \----/ / > > |()__()| > > __\ __ /__ > > / __\()/__ \ > > |/ \==/ \| > > | || | > > > > As a friend, I'd advise you against that bet! I have played in 2 Sabbat and 1 > VTES sealed-deck tournaments and won them all. And virtually all the sabbat > decks i've seen were better than the VTES sealed decks. Not that your logic > isn't good - what makes the difference is that most of the Sabbat vampires > are all a Bit Good compared to similarly-priced VTES vamps, and that combat > cards generally are commoner in Sabbat than in VTES. This more than makes up > for the suckiness of the Sabbat voting system. Additionally, Sabbat masters > are rather spendid. Still, all that is my subjective experience, and as i > keep saying, we need to move on from this to real scientific approaches to > card power ... and in this spirit i enthusiastically endorse your suggestion > for an experiment! > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum > > Lupus Australis [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980923232542.23507A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > I like this as a concept behind the wider groupings. But I'm not sure the > terminology for the groupings should be directly based on this concept. > The terminology should be as self-evident and self-explanatory as > possible, and one should not need to be an expert in WOD lore to know who > is being included when you refer to a "Descendent of So-And-So" > I'm not saying I like the word "Macro-Clan", but I can't think of anything > better at the moment. We need something that is less of a mouthful than > "Descendents of the Same Antediluvian". Well, let's go from the concept. My imagination seems to be sapped this morning because I'm having trouble thinking of good alternatives. > Also there are, as you say, exceptions. How would you deal with them? > Are the Giovanni descended from a particular Anti-diluvian? On this > subject I need more guidance from someone with WOD knowledge. Out of > curiosity, does anyone know the names of the Antediluvian ancestors of > each clan? There's a really cool WoD geneaology page that lists out the geneaology of all the vampires mentioned in the various books. http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/granboul/Vampire/WhiteWolf/Genealogy/ Assamites - Their Antediluvian, Haquim, still lives in Alamut. Brujah - There were two branches from the one called Brujah. Troile, one of his progeny, diablerised him and is the source the Brujah we currently have in the card game. There are also True Brujah. Giovanni - Augustus diablerised the Cappodacian Antediluvian. There are no Giovanni that aren't part of the clan because they only Embrace mortal Giovanni family members. Gangrel - Their Antediluvian, Ennoia, is the progenitor of the Rom Gypsies. Lasombra - With the help of the early Sabbat, Gratiano "killed" his sire, the Lasombra Antediluvian. Malkavians - Malkav, twin of the Toreador Antediluvian. Sleeps in Petra or under Jerusalem Nosferatu - Absimilliard, their Ante, Blood Bound all of his Progeny, the Nicktuku, except one who started the rest of the clan. Ravnos - Supposedly started by a gypsy who sold her secrets for immortality. Tremere - Tremere used magic to become vampires. Tremere, the vampire, diablerised Saulot, Antediluvian of the Salubri, to become an Antediluvian. Now lies in Torpor in the Vienna chantry, guarded by Etrius. Setites - Founded by Set who may now lie under the Egyptian desert. Toreador - Founded by Arikel, twin of Malkav. Tzimisce - Tzimisce is maybe dead, maybe living. Ventrue - Founded by Veddartha, possibly destroyed by Brujah. > Also, what terminology would you use to refer to Caitiff and Pander as a > single group? The "Antediluvian Descent" concept is hard to apply here. They wouldn't apply. They are truly clanless because they are so far descended from Caine, no one knows what clan they should be members of. That's why you see so many different disciplines. The Pander, however, gained clan recognition in the Sabbat as lead by Joseph Pander. > Also, the basic clan symbol should be included in any future bloodlines > that might be printed. For instance, if one were to print a few > Ahrimanes, their bloodline symbol should have a small Gangrel symbol > superimposed to designate their "macro-clan", just as it is on the > Antitribu. Yep. > OK, but this system of terminology seems to require that one remember the > names of the 13 Antediluvians and relate them to each clan name and clan > symbol. Could get confusing. It could be done like they started printing cards after Jyhad. Put the Descendent symbol next to the full text. So, you'd see the Descendents of Lasombra symbol next to "Descendents of Lasombra." You can always refer to them with these three words. "Choose one Descendent of X." "All Descendents of X." "For every ready Descendent of X." Keep in mind that any other kind of reference might often require more words to use. Like if you decided on "Lasombra's Bloodline." On its own, it is pretty short. But you have to say "Choose one vampire who is of Lasombra's Bloodline." "All members of Lasombra's Bloodline." "For every member of Lasombra's Bloodline." etc. > Still seems a little clumsy. "common Antediluvian descent" is not much > better. Dammit, where's a thesaurus when you need one! There's got to be one somewhere on the web. :) > I'm willing to surrender on this point. I still find it regrettable that > so many cards are more specific than they need to be, but messing with the > status quo would only get people confused and upset. Hehehe, I think we all have seen that. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3609E3AE...@worldnet.att.net>, JASON MARKS <akhe...@worldnet.att.net> writes > I get my Information from all of the clanbooks, the players guide > to the sabbat, and the storytellers guide to the sabbat. (and dirty > secrets of the black hand) > > Hence, I do not see any reason why the two branches of the same > bloodline cannot use the same cards. > But the "clans" (divisions thereof) are quite different to one another in many cases. Assamite Antitribu have a completely different clan flaw to their non-Antitribu counter-parts. Why do the Assamites not have that clan flaw *as well* as their inability to commit diablerie? The Ventrue Antitribu have different disciplines from the non-Sabbat Ventrue, emphasising the difference there. The Gangrel Antitribu are, perhaps, the most telling clan. They have *EVOLVED* into two almost different clans. Some of them have Animalism, Fortitude and Protean, as their Camarilla brethren do. However, some of them have Celerity, Obfuscate and Protean. The "clan" has evolved into two entirely separate groups, who would not be able to imitate each other. With regards to Clan cards, the Gangrel Antitribu are awkward, since they were not kept as the two separate groups they, perhaps, should have been, but this does help to show that two groups of vampires from the same Antediluvian aren't capable of doing what the other does. The Camarilla and the Sabbat split up many years ago. During that time, the Gangrel Antitribu have been able to evolve into their dissimilar groupings. Why shouldn't the Camarilla and the Sabbat have done the same? Also, while SOME of the clans are similar from a mental point of view - the Nosferatu are quite similar to the Nosferatu Antitribu and get on quite well, etc. etc. etc. - there are other clans who are very dissimilar. The Toreador and the Toreador Antitribu tend to be quite different, in so far as the art and hedonism they enjoy - body sculpting, piercings, tatoos, body art, The Art of Pain - wouldn't go down well with many "normal" Toreador. What *may* be an alternative is the inclusion of cards such, perhaps, the following: "Clan Re-Union" Unique Master Requires a ready Nosferatu or a ready Nosferatu Antitribu Put this card in play. Whilst this card is in play, the Nosferatu and Nosferatu Antitribu each count as both of these clans, and both of these sects. If a card requires/targets either Nosferatu, Nosferatu Antitribu, Camarilla or Sabbat vampires it may be played by/targetted at any Nosferatu or Nosferatu Antitribu." Any comments? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: But the "clans" (divisions thereof) are quite different to one another in many cases. Assamite Antitribu have a completely different clan flaw to their non-Antitribu counter-parts. Why do the Assamites not have that clan flaw *as well* as their inability to commit diablerie? The Ventrue Antitribu have different disciplines from the non-Sabbat Ventrue, emphasising the difference there. The reason the assamite antitribu doesn't have the same flaw as the normal assamites is actually the reason they split up to begin with. The assamite antitribu refused to go along with a treaty the camarilla proposed. Hence in the game the antitribu should not have the no diablerie restriction. The discipline differences can just be made on the individual vampires. The Gangrel Antitribu are, perhaps, the most telling clan. They have *EVOLVED* into two almost different clans. Some of them have Animalism, Fortitude and Protean, as their Camarilla brethren do. However, some of them have Celerity, Obfuscate and Protean. The "clan" has evolved into two entirely separate groups, who would not be able to imitate each other. With regards to Clan cards, the Gangrel Antitribu are awkward, since they were not kept as the two separate groups they, perhaps, should have been, but this does help to show that two groups of vampires from the same Antediluvian aren't capable of doing what the other does. Then why don't they show the antitribu as 2 different gangrel clans (city and country) It is not possible to get a perfect match to WoD but we should be able to get close,these differences can be noted in the vampires themselves (different disciplines are quite easy to put on a vampire without creating 2 gangrel antitribu lines) Also, while SOME of the clans are similar from a mental point of view - the Nosferatu are quite similar to the Nosferatu Antitribu and get on quite well, etc. etc. etc. - there are other clans who are very dissimilar. The Toreador and the Toreador Antitribu tend to be quite different, in so far as the art and hedonism they enjoy - body sculpting, piercings, tatoos, body art, The Art of Pain - wouldn't go down well with many "normal" Toreador. A lot of the cards do not go into great detail as to how they are working, for example, most Toreador (non antitribu) would still appreciate the art of pain but most (some have low humanities) would not act on it...however it is possible for them to do so. A lot of camarilla vampires (especially old ones) have some odd habits that would get a neonate killed. What *may* be an alternative is the inclusion of cards such, perhaps, the following: "Clan Re-Union" Unique Master Requires a ready Nosferatu or a ready Nosferatu Antitribu Put this card in play. Whilst this card is in play, the Nosferatu and Nosferatu Antitribu each count as both of these clans, and both of these sects. If a card requires/targets either Nosferatu, Nosferatu Antitribu, Camarilla or Sabbat vampires it may be played by/targetted at any Nosferatu or Nosferatu Antitribu." This card would be a way to go in a future expansion, however most cards in existance now are general enough that either side could use them the only difference would be the way they are executed for their effects.(flavour text) -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Thanks for your input

NOTE: Please, stop wasting bandwidth and annoying everyone who doesn't have a HTML reader by posting in HTML. Usenet is not designed for flashiness, but for communication. HTML gets in the way of that. In article <360A74E6...@worldnet.att.net>, JASON MARKS <akhe...@worldnet.att.net> writes > The reason the assamite antitribu doesn't have the same flaw as > the normal assamites is actually the reason they split up to begin > with. The assamite antitribu refused to go along with a treaty the > camarilla proposed. Hence in the game the antitribu should not > have the no diablerie restriction. The discipline differences can > just be made on the individual vampires. *sigh* You miss my point entirely..... the Assamite Antitribu STILL have a clan flaw. They weren't cursed. Why don't the normal Assamites have the same thing AS WELL? And why do the Gangrel Antitribu lines have different disciplines? And why do the Ventrue Antitribu have different disciplines? And the anti-Malks? Because being in the Sabbat <> Being exactly the same as the Camarilla (or independent) counterpart. Being in the Sabbat changes a clan irrevocably in many instances, which means I cannot support allowing a wide sweeping statement allowing clans to use the same cards. Such a statement would, almost certainly, get NO support from the Rules Team anyway. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980924064312.25959A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > (Regarding the relative merits of sealed Jyhad and sealed Sabbat decks) > Hmm. You may be right, Legbiter. > > I was starting to have second thoughts about what I had said, I > started comparing the lists of commons from both sets (as opposed to the > entire set), as I realized that these will be the biggest factor in any > sealed deck game. > > To assist in my analysis, can anyone provide me a breakdown of the Sabbat > cards by rarity? > > I believe Jyhad (per booster) is 4 vamps, 1 rare, 3 uncommons, 11 commons. > and per starter is about 16 vamps, 2 rares, 12 uncommons, 46 commons > I believe this info [for Sabbat] is held at the Wizards web-site, under card- lists. But i've heard rumours that the list may not be quite right. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 sjoh...@math.sc.edu wrote: > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > I'm not saying I like the word "Macro-Clan", but I can't think of anything > > better at the moment. We need something that is less of a mouthful than > > "Descendents of the Same Antediluvian". > > Then how about making up some terms: I'm thinking of using the concept of "Lineage", including such terms as "co-linear", "co-lineant", etc. > Cousin: Member of the same "macro-clan" (or however you want to define that), > but not of the same clan. That would seem to correspond to "Brother". Of course the cards don't currently use such terminology, though I would not object if they did. Instead we use phrases like "of the same clan". An equivalent rendering of "cousin" would be "of a separate co-linear clan". > Family: Of the same "macro-clan". Lineage: A grouping of related clans. These clans all incorporate a common symbol that corresponds to the name of the lineage. For instance, all vampires of the "Brujah Lineage" will incorporate the "Brujah" symbol in their clan symbol. Co-linear: Of the same Lineage. Co-lineant: One who is of the same Lineage Brujah Co-lineant: A vampire who shares a lineage with the Brujah. Incudes Brujah, !Brujah, and True Brujah. "Brujah" is their common Antediluvian ancestor. Giovanni Co-lineant: A vampire who shares a lineage with the Giovanni. Includes Giovanni, Samedi, Cappodocians, etc. Ashur is their common Antediluvian ancestor. Tremere Co-lineant: A vampire who shares a lineage with the Tremere. This might include even older groupings such as the Salubri. I wonder if the Salubri would object to having the "Tremere" symbol superimposed on their clan symbol to indicate this colineage. Saulot is their common Antediluvian ancestor. Etc., Etc. A final issue is whether this terminology would cover the Caitiff and Pander. Are the Pander "colinear" with the Caitiff? Arguably not, since they do not have a common antediluvian ancestor. However, their lineage does have something in common in that it is very extenuated in both cases. Also, the Pander do incorporate the Caitiff symbol, and so might be part of a "Caitiff Lineage" just for the sake of consistency. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, James Coupe wrote: > The Gangrel Antitribu are, perhaps, the most telling clan. They have > *EVOLVED* into two almost different clans. Well, they *are* currently considered to be the same clan. This just goes to show that nothing compels us to identify each identifyable sub-group as its own clan. By the same logic, we could easily have used the term "clan" to refer to Gangrel, Country Gangrel Anti-tribu, and City Gangrel Antitribu as single group. Cards that need to be specific to a sub-group could still refer to that sub-group (though this can't be done for the city gangrel since they don't exist as a defined group). How a clan is defined will always be somewhat arbitrary. I imagine that the projeny of Judah and the projeny of Daliyah are likely to be rather different. This does not make them separate clans, however. [snip] > What *may* be an alternative is the inclusion of cards such, perhaps, > the following: > > "Clan Re-Union" > Unique Master > Requires a ready Nosferatu or a ready Nosferatu Antitribu > Put this card in play. Whilst this card is in play, the Nosferatu and > Nosferatu Antitribu each count as both of these clans, and both of these > sects. If a card requires/targets either Nosferatu, Nosferatu > Antitribu, Camarilla or Sabbat vampires it may be played by/targetted at > any Nosferatu or Nosferatu Antitribu." > > Any comments? Well, the wording is very awkward, and could create problems or confusion. Here's a rewording using my recently posted "Lineage" terminology: Nosferatu Re-union Unique Master Requires a ready Nosferatu Co-lineant. Put this card in play. Any card that can effect a Nosferatu or Nosferatu Antitribu can now effect any Nosferatu Colineant. Any card that requires a Nosferatu or a Nosferatu Antitribu can now be played by any Nosferatu Colineant. Or it could be made more general, as would be almost impossible without such terminology.... Clan Re-Union Unique Master Name a Lineage for which you control a ready member. All members of that Lineage may use cards that require a related clan. Likewise, all members of that Lineage are effected by cards that effect a related clan. Or hows this... Overgeneralization Unique Master Put this card in play. All vampires may play cards that require a separate clan, provided that they are of the same lineage as that clan. Similarly, cards that effect a specific clan can now effect any vampire of the same lineage. Any vampire may burn this card as a +1 stealth (D) action. I'm not saying these cards are necessarily good ideas. I'm just trying to show how the terminology gives one more creative options. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > You miss my point entirely..... the Assamite Antitribu STILL have a clan > flaw. They weren't cursed. Why don't the normal Assamites have the > same thing AS WELL? > The assamites had the same flaw as the antiribu before the curse was > placed upon them it was lost in the process (assamites aren't camarilla > anyway) > And why do the Gangrel Antitribu lines have different disciplines? > Only one sect of gangrel antitribu have different disciplines (city > gangrel) necessity breeds evolution > And why do the Ventrue Antitribu have different disciplines? > > And the anti-Malks? > The malkavians had the same disciplines in the middle ages...they changed > by modern times. However disciplines are not the best way to judge a clan...clan lineage is how the vampires in WoD judge clan. The average Brujah would still call a Brujah antitribu a brujah (descendent of troille)...etc > Because being in the Sabbat <> Being exactly the same as the Camarilla > (or independent) counterpart. Being in the Sabbat changes a clan > irrevocably in many instances, which means I cannot support allowing a > wide sweeping statement allowing clans to use the same cards. > > Such a statement would, almost certainly, get NO support from the Rules > Team anyway. > To be honest i do not think the majority of rules presented would be > allowed by the rules team...I'm just stating vampire history > --

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Richard D. Zopf wrote: >> JASON MARKS <akhe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >> >Actually, (i know some rules lawyers are going to be upset about this) I think >> >that some of the cards should not be clan/anticlan specific, ie..Brujah >> >Frenzy...Labyrynth....common sense should say which ones can and cannot be >> >used. >> >> ?? Do you mean that clan-specific cards shouldn't require the clan to >> bring into play (presumably due to card text that makes it usable by >> only a specific clan, and is thus restictive enoug.) or do you want >> to remove the specificity of which vamps can use the effect, or both? >What he is saying, I believe, is that for certain cards, the relevant >reference to a specific clan should apply equally to the opposing >anti-clan. Thus, Brujah Frenzy should affect Anti-Brujah just as it >effects Brujah. The Labyrinth should also be playable if you have a ready >Anti-Nosferatu, and should give +1 stealth to both Nosferatu and >Anti-Nosferatu. >I believe that this, in many ways, would not be a bad idea. However, it >would have to be an across-the-board decision, and not determinable by >"common sense". It has to be clear what is meant when a card refers to a >"Nosferatu". Either it includes Anti-tribu members, or it doesn't. I've played under a similar house rule. Clan-specific cards still required the exact clan to bring into play, but once there, either the clan, or the A-T clan (and vice versa) could use the card for its effect. Also, all clan-specific cards in play could be stolen for a Methuselah (like The Rack) as a 0 stealth action. We meant to further encourage the emnity between the clans. I haven't played this variant since 7/7 so I'd think the Golden Rule of Card Ownership change would make this even more enticing... It didn't seem to have too much impact on game dynamics, as V:TES is mostly discipline based, rather than clan based, per se. The only thing was that we needed was to intentionally build decks to encourage clan overlap in order to have the house rule significantly impact the game. (Four to six players, with each pair choosing a clan and a matching anti-clan...) It made for a fun gaming environment... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and Prince of Charlotte, NC