Anarchs Flavor Text
Starter only cards:
Aid from Bats
Hanging upside down like rows of disgusting old rags
And grinning in their sleep, Bats!
D. H. Lawrence, "Bat"
Amaranth
Thou shalt not slay thy sire and
drink his heart's blood.
The Book of Nod
Ambush
We will strike from the shadows when the
time is right, and all will fall before us.
Cameron, Lasombra
Anarch Revolt
The Ventrue are working with us on this? Those
anarchs must be more annoying than I thought.
Brujah, Rome 2002 Winter Storyline
Anarch Troublemaker
I am the accuser and avenger of blood...
William Blake, "The Ghost of Abel"
Anarchist Uprising
We are all brothers of oppression, and
today, brothers of oppression are identified
with each other all over the world.
Malcolm X
Army of Rats
We could endure their constant obstructions
for only so long. The rats were the last straw.
Ventrue Antitribu, Dublin
2002 Winter Storyline
Bewitching Oration
...things have changed. I won't concur
and won't betray my sorrow save
I'll always dress in black and rave.
Christine de Pisan, "Untitled"
Boxed In
Nay, he is even more prisoner than the slave
of the galley, than the madman in his cell.
Bram Stoker, Dracula
Bribes
If you cannot raise yourself to victory,
help a strong ally secure victory so you
can seal a position of honor.
Lasombra, Minneapolis 2002 Winter Storyline
Canine Horde
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, act III, scene I
Cats' Guidance
Your cat, now, linked to learning and to love,
Exhibits a taste for silences and gloom --
Would make a splendid messenger of doom
If his fierce pride would condescend to serve.
Baudelaire, "Cats"
Dread Gaze
And close your eyes with holy dread.
Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
Enchant Kindred
I saw pale kings, and princes too,
Pale warriors, death-pale were they all;
They cried, "La belle dame sans merci
Thee hath in thrall!"
Keats, "La Belle Dame Sans Merci"
Enhanced Senses
Perhaps to our senses things offer
only their rejections. Perfume is
what the flowers throw away.
Paul Valery
Haven Uncovered
Come burrow through my ruins, shed not a tear.
Baudelaire, "The Gladly Dead"
Majesty
All these will I give You, if You
fall down and worship me.
Matthew 4:9 (NASB)
Peace Treaty
Is there peace between us, or
is this just a pause to reload?
Brujah, Los Angeles 2002 Winter Storyline
Precognition
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works
backwards," remarked the Queen.
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Pursuit
What mad pursuit?
What struggle to escape?
John Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn"
Pushing the Limit
These are our realms, no limits to their sway.
Lord Byron, "The Corsair"
Restoration
Drive my dead thoughts over the universe
Like withered leaves to quicken a new birth!
Percy Bysshe Shelly, "Ode to the West Wind"
Sacrament of Carnage
The spiritual value of a sacrament is like
light -- although it passes among the
impure, it is not polluted.
Saint Augustine, Works, vol. 3
Skin of Night
I ask of Thee, beloved Night --
Swift be thine approaching flight.
Percy Bysshe Shelley, "To Night"
Skin of Rock
Crushers of helpless misery,
Crushing down Justice, honoring Wrong:
If that be feeble, this be strong.
Emily Bronte, "Last Lines"
Skin of Steel
...no sword on earth,
not the truest steel, could touch their assailant;
for by a spell he had dispossessed all
blades of their bite on him.
8th c. epic poem, Beowulf
Spirit's Touch
We are eternal; and to us, the past
Is, as the future, present.
Lord Byron, Manifred, act I, scene I
Undead Persistence
The cry is still, "They come!"
Shakespeare, Macbeth, act V, scene 5
Undead Strength
Dead flesh isn't always subject to
the mortal laws of physics.
Dodd, Brujah antitribu
Ventrue Headquarters
The Ventrue clan is organized much like
a multinational corporation. Each major city
has a meeting place where Ventrue may
seek allegiance and obtain information.
Zoo Hunting Grounds
They only kill to protect their hunting grounds.
Eddie Holt, Wolfen
Rare cards:
Anarch Railroad
The Freedom Train will get you back east, at least
as far as Staten Island. If you want to cross the
bridge when you get there, you'll probably be on
your own.
Almiro Suarez, Tremere Anarch
Banshee Ironwail
For punishment, the Bean-Sidhe was artbound
to the blade itself, and it has howled in its
twice-damned existence ever since.
Michah Naught, Seelie sluagh grump
Carnivale
Most of the material in the costume was in the
mask. Feathers make strong armor in that crowd.
Danielle Beach, Toreador
Drum of Xipe Totec
He leaps, each leap drawing more celerity from
the power of the drum. He flies along the walls, he
twists, he turns, he is a whirlwind, a tempest.
Nezahualcoyotl, Aztec poet
Ecoterrorists
...today you can murder ladn for private profit.
You can leave the corpse for all to see,
and nobody calls the cops.
Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness
Magazine
A little unusual ammo can make all the
difference when fighting Donal.
Brujah, Castro Valley 2002 Fall Storyline
Sunset Strip, Hollywood
They had no fear of the dark, for here the sun
shone so brightly that it lit up their hearts at night.
Salvador Garcia, Brujah anarch
Common cards:
Blow Torch
Doused with fluid/Blow torch flaming
It's time to die/Roasted alive
Death... burning flesh/Corpse.. ashes left
Mortician, "Charred Corpses"
Body Bag
I ran down into the water as deep as I could
and zipped myself up in the bag with the
cinder blocks.
Eddie Gaines, Caitiff anarch
Bone Spur
It may not be decorative, but it's very functional.
Horatio, Tzimisce
Border Skirmish
The anarchs' general disregard for the
Masquerade could ruin all of our plans.
LeQuarte, Tremere
Claws of the Dead
...the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Lewis Carroll, "Jabberwocky"
Cooler
Get yourself a cooler, lay yourself low
Coincidental murder, with nothing to show
Aerosmith, "Same Old Song and Dance"
Dummy Corporation
Cardinal Networks guarantees client confidentiality
and customer satisfaction in all transactions.
Willa Gebenstaler, Caitiff
Earth Meld
Down into the denseness of soil and rock,
Down into the dust you have left behind.
Baudelaire, "The Unforeseen"
Emissary
But we can think new thoughts, dream of new
forms of rule. It is time to turn the tables, to
teach the old to be young again.
Salvador Garcia, Brujah anarch
Form of Mist
...and yet I am, and live, like vapours tossed.
John Claire, "I Am"
Form of the Ghost
Nobody knows where I was,
and now I am no longer there.
Gwendolyn Brooks, "Boy Breaking Glass"
Galaric's Legacy
The neonate child escaped. So intent on Galaric
were the Ventrue that they ignored the childe
until he was long gone from their grasp.
Salvador Garcia, Brujah anarch
Go Anarch
I don't belong to you or your damn prince --
I'm my own person, free and loving it.
Topaz, anarch
Highway Haven: RV
The greatest haven is motion.
Stephen Lenoir, Lasombra antitribu
Hospital Food
It's easy work. Just eyeball the donor's chart
before snacking so you don't get a sour one.
Sandra White, Caitiff anarch
Into the Fire
You're either with me or against me. You
really don't want to be against me.
Desiree Traville, Brujah antitribu
Irregular Protocol
The anarchs are a necessary force of evolution,
ensuring that only the prince who can hold his
kingdom from rebels can stay in power.
Llewellyn, Nosferatu
Life in the City
I steer clear of paying customers who
might be missed, but solos are fair game.
The black marketers think I'm doing a
little slave trade on the side.
Ingrid Galt, anarch
Molotov Cocktail
I got a dog eat dog sly smile
I got a Molotov cocktail with a match to go
I smoke my cigarettes with style
Guns N' Roses, "Nightrain"
Out of the Frying Pan
When you tire of the mask of freedom and
realize that the Traditions have served you
all along, you take the name for yourself
as well, Camarilla.
Anne Bowesley, Ventrue Prince
(Queen) of London
Rant!
We are those who do not let others lead for us; we
do not let others go where we will not lead ourselves.
Salvador Garcia, Brujah anarch
Sowing Dissension
Hey, the anarchs rule! They are way cool, and
they are gonna rock this city down! I'm joinin'
tomorrow man! You wanna come?
Todd, Caitiff
The Lasombra wrote:
> Anarchs Flavor Text>
> Highway Haven: RV
> The greatest haven is motion.
> Stephen Lenoir, Lasombra antitribu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note that one in particular. First VTES card to mention there is such a
thing, so maybe, just maybe, they'll actually appear in the foreseeable
future. (Not in Black Hand, probably, but maybe in that set after that
that has to be timed just right?)
Thomas
Thomas Pichler wrote:
> The Lasombra wrote:>>Anarchs Flavor Text
>>Highway Haven: RV
>>The greatest haven is motion.
>>Stephen Lenoir, Lasombra antitribu> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Note that one in particular. First VTES card to mention there is such a
> thing, so maybe, just maybe, they'll actually appear in the foreseeable
> future.
They've appeared already.
The first V:TES card WW printed was Lasombra antitribu: Lucita.
Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>They've appeared already.
>The first V:TES card WW printed was Lasombra antitribu: Lucita.>Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.
But in the cardgame (unlike the RPG) a Toreador who
belongs to the Sabbat is distinct from a Toreador
antitribu. This is the first time a reference to Lasombra
antitribu has shown up in V:tES. Lucita, in V:tES, is
just an independent Lasombra.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2092C...@white-wolf.com>...
> Thomas Pichler wrote:
> > The Lasombra wrote:
> >>Anarchs Flavor Text
> >>Highway Haven: RV
> >>The greatest haven is motion.
> >>Stephen Lenoir, Lasombra antitribu
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Note that one in particular. First VTES card to mention there is such a
> > thing, so maybe, just maybe, they'll actually appear in the foreseeable
> > future.
>
> They've appeared already.
> The first V:TES card WW printed was Lasombra antitribu: Lucita.
>
> Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.
I don“t agree with that. That may be the case in the vampire RPG.
In the RPG yes, you can say that any Lasombra not belonging to the
Sabbat is a Lasombra antitribu. But not in V:TES. Anka is not !Ravnos,
Tegyrius is not !Assamite, Samat Ramal-Ra is not a Serpent of the
Light. They are just vampires of their specific clans who do not
belong to their clan“s mainstream sect in the card game.
And the way I see it, you just confirmed my point of view when you
released the new master cards Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire.
They DON`T change a vampire“s clan when they change sects. So if I use
one on a !Toreador, he just becomes a camarilla !Toreador.
Could you please explain to me the apparent decision to not
introduce the remaining antitribu as they should be, with separate
card backgrounds and separate clan cards and as such, a real
distinction like the other antitribu already have? In bloodlines you
introduced 12 new "clans" (I say clans because in the card game there
is no difference between a bloodline and a clan). So why can“t you
introduce 3 or 4 new antitribu in future expansions (no one is saying
all at once, Lasombra antitribu have no place in a black hand
expansion, for example)?
I think this would be the smart thing to do even sales-wise. If you
introduce the remaining antitribu properly, you can have more crypt
and library cards made to suit them without running out of ideas for
an expansion so soon. This game already has so many symbols that 3 or
4 new ones would most certainly not confuse anyone or clutter their
heads... And the missing antitribu do not have any new disciplines,
which are far more complicated to introdue than new clans. So the
process wouldn“t even be hampered by that.
If things continue as they are, the clans with missing antitribu
will either one day have enough vampires to build a deck with a
starting crypt for them for any scet, which would give them an
advantage, since the other antitribu must abide by their clan cards
and sect, since they are separated. Or, more probably, they will never
have enough vampires to build a deck based on their antitribu sect.
And as such will be at a severe disadvantage. Because this only
matters when making clan-based decks only makes things worse. The
existing antitribu do not have any clan-specific disciplines such as
Necromancy or Quietus, so you can effectively mix vampires from both
clan and antitribu without any problem, which would be the case if the
missing antitribu were made, but you can also include almost any other
vampire of sufficient capacity since the existing antitribu clan
disciplines are all common disciplines, thu giving them a much bigger
pool from which to select their crypt.
And there is another reason I think the missing antitribu should be
introduced fully, and that is the coolness factor. I“ve said this
before and I think that the one place that most contributes new
players to this game is the Vampire RPG player-base. Including
Assamite antitribu, Ravnos antitribu, Lasombra antitribu and Serpents
of the Light will get even more players interested in V:TES than just
having a dozen of Assamites with SABBAT in their card text will.
So, again, could you please explain to me why this will aparently
never happen? now would be a great time, because I do not see a way
you could release the Balck Hand expansion without addressing this
issue. And having us know beforehand what will be done will prevent
some problems that occured with the CE. Mostly I mean you having to
listen to disgruntled players being especially disgruntled since by
the time they had anything to be disgruntled about, that was pretty
much all they could do about it.
Thanks in advance! :)
Daniel Figueiredo, V:EKN Prince of Campinas - Brazil
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2092C...@white-wolf.com>...
> Thomas Pichler wrote:
> > The Lasombra wrote:
> >>Anarchs Flavor Text
> >>Highway Haven: RV
> >>The greatest haven is motion.
> >>Stephen Lenoir, Lasombra antitribu
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Note that one in particular. First VTES card to mention there is such a
> > thing, so maybe, just maybe, they'll actually appear in the foreseeable
> > future.
>
> They've appeared already.
> The first V:TES card WW printed was Lasombra antitribu: Lucita.
>
> Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.
I don“t agree with that. That may be the case in the vampire RPG.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CurtAdams wrote:
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:>>Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.>
> But in the cardgame (unlike the RPG) a Toreador who
> belongs to the Sabbat is distinct from a Toreador
> antitribu.
But only because the card game offers its own peculiar
definition of "Toreador antitribu". It offers no definition
of "Lasombra antitribu", however, so the definition from the
source material (the RPG) is used.
> This is the first time a reference to Lasombra
> antitribu has shown up in V:tES. Lucita, in V:tES, is
> just an independent Lasombra.
Which, in the jargon of the game, is a Lasombra antitribu.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2092C...@white-wolf.com>...>>Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.> I don愒 agree with that. That may be the case in the vampire RPG.
And, since the game is based on the RPG and offers no conflicting
definition of "Lasombra antitribu", it is the case here as well.
> In the RPG yes, you can say that any Lasombra not belonging to the
> Sabbat is a Lasombra antitribu. But not in V:TES. Anka is not !Ravnos,
> Tegyrius is not !Assamite, Samat Ramal-Ra is not a Serpent of the
> Light. They are just vampires of their specific clans who do not> belong to their clan愀 mainstream sect in the card game.
Anka is Ravnos antitribu (equivalently: Anka is a Sabbat Ravnos).
etc.
> And the way I see it, you just confirmed my point of view when you
> released the new master cards Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire.> They DON`T change a vampire愀 clan when they change sects. So if I use> one on a !Toreador, he just becomes a camarilla !Toreador.
Right. Because the card game offers a definition of Toreador antitribu
that conflicts with the foundation's definition.
> Could you please explain to me the apparent decision to not
> introduce the remaining antitribu as they should be, with separate
They are being introduced "as they should be", with "should" being
subjective, of course.
> card backgrounds and separate clan cards and as such, a real
> distinction like the other antitribu already have? In bloodlines you
You mean "like some of the antitribu already have".
Please offer emirical proof that introducing a new distinct clan is
the "should be" method of representing members of an existing clan
who have a different allegiance.
> introduced 12 new "clans" (I say clans because in the card game there> is no difference between a bloodline and a clan). So why can愒 you> introduce 3 or 4 new antitribu in future expansions (no one is saying
> all at once, Lasombra antitribu have no place in a black hand
> expansion, for example)?
"Can" - sure.
"Should" - no. I don't see the need to introduce a new distinct clan when
an existing one suffices.
Introducing a new distinct Lasombra antitribu clan at this time would
be contradictory to the method currently in place with Lucita.
> If things continue as they are, the clans with missing antitribu
> will either one day have enough vampires to build a deck with a
> starting crypt for them for any scet, which would give them an
> advantage, since the other antitribu must abide by their clan cards
> and sect, since they are separated.
Or some suitable solution would be found.
> Or, more probably, they will never
> have enough vampires to build a deck based on their antitribu sect.
> And as such will be at a severe disadvantage. Because this only
How?
Yes, it could be disadvantageous to be "forced" to build a deck using
only a single vampire. Fortunately, you are not forced to do so.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED28426...@white-wolf.com>...
> Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2092C...@white-wolf.com>...
> >>Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.> > I don´t agree with that. That may be the case in the vampire RPG.>
> And, since the game is based on the RPG and offers no conflicting
> definition of "Lasombra antitribu", it is the case here as well.
>
Ok. First of all, let me apologize if my english did not make things
clear enough, although I do think I was clear enough to get my point
across. My point being WHY are you (and by YOU I do not mean just you
LSJ, I mean any and all who are responsible for making this kind of
decision, including you I think) not going to introduce the other
antitribu clans the same way the existing ones were? Just to avoid any
conflict with the way Lucita and Anka were introduced? Nowhere in the
rules are they reffered to as Lasombra Antitribu or Ravnos Antitribu.
As far as the rules go, there are no such clans in the game yet. So
they would be a very minor exception in case you do introduce these
clans.
> > In the RPG yes, you can say that any Lasombra not belonging to the
> > Sabbat is a Lasombra antitribu. But not in V:TES. Anka is not !Ravnos,
> > Tegyrius is not !Assamite, Samat Ramal-Ra is not a Serpent of the
> > Light. They are just vampires of their specific clans who do not> > belong to their clan´s mainstream sect in the card game.>
> Anka is Ravnos antitribu (equivalently: Anka is a Sabbat Ravnos).
> etc.
When I say that they are not antitribu, I do not mean to say it
just to contradict you. I say that they are not antitribu because the
other existing antitribu are handled differently (and better, in my
humble opinion). I have had trouble explaining this to new players. I
show them a !Tremere and they say: Cool! a !Tremere! And then I show
them Lucita and they say: Why doesn´t she have a different background?
Why don´t the !Lasombra have any clan cards for them? And I say: Well,
I really don´t know. I guess (actually I hope) it´s because they
haven´t released any yet.
You do understand why people might think that this current method
is confusing? (obviously myself included) Sect text only on a printed
card does not affect clan for any of the bloodlines for example. Just
because a gargoyle has Sabbat written on her card does not mean that
she is a Gargoyle antitribu. She is a gargoyle just the same. So the
way I see it Lucita is not antitribu just because her card text says
independent. She is an independent Lasombra, and that is all she
really is as far as the rules are concerned, right? There is nothing
printed in the game that implies that she is antitribu or isn´t. Is
there?
I realize that this decision might already have been made, I just
want to understand why the remaining antitribu don´t deserve, merit or
whatever a distinction be like the existing antitribu do. The matter
of the conflict that may or may not arise if or when they are
introduced seems so small. It is small. And if not I would like to
know why as well, because I really want to understand the way the game
is being thought of and made. If for no other reason than to better
represent it and of course, put my curiosity to rest. :)
I would also like to humbly ask that, if the matter of the missing
antitribu is not yet set in stone at WW, you kindly put a lot of
thought as to how it will be done and say that I, along with all the
players I have talked with personally here, wish that they were
handled exactly the same as the existing antitribu, with all the
symbols, backgrounds, sects and whatnot that they are entitled to.
>
> > And the way I see it, you just confirmed my point of view when you
> > released the new master cards Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire.> > They DON`T change a vampire´s clan when they change sects. So if I use> > one on a !Toreador, he just becomes a camarilla !Toreador.
>
> Right. Because the card game offers a definition of Toreador antitribu
> that conflicts with the foundation's definition.
>
> > Could you please explain to me the apparent decision to not
> > introduce the remaining antitribu as they should be, with separate
>
> They are being introduced "as they should be", with "should" being
> subjective, of course.
>
> > card backgrounds and separate clan cards and as such, a real
> > distinction like the other antitribu already have? In bloodlines you
>
> You mean "like some of the antitribu already have".
>
> Please offer emirical proof that introducing a new distinct clan is
> the "should be" method of representing members of an existing clan
> who have a different allegiance.
>
Why shouldn´t it be? It was done that way, very successfully I
might add, with the first antitribu clans. I am not asking you to
create antitribu where there are none. All I am saying is WHY NOT use
the other antitribu that exist in the RPG in the card game as well?
(with the same distinctions and definition as the old ones)
> > introduced 12 new "clans" (I say clans because in the card game there> > is no difference between a bloodline and a clan). So why can´t you> > introduce 3 or 4 new antitribu in future expansions (no one is saying
> > all at once, Lasombra antitribu have no place in a black hand
> > expansion, for example)?
>
> "Can" - sure.
> "Should" - no. I don't see the need to introduce a new distinct clan when
> an existing one suffices.
>
> Introducing a new distinct Lasombra antitribu clan at this time would
> be contradictory to the method currently in place with Lucita.
I beleive I have addressed this matter above in this post. And the
same way you asked me to give empirical proof that things "should be"
done the way I would like them to be done; can you offer me empirical
proof that the existing clans suffice? And more, that introducing the
missing antitribu would hamper the game or otherwise be far too
complicated and somhow make the game less rich and enticing to
players? I admit that I cannot offer empirical proof that things
should be done the way I want them to. All I can say is that, from my
personal experience of the game, it´s complexity and number of
different clans, disciplines, sects and all is what makes it so
unique, and in my opinion the best CCG out there. This is also what
gives the game longevity, variety and more importantly, what gave it
the stamina to survive for years in the limbo of no-longer-published
CCGs. If, for example, the Sabbat was not introduced by the time the
game was discontinued, I think it is certain that the game would not
have survived so well, if at all, and the farther back you go, the
greater the chance the game died would be.
>
> > If things continue as they are, the clans with missing antitribu
> > will either one day have enough vampires to build a deck with a
> > starting crypt for them for any scet, which would give them an
> > advantage, since the other antitribu must abide by their clan cards
> > and sect, since they are separated.
>
> Or some suitable solution would be found.
>
Granted. You are right about this. I am sure some solution would be
found.
> > Or, more probably, they will never
> > have enough vampires to build a deck based on their antitribu sect.
> > And as such will be at a severe disadvantage. Because this only
>
> How?
>
> Yes, it could be disadvantageous to be "forced" to build a deck using
> only a single vampire. Fortunately, you are not forced to do so.
I meant forced to do that if I wanted to do that. I know that we
are not forced to do anything. Please.
Well. As a personal note to LSJ, I would like to say some things.
First, I hate discussing things by the net, where you can´t see the
person you are talking to and sometimes misinterpret their meaning. So
I would like to make very clear that I am not mad, pissed out or
otherwise aggravated by this thread. I try to be the least
controversial and the most specific I can. Sometimes I have the
feeling that some of your responses are very strict, in the sense that
they respond to the exact wording of our posts, and not to the point
we are trying to get across. I admit this is a fallacy of mine. For
you are right in responding to the exact wording we use. It´s just
that I sometimes get carried away when I start typing and end up
repeatng myself a bit or jumble my ideas. I also admit that my way of
writing things down can surely not make your work any easier at times.
And now I am thinking... jeez.. this stuff I am writing can be pretty
obvious... But I want to write it down anyway. To placate my beast
within. :)
Thanks in advance.
Daniel, V:EKN Prince of Campinas Brazil
Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> When I say that they are not antitribu, I do not mean to say it
> just to contradict you. I say that they are not antitribu because the
> other existing antitribu are handled differently (and better, in my
> humble opinion). I have had trouble explaining this to new players. I
> show them a !Tremere and they say: Cool! a !Tremere! And then I show> them Lucita and they say: Why doesn愒 she have a different background?
> Why don愒 the !Lasombra have any clan cards for them? And I say: Well,
> I really don愒 know. I guess (actually I hope) it愀 because they
> haven愒 released any yet.
Tell them: because Lasombra antitribu isn't really a different clan.
It's still Lasombra, just with a different sect affiliation.
> I beleive I have addressed this matter above in this post. And the
> same way you asked me to give empirical proof that things "should be"
> done the way I would like them to be done; can you offer me empirical
> proof that the existing clans suffice? And more, that introducing the
Sure. They suffice as evidenced by their ability to represent, for
example, Lucita. QED.
> missing antitribu would hamper the game or otherwise be far too
> complicated and somhow make the game less rich and enticing to
> players?
No one claims "far too complicated".
Avoid unnecessary complication, however, is a good thing.
>>Yes, it could be disadvantageous to be "forced" to build a deck using
>>only a single vampire. Fortunately, you are not forced to do so.>
> I meant forced to do that if I wanted to do that. I know that we
> are not forced to do anything. Please.
That's what I responded to. If one wants to arbitrarily limit oneself
in deckbuilding, then one will be arbitrarily limited.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <b2fbf7ad.03052...@posting.google.com>,
om...@uol.com.br says...
> I don´t agree with that. That may be the case in the vampire RPG.
> In the RPG yes, you can say that any Lasombra not belonging to the
> Sabbat is a Lasombra antitribu. But not in V:TES. Anka is not !Ravnos,
Actually she is.
> Tegyrius is not !Assamite, Samat Ramal-Ra is not a Serpent of the
> Light.
Right. Both of those vampires are Camarilla. !Assamites and Serpents
of the Light are Sabbat clans.
> They are just vampires of their specific clans who do not
> belong to their clan´s mainstream sect in the card game.
My guess is the current designers think that introducing the antitribu
clans as completely separate was a poor idea to begin with. They are
declining to continue that process for clans that have not been "split"
by Wizards of the Coast's direction taken in The Sabbat.
> I think this would be the smart thing to do even sales-wise. If you
> introduce the remaining antitribu properly, you can have more crypt
> and library cards made to suit them without running out of ideas for
> an expansion so soon.
No thanks. I don't need 5 more hunting grounds to keep track of.
> If things continue as they are, the clans with missing antitribu
> will either one day have enough vampires to build a deck with a
> starting crypt for them for any scet, which would give them an
> advantage, since the other antitribu must abide by their clan cards
> and sect, since they are separated.
Perhaps it won't make a terribly significant difference and they'll all
remain useable as they already are.
> Or, more probably, they will never
> have enough vampires to build a deck based on their antitribu sect.
> And as such will be at a severe disadvantage. Because this only
> matters when making clan-based decks only makes things worse.
How do you figure? By having the !Lasombra as part of the main clan
just with different sect affiliations, you keep the ability to play all
of the same clan cards. So what if you can't make a !Lasombra deck?
(Hell, there aren't many !Lasombra to begin with).
> Including Assamite antitribu, Ravnos antitribu, Lasombra antitribu and
> Serpents of the Light will get even more players interested in V:TES
> than just having a dozen of Assamites with SABBAT in their card text will.
Are there really that many non-vtes players who are clamoring for
!Assamites before they start playing?
> And having us know beforehand what will be done will prevent
> some problems that occured with the CE.
The only real problem with CE was the unnecessary (and unadvertised)
layout change. I don't see their not advertising Anka as a !Ravnos as
being a huge issue.
--
-Snapcase
On Tue, 27 May 2003 03:42:27 GMT, Snapcase
<shotgu...@optonline.net> scrawled:
>My guess is the current designers think that introducing the antitribu
>clans as completely separate was a poor idea to begin with. They are
>declining to continue that process for clans that have not been "split"
>by Wizards of the Coast's direction taken in The Sabbat.
would it be interesting, and workable, to remove the whole 'antitribu
as a separate clan' thing? make all toreador toreador, just with
different sect affiliations, etc.
if a card requires toreador, it has the toreador symbol on it. write
in the rulebook that means you need a camarilla toreador to play it.
then, when it has a red blood splot behind it, say it needs a sabbat
toreador (or 'toreador antitribu', in VTM jargon) to play it. if the
toreador is independant, then it wouldn't qualify for either of those
cards.
some extra thought would be required for the independant clans, but i
am sure some sort of rules could be worked out, using the rulebook's
definition of default sects as the basis for what sect/clan allow you
to play what card. it would make mixing sabbat and cam of various
clans a lot more....interesting.
thoughts?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2CC8B...@white-wolf.com>...
> Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> > When I say that they are not antitribu, I do not mean to say it
> > just to contradict you. I say that they are not antitribu because the
> > other existing antitribu are handled differently (and better, in my
> > humble opinion). I have had trouble explaining this to new players. I
> > show them a !Tremere and they say: Cool! a !Tremere! And then I show> > them Lucita and they say: Why doesn´t she have a different background?
> > Why don´t the !Lasombra have any clan cards for them? And I say: Well,
> > I really don´t know. I guess (actually I hope) it´s because they> > haven´t released any yet.>
> Tell them: because Lasombra antitribu isn't really a different clan.
> It's still Lasombra, just with a different sect affiliation.
Will do so from now on.
>
> > I beleive I have addressed this matter above in this post. And the
> > same way you asked me to give empirical proof that things "should be"
> > done the way I would like them to be done; can you offer me empirical
> > proof that the existing clans suffice? And more, that introducing the
>
> Sure. They suffice as evidenced by their ability to represent, for
> example, Lucita. QED.
>
Ok. They represent Lucita, Anka and the few others well enough, but
the other method ensures better representation.
> > missing antitribu would hamper the game or otherwise be far too
> > complicated and somhow make the game less rich and enticing to
> > players?
>
> No one claims "far too complicated".
> Avoid unnecessary complication, however, is a good thing.
Yes, avoiding unnecessary complication is a good thing. But it
seems that the design team arbitrarily decides when to do that and
when not to, as evidenced by the many changes in the CE, most of which
were nothing if not unnecessary. I think not being necessary isn´t
reason enough. Making the game more complete as compared to it´s pen
and paper counterpart, richer in strategy and diversifying it far
outweights the complication that would ensue, don´t you think so?
Maybe if WW were to poll the players (or otherwise get their opinion)
this time to see what we think would be a good solution. I don´t think
that was done before, and if it was, it certainly wasn´t done in a
large enough scale (maybe you got only the playtester´s opinions).
>
> >>Yes, it could be disadvantageous to be "forced" to build a deck using
> >>only a single vampire. Fortunately, you are not forced to do so.
> >
> > I meant forced to do that if I wanted to do that. I know that we
> > are not forced to do anything. Please.
>
> That's what I responded to. If one wants to arbitrarily limit oneself
> in deckbuilding, then one will be arbitrarily limited.
Um, before I forget, sorry for the double post a while back...
So I guess you mean that no, the remaining antitribu (!Ravnos,
!Lasombra,
!Assamite and Serpents of the Light) will not be getting the same
treatment as the previous antitribu did. Period. Right?
Can I further ask why? Since the only reason given so far is
because it would be unnecessary. Unnecessary just isn´t good enough
for me. Of course, I am prepared to accept that only reason if it is
the only one you can or would give. The few people who expressed an
opinion on this matter in this newsgroup seem to agree at least in
part with me. I is my sincere opinion that the game will become better
if the other antirtibu were introduced eventually. Can WW listen to
it´s players beforehand in this matter? Would they?
Well, as you can see I am pretty passionate about this game, and if
I have been apparently stubborn or too insistent on certain things it
is just because the game matters a lot ot me. I am almost putting all
this to rest in my mind though, with some dissapointment, but, ces´t
la vie.
Daniel Figueiredo,
V:EKN Prince of Campinas, Brazil.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED28222...@white-wolf.com>...
> CurtAdams wrote:
> > vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
> >>Lasombra antitribu are Lasombra who do not belong to the Sabbat.
> >
> > But in the cardgame (unlike the RPG) a Toreador who
> > belongs to the Sabbat is distinct from a Toreador
> > antitribu.
>
> But only because the card game offers its own peculiar
> definition of "Toreador antitribu". It offers no definition
> of "Lasombra antitribu", however, so the definition from the
> source material (the RPG) is used.
Have the rules and/or design teams at some point discussed simply
folding all existing Camarilla clans and their respective Sabbat
antitribu counterparts into giant mega-clans in which sect affiliation
truly matters? If this idea has been brought up, was it discussed and
killed or is it actually tabled for potential future consideration?
This would have greatly simplified things from the start, but I
suppose now there are too many cards which would have to be changed to
accomodate this. You'd have two hunting grounds per clan, each with a
sect affiliation restriction, etc.
In message <621dd332.0305...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Kuta
<jeff...@hotmail.com> writes:
>This would have greatly simplified things from the start, but I
>suppose now there are too many cards which would have to be changed to
>accomodate this. You'd have two hunting grounds per clan, each with a
>sect affiliation restriction, etc.
It's also worth bearing in mind that it wouldn't just be those cards
you'd want to look at.
Consanguineous Boon, for instance, works so that each 'sect' of the main
clan is a separate clan for its purposes. So bringing out the weenie
Toreador and the weenie !Toreador won't suddenly give you lots more
pool. Obviously, this wasn't a concern when creating Consanguineous
Boon - but it would be a concern when creating Antitribu
clans/sects/subdivisions.
[Random aside: it's also one of things that grouping militates against -
otherwise you wouldn't need the !Toreador to add to the Toreador, you'd
just use all the new weenies instead.]
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2CC8B...@white-wolf.com>...>>Avoid unnecessary complication, however, is a good thing.> Yes, avoiding unnecessary complication is a good thing. But it
> seems that the design team arbitrarily decides when to do that and
> when not to, as evidenced by the many changes in the CE, most of which
> were nothing if not unnecessary. I think not being necessary isn´t
Vague handwaving is difficult to answer.
What about CE was unecessarily complicated?
> So I guess you mean that no, the remaining antitribu (!Ravnos,
> !Lasombra,
> !Assamite and Serpents of the Light) will not be getting the same
> treatment as the previous antitribu did. Period. Right?
The clans/factions/groups that are better represented by distinct
clans will be. See Salubri antitribu. The ones that are better
represented by using existing clans will be represented by using
existing clans.
> Can I further ask why? Since the only reason given so far is
> because it would be unnecessary.
No. The reason being that unecessary *complications* are avoided.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED35253...@white-wolf.com>...
> Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2CC8B...@white-wolf.com>...
> >>Avoid unnecessary complication, however, is a good thing.
> > Yes, avoiding unnecessary complication is a good thing. But it
> > seems that the design team arbitrarily decides when to do that and
> > when not to, as evidenced by the many changes in the CE, most of which
> > were nothing if not unnecessary. I think not being necessary isn´t
>
> Vague handwaving is difficult to answer.
> What about CE was unecessarily complicated?
>
>
I wasn´t vague there. I specifically said the changes in CE. If a
reason for any of them was previously given we didn´t hear about them.
So we sit here without explanations for them thinking that must mean
they weren´t that necessary since no one gave us a why (but that has
been beaten to death already, so let me continue to beat my issue to
death). I didn´t say unnecessarily complicated. I said that most, if
not all, the changes made in the CE were just unnecessary. I meant the
bakcground changes, the blood and pool symbol changes, the fact that
the expansion symbol is the biggest symbol on the card when it is the
least important. Maybe the whole layout thing with the green bar was
necessary to avoid copywright issues or whatever, but if it didn´t
avoid any issues or save WW any money it was unnecessary as well. I
guess all this means that yes, the changes were complicated as well
weren´t they? I mean, if making 3 or 4 more antitribu is an
unnecessary complication, then surely all the CE changes were
unnecessary complications as well. Since there aren´t many people
arguing this matter either for or against my point of view, it means
this whole issue would be far less of a complication than the CE
changes, which caused a much bigger uproar.
> So I guess you mean that no, the remaining antitribu (!Ravnos,
> > !Lasombra,
> > !Assamite and Serpents of the Light) will not be getting the same
> > treatment as the previous antitribu did. Period. Right?
>
> The clans/factions/groups that are better represented by distinct
> clans will be. See Salubri antitribu. The ones that are better
> represented by using existing clans will be represented by using
> existing clans.
>
Ok.
> > Can I further ask why? Since the only reason given so far is
> > because it would be unnecessary.
>
> No. The reason being that unecessary *complications* are avoided.
Fine. It seems i´ll just have to continue hoping that something will
change then. What I just don´t get is why you would think that adding
the missing antitribu will ONLY be an unnecessary complication, or at
least would complicate more than enrich the game. Anytime you add
something to the game like new cards or rules you complicate the game,
even if just a little. You also enrich the game. The missing antitribu
would enrich the game far more than complicate it. If 4 new clans were
much of a complication, 12 new clans like in bloodlines should have
made the game unplayable in it´s complexity, but of course, it didn´t.
Daniel Figueiredo, V:EKN Prince of Campinas.
Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED35253...@white-wolf.com>...>>Daniel Figueiredo wrote:>>>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2CC8B...@white-wolf.com>...>>>>Avoid unnecessary complication, however, is a good thing.>>>
>>> Yes, avoiding unnecessary complication is a good thing. But it
>>>seems that the design team arbitrarily decides when to do that and
>>>when not to, as evidenced by the many changes in the CE, most of which
>>>were nothing if not unnecessary. I think not being necessary isn´t>>
>>Vague handwaving is difficult to answer.
>>What about CE was unecessarily complicated?>
> I wasn´t vague there. I specifically said the changes in CE. If a
> reason for any of them was previously given we didn´t hear about them.
Again I ask: What (specifically) about CE was "uncessarily complicated"?
Vague: "many of the (unamed) changed ins CE were uncessarily complicated."
Specific: "the change to Blood Fury (making it a hand strike) in CE is
unecessarily complicated.
See?
> So we sit here without explanations for them thinking that must mean
> they weren´t that necessary since no one gave us a why (but that has
> been beaten to death already, so let me continue to beat my issue to
> death). I didn´t say unnecessarily complicated. I said that most, if
> not all, the changes made in the CE were just unnecessary. I meant the
> bakcground changes, the blood and pool symbol changes, the fact that
> the expansion symbol is the biggest symbol on the card when it is the
> least important. Maybe the whole layout thing with the green bar was
> necessary to avoid copywright issues or whatever, but if it didn´t
> avoid any issues or save WW any money it was unnecessary as well. I
> guess all this means that yes, the changes were complicated as well
> weren´t they? I mean, if making 3 or 4 more antitribu is an
Ah, now we're getting somewhere - specifics.
You list quite a few changes to the design elements, some of which
have been explained previously.
But, of course, that is the purview of the art department.
The designer (writer of rules and card texts) seeks to avoid
uncessary complication in rules and card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]
vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>But only because the card game offers its own peculiar
>definition of "Toreador antitribu". It offers no definition
>of "Lasombra antitribu", however, so the definition from the
>source material (the RPG) is used.
In the card game, "antitribu" always refers to a separate
clan. By default, then <clan name> refers to the non-antitribu.
The crown symbol is specifically listed as a Lasombra symbol.
If you want the crown to refer to Lasombra *and* Lasombra
antitribu, that's what the cheat sheet should say.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030528002811...@mb-m14.aol.com>, CurtAdams
<curt...@aol.com> writes:
>If you want the crown to refer to Lasombra *and* Lasombra
>antitribu, that's what the cheat sheet should say.
The point is that it doesn't need to; the antitribu aren't modelled as a
separate clan in the card game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED40421...@white-wolf.com>...
> Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED35253...@white-wolf.com>...
> >>Daniel Figueiredo wrote:
> >>>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED2CC8B...@white-wolf.com>...
> >>>>Avoid unnecessary complication, however, is a good thing.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, avoiding unnecessary complication is a good thing. But it
> >>>seems that the design team arbitrarily decides when to do that and
> >>>when not to, as evidenced by the many changes in the CE, most of which
> >>>were nothing if not unnecessary. I think not being necessary isn´t
> >>
> >>Vague handwaving is difficult to answer.
> >>What about CE was unecessarily complicated?
> >
> > I wasn´t vague there. I specifically said the changes in CE. If a
> > reason for any of them was previously given we didn´t hear about them.
>
> Again I ask: What (specifically) about CE was "uncessarily complicated"?
>
> Vague: "many of the (unamed) changed ins CE were uncessarily complicated."
> Specific: "the change to Blood Fury (making it a hand strike) in CE is
> unecessarily complicated.
>
> See?
>
I meant the layout changes. Sorry. Not the card text changes. They
were mostly good. The one layout change everyone here liked was the
action symbol on equipment, ally and retainer cards to clarify things.
All the other layout changes in the CE were unnecessary. And not
because we didn´t like them. Because they did nothing but change what
didn´t need changing. "Fixed" what wasn´t broken, and in some cases,
like the huge expansion symbol, broke what wasn´t broken.
Although I did think that Earth Meld would get the same treatment
as Majesty and Catatonic Fear. Earth Meld was already better, now the
power gap between them makes it even more useful, comparatively. But
that´s technically an Anarch change, not a CE one (although they were
probably done at the same time).
> > So we sit here without explanations for them thinking that must mean
> > they weren´t that necessary since no one gave us a why (but that has
> > been beaten to death already, so let me continue to beat my issue to
> > death). I didn´t say unnecessarily complicated. I said that most, if
> > not all, the changes made in the CE were just unnecessary. I meant the
> > bakcground changes, the blood and pool symbol changes, the fact that
> > the expansion symbol is the biggest symbol on the card when it is the
> > least important. Maybe the whole layout thing with the green bar was
> > necessary to avoid copywright issues or whatever, but if it didn´t
> > avoid any issues or save WW any money it was unnecessary as well. I
> > guess all this means that yes, the changes were complicated as well
> > weren´t they? I mean, if making 3 or 4 more antitribu is an
>
> Ah, now we're getting somewhere - specifics.
> You list quite a few changes to the design elements, some of which
> have been explained previously.
>
> But, of course, that is the purview of the art department.
>
> The designer (writer of rules and card texts) seeks to avoid
> uncessary complication in rules and card text.
Out of curiosity, can you say what the relation between the art
department and the design team is? I mean, it sounds like one pretty
much has to go with the other´s decisions and that´s that. Not that
one should interfere with the other´s job, but there must be someone
else other than the art department who can point out that what they
are doing is or isn´t necessary. (i´ll NEVER have any spelling doubts
on that word again!) :)
I´m curious about a lot of things regarding V:TES...
Daniel Figueiredo, V:EKN Prince of Campinas, Brazil
CurtAdams wrote:
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
>>>But only because the card game offers its own peculiar
>>definition of "Toreador antitribu". It offers no definition
>>of "Lasombra antitribu", however, so the definition from the
>>source material (the RPG) is used.>
>
> In the card game, "antitribu" always refers to a separate
> clan.
No, it doesn't. For instance, the representative Lasombra
antitribu introduced in Sabbat War, Lucita, is not a separate
clan.
> By default, then <clan name> refers to the non-antitribu.
> The crown symbol is specifically listed as a Lasombra symbol.
> If you want the crown to refer to Lasombra *and* Lasombra
> antitribu, that's what the cheat sheet should say.
Lasombra *is* the clan.
Lasombra antitribu is the term given to any member of that
clan who is not part of the Sabbat.
Just like in the RPG.
ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes:
>The point is that it doesn't need to; the antitribu
>aren't modelled as a separate clan in the card game.
Antitribu are modelled in the game, as separate clans.
Clans without antitribu inherit the default definition,
which is not including their antitribu. If even one
clan were listed as including antitribu under its definition,
things would be otherwise, but at present none does.
[ quoted text not captured ]
vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>No, it doesn't. For instance, the representative Lasombra
>antitribu introduced in Sabbat War, Lucita, is not a separate
>clan.
Meaning, given current V:tES definitions, her V:tES status
(Lasombra) is at odds with her old Masquerade status
(Lasombra antitribu). Just as if you printed some
not-yet-in-V:tES bloodline member as Lasombra.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030528205446...@mb-m19.aol.com>, CurtAdams
<curt...@aol.com> writes:
>ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes:
>>>The point is that it doesn't need to; the antitribu
>>aren't modelled as a separate clan in the card game.>
>Antitribu are modelled in the game, as separate clans.
Some antitribu are modelled in the game as separate clans.
The antitribu of the Lasombra are not.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CurtAdams wrote:
> Antitribu are modelled in the game, as separate clans.
Some antitribu are, yes. Not all, however.
> Clans without antitribu inherit the default definition,
> which is not including their antitribu.
The default definition includes the antitribu.
> If even one
> clan were listed as including antitribu under its definition,
> things would be otherwise, but at present none does.
Lasombra includes Lucita (base), a Lasombra antitribu, in
its "definition".
[ quoted text not captured ]
If I recall correctly (and correct me if wrong here), White Wolf has said
before that if they had introduced the Sabbat into VTES rather than WotC, then
they would not have had Antitribu. Instead they would be <Insert clan here>
with a Sabbat sect affiliation.
I think that would have worked better.
-------------------------
Cambridge by Night.
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html
The Lasombra wrote:
snip others
>
> Cooler
> Get yourself a cooler, lay yourself low
> Coincidental murder, with nothing to show
> Aerosmith, "Same Old Song and Dance"
>
> Molotov Cocktail
> I got a dog eat dog sly smile
> I got a Molotov cocktail with a match to go
> I smoke my cigarettes with style
> Guns N' Roses, "Nightrain"
Why were these two copyrighted quotes used? Since Jyhad, it seems both
WW and WotC eschewed copy protected quotes, by in large. Just
wondering. If we are going back to quotes from popular songs, I got a
million applicable ones.
chris
--
chris shorb
<www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site)
prince of torrance, california
***
Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus
Into the eyes of the night - watching me go
Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple
Enter the risen Osiris - risen again
- Dickinson
In article <3ED833F2...@vtesinla.org>, chr...@vtesinla.org says...
> > Cooler
> > Get yourself a cooler, lay yourself low
> > Coincidental murder, with nothing to show
> > Aerosmith, "Same Old Song and Dance"
> >
> > Molotov Cocktail
> > I got a dog eat dog sly smile
> > I got a Molotov cocktail with a match to go
> > I smoke my cigarettes with style
> > Guns N' Roses, "Nightrain"
>
> Why were these two copyrighted quotes used? Since Jyhad, it seems both
> WW and WotC eschewed copy protected quotes, by in large. Just
> wondering. If we are going back to quotes from popular songs, I got a
> million applicable ones.
Maybe they asked permission this time.
--
-Snapcase
>would it be interesting, and workable, to remove the whole 'antitribu
>as a separate clan' thing? make all toreador toreador, just with
>different sect affiliations, etc.
>
>if a card requires toreador, it has the toreador symbol on it. write
>in the rulebook that means you need a camarilla toreador to play it.
>then, when it has a red blood splot behind it, say it needs a sabbat
>toreador (or 'toreador antitribu', in VTM jargon) to play it. if the
>toreador is independant, then it wouldn't qualify for either of those
>cards.
Well, you'd need to change more than just the cards that "need a <blank>" to
play it. Every card that refers to that <blank> clan would need to be changed.
And you'd have additional problems.
If a Lasombra got a Writ of Acceptance, you wouldn't be able to play a
Detection on him. Did your Malkie get hit with an Alternate Personality
Derangement? Well, all you have to do is take the innate action to become
Anarch and you're no longer affected by the card (since you're Independent and
no longer "Malkavian"). Or no, does your predator's Constanza get her +2 bleed
because you control a single Ventrue? Just take the innate action to make him
Independent and he's no longer "Ventrue."
Furthermore, you'd go a long way towards making Anka, Samat, and Teygrius
useless since they aren't considered their normal clan (due to abnormal sect
affiliation). Same thing with Angela, Muse, George Frederick, Lithrac, and
Jorge. So now there'd only be 3 Daughters in the game who could use a Concert
Tour and 3 Samedi who could use a Dirty Contract. Not to mention the nightmare
the different Gargoyles would be.
Or would there be a special clause that would allow Independent clans an
exemption? So a Sabbat Toreador or an Independent Lasombra didn't "count" as
their clan, but a Camarilla Giovanni or a Sabbat Baali did?
(Not specifically directed at you) Furthermore, I'm really kind of sick of hear
people whining about "oh we have just go to have !Assamites, !Ravnos, and
Serpents of the Light" because that's the way the RPG does it. You know, don't
you think the Giovanni are sort of getting shafted here since they won't get an
Antitribu clan? Yeah, some people have noted that there are other Necromancy
clans, but I'd still consider the few Bloodlines vampires to be a poor
consolation prize for not getting any antitribu. So if you argue fairness,
shouldn't you be advocating Giovanni Antitribu? (Or is that a problem for the
fanboys since it doesn't strictly follow canon?).
And for what it's worth, why should the "Antitribu" of the Independent clans
even be Sabbat? Outside of "that's what the RPG says," why wouldn't the Ravnos
Antitribu be Camarilla? Why wouldn't the Tzimisce Antitribu be Independent? And
the Gargoyle Antitribu be Sabbat? Because of "canon" reasons? And wouldn't
"canon" be the *perfect* explanation on why the Assamites should get two
alternate clans (Sabbat Antitribu and Camarilla Schismatics) while the Giovanni
get absolutely none?
Honestly, I'm really getting fed up with these fanboys who want the card game
to be the perfect representation of their favorite table-top or LARP game. They
just don't seem to realize that as a card game, there's this certain thing
called BALANCE and more often than not you shouldn't simply blindly to
something just because "that's what it says in the RPG book."
Halcyan 2
On 02 Jun 2003 02:43:17 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) scrawled:
>>would it be interesting, and workable, to remove the whole 'antitribu
>>as a separate clan' thing? make all toreador toreador, just with
>>different sect affiliations, etc.
>>
>>if a card requires toreador, it has the toreador symbol on it. write
>>in the rulebook that means you need a camarilla toreador to play it.
>>then, when it has a red blood splot behind it, say it needs a sabbat
>>toreador (or 'toreador antitribu', in VTM jargon) to play it. if the
>>toreador is independant, then it wouldn't qualify for either of those
>>cards.>
>
>Well, you'd need to change more than just the cards that "need a <blank>" to
>play it. Every card that refers to that <blank> clan would need to be changed.
nooo....any card that has 'clan X' or 'clan X antitribu' in it's text
would just be referring to 'clan X'.
>And you'd have additional problems.
yup, sure would. i did ask 'would it be workable?'. looks like the
answer is 'apparently not'.
let's amend it to:
no blood splot on symbol on side of card => requires indie or cammie
to play
blood splot => require sabbat to play.
and all antitribu and regular, wherever it mentions them in text, are
considered just 'clan X'. so if something required sabbat toreador
(art of pain, for example), you'd need a toreador in the sabbat to
play it, but you could play it on any toreador, regardless of sect.
>If a Lasombra got a Writ of Acceptance, you wouldn't be able to play a
>Detection on him. Did your Malkie get hit with an Alternate Personality
>Derangement? Well, all you have to do is take the innate action to become
>Anarch and you're no longer affected by the card (since you're Independent and
>no longer "Malkavian").
Umm..in those two cases i'd be thinking more like they could all be
played. doesn't matter what sect you are, you are clan malk, etc. so
gilbert duane could be alternate personailitied _or_ paranoid, or
both. :)
just cards that require the clan to play, on the side, would require
sabbat if it had a blood splot, i guess. otherwise, cammie or
independant qualify. does that work better?
> Or no, does your predator's Constanza get her +2 bleed
>because you control a single Ventrue? Just take the innate action to make him
>Independent and he's no longer "Ventrue."
yes he is. and she'd still get the +2 bleed if you controlled
Lazverinus, under this proposed nightmare storm of errata and complete
game re-writing. :)
>Furthermore, you'd go a long way towards making Anka, Samat, and Teygrius
>useless since they aren't considered their normal clan (due to abnormal sect
>affiliation).
only anka would be a problem as she wouldn't qualify for park hunting
ground, fortune teller shop, etc. but she'd still be 'ravnos'.
Indie/cammie would be no distinction...samat, teyg, etc would still be
of their clans, and would qualify for playing of clan cards.
> Same thing with Angela, Muse, George Frederick, Lithrac, and
>Jorge. So now there'd only be 3 Daughters in the game who could use a Concert
>Tour
4. only the sabbat one wouldn't count.
> and 3 Samedi who could use a Dirty Contract.
4 again, only the sabbat one wouldn't count. actually, does dirty
contract have a clan symbol on the side? not sure off the top of my
headbut i don't think it does. which means they'd all still be able to
play it. they're all Samedi, regardless of sect.
> Not to mention the nightmare
>the different Gargoyles would be.
only 2 would miss out. erinyi and pugfar. and they'd only miss out on
rock cat, stone dog and razor bats...i think...all the other cards
(soul of the earth, defender of the haven, Armour of Tera, etc) can
still target them as they're ALL gargoyles.
>Or would there be a special clause that would allow Independent clans an
>exemption? So a Sabbat Toreador or an Independent Lasombra didn't "count" as
>their clan, but a Camarilla Giovanni or a Sabbat Baali did?
they all count as their clan.
>(Not specifically directed at you) Furthermore, I'm really kind of sick of hear
>people whining about "oh we have just go to have !Assamites, !Ravnos, and
>Serpents of the Light" because that's the way the RPG does it. You know, don't
yeah! me too! that's why i'm arguing the other way! sort of. i don't
want to see more clans. i want less. just with maybe clan AND sect
specific toys. for example:
Nasty Nasty Hurt.
combat
{assamite clan symbol with blood splot behind it}
Only usable at the end of combat when this vampire is ready and the
opposing minion is being burned. Pick up the opposing minion card,
tear it into pieces, and scatter it accross the table. Tap any card in
play the pieces land on. Pieces must be dropped from at least 3 feet
above the playing surface, or 1 metre, your choice.
Illus: Clint Langley
This would require an assamite, who is in the sabbat. this assamite
can still be chosen for contracts, as he's an assamite and contract
doesn't have a clan symbol on it. but he's not good for playing
alamut, as that has a non-splot assamite symbol on the side. but, if
he bleeds he'd still put counters on alamut, as he's still an assamite
but i think he might not qualify for clandestone contract, as that
does have an assamite symbol on it, (with no blood splot).
[snip rpg-to-ccg conversion rant]
I agree the card game's balance is more important than 'realistically'
representing the WoD. Which is why I proposed the idea of merging
clans. It would solve a lot of the 'what if i clan impersonate Z?' or
'what if X changes to sect Y?' type questions that come up a lot.
Of course, i don't doubt it would create a whole host of new
questions, though.
Feel free to pretend the amended rule i proposed above is in force,
and ask me questions that show it's unworkable. I'll take a stab at
finding solutions. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes:
>In message <20030528205446...@mb-m19.aol.com>, CurtAdams
<curt...@aol.com> writes:
>>ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes:>>>>The point is that it doesn't need to; the antitribu
>>>aren't modelled as a separate clan in the card game.>>>Antitribu are modelled in the game, as separate clans.>Some antitribu are modelled in the game as separate clans.>The antitribu of the Lasombra are not.
Not explicitly modeled, and therefore they inherit the
only definition of antitribu in V:tES, of a separate clan.
[ quoted text not captured ]
vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>CurtAdams wrote:>> Antitribu are modelled in the game, as separate clans.>Some antitribu are, yes. Not all, however.>> Clans without antitribu inherit the default definition,
>> which is not including their antitribu.>The default definition includes the antitribu.
Can't be the default definition, because that definition
doesn't exist at all in V:tES.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030606185737...@mb-m25.aol.com>, CurtAdams
<curt...@aol.com> writes:
>>> Clans without antitribu inherit the default definition,
>>> which is not including their antitribu.>>>The default definition includes the antitribu.>
>Can't be the default definition, because that definition
>doesn't exist at all in V:tES.
Your definition certainly doesn't exist in V:TES.
Anka, however, does; if there is any "definition" it shows clearly that
Ravnos Antitribu can be modelled as Ravnos with a Sabbat designator.
What "definition" is this that you keep mithering on about? Can you
copy out the definition from the rule book please?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030606185603...@mb-m25.aol.com>, CurtAdams
<curt...@aol.com> writes:
>Not explicitly modeled, and therefore they inherit the
>only definition of antitribu in V:tES, of a separate clan.
*boggle*
Some antitribu are modelled as separate clans; some are not.
Simply stamping and repeating that because the Toreador antitribu are
modelled in V:TES as a separate clan that every antitribu has to be
modelled that way lacks... thought.
Your repeated assertions that the "only definition of antitribu in
V:TES" is that of a separate clan lacks, well, accuracy or truth. There
are vampires who model antitribu without separate clans.
You appear to be saying that because they don't work in the same way as
*some* of the antitribu in the game that they can't be modelling
antitribu. That's simply wrong, and violates designer intent.
And there is no "definition" in V:TES. Simply some sizeable antitribu
groupings are modelled as separate clans; some antitribu groupings are
not. Would you care to point to a "definition" anywhere?
Things can be done in more than one way, you know?
Your argument has about as much weight as: Gargoyles were modelled as
allies, therefore the Gargoyle clan inherits the only definition in the
game - they must be allies too.
That's just as non-sensical - the presence of antitribu who are modelled
as part of the main clan - with a different sect designation - amends
whatever 'definition' you think the game is working with.
Even before the printing of - say - Lucita, the game catered to a
'definition' of antitribu that didn't cause clan change - Writ of
Acceptance models a Lasombra Antitribu, if put on a Lasombra.
What is this mythical definition you've got? It's certainly not one
defined anywhere in the game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CurtAdams wrote:
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:>>CurtAdams wrote:>>>Antitribu are modelled in the game, as separate clans.>>Some antitribu are, yes. Not all, however.>>>Clans without antitribu inherit the default definition,
>>>which is not including their antitribu.>>The default definition includes the antitribu.>
> Can't be the default definition, because that definition
> doesn't exist at all in V:tES.
Yes, it does.
Like "Kine", it exists because it exists in the source
material.
"Lasombra antitribu" means, by definition, non-Sabbat
Lasombra, because of the source material (and the fact
that the card game offers no overriding definition).
[ quoted text not captured ]
ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes:
>What "definition" is this that you keep
>mithering on about? Can you
>copy out the definition from the rule book please?
The clan definitions, including which are antitribu, are on page 36 and 37 of
the Cam edition rulebook.
Obviously a vampire of an antitribu clan is an antitribu and any other vampire
is not. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical card:
Trick the hierarchy
Action Modifier
Disciplineless
Usable only by an antitribu vampire when a non-antitribu vampire attempts to
block. +1 stealth.
Would Lucita be able to use it? Of course not.
Would Billy be able to use it when Lucita tries to block him? Of course.
If you're going to argue that V:tES players are supposed to know the V:tM
definitions and use
them to override V:tES definitions, I
quote *you* on the subject:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1283879380d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
selm=Pine.SOL.4.21.0006011123270.11063-100000%40orange.csi.cam.ac.uk
>There are *huge* numbers of points
>on which the card game and the RPG vary:
(long and still admittedly incomplete list snipped)
>Ignore V:tM. This is V:TES.[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030614212957...@mb-m06.aol.com>, CurtAdams
<curt...@aol.com> writes:
>ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes:
>>>What "definition" is this that you keep
>>mithering on about? Can you
>>copy out the definition from the rule book please?>
>The clan definitions, including which are antitribu, are on page 36 and 37 of
>the Cam edition rulebook.
>
>Obviously a vampire of an antitribu clan is an antitribu and any other vampire
>is not.
There is no *need*, however, to model vampires from the RPG in separate
clans.
Some are modelled as separate clans. Others aren't.
>Trick the hierarchy
>Action Modifier
>Disciplineless
>
>Usable only by an antitribu vampire when a non-antitribu vampire attempts to
>block. +1 stealth.
>
>Would Lucita be able to use it? Of course not.
Assuming "antitribu vampire" were defined to mean "member of a clan with
'antitribu' in the name", sure. Card text.
Card text provides many limitations.
Similarly, if we decide that non-Sabbat Lasombra should be modelled as a
Lasombra Antitribu, this card is going to cause similar intellectual
issues when Gratiano plays it with his Writ of Acceptance. And you've
just stopped Lucita using all the Lasombra machinery to which she has
access.
So you've proved card text has limitations and can't transfer everything
from the RPG to the card game. Go you!
(Everyone else already knew this.)
>>There are *huge* numbers of points
>>on which the card game and the RPG vary:>
>(long and still admittedly incomplete list snipped)>>Ignore V:tM. This is V:TES.
Quite. In V:TES, some RPG antitribu are modelled as separate clans.
Some aren't. Some aren't distinct enough to warrant a separate clan.
Some are too small to warrant a separate clan. Some aren't modelled at
all. There can be many reasons.
Some antitribu are modelled as separate clans. Some aren't.
Move on, get over it. It's card game. If you want a facsimile of the
RPG, uh, play the RPG?
[ quoted text not captured ]