How can i request an errata??

that's because i want an errata that allows independent titled vampires to become anarch. i believe that is fair to do it, becasue i understand that camarilla and sabbat titled vampires have a title within the sect and a resposability to the sect itself, therefore they cannot become anarch. but an independent titled is only a vampire political influence without further duties to the independent sect, that's how he can change sect without loosing his votes. and on top of that, there this card, into the fire and out of the frying pan, they do not have such restriction, then why restrict the choice to become an anarch??? that's all thanks

ThE_OnLy_VipeR wrote: > that's because i want an errata that allows independent titled > vampires to become anarch. Well, you don't really "request" errata. If you think something needs a fixing, the best action to take is to bring it up here and provide compelling evidence that it needs fixing. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Addressing the parts in order: 1. How to request an errata: Demonstrate that something is broken, either through logical argument or in repeated tournament play. Convince enough people that you are right. Hope that one of them is LSJ. Await massive metagame-shifting announcement. 2. Why can't titled indies go anarch? (Role-playing aspect) Anarchs do not respect those who maintain ties to non-anarch organizations. An independent title, while it does represent "influence" more than "responsibility," nevertheless remains a strong connection to clan (for instance), and the Anarch movement frowns upon such connections in its members. 3. Why can't titled indies go anarch? (Game balance aspect) Because of the Fee Stake mechanic, having other Anarchs who have non-removable, non-contestable titles can be too strong. It should be hard to get permanent votes on an Anarch. (Note that the two vamps that do this currently do so only by merging.) In addition, from a design aspect, vampires can be given titles if they are considered to have potentially strong discipline spreads as Anarchs. 4. Shouldn't indies be able to give up their titles in some way? (The implied question) Sure. Why not? Perhaps a card could come out that would allow for this. Arguably, Rise of the Nephtali - if played correctly - does achieve this goal. However, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to have a card that allows a vampire to take an action to voluntarily give up a title. Heck, it would be an interesting thing to add in to Temptation decks. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

> Addressing the parts in order: > > 1. How to request an errata: > Demonstrate that something is broken, either through logical argument > or in repeated tournament play. Convince enough people that you are > right. Hope that one of them is LSJ. Await massive metagame-shifting > announcement. Yes. > 2. Why can't titled indies go anarch? (Role-playing aspect) > Anarchs do not respect those who maintain ties to non-anarch > organizations. An independent title, while it does represent > "influence" more than "responsibility," nevertheless remains a strong > connection to clan (for instance), and the Anarch movement frowns upon > such connections in its members. Interesting. But not a true "the way it is" rule in the WOD. I'd rather consider that often titled indies are big vamps, and that they'd be reluctant to give up their positions just for Anarchy, and that Anarchs would anyway mistrust an old vampire. Anyway, the CCG often disregards details such as this. Therefore, it is not a factor. > 3. Why can't titled indies go anarch? (Game balance aspect) > Because of the Fee Stake mechanic, having other Anarchs who have > non-removable, non-contestable titles can be too strong. Oh my, someone has 1 or two non-removable titles !! And that someone probably is 9 to 11 cap !!!! Waaaaaaaay too powerful compared to Princes, Priscii etc. Not a factor IMO. It should be > hard to get permanent votes on an Anarch. It is. You have to become Anarch, which either requires a card or an action. And anyway you'll probably want to become a Baron because chances are you have only one title (The Baron for Baron !! ;) There's also that 9-Cap setite who begs to become Anarch....). (Note that the two vamps > that do this currently do so only by merging.) In addition, from a > design aspect, vampires can be given titles if they are considered to > have potentially strong discipline spreads as Anarchs. To prevent them from becoming Anarchs ? So we'd get only crappy vampires ? If the vamps are good and indie, it may be because the Indies need more good vampires and, sometimes, the edge of becoming Anarchs. > 4. Shouldn't indies be able to give up their titles in some way? (The > implied question) > Sure. Why not? Perhaps a card could come out that would allow for > this. Arguably, Rise of the Nephtali - if played correctly - does > achieve this goal. However, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to > have a card that allows a vampire to take an action to voluntarily give > up a title. Heck, it would be an interesting thing to add in to > Temptation decks. Why not the card... But if you need to loose a title and on top of that to become Anarch, the deck will never be competitive. > Eric Simon > Prince of Chicago I thought you liked Anarchs !?! ;-) The titled going Anarchs opens new combinations, allows some good vampires to join the ranks, etc. But rather than changing the rule, the team could produce a card that allows a Titled indie to become an Anarch, but does not untap him for instance. Or an event allowing any Indie to go Anarch, or why not the equivalent of a Fall : all Indie non-anarch vampires loose their titles, usable also by the player of an Anarch deck !! :) Maybe we'll see some like this in KMW (no inside info here, just hope) ? -- Orpheus -------------------------- She is my Secure Haven.

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > 3. Why can't titled indies go anarch? (Game balance aspect) > Because of the Fee Stake mechanic, having other Anarchs who have > non-removable, non-contestable titles can be too strong. It should be > hard to get permanent votes on an Anarch. (Note that the two vamps > that do this currently do so only by merging.) In addition, from a > design aspect, vampires can be given titles if they are considered to > have potentially strong discipline spreads as Anarchs. Note also that stealing a Cardinal or Justicar and having him take the cardless "Go Anarch" action will effectively remove his three votes in addition to removing his two blood. Makes the temporary-minion-stealers more powerful. -- 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/

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > > 3. Why can't titled indies go anarch? (Game balance aspect) > > Because of the Fee Stake mechanic, having other Anarchs who have > > non-removable, non-contestable titles can be too strong. > > Oh my, someone has 1 or two non-removable titles !! And that someone > probably is 9 to 11 cap !!!! Waaaaaaaay too powerful compared to Princes, > Priscii etc. > > Not a factor IMO. Dismissing it as "not a factor" based only on whether it would be over-powered isn't, IMO, sensible. From the evidence we have, in the crypt and library cards, it seems clear that the Anarch "sect" is supposed to be weak politically. Designer intent is a factor to be considered. For instance, I don't think you could argue that making the Ahrimane vampires non-sterile would really be super over-powered. Certainly, I don't think it would be ludicrous compared to any other non-sterile clan. But that's how they're supposed to be. It's not just a question of "Would this break the game?" It's also "Is this how it was intended to be?" And "Does this give a sect a unique style?" Many different questions are relevant when changing things - certainly when changing things which aren't explicitly broken/problematic. > > It should be > > hard to get permanent votes on an Anarch. > > It is. You have to become Anarch, which either requires a card or an action. I think the decks that have done well with Anarchs (of which there are some!) have demonstrated that this isn't hard. Or, at least, it's certainly achievable without effort that makes the deck unworkable. Ergo, if you have an independent with votes who'd go Anarch in one of those decks, it's unlikely to be substantially easier or harder with those vampires - unless there's something specific to a vampire e.g. a chronic lack of decent disciplines to stealth it when needed, say. Galaric's Legacy and Seattle Committee can be fun anyway. (Assuming that the change to allow titled vampires to be Anarch would result in an erratum to Seattle Committee.) It's not *that* hard to go Anarch. The difficult part is making it worth going Anarch, for the variety of reasons that have been discussed at length on the group ever since the Anarchs were released. > And anyway you'll probably want to become a Baron because chances are you > have only one title (The Baron for Baron !! ;) There's also that 9-Cap > setite who begs to become Anarch....). I'm not sure. I tend to think that the Fee Stakes are a nice thing to toss into a deck, but not something you should actually plan for. I don't think they're solid enough to work whereas in, say, a Ventrue Law Firm deck with mid-cap support, you could have Sir Sweaty Nash as a Prince in the crypt, a Praxis Seizure or two for other vampires who aren't already titled, and stand a reasonable chance at pulling off things requiring Princes. Whereas actually wanting to go Baron... I think it's risky. You don't have the crypt options to fall back on, so if you draw them in the wrong order... And it's not like you have many Fee Stakes to choose from, so doubling up means you can end up with several of the same one(s) - unlike Praxis Seizures, where you can have fourteen different ones without breaking a sweat in a weenie vote grab deck. I'm less than enamoured with the options that being a Baron provides you with, for that reason. > I thought you liked Anarchs !?! ;-) > > The titled going Anarchs opens new combinations, allows some good vampires > to join the ranks, etc. It's possible to like something, but also see implications beyond what would be good for your favourite decks. (See Dramatic Upheaval arguments, ad nauseum.) > But rather than changing the rule, the team could produce a card that allows > a Titled indie to become an Anarch, but does not untap him for instance. Or > an event allowing any Indie to go Anarch, or why not the equivalent of a > Fall : all Indie non-anarch vampires loose their titles, usable also by the > player of an Anarch deck !! :) Some of them sound a bit... awkward. However, I could see an argument for such a card turning up in - say - a Storyline tournament. Have a fight over which clans get to do what, and maybe see the winning clan from each sect getting a few interesting Anarch-y options. Provide a useful-but-not-overpowered promo card... Could be an interesting sideline to a future expansion, a clutch of ten to twenty Anarch themed cards (crypt and library), with advanced Anarch vampires, or merged vampires, and so on. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

While we're on the subject, I propose errata to Kij Dansky. She has 3 disciplines at superior, 1 discipline at inferior, and the title of Priscus... but she's an 8 cap. Other vampires with the same setup are 7 caps (Korah). Every formula I've seen indicates that Kij should be a 7 cap vice 8 :)