Just wondering. Has anyone yet suggested the following variation on the
Grouping Rule:
Each Crypt may contain vampires from at most 2 different groups
AND
If a crypt contains two groups, one must be even numbered and the other odd
numbered.
Of course, this currently works exactly like the existing grouping rule, and
will continue to do so until such time as a group 4 is produced (which may be
never).
The only real advantage at this point is that it might assuage player
nightmares concerning the consequences of continuing multiplication of groups.
But if Group 4 were ever introduced, I cannot see any reason why it should not
be combinable with Group 1 as well as with Group 3. The variant here suggested
would limit the number of co-playable vampires just as effectively as the
current rule does.
Just a thought.
Actually, yes, I was thinking the same thing.
I mean, if the point of grouping is to stop us from mixing two Cam
base sets, and (in the future) two groups full of Sabbat and
Independent vampires, then why not simply divide groups into "cam" and
"non-cam" and allow one of each?
This is one reason why:
If there are 4 groups printed, there are only 3 two-group
combinations:
1&2 2&3 3&4
(3 possibilities)
Under the alternative rule, there is also:
1&4
(4 total possibilities)
Now let's go 10 years ahead. Let's assume 12 groups:
1&2 2&3 3&4 4&5 5&6 6&7 7&8 8&9 9&10 10&11 11&12
(11 possibilities)
But the alternative rule provides:
1&4 1&6 1&8 1&10 1&12 2&5 2&7 2&9 2&11 3&6 3&8 3&10 3&12
4&7 4&9 4&11 5&8 5&10 5&12 6&9 6&11 7&10 7&12 8&11 9&12
(36 total possibilities!)
At that point, I would not want to be either a playtester, making sure
all of the 36 possible group combinations are balanced, or a
deckbuilder, checking Monger for 6 hours to make sure I haven't missed
something and my crypt is as good as it is going to get.
As it stands, playtesting a group only requires playing with that
group and the previous one. Everything before that is as balanced (or
unbalanced) as it was before, and isn't disturbed.
In the long run, I believe the current system will prove for the
better.
Or, look at this another way:
Assume that two consecutive groups will be of equal power level, and
that new players will have easy access only to the current booster
packs and starter decks. If the newest set is primarily (or entirely)
Group 5, for example, they can probably still get packs of unopened
Group 4 vamps at a reasonable price. They don't need to buy Group 3
because it doesn't mix with 5.
But Group 2 would.
Group 5 comes around, how do you tell the new player "Sorry, if you
want to play Tremere competitively, then that Group 5 starter will
/help/, but Group 4 Tremere just aren't as good as Reverend Blackwood,
Aisling, Hannigan, and Bryan Van Duesen... Better get looking on
Ebay."
Like I said, it may be a long time, but I think WW's decision to only
allow consecutive groups will be revealed as wise.
-- Brian
P.S. I think White Wolf wants people to play vampires in V:TM canon
over those not in it, so that the games mesh well and maybe even lead
into each other. Most Group 1 (all Group 1?) vampires are not in the
RPG.
[ quoted text not captured ]
All well and good, except that you could easily end up with a messy
combination of vampires. The numbering strategy seems to be going
somewhere at the moment - i.e. level 3 vampires more in line with the
power scale of Sabbat, and most "rubbish" vampires are being phased
out. Plus now we have current WoD canon vampires crossing over into
VTES. Group 1 vampires will soon become out of date compared to the
meaty goodness of future vamps (assuming trends persist).
The vampires will probably continue to go in a certain direction -
i.e. group 4 vampires will replace group 2 vampires to an extent and
work well with group 3. Group 5 vampires will replace to an extent
group 3 vampires and work well with group 4... etc.
I fully anticipate a new Sabbat orientated set to be forthcoming in
2004, with the core group being Group 4. Bearing in mind that it will
be 5 years since the whole Clan Novel stream (bloody hell!) it will
probably be about the time that the next major V:TM events will occur.
DH
dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> > Just wondering. Has anyone yet suggested the following variation on the
> > Grouping Rule:
> >
> > Each Crypt may contain vampires from at most 2 different groups
> > AND
> > If a crypt contains two groups, one must be even numbered and the other odd
> > numbered.
> >
> > Of course, this currently works exactly like the existing grouping rule, and
> > will continue to do so until such time as a group 4 is produced (which may be
> > never).
> >
> > The only real advantage at this point is that it might assuage player
> > nightmares concerning the consequences of continuing multiplication of groups.
> >
> > But if Group 4 were ever introduced, I cannot see any reason why it should not
> > be combinable with Group 1 as well as with Group 3. The variant here suggested
> > would limit the number of co-playable vampires just as effectively as the
> > current rule does.
>
> All well and good, except that you could easily end up with a messy
> combination of vampires. The numbering strategy seems to be going
> somewhere at the moment - i.e. level 3 vampires more in line with the
> power scale of Sabbat, and most "rubbish" vampires are being phased
> out.
OK, but personally, I don't like the "escalation" aspect of it, and I
do not think this is, nor should it be, the actual purpose of the
grouping rule. I don't want the Group 1 Nosferatu "phased out"
(especially since their artwork is lightyears ahead of anything in
Group 3).
I recognize that such escalation is to some extent inevitable, because
what was done with the Sabbat set, which future sets must now live up
to. It does not thereby follow designers should go out of their way
to marginalize the Group 1 vampires further than is necessary.
Ideally, each co-grouping should be balanced.
So imagine we have progressed to the point where there are 4 groups.
Imagine we have 15, 9, 15, and 9 in Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively,
for each Camarilla clan. Under the current rule, we now have 3
possible co-groupings: 1&2, 2&3, and 3&4, all with 24 vampires each.
Assuming group 1 is truly underpowered, then the first co-grouping
will be a bit less competitive.
Under the alternative rule, we will have one additional co-grouping:
1&4, also with 24 vampires. Again, this group might suffer a bit from
having a few underpowered Group 1 vampires in it. So what? It still
provides additional design options, and the game will not suffer for
it. They will be just as playable as the 1&2 grouping.
> Plus now we have current WoD canon vampires crossing over into
> VTES. Group 1 vampires will soon become out of date compared to the
> meaty goodness of future vamps (assuming trends persist).
I don't approve of your plans. I approve of game balance, not
escalation. As far as I can tell, there has not been an escalation of
vampire power levels since the Sabbat set (indeed, things have been a
bit toned down - some of those big Sabbat vampires were infamously
undercosted.) I don't think that continued escalation is the plan of
the current design team (or I hope not).
> The vampires will probably continue to go in a certain direction -
> i.e. group 4 vampires will replace group 2 vampires to an extent and
> work well with group 3.
Group 2 vampires were designed to work well with the Group 1 vampires.
If Group 4 vampires are designed to "replace" them (which is sort of
the idea since they would not be co-playable) why not allow them to be
played with the Group 1 vampires just like the Group 2s were?
You seem to be accepting the theory that the whole idea behind the
grouping system is planned obsolescence for older vampires. That was
not my understanding of its purpose, which is the only reason I am
generally supportive of the idea. Those who are hostile to grouping,
and say they have stopped playing V:tES because of it,do so because
they are afraid your theory is correct. I hope that they are wrong.
I hope that you are wrong.
> Group 5 vampires will replace to an extent
> group 3 vampires and work well with group 4... etc.
As above.
> I fully anticipate a new Sabbat orientated set to be forthcoming in
> 2004, with the core group being Group 4. Bearing in mind that it will
> be 5 years since the whole Clan Novel stream (bloody hell!) it will
> probably be about the time that the next major V:TM events will occur.
I don't take it for granted that things will progress that quickly.
The Lasombra and Tzimisce currently have only 15 co-playables each
currently, which puts them way behind the other major clans, which
have 24 to 25 co-playables. You could add 10 group-3s to each clan
and they still would not quite be balanced, because they would not
have the option of crypt support from anti-tribu counterparts.
And when you do reach the point where there are too many Sabbat
co-playable vampires in the Sabbat set, and the next batch needs to be
a different group, why move to Group 4? Group 1 is still vacant for
the Sabbat.
An objection to printing Group 1 Sabbat, I suppose, is that they will
be entirely incompatible with the next Group, which would have to be
4. But of course, the alternative rule I recommended solves that
problem.
evilclon...@aol.com (Brian) wrote in message news:<24e59377.0209...@posting.google.com>...
> Actually, yes, I was thinking the same thing.
> I mean, if the point of grouping is to stop us from mixing two Cam
> base sets, and (in the future) two groups full of Sabbat and
> Independent vampires, then why not simply divide groups into "cam" and
> "non-cam" and allow one of each?
I prefer to just call them "even" and "odd".
> This is one reason why:
>
> If there are 4 groups printed, there are only 3 two-group
> combinations:
> 1&2 2&3 3&4
> (3 possibilities)
>
> Under the alternative rule, there is also:
> 1&4
> (4 total possibilities)
Yes, and this is a good thing. I'm still waiting for your "reason
why".
> Now let's go 10 years ahead. Let's assume 12 groups:
> 1&2 2&3 3&4 4&5 5&6 6&7 7&8 8&9 9&10 10&11 11&12
> (11 possibilities)
I don't think we'll get nearly that far in 10 years, but otherwise a
fine hypothesis.
> But the alternative rule provides:
> 1&4 1&6 1&8 1&10 1&12 2&5 2&7 2&9 2&11 3&6 3&8 3&10 3&12
> 4&7 4&9 4&11 5&8 5&10 5&12 6&9 6&11 7&10 7&12 8&11 9&12
> (36 total possibilities!)
And, of course, that is a good thing. The apparent goal of the
grouping system, limiting co-playable vampires to a certain level, is
achieved.
> At that point, I would not want to be either a playtester, making sure
> all of the 36 possible group combinations are balanced,
I do not see playtesting as a problem. I see no reason to assume that
a set of 9 group 4 vampires that work well, on playtesting, with the
group 3s will somehow become shockingly broken when combined with the
group 1s. And I think it would be a boring game that allowed
playtesters to anticipate every possible player strategy.
Of course, it is not necessary for playtesters to try every
conceivable combination to ensure that cards are not seriously
unbalanced. I don't think it works like that at all. And if it does,
what is your solution? Do you want to start a grouping rule for
library cards as well, to make absolutely sure playtesters won't have
to worry about how some new master card interacts with some obscure
vicissitude card from 20 expansions prior? Or is your solution one of
general escalation, where power levels gradually increase and past
cards of all types become obsolete, and playtesters hence don't have
to worry about them.
> or a
> deckbuilder, checking Monger for 6 hours to make sure I haven't missed
> something and my crypt is as good as it is going to get.
I would like to have the option of playing with every card in my
collection. I know I won't be able to explore all options, but I want
the limits determined by my creativity, not by artificial and
unnecessary bounds.
> As it stands, playtesting a group only requires playing with that
> group and the previous one. Everything before that is as balanced (or
> unbalanced) as it was before, and isn't disturbed.
That's all it will still require.
> In the long run, I believe the current system will prove for the
> better.
>
> Or, look at this another way:
>
> Assume that two consecutive groups will be of equal power level, and
> that new players will have easy access only to the current booster
> packs and starter decks. If the newest set is primarily (or entirely)
> Group 5, for example, they can probably still get packs of unopened
> Group 4 vamps at a reasonable price. They don't need to buy Group 3
> because it doesn't mix with 5.
>
> But Group 2 would.
>
> Group 5 comes around, how do you tell the new player "Sorry, if you
> want to play Tremere competitively, then that Group 5 starter will
> /help/, but Group 4 Tremere just aren't as good as Reverend Blackwood,
> Aisling, Hannigan, and Bryan Van Duesen... Better get looking on
> Ebay."
I assume the design team will handle that problem by producing Group 4
!Tremere that are as good as Group 2 !Tremere. Avid collectors can
seek out the old cards, but a full collection should never be
necessary for competitive play. If demand for old vamps becomes great
enough, they can always be reprinted.
> Like I said, it may be a long time, but I think WW's decision to only
> allow consecutive groups will be revealed as wise.
>
> -- Brian
>
> P.S. I think White Wolf wants people to play vampires in V:TM canon
> over those not in it, so that the games mesh well and maybe even lead
> into each other. Most Group 1 (all Group 1?) vampires are not in the
> RPG.
According to the "WW canon", there are approximately something over
3000 vampires in each of the 13 major clans. Do you really mean to
tell me that there is no room in this scheme for a Nosferatu named
"Marty Lechtansi" just because no "clan novel" mentions him? You do
realize, don't you, that this game is based on a storytelling game
where the participants create their own vampire characters and call
them whatever the hell they want.
Also, having different vampires contesting the same titles adds to the
flavor of the game, and bring into play rarely applied rules of
title-contestation. This is a Good Thing. There is no need for
Sheldon go hide in a corner just because Cock Robin is in town. Power
struggles, infighting, and upheavals are among the major themes of the
game.
"John B. Whelan" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:fd166f83.02090...@posting.google.com...
> dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message >
>> I don't approve of your plans. I approve of game balance, not
> escalation. As far as I can tell, there has not been an escalation of
> vampire power levels since the Sabbat set (indeed, things have been a
> bit toned down - some of those big Sabbat vampires were infamously
> undercosted.) I don't think that continued escalation is the plan of
> the current design team (or I hope not).
>
I agree. And I also agree with the even & odd rule. Sounds like fun, to me.
Hopefully the design team will consider it.
On the other hand, I still don't see the "escalation" in power that other
people say they are seeing. Small vampires, which have always been the most
powerful, have actually gotten much weaker. Bigger vampires are, *in general*,
more powerful than they were in group 1, but that's not a rule. For instance,
I can't recall any group 3 princes of capacity 7 or below. I'm probably
forgetting one, but I know that Ventrue, the supposed masters of titles, don't
have any. That's a huge decrease in power, and I don't think the powering up
of big vamps really makes up for it. So, overall, I feel like group 3 is
weaker than group 1, except that there are some nifty abilities floating around
in it which make it preferrable to group 1 in some regards.
The only thing that keeps group 3 viable, IMHO, is that there are plenty of
group 2 weenies to play with them. Otherwise, you have to play a deck with all
huge vamps in it, since the group 3 weenies seem to have a lot of out-of-clan
disciplines.
...And there's no Watenda or Gideon Fontaine in group 3.
> > All well and good, except that you could easily end up with a messy
> > combination of vampires. The numbering strategy seems to be going
> > somewhere at the moment - i.e. level 3 vampires more in line with the
> > power scale of Sabbat, and most "rubbish" vampires are being phased
> > out.
>
> OK, but personally, I don't like the "escalation" aspect of it, and I
> do not think this is, nor should it be, the actual purpose of the
> grouping rule. I don't want the Group 1 Nosferatu "phased out"
> (especially since their artwork is lightyears ahead of anything in
> Group 3).
I disagree and agree. I don't like the new artwork for the nossies on
the whole, but I did find the art for the ald guys a little cartoony
in parts. Hey, they're ugly! I just have to deal with it...
;)
I think you'll have to learn to accept the escalation thing. It has
been documented that it was the designers intent. It also helps from a
sales point of view - people want the most powerful tools for the job,
so will buy wads of new cards!
> I recognize that such escalation is to some extent inevitable, because
> what was done with the Sabbat set, which future sets must now live up
> to. It does not thereby follow designers should go out of their way
> to marginalize the Group 1 vampires further than is necessary.
> Ideally, each co-grouping should be balanced.
Yes it does. WW want to sell product. WW are intentionally trying to
make the old vampires less attractive. They are still perfectly
adequate and functional - and good! - and you can still play them.
However, you will have limits.
> So imagine we have progressed to the point where there are 4 groups.
> Imagine we have 15, 9, 15, and 9 in Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively,
> for each Camarilla clan. Under the current rule, we now have 3
> possible co-groupings: 1&2, 2&3, and 3&4, all with 24 vampires each.
> Assuming group 1 is truly underpowered, then the first co-grouping
> will be a bit less competitive.
Yes, so you buy new vampires and new cards. See above.
> > Plus now we have current WoD canon vampires crossing over into
> > VTES. Group 1 vampires will soon become out of date compared to the
> > meaty goodness of future vamps (assuming trends persist).
>
> I don't approve of your plans.
Dude, these aren't my plans. This is the reality of the situation.
> I approve of game balance, not
> escalation. As far as I can tell, there has not been an escalation of
> vampire power levels since the Sabbat set (indeed, things have been a
> bit toned down - some of those big Sabbat vampires were infamously
> undercosted.) I don't think that continued escalation is the plan of
> the current design team (or I hope not).
It has been documented that they needed to upscale the cammie vamps in
order to level them out. I think you miss what I meant by "if trends
persist". I don't mean they will continually upscale the vampires to
the extent that they become godlike (althought they still might! But I
doubt it). What I mean is that compared to the old vampires, we will
see more vampires generated on a decent, consistent powering scheme
with good specials and good synergy with other vampires making offbeat
strategies viable. With the 1st edition vampires, there were many
vamps who did not fit this mould. With many vampires from the 2nd
Grounp (esp. Ancient Hearts) there were a lot of vampires who, again,
failed to fit this mould too. As such, they will fall behind with
future groups anyway.
I like your idea in theory. I have suspicions that I do not want to
publish at this time about where the future of the game is going, and
I think your idea helps sort this out (event though it will complicate
future vampire design "we can't make too many decent group 4 weenie
vampires, because they could mix it with set 1!!!"). However, the
reality is, they do want to phase out 2 things:
1) Powerful weenie vampires - the evidence is overwhealming.
2) Old, legacy sets - they need an influx of cash to develop future
sets.
Since the VEKN and WW ar now VERY closely linked, I doubt we will see
your suggestion implemented in the short term.
> > The vampires will probably continue to go in a certain direction -
> > i.e. group 4 vampires will replace group 2 vampires to an extent and
> > work well with group 3.
>
> Group 2 vampires were designed to work well with the Group 1 vampires.
> If Group 4 vampires are designed to "replace" them (which is sort of
> the idea since they would not be co-playable) why not allow them to be
> played with the Group 1 vampires just like the Group 2s were?
Not always true. Wizards royally fucked up the power scheme somewhere
between VTES and Dark Sovereigns. Ancient Hearts was a low ebb on the
vamp power scale, and yet Sabbat vamps are vastly overpowered. Wizards
clearly had very little clue about balance (see Magic: The
Overpowering). WW Took over for the other 3 sets in group 2 and tried
to redress the balance. They do, as a whole, work with Group 1.
However, they work BETTER with group 3, since they have a more
consistent approach to design at WW, and atcually DESIGNED group 3 to
work with all of group 2. The same cannot be said of Group 2 to Group
1, since they were designed pre-grouping.
<snip>
> > I fully anticipate a new Sabbat orientated set to be forthcoming in
> > 2004, with the core group being Group 4. Bearing in mind that it will
> > be 5 years since the whole Clan Novel stream (bloody hell!) it will
> > probably be about the time that the next major V:TM events will occur.
>
> I don't take it for granted that things will progress that quickly.
See the bigger picture.
DH
<snip>
> On the other hand, I still don't see the "escalation" in power that other
> people say they are seeing. Small vampires, which have always been the
most
> powerful, have actually gotten much weaker. Bigger vampires are, *in
general*,
> more powerful than they were in group 1, but that's not a rule. For
instance,
> I can't recall any group 3 princes of capacity 7 or below. I'm probably
Quentin King III - Malk 7 cap. Prince of somewhere or another...
dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > All well and good, except that you could easily end up with a messy
> > > combination of vampires. The numbering strategy seems to be going
> > > somewhere at the moment - i.e. level 3 vampires more in line with the
> > > power scale of Sabbat, and most "rubbish" vampires are being phased
> > > out.
> >
> > OK, but personally, I don't like the "escalation" aspect of it, and I
> > do not think this is, nor should it be, the actual purpose of the
> > grouping rule. I don't want the Group 1 Nosferatu "phased out"
> > (especially since their artwork is lightyears ahead of anything in
> > Group 3).
>
> I disagree and agree. I don't like the new artwork for the nossies on
> the whole, but I did find the art for the ald guys a little cartoony
> in parts. Hey, they're ugly! I just have to deal with it...
> ;)
>
> I think you'll have to learn to accept the escalation thing. It has
> been documented that it was the designers intent. It also helps from a
> sales point of view - people want the most powerful tools for the job,
> so will buy wads of new cards!
What exactly was well documented? I am aware, of course, that the old
costing system has been replaced with a new costing system. I am
aware that the new costing system is identical for vampires below 7
capacity without special abilities, but that the new costing system
benefits vampires with special abilities, as well as those of 7 or
higher capacity, such that these vampire come out as more competitive
when produced under the new costing system.
The new system is not what I would call a "continuing escalation". It
has been in effect since Sabbat War, with, AFAIK, no continued
increase in vampire power levels. It replaces the Sabbat costing
system, but is not more powerful, merely more logical and consistent
(ie. less likely to produce both overpowered vamps and wallpaper
vamps).
When applied to Group 1 vampires below 6 capacity, there has been no
escalation. Except for the problem of some having overcosted
specials, most such vampires are costed fine under the current system.
No deliberate campaign of escalation renders them obsolete. They are
as good as the ones currently being produced.
Many of the Group 1 vampires, especially the large ones, DO fare
poorly under the current system. Some end up as much as 2.5 points
behind in terms of abilities. But take a look at the vampires that we
are talking about here. Nobody ever plays them. WW does not have to
concoct an evil conspiracy to marginalize them - that has been fait
accompli for at least a decade. Their problem has not been that they
are unable to compete with vampires costed under new systems, but
rather that they simply cannot compete with better vampires (mostly
the younger ones) within their own sets.
Newly produced vampires face the same problem - they must compete with
younger vampires. Unless each high capacity vampire is going to
become instant wallpaper, it must be provide more for its capacity
than did many of the original set. That is not escalation, but game
balance. You might as well complain that "Gas Powered Chainsaw" is
"escalation" because it is so much better than the original
"Chainsaw", which, being total wallpaper, no-one ever played.
As for the Group 1 vampires that are not wallpaper, and which people
do play, I can see no evidence of any campaign to marginalize them and
replace them with better vampires. Indeed, the costing system seems
to be designed to accurately gauge the value of vampires that are
regarded as competitive. Take, for example, Sheldon, one of the few
high-cap group 1 Nosferatu regarded as usable in competitive play.
Under the current costing system, he comes out only 1/2 point behind
what he should be - which in itself is appropriate due to his
unusually advantageous discipline combination, and unusually low
capacity for a Justicar (unusually low cap titled vamps SHOULD, and
do, pay more for their titles, so Sheldon is about right - a balanced
choice compared to the 10-cap Cock Robin).
I have to take a closer look, but I got the impression that 7-cap
princes under the new system are no better than those under the old.
Apparently, the designers feel that 7 cap is young for a prince, and
that they therefore must pay more for their title. Result: new Group
3 7-cap princes are no better than many of the old Group 1s. IOW,
those group 1 7-cap princes that were worth playing, are still worth
playing. They have not been superceded, under the new system, by
better vampires of the same capacity.
> > I recognize that such escalation is to some extent inevitable, because
> > what was done with the Sabbat set, which future sets must now live up
> > to. It does not thereby follow designers should go out of their way
> > to marginalize the Group 1 vampires further than is necessary.
> > Ideally, each co-grouping should be balanced.
>
> Yes it does. WW want to sell product. WW are intentionally trying to
> make the old vampires less attractive. They are still perfectly
> adequate and functional - and good! - and you can still play them.
> However, you will have limits.
I do not accept that continued escalation is a good way to sell
product. In my case, it is a good way to get me to stop buying
product, and stop playing. Alot of players feel the same way.
Fortunately, I do not see that happening. That is why I have remained
loyal to the game.
> > So imagine we have progressed to the point where there are 4 groups.
> > Imagine we have 15, 9, 15, and 9 in Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively,
> > for each Camarilla clan. Under the current rule, we now have 3
> > possible co-groupings: 1&2, 2&3, and 3&4, all with 24 vampires each.
> > Assuming group 1 is truly underpowered, then the first co-grouping
> > will be a bit less competitive.
>
> Yes, so you buy new vampires and new cards. See above.
I'd prefer that you not snip my arguments without some indication. In
the above quote, you did not even allow me to complete my point. You
also avoided responding to my point. Might as well just snip the
whole paragraph as leave it hanging.
> > > Plus now we have current WoD canon vampires crossing over into
> > > VTES. Group 1 vampires will soon become out of date compared to the
> > > meaty goodness of future vamps (assuming trends persist).
> >
> > I don't approve of your plans.
>
> Dude, these aren't my plans. This is the reality of the situation.
"Reality" aside, the current design team has been quite committed to
balance. There has been no escalation in power levels among
competitive cards. Cards that were once competitive have remained
competitive. Some wallpaper cards are even being rescued from
oblivion by powered-up reprints. But inevitably, many are left to rot
in card-failure hell, and their mistakes are merely not being
repeated.
> > I approve of game balance, not
> > escalation. As far as I can tell, there has not been an escalation of
> > vampire power levels since the Sabbat set (indeed, things have been a
> > bit toned down - some of those big Sabbat vampires were infamously
> > undercosted.) I don't think that continued escalation is the plan of
> > the current design team (or I hope not).
>
> It has been documented that they needed to upscale the cammie vamps in
> order to level them out.
Right, but I do not call that escalation. As I stated, the
competitive "cammie vamps" remain competitive. No campaign is being
waged to drive them into oblivion, as far as I can tell. The new
vamps are no better than the old ones which were competitive. As for
the non-competitive "cammie vamps", there is no need for a campaign to
drive them into oblivion. They have been there for the last decade
simply because they could not compete with younger brethren. It is
fait accompli.
> I think you miss what I meant by "if trends
> persist".
Perhaps. Likewise, you seem to miss what I mean when I say I support
game balance and oppose escalation.
> I don't mean they will continually upscale the vampires to
> the extent that they become godlike (althought they still might! But I
> doubt it).
They might, and that's when I will stop playing. But nothing of the
sort has happened under White Wolf. They have consistently applied
the same rational costing system that fits past competitive vampires.
Krid is no better than Dimple; Wolfgang no better than Sammy; Quentin
King III is no better than Gilbert Duane.
> What I mean is that compared to the old vampires, we will
> see more vampires generated on a decent, consistent powering scheme
> with good specials and good synergy with other vampires making offbeat
> strategies viable.
Well, if THAT's all you mean ....
> With the 1st edition vampires, there were many
> vamps who did not fit this mould. With many vampires from the 2nd
> Grounp (esp. Ancient Hearts) there were a lot of vampires who, again,
> failed to fit this mould too. As such, they will fall behind with
> future groups anyway.
>
> I like your idea in theory. I have suspicions that I do not want to
> publish at this time about where the future of the game is going, and
> I think your idea helps sort this out (event though it will complicate
> future vampire design "we can't make too many decent group 4 weenie
> vampires, because they could mix it with set 1!!!").
Their might conceivably be considerations like this, but it does not
seem like there need be. I expect that most of the Group 3 weenies
will be added in the anarch expansion. Group 4, when it comes, will
likely be analagous to Group 2 in numbers (ensuring balance between
2&3 and 3&4), except that they will likely NOT repeat the sin of some
of Group 2's overpowered weenies (Antoinette Duchamp, and others).
Assuming 2&3 is balanced with 3&4, it seems to me unlikely that
combining Groups 1&4 will gain a weenie advantage greater than exists
with 1&2.
Are you, for some reason, assuming that all the anarchs will go into
Group 4?
I am having trouble keeping up with you. I thought you were predicting
that the Group 1s were being deliberately driven into obsolescence by
overpowering them with new and better vampires in Group 3. Now you
seem to be arguing that Group 1s have to be left behind because they
are too good, and the new vamps can't compete.
> However, the
> reality is, they do want to phase out 2 things:> 1) Powerful weenie vampires - the evidence is overwhealming.
It is? The only truth I see to this is that they are trying to make
big vampires that can compete with the younger ones. I see no
evidence they are making less powerful neonates.
> 2) Old, legacy sets - they need an influx of cash to develop future
> sets.
Well, of course they want to sell the product.
> Since the VEKN and WW ar now VERY closely linked, I doubt we will see
> your suggestion implemented in the short term.
I see no reason why either VEKN or WW should have any objection to my
suggestion, nor do I comprehend why you feel my scheme conflicts with
their need to make money and sell product. In fact, I was concerned
that perceptions that the scheme was intended to deliberately promote
obsolescence of earlier product was driving away past customers.
I do agree that we won't see it implemented in the near future. But
also I don't expect to see Group 4s in the near future, so I don't
anticipate a need for it.
> > > The vampires will probably continue to go in a certain direction -
> > > i.e. group 4 vampires will replace group 2 vampires to an extent and
> > > work well with group 3.
> >
> > Group 2 vampires were designed to work well with the Group 1 vampires.
> > If Group 4 vampires are designed to "replace" them (which is sort of
> > the idea since they would not be co-playable) why not allow them to be
> > played with the Group 1 vampires just like the Group 2s were?
>
> Not always true.
You mean that Group 2 was NOT designed to work well with the Group 1
vampires???
> Wizards royally fucked up the power scheme somewhere
> between VTES and Dark Sovereigns. Ancient Hearts was a low ebb on the
> vamp power scale, and yet Sabbat vamps are vastly overpowered. Wizards
> clearly had very little clue about balance (see Magic: The
> Overpowering). WW Took over for the other 3 sets in group 2 and tried
> to redress the balance. They do, as a whole, work with Group 1.
> However, they work BETTER with group 3, since they have a more> consistent approach to design at WW, and actually DESIGNED group 3 to> work with all of group 2. The same cannot be said of Group 2 to Group
> 1, since they were designed pre-grouping.
This is greek to me. I don't know what you are getting at, and still
do not see why a Group 4 designed to work with Group 3 (and replace
Group 2 in that capacity), could not also work with Group 1 (which was
replaced by Group 3, which Group 4 is designed to work with). Is your
concern that Group 1&4 will be overpowered??!!
> > > I fully anticipate a new Sabbat orientated set to be forthcoming in
> > > 2004, with the core group being Group 4. Bearing in mind that it will
> > > be 5 years since the whole Clan Novel stream (bloody hell!) it will
> > > probably be about the time that the next major V:TM events will occur.
> >
> > I don't take it for granted that things will progress that quickly.
>
> See the bigger picture.
What kind of response is that? I accepted your "bigger picture" of
the eventuality of Group 4 (and beyond)! I looked at it! I wrote
about it at length! You snipped it all without response, and left the
one out-of-context line quoted above! Why in God's name are you now
telling me to "see the bigger picture"?
"John B. Whelan" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:fd166f83.0209...@posting.google.com...
[escalation by designer intent]
> What exactly was well documented?
I wouldn't say it was well documented, but I do recall there being some sort of
word on the street that WotC upped the power of the Sabbat vampires, because
they thought that people wanted more powerful vampires. And (in theory) because
the Sabbat vampires are more individually powerful than the Camarilla vampires.
I believe the comments came from one of the playtesters, and should be able to
be dredged up in one of the multitudinous 'vampire-costing' threads.
> increase in vampire power levels. It replaces the Sabbat costing
> system, but is not more powerful, merely more logical and consistent
> (ie. less likely to produce both overpowered vamps and wallpaper
> vamps).
This is the costing system that was intentionally designed to create a power
escalation, but as you noted, it was pulled back from in Sabbat War.
[sucky group 1 vampires]
> are talking about here. Nobody ever plays them. WW does not have to
> concoct an evil conspiracy to marginalize them - that has been fait
> accompli for at least a decade.
Well, not really a *decade*. More like 7 years or so.
Again, quite correct, though...Appolonius and company have always been sucky, at
least since the time of Dark Sovereigns.
> I have to take a closer look, but I got the impression that 7-cap
> princes under the new system are no better than those under the old.
I think that the new Toreador prince is definitely more powerful than Tatiana
Romanov, but that is mostly because of the original over-costing of +1 bleed.
> Apparently, the designers feel that 7 cap is young for a prince, and
> that they therefore must pay more for their title. Result: new Group
AFAIK, when LSJ has made official comments on the costing system, he has made no
mention of titles costing more for younger vampires, it has simply been ".5 per
vote". I think that 7 is realistically the lowest point at which the title of
prince can be given without seriously shorting the vampire on
disciplines...maybe 6 capacity. Lower than that, and votes "cost" much more
proportionally of a vampires "value" than they do for larger vampires.
Note also, that Calebros (group 2), while 5 capacity, has sufficient disciplines
for his capacity, and his title is wholly offset by the disadvantage, rather
than having him shorted disciplines.
> 3 7-cap princes are no better than many of the old Group 1s. IOW,
> those group 1 7-cap princes that were worth playing, are still worth
> playing. They have not been superceded, under the new system, by
> better vampires of the same capacity.
Mostly true. Quentin King III is pretty much equivalent to Gilbert Duane and
Tim Crowley/Sir Walter Nash. Can't say the same for Tatiana (4 points of
disciplines, title, +1 bleed) and Ira Rivers, (6 points of disciplines, title,
two ok specials).
> I see no reason why either VEKN or WW should have any objection to my
> suggestion, nor do I comprehend why you feel my scheme conflicts with
I suspect they won't offer an opinion either way. Personally, I don't have an
objection per se, I just think that your proposal is somewhat inelegant. I
understand the intention, but I think that if you start to allow non-consecutive
grouping, it's further confusing the matter. It simply seems like it'd be too
hard to keep an eye on whether players were following it. Not *that* much
harder, admittedly, but it'd just be more of a headache, when tournament judges
don't need anything more to think about.
> You mean that Group 2 was NOT designed to work well with the Group 1
> vampires???
Most of the Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts vampires were (seemingly)
intentionally designed with gaps in their discipline spreads, so as to not match
up precisely with the vampires from Jyhad/V:tES. Note the string of Malkavians
and Ventrue without Dominate, and the group of Tremere without at least one clan
discipline (Rebekka, Javier, Spiridonas...); most of the other clans fared
better, but there was definitely an attempt to power-down Dominate for most of
the Group 2 vampires from the "original" clans.
Xian
>"John B. Whelan" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:fd166f83.0209...@posting.google.com...
>[escalation by designer intent]>> What exactly was well documented?>
>I wouldn't say it was well documented, but I do recall there being some sort
>of
>word on the street that WotC upped the power of the Sabbat vampires, because
>they thought that people wanted more powerful vampires. And (in theory)
>because
>the Sabbat vampires are more individually powerful than the Camarilla
>vampires.>I believe the comments came from one of the playtesters, and should be able
>to
>be dredged up in one of the multitudinous 'vampire-costing' threads.
Okay, but the comments made were with respect to escalating intent of the
current design team. That is what was claimed as "well documented" and that
was what I was requesting documentation for. I am aware that sins were
committed by previous design teams - not only including the Sabbat set, but
also various undercosted weenies from Ancient Hearts (like Antoinette DuChamp)
thinly justified by entirely inadequate special debilities.
>> increase in vampire power levels. It replaces the Sabbat costing
>> system, but is not more powerful, merely more logical and consistent
>> (ie. less likely to produce both overpowered vamps and wallpaper
>> vamps).>
>This is the costing system that was intentionally designed to create a power
>escalation, but as you noted, it was pulled back from in Sabbat War.
>
>[sucky group 1 vampires]>> are talking about here. Nobody ever plays them. WW does not have to
>> concoct an evil conspiracy to marginalize them - that has been fait
>> accompli for at least a decade.>
>Well, not really a *decade*. More like 7 years or so.
Okay, you got me there.
>Again, quite correct, though...Appolonius and company have always been sucky,
>at
>least since the time of Dark Sovereigns.
Since before that, surely.
>> I have to take a closer look, but I got the impression that 7-cap
>> princes under the new system are no better than those under the old.>
>I think that the new Toreador prince is definitely more powerful than Tatiana
>Romanov, but that is mostly because of the original over-costing of +1 bleed.
This is true, but I already acknowledged, in my original post, the problem with
overcosting specials like +1 bleed in the original set.
>> Apparently, the designers feel that 7 cap is young for a prince, and
>> that they therefore must pay more for their title. Result: new Group>
>AFAIK, when LSJ has made official comments on the costing system, he has made
>no
>mention of titles costing more for younger vampires, it has simply been ".5
>per
>vote". I think that 7 is realistically the lowest point at which the title
>of
>prince can be given without seriously shorting the vampire on
>disciplines...maybe 6 capacity. Lower than that, and votes "cost" much more
>proportionally of a vampires "value" than they do for larger vampires.
The announcement of a simple, straightforward costing system, in no way
prevents a designer from taking into account other factors that he deems
relevant for balance. Clearly, this is an area that an intelligent designer
would consider. A 3-cap Nosferatu prince with inferior obfuscate would
obviously be an overpowered card, even though it works out correctly under the
current announced costing system.
>Note also, that Calebros (group 2), while 5 capacity, has sufficient
>disciplines
>for his capacity, and his title is wholly offset by the disadvantage, rather
>than having him shorted disciplines.
You have miscalculated Calebros. Calebros is a perfect example of what I am
talking about. As a 5-capacity vampire, he should have 5 points of abilities
under the current system (5&6-capacity vamps have ability points equal to
capacity). And he does: 4 points of disciplines, plus 1 point for a Prince
title, equals 5. Theoretically, if you treat the currently announced costing
system as complete and sufficient, he would be appropriately costed *without*
any "special debility". But clearly, the designer thought differently, and
gave Calebros a "special debility" to offset the value of the Prince title,
since otherwise so young a Prince would be too advantageous.
Another example is the new Group 3 Tremere Justicar, Anastazdi Zagreb. As an
8-capacity vampire, he is the youngest Justicar yet printed. Under the current
costing system he should have 9 points in abilities (7&8-cap vampires get
their capacity plus 1). Anastasdi gets 7 points of abilities, 1.5 points for
his title, and .5 points for his special ability (I don't think it's worth
more), equalling 9. Seems to come out perfect. But evidently, the designer
felt he needed to pay a price for being such a young Justicar, and tacked on a
"special debility" that reduces the value of that title (1 less vote when other
Justicars are ready)
And of course there is Quentin King III. A 7-cap vampire should have 8 points
of abilities. Quentin has 6, plus 1 for Prince title, equals 7. Clearly the
designers felt that other factors needed to be taken into consideration,
including, I beleive, the fact that he was young for a Prince.
>> 3 7-cap princes are no better than many of the old Group 1s. IOW,
>> those group 1 7-cap princes that were worth playing, are still worth
>> playing. They have not been superceded, under the new system, by
>> better vampires of the same capacity.>
>Mostly true. Quentin King III is pretty much equivalent to Gilbert Duane and
>Tim Crowley/Sir Walter Nash.
Right, and arguably Gilbert is the king of them all.
>Can't say the same for Tatiana (4 points of
>disciplines, title, +1 bleed) and Ira Rivers, (6 points of disciplines,
>title, two ok specials).
I did choose my words carefully, you know. I referred to the "7-cap princes
that are still worth playing". Tatiana was never really highly competitive,
for reasons we both understand. If Rivers outclassed Anson - the *competitive*
Group 1 Toreador prince - you would have an argument.
Still, lets look at Ira, who seems to make out a bit better than Quentin King
III, for some reason, 'cause he gets those two "ok specials".
His first special, +1 intercept vs. political actions, should be probably worth
no more than .25 points. After all, a general +1 intercept vs any action is
worth only a point, and its not like 50% of all actions are political -
probably more like 25%.
I find it harder to place a value on his other special, but its probably not
worth much more than that. I'd say that the total value of both his specials
put together is less than a full point. Therefore, Ira, who should have 8
points under the current costing system, gets a bit less by my assessment,
presumably because of the "young-prince" penalty. I'm not sure why he gets
more than Quentin King, though. Perhaps his discipline combination is regarded
as less advantageous than that of Quentin King (& I don't think I need explain
why).
>> I see no reason why either VEKN or WW should have any objection to my
>> suggestion, nor do I comprehend why you feel my scheme conflicts with>
>I suspect they won't offer an opinion either way.
Very likely.
>Personally, I don't have
>an
>objection per se, I just think that your proposal is somewhat inelegant. I
>understand the intention, but I think that if you start to allow
>non-consecutive
>grouping, it's further confusing the matter.
I don't see the objection here. There may be perfectly nice people in the
world who, though able to understand "consecutive pair", somehow have problems
with the idea of an "even/odd pair". But surely such people are more likely
to be found playing bingo than Jyhad. My idea simply replaces one simple,
easy-to-understand rule, with another simple, easy-to-understand rule.
Quibbling over which is "more confusing" seems to me like quibbling over
pennies when purchasing an automobile.
>It simply seems like it'd be too
>hard to keep an eye on whether players were following it.
>Not *that* much
>harder, admittedly, but it'd just be more of a headache, when tournament
>judges
>don't need anything more to think about.
You are going to have to explain why this rule makes things more difficult to
keep track of and enforce. As far as I can tell, there would be no difference
whatsoever.
Enforcement is achieved in precisely the same way in both cases. You look at
the vampires currently in play. If you see vampires from 3 different groups,
it is illegal. If you see vampires from 2 different groups, but it is an
improper pairing, it is likewise illegal. Otherwise things are probably fine,
but, in both cases, you would have get a Judge to look at the rest of the crypt
to be totally sure. No difference.
- John Whelan
"Nystulc" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020912224046...@mb-fk.news.cs.com...
> Xian wrote:
[snip me]
> Okay, but the comments made were with respect to escalating intent of the
> current design team.
Missed that. And a number of other things from the original post apparently.
:) I won't contest those points.
> >Again, quite correct, though...Appolonius and company have always been sucky,
> >at least since the time of Dark Sovereigns.
>
> Since before that, surely.
Hmm. I'm not sure that Appolonius was *sucky* until DS. I think before that,
with just Jyhad, he was "not so good," but back in the day, +1 bleed was okay,
and he did have a couple of the clan disciplines at superior.
Though I admit that I could just be looking at it in terms of the evolution of
the game at that point, rather than his inherent "suck-factor."
Still, I'm not sure it was apparent how out-classed he was until DS. Either
way, it's not a big deal, hmm? Appolonius has sucked for a long time.
> >I think that the new Toreador prince is definitely more powerful than Tatiana
> >Romanov, but that is mostly because of the original over-costing of +1 bleed.
>
> This is true, but I already acknowledged, in my original post, the problem
with
> overcosting specials like +1 bleed in the original set.
Ah. Missed that.
[Calebros]
> You have miscalculated Calebros.
D'oh. Was going from memory, thinking that he had 5 points of disciplines
*plus* a title, as well as the special disability. You are correct.
> Another example is the new Group 3 Tremere Justicar, Anastazdi Zagreb. As an
> 8-capacity vampire, he is the youngest Justicar yet printed. Under the
current
Darn tootin! :)
> costing system he should have 9 points in abilities (7&8-cap vampires get
> their capacity plus 1). Anastasdi gets 7 points of abilities, 1.5 points for
Minor point of note, and I suspect it will never be corrected, but his canonical
name is apparently Anastaz di Zagreb.
> his title, and .5 points for his special ability (I don't think it's worth
> more), equalling 9. Seems to come out perfect. But evidently, the designer
> felt he needed to pay a price for being such a young Justicar, and tacked on a
> "special debility" that reduces the value of that title (1 less vote when
other
> Justicars are ready)
Yup. I'm in agreement with you. I suspect that his special disablity (or
debility) isn't really that significant, in the big picture, since he retains
all the other benefits of the title, and one vote isn't too frequently the straw
that broke the camel's back. Okay, I'll shut up though, this wasn't about
costing, really.
Now if only he had DOM instead of AUS. Heh.
> for reasons we both understand. If Rivers outclassed Anson - the
*competitive*
> Group 1 Toreador prince - you would have an argument.
Heh. That's what I get for posting without enough food in me. Oh wait, I'm
doing it again. Crap.
> Still, lets look at Ira, who seems to make out a bit better than Quentin King
> III, for some reason, 'cause he gets those two "ok specials".
[snip]
> I'd say that the total value of both his specials put together is less than a
full point.
Agreed.
> presumably because of the "young-prince" penalty. I'm not sure why he gets
> more than Quentin King, though. Perhaps his discipline combination is
regarded
> as less advantageous than that of Quentin King (& I don't think I need explain
> why).
Presumably because of the efficacy of S&B, yes.
> >Personally, I don't have an objection per se, I just think that your proposal
is
> > somewhat inelegant. I understand the intention, but I think that if you
start to
> > allow non-consecutive grouping, it's further confusing the matter.
>
> I don't see the objection here. There may be perfectly nice people in the
> world who, though able to understand "consecutive pair", somehow have problems
> with the idea of an "even/odd pair". But surely such people are more likely
I'm sure they exist. :)
> to be found playing bingo than Jyhad. My idea simply replaces one simple,
> easy-to-understand rule, with another simple, easy-to-understand rule.
I suspect that I am going to have a hard time making a case here that doesn't
rely on designer intent or personal preference. However, I will try to explain
myself more clearly (and without resorting to these fallbacks). Aside from
requiring more care being taken when desiging a new group (which, admittedly,
would be not in the near future that it would become problematic), by creating
more possible interactions of groups, I believe (obviously I have no proof,
currently this is simply a gut feeling) that you would thereby be increasing the
resources required to create a small set (more than one, less than 5 or so) of
competitive decks for the beginning player. Ideally, yes, all future sets will
have vampires that are competitive across the board. However, by changing the
rule this way, it seems like you would be introducing problems along the lines
of:
best competitive Brujah deck is groups 2 & 3
best competitive Gangrel deck is groups 1 & 4 (noting that I believe that the
Anarch set will be group 3)
best competitive Lasombra deck is groups 2 & 5
best competitive Malkavian deck is groups 3 & 6
This sort of interaction, I believe, would tend to keep new players away, as it
would lead to the impression that only with the old sets can you have more than
one truly competitive deck. With the adjacent grouping, it seems more likely
that the designers will be able to control the changes in the clan focus or
fourth discipline; this should result in certain styles of decks being better
within a certain grouping, but not being overwhelmingly superior.
Additionally, the increase in interactions would lessen the constraint on
available vampires for a given crypt. Which, I realize, it is designed to do.
However, the current design team obviously believes that the scarcity of
available options is something that was intended to be part of the game from the
start, as witnessed by contesting. I tend to agree with this. I'll admit it's
frustrating that I can't simply throw in "just one group 3 vampire" to make my
nearly perfect group 1 & 2 deck work more smoothly, but I can accept that the
lack of guaranteed availability of certain resources was built into the game
from the start.
Ideally, yes, all future sets will have competitive vampires across the board.
However
> You are going to have to explain why this rule makes things more difficult to
> keep track of and enforce. As far as I can tell, there would be no difference
> whatsoever.
I hope the above clarified my views on it...I cannot believe that there would be
no difference whatsoever. I will admit that if the goal is to provide increased
diversity, then yes, the even-odd grouping is the way to go. However, I believe
that the design of the game itself (as distinct from designer intent re: new
vampires and library cards) is built to create conflict due to constrained
resources, rather than be a matching game to figure out who can come up with the
most flexible variation on a specific style of crypt.
Xian
Xian wrote:
> I wouldn't say it was well documented, but I do recall there being some sort of
> word on the street that WotC upped the power of the Sabbat vampires, because
> they thought that people wanted more powerful vampires.
From VTES-L:
----------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:35:54 -0800
From: Paul Peterson/#18 <ware...@WIZARDS.COM>
Subject: Re: VTES-L Digest - 30 Oct 1996 to 31 Oct 1996
Hi all,
A brief introduction: My name is Paul Peterson. I'm the lead designer for
VTES, and one of the designers for the Sabbat. I thought that perhaps
you'd like to hear my take on the comments on the list about the set.
[...]
[Rodrigo de Salazar wrote:]
> - Some vampires are too powerful (eg the tremere antitribu guy who
>possess every discipline available at basic level-at least, even if he
>were an infernal diabolist) and others are too weak (the 3 cap pander with
>3 basic disciplines and the flaw of burning one more blood per card in
>combat- if I remember right).
I don't agree at all, but then again, I designed them. I Wish someone
would explain to me how an 8 capacity vampire with no political position is
too powerful. Yes he can use all of the gangrel Disciplines, but are you
going to put him in a Gangrel deck? Would you rather have him or Raven?
Yes he's good in crossover decks, but that's why he costs 3 blood more than
he normally should. Sigh.
[...]
----------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:50:37 -0800
From: Paul Peterson/#18 <ware...@WIZARDS.COM>
Subject: Re: VTES-L Digest - 1 Nov 1996 to 2 Nov 1996
Hi all,
Whew. A lot of discussion. Great. I love a good arguement. ;^) I'll try
to at least address each arguement, if not ever single person. Sorry if
there's anyone I miss.
>Let's give a specific example of a vampire that is too powerful...
<SNIP>
I think I see the big problem here. OK. Basically, you are all correct.
The big Sabbat vampires (and the big Cam/non-cam vampires from DS/AH) are
better than most of the big vampires in the basic set. This is on purpose.
Basically, the big vampires in the basic set suck. They are practically
useless. Not entirely, but basically this is true. They cost way too much
for the benefits that you get from them, and paid too much for out of clan
disciplines. So now we have created better vampires. The choice was to
keep making lame big vampires or attempt to make vampires that were
actually worth what you pay for them. We chose to make good vamps. In the
future, there's a good chance that the standard vamps in the basic set will
get an overhaul to bring them in line with the new vamps. I know that all
of this upsets people, but people would also be upset if all of the big
vampires we ever printed sucked.
[...]
----------
--
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/