As I'm sure everyone may know (at least those who've actually read the
rulebook), Retainers that take damage in combat which are not killed are
immediately healed back to full post-combat.
However, if a Retainer is the target of a Cryptic Mission or Shadow Twin
outside of combat they lose that life permanently.
Isn't this a bit inconsistent? I'm not certain what the original game
designers had in mind, but seeing as the functionality of Allies is
being looked into by the RulesTeam maybe it's time that Retainers also
garnered a second look.
Why should it be so much harder to kill off a Retainer in comparison to
an Ally? Why shouldn't the "loss of life/blood"definition be consistent
across the board?
Anyone want to tackle this? Anyone agree or disagree?
BernieTime
<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message
news:3cd8b311....@netnews.attbi.com...
> As I'm sure everyone may know (at least those who've actually read the
> rulebook), Retainers that take damage in combat which are not killed are
> immediately healed back to full post-combat.
>
> However, if a Retainer is the target of a Cryptic Mission or Shadow Twin
> outside of combat they lose that life permanently.
>
> Isn't this a bit inconsistent? I'm not certain what the original game
> designers had in mind, but seeing as the functionality of Allies is
> being looked into by the RulesTeam maybe it's time that Retainers also
> garnered a second look.
>
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Truth be told, who gives a crap? The last
time I damaged a retainer, it was with a Thrown Gate that I was using for
combat defense, and 5 out of 5 people at the table were surprised that I
remembered that you could actually do such a thing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well Chris, if you didn't care you wouldn't have replied.. Right?
As for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", with that philosophy you
wouldn't enjoy many modern conveniences. Indoor plumbing, Automobiles,
Supermodels..
Hate to break it to people, but the original game designers were not
infallible. So to place them on a pedastal is just plain silly.
It's not an earth-shattering topic that I'm raising here. I feel that
how damage is dealt/received by allies, should be looked at in terms of
consistency with regard to the rest of the game.
These lesser issues should be looked at and resolved prior to the
release of a new basic set (ie. The Camarilla), so that the rulebook is
as tight as possible.
BernieTime
>It's not an earth-shattering topic that I'm raising here. I feel that
>how damage is dealt/received by allies, should be looked at in terms of
>consistency with regard to the rest of the game.
I agree that retainers are notoriously hard to kill. People in my playgroup do
on occasion decide to hurt retainers (though they usually find it more
worthwhile to hurt the opposing vampire).
In the case of smaller retainers like Raven Spies, Jackie, and Mr. Winthrop,
it's not that big of a problem. A single Theft or Thrown Gate takes them out.
Or just one Weather Control.
But once you start to hit 3 life (Wolf Companion) or the monstrous Stone Dog
(Gargoyles are cool!) Ghoul Escorts would be hard to kill too if they were
worth it.
So yes, making combat damage permanent to retainers would make the
heavy-hitters (3-4 life retainers) much easier to kill. But then again, how
about the case of 1-life "immune to non-agg" retainers. Aren't those guys even
*harder* to kill? And changing combat damage for retainers doesn't make *them*
any easier. (How rare is it for ranged aggravated damage to be directed at a
retainer?).
So overall, I'd go with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
Superficially, changing the rule might seem to depower some retainers. But it
would only be effective in a few cases and not in several others. Thus I doubt
it would really achieve the objective it has.
Halcyan 2
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote:
>>It's not an earth-shattering topic that I'm raising here. I feel that
>>how damage is dealt/received by allies, should be looked at in terms of
>>consistency with regard to the rest of the game.> [...]>So yes, making combat damage permanent to retainers would make the
>heavy-hitters (3-4 life retainers) much easier to kill. But then again, how
>about the case of 1-life "immune to non-agg" retainers. Aren't those guys even
>*harder* to kill? And changing combat damage for retainers doesn't make *them*
>any easier. (How rare is it for ranged aggravated damage to be directed at a
>retainer?).
I don't think Bernie's goal is to make retainers easier to kill.
Rather, it seems that his goal is, as he stated above, consistency.
>So overall, I'd go with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
>Superficially, changing the rule might seem to depower some retainers. But it
>would only be effective in a few cases and not in several others. Thus I doubt
>it would really achieve the objective it has.
If inconsistency means "broke", then removing the inconsistency would
be the "fix". And again, the objective that Bernie states is
consistency, not depowering retainers. Removing inconsistency would
indeed achieve that objective. That the fix also depowers some
retainers is a side-effect, not the objective.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu)
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson
> I agree that retainers are notoriously hard to kill. People in my
playgroup do
> on occasion decide to hurt retainers (though they usually find it more
> worthwhile to hurt the opposing vampire).
>
I find that killing retainers is a good way to get around the other minions
dodge, since dodge doesn't work for retainers...
I think that a vampire with a retainer could take an action to, or even just
in the untap phase, give his retainer one of his (or hers, of course) blood,
thus allowing the retainer to heal by utilizing the potence of the Kindred
Vitae (like Hesha did in Setite).
iip?
VV
> I think that a vampire with a retainer could take an action to, or even
just
> in the untap phase, give his retainer one of his (or hers, of course)
blood,
Could maybe give to retainers in untap, and take an action to fix allies?
"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:abboki$h2nas$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I don't think Bernie's goal is to make retainers easier to kill.
> Rather, it seems that his goal is, as he stated above, consistency.
>
But where is the inconsistency? Retainers heal at the end of combat when they
take damage. Damage dealt outside of combat has no "end of combat" to heal
during. Consider them to be healed at the end of the game, if that makes it
seem more consistent.
I always thought retainers auto-healed for a basic practical
reason; if they had life counters it would be easy to mix them
up with each other and with their employers. Never stated,
but very obvious.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
CurtAdams wrote:
>
> I always thought retainers auto-healed for a basic practical
> reason; if they had life counters it would be easy to mix them
> up with each other and with their employers. Never stated,
> but very obvious.
That's exactly right - the original design didn't have them using
life counters - they just had life as stated on the card. And, in
order to avoid having to keep track of the life, the rules writers
just had them heal up in short order.
But they didn't consider damage done outside of combat being tracked
over longer periods.
The current rules, however, recognize that retainer life has to be
tracked over long periods (possibly "for the rest of the game"),
and so retainers *do* have life counters. [6.1.4]
--
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/
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20020508174401...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> I always thought retainers auto-healed for a basic practical
> reason; if they had life counters it would be easy to mix them
> up with each other and with their employers. Never stated,
> but very obvious.
> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
?? Don't you allready use lifecounters for retainers? What if I cryptic
mission a 2-life retainer, how do you remember that? Or if the raven spy is
at ani or ANI?
--
Henrik Isaksson
hen...@nissamedia.net writes:
>?? Don't you allready use lifecounters for retainers? What if I cryptic
>mission a 2-life retainer, how do you remember that? Or if the raven spy is
>at ani or ANI?
I've never seen a cryptic mission on a retainer (which IMO shouldn't stick
for the counter reason either; they just forgot that could happen when
they wrote the rules). I can usually remember which retainers were
called prior to the upgrade (it's rare enough). But counters - oh, they
have a life of their own. Just last Friday one disappeared from one of
my minion - was it in my pool? had I tossed it by accident? Did one
of the other players move it when I was hunting for the counter I'd
dropped (don't laugh, it's happened). Counters on a retainer card are
way too close.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CurtAdams wrote:
>
> hen...@nissamedia.net writes:
>
> >?? Don't you allready use lifecounters for retainers? What if I cryptic
> >mission a 2-life retainer, how do you remember that? Or if the raven spy is
> >at ani or ANI?
>
> I've never seen a cryptic mission on a retainer (which IMO shouldn't stick
> for the counter reason either; they just forgot that could happen when
> they wrote the rules). I can usually remember which retainers were
> called prior to the upgrade (it's rare enough). But counters - oh, they
> have a life of their own. Just last Friday one disappeared from one of
> my minion - was it in my pool? had I tossed it by accident? Did one
> of the other players move it when I was hunting for the counter I'd
> dropped (don't laugh, it's happened). Counters on a retainer card are
> way too close.
We use distinct counters for retainer's life (and for corruption
counters, disease counters, etc. - anything that might get confused
for the vampire's blood).
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> dropped (don't laugh, it's happened). Counters on a retainer card are
>> way too close.>
>We use distinct counters for retainer's life (and for corruption
>counters, disease counters, etc. - anything that might get confused
>for the vampire's blood).
Yeah, you can always use *different color* counters to represent a retainer's
life. Also, people in my play group have a penchant for using pennies to get
count of corruption counters...
Halcyan 2
> CurtAdams wrote:
> >
> > I always thought retainers auto-healed for a basic practical
> > reason; if they had life counters it would be easy to mix them
> > up with each other and with their employers. Never stated,
> > but very obvious.
Have you always played like this? Not only since the may 1st ruling??
Or, am I confused here?
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CDA61C6...@white-wolf.com...
> That's exactly right - the original design didn't have them using
> life counters - they just had life as stated on the card. And, in
> order to avoid having to keep track of the life, the rules writers
> just had them heal up in short order.
>
> But they didn't consider damage done outside of combat being tracked
> over longer periods.
>
> The current rules, however, recognize that retainer life has to be
> tracked over long periods (possibly "for the rest of the game"),
> and so retainers *do* have life counters. [6.1.4]
So, what is CurtAdams on about? Shouldn't he use life counters? Where did I
miss out...
Please advice,
-Kenneth-
[ quoted text not captured ]
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> So overall, I'd go with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
> Superficially, changing the rule might seem to depower some retainers. But it
> would only be effective in a few cases and not in several others. Thus I doubt
> it would really achieve the objective it has.
Besides which, I'm somewhat confused why we were trying to "depower" any
retainers. Are there retainers that are overpowered? I'm sorry, but I haven't
noticed that the "Wolf Companion tactic" was responsible for any killer decks.
Bernie raised the issue of consistency, which is somewhat arguable, I guess.
Actually, I don't see consistency being that bad, per se, though I agree having
just a couple of effects that permanently wound retainers where everything else
only works on them if it can be done in a single combat doesn't strike me as very
lifelike or real. I have a bit more of an issue with these small-time exceptions
being difficult to remember (which may be Bernie's point, I don't know) and
therefore subject to being played inaccurately a lot more often than a rule which
is applied more regularly. But I'm not really sure it's _that_ broke, either.
Fred
vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>>Counters on a retainer card are way too close.>We use distinct counters for retainer's life (and for corruption
>counters, disease counters, etc. - anything that might get confused
>for the vampire's blood).
Of course there are ways around it. You need separate counters
for each retainer on a particular minion, though. The point of the
original (rather silly, actually) autoheal rule was to make the
game physically simpler and easier to play. IIRC, reducing Magic's
counter proliferation was an explicit goal. I respect that goal.
If you have to keep track of retainer life anyway, the autoheal
rule is just silly without a game benefit.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
It's not really that the retainer workings are broken. LSJ did a good
job on summarizing my thoughts on this topic.
> If inconsistency means "broke", then removing the inconsistency would
> be the "fix". And again, the objective that Bernie states is
> consistency, not depowering retainers. Removing inconsistency would
> indeed achieve that objective. That the fix also depowers some
> retainers is a side-effect, not the objective.
>
>> L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu)
The point isn't about "de-powering" retainers, it's about consistency.
This is a very small aspect of the game, that if changed wouldn't have
sweeping changes to the game. True. But makes more sense
in relation to the rest of the game dynamic.
Vampires lose life
Allies lose life
Retainers are happy refill-em' up toadies
Why should retainers be any better than those that they serve?
It would be a small change that I cannot perceive to be objectionable,
though exploration of any possible ramifications is always a good idea.
Don't know if the RulesTeam would really look at this as there's no
huge player outcry for changing retainers. I brought it up as something
that should probably be looked into, so as to be consistent with the
rest of the game dynamics.
Sorry if the above isn't terribly clear, but I'm in a bit of a rush
today.
BernieTime
berni...@attbi.comholdlespam wrote:
> As I'm sure everyone may know (at least those who've actually read the
> rulebook), Retainers that take damage in combat which are not killed are
> immediately healed back to full post-combat.> However, if a Retainer is the target of a Cryptic Mission or Shadow Twin
> outside of combat they lose that life permanently.
<snip>
Hmmm, as an aside.....
Does a retainer that takes damage outside of combat (ie a Wolf Companion
with three life gets hit with a Cryptic Mission) and then subsequently is
involved in combat and takes a point of damage (Weather Control):
a) Heal back completely (in this case 3 life)
b) Heal damage taken in combat only (in this case heal one back to 2 life)
This has never happened in my experience. I've never even seen anybody
try to kill a retainer outside of combat..... but it could happen :)
Jeff
Jeff Dai wrote:
> Does a retainer that takes damage outside of combat (ie a Wolf Companion
> with three life gets hit with a Cryptic Mission) and then subsequently is
> involved in combat and takes a point of damage (Weather Control):
>
> a) Heal back completely (in this case 3 life)
> b) Heal damage taken in combat only (in this case heal one back to 2 life)
b) [TOM 09-DEC-1995]
[ quoted text not captured ]