In Defense of Anarchs

I love mechanics. Not the big greasy guys who fix cars, but the ones introduced with each new set. A set is remembered for and defined by its new mechanics. And if V:TES is going to see little in the way of new Govern-level, or even Undead Strength-level library cards (to avoid power creep) and little in the way of new effects for old disciplines (to avoid diversification beyond identity), then mechanics are destined to become much of what is the future of V:TES. I would simply like to take a moment to reflect on some mechanics we've seen in past sets, and then (as the title of this thread suggests), explain why I think anarchs are going to grow to become far more powerful. Yes, I said it. Anarchs will RULE YOU ALL. Read on: The Bloodline Mechanic ---------------------- Not traditionally thought of as a "mechanic", the Bloodline differs from a normal clan in that it has only 5 or so vampires to build a crypt from. This is not a "mechanic" in the technical sense--not that I know what the "technical sense" is--but it functions like one, in that the players get something new, and the designer can do new things with/because of it. Needless to say, this mechanic has met with some popularity. How will it shape the game in future years? Well, I generally see one Bloodlines deck at each table, even years after the set came out. I think that says a lot. I think new bloodlines would be good, and that no amount of them will ever overshadow Lasombra, Malkavian, Ventrue, etc. The Trifle Mechanic ------------------- A different kind of master card, which is easier to play. Another excellent example of a mechanic which adds a little to the game, but not a lot--and without detracting from anything. I don't think that, as the game goes on, the Trifle mechanic will become "huge". We will see some, probably in a good share of decks. But I doubt trifles will ever have a gigantic presence. The Black Hand Mechanic ----------------------- Really hard to gain, but really easy to start with, the Black Hand trait is an interesting mechanic in that it seems to be printed on completely random vampires, and that if you want to use it, you should probably start with it. It functions like an extra discipline; it has its own set of cards which require it. I wouldn't call this groundbreaking any more than I would call Flight groundbreaking. I don't have any Black Hand decks, so maybe I'm just biased, but I think its effect on the game will be no more than the effect of a new discipline. Which in the long run, can't be all that much unless you allow for power creep. The Event Mechanic ------------------ I don't think Gehenna events were perhaps the best example of what Events are capable of. They were cool, they were OK. I use some. Gehenna events were a good idea. But I think Events as a new card type was a SUPERB idea. It's a subtle cardtype. NSA Trio, anyone? I think as time goes on, more decks will add events and they will spice up the game. Again, I believe this is much of what new mechanics are for--providing that kind of variety. The Red List Mechanic --------------------- Simultaneously my favorite and least favorite of the mechanics, Red List is a drawback which allows for more combat in games. The potential for printing new Red List-oriented library cards is rather limited--I suppose new trophies would be acceptable, or new Red List-only cards. The real addition, the major gain for the game itself, is that of Red List as a "flaw" during "character creation" to add a new dimension to vampire design. I like that this trait is simple and subtle, and that it encourages interaction between players. That's the kind of Red List mechanic I really like. On the other hand, I consider the cards which add "Red List" to a vampire to be the rather inevitable outcome of adding a new trait, and I don't really like them all that well. Trophies are only really useful in a deck which expects that Red List minions will appear and then get burned, so it is unlikely that a deck which doesn't use this last category of cards will use Trophies, either. I suppose that means they have their uses, but all the decklists I've seen so far which have used trophies use them in moderation. The Anarch Mechanic ------------------- First, you have to go anarch. There's a master card that'll do it, there are two different virtually no-cost ways to go anarch, and there's a rule for doing it, failing that. So once you go Anarch, what do you get for your investment? Anarchs have their own master cards and their own titles, etc., but most notably they have the three-way cards which require you be an anarch and have one of the three listed disciplines. Some, like Smash and Grab, have three fairly different uses. Others more or less do the same thing in three different ways. But no matter how you use Anarchs, you have available to you--for the first time in V:TES history--the ability to include discipline-based effects which all your vampires can use without your vampires having those disciplines in common. This is all good in theory, but what do you actually get for your investment? To date: Maybe 3 good masters. Maybe 3 good minion cards. Not much. There aren't that many really good Anarch cards yet. Also, Anarchs don't have any "meat"--+2 bleed, +2 damage, +2 intercept, +2 stealth, S:CE, etc. If you're an anarch deck who wants to use JUST anarch cards, you probably won't be that good at combat, you certainly won't be an intercept or stealth deck, and your bleed is limited to +1. So then how do I maintain that Anarchs will rule the world? Simple: Because unlike existing disciplines, which must each be confined to doing some subset of things, Anarch-only cards may do anything which the inlaid discipline can do. Because unlike existing disciplines, which have had much of their history written already, Anarchs do not have many decent cards behind them yet. Or many cards for any given discipline at all. Because if I'm right, and LSJ said that no mechanic would be left behind in future sets, then Anarchs will continue to get new cards. And Anarch-only cards unite many vampires across disciplines. I think that this sort of flexibility and odd new sort of cohesiveness is bound to increase simply by having more things interconnecting the anarchs. So basically, I suppose I'm saying that each discipline will have no more new cards, virtually, after awhile. Including the "discipline" Black Hand. But not including the discipline "Anarchs"--they just have way more room to grow before becoming anything like broken, because of the combination "discipline+anarch" in order to play it. That's all. -- Brian Perhaps I should note that dual-discipline cards have this same sort of potential? No new rant, though.

firstconform...@aol.com wrote: > I love mechanics. me too. I like themes, I like card interactions. I like power balances, cycles of card themes/mechanics. Some of the thingsyou've listed are variations of other ccg... 'things', some not 'mechanics' in and of themselves... but anyhow. > I would simply like to take a moment to reflect on some mechanics we've > seen in past sets, and then (as the title of this thread suggests), > explain why I think anarchs are going to grow to become far more > powerful. OK... > The Bloodline Mechanic > ---------------------- Or the 'other clan' mechanic. Really its just a way to create a 'cycle' of vampires that share different disciplines than the 'major' clans. Vampires that have disciplines outside of the clan box has been around since the first set... > The Trifle Mechanic > ------------------- Well, sure. This isn't going to 'rule' anything... Well, unless they design a special Master Out of Turn trifle that screws over bounce or something... > The Black Hand Mechanic > ----------------------- This mechanic is hardly a mechanic... its just a blank requirement that you can key some cards off of... like flight, or primogin, or inner circle... except it doesn't do anything, and can be found on one particular sect, much like certain titles... Its just as (in)significant as seraph. Black hands strengths will be limited by what cards are given to them, and by what disciplines membors share. > Really hard to gain, but really easy to start with, the Black Hand > trait is an interesting mechanic in that it seems to be printed on > completely random vampires, and that if you want to use it, you should > probably start with it. same thing with any requirement... but if a certain requirement is good enough, and you want it on certain vampires, you'll bother slotting in cards for it. > It functions like an extra discipline; it has > its own set of cards which require it. > > I wouldn't call this groundbreaking any more than I would call Flight > groundbreaking. right. Its just a requirement. Just like any other trait/keyword... > I don't have any Black Hand decks, so maybe I'm just > biased, but I think its effect on the game will be no more than the > effect of a new discipline. it could be more, it depends on what LSJ wants to do with it. > The Event Mechanic > ------------------ > I don't think Gehenna events were perhaps the best example of what > Events are capable of. They were cool, they were OK. I use some. > Gehenna events were a good idea. But I think Events as a new card type > was a SUPERB idea. It's a subtle cardtype. NSA Trio, anyone? I think > as time goes on, more decks will add events and they will spice up the > game. Again, I believe this is much of what new mechanics are > for--providing that kind of variety. its just a new card type, almost duplicable by axing it and having trifle-esque master cards playable during your discard phase... we might as well have cards only playable during the untap phase, which you'll use an untap phase action to play, or influence phase cards, which you'll use transfers to play, and so on... > The Red List Mechanic > --------------------- Its a trait that means something outside of other cards referring to it. Other than that, its limited by the strength of the cards surrounding it. However, its effect is a negative one (in most instances currently*) as a disadvantage for vampires... as far as card effects that will key off of them, it will depend on the over all strength of the cards that are good against this trait, and will be good for the trait. More of the latter will see this trait in play more, but like all traits, its a random draw whether you'd see any of the former (though this trait has offensive trait giving capacity). I would call this trait a legitimately new mechanic, as it actually has an ability keyed off of it. * Note: should this disadvantage actually benefit a deck more than it hurts it, the mechanic is no longer negative naturally. > The Anarch Mechanic > ------------------- Once again, its just a keyword/trait. One that doesn't easily occur on vampires. but that's it. > First, you have to go anarch. There's a master card that'll do it, > there are two different virtually no-cost ways to go anarch, and > there's a rule for doing it, failing that. So once you go Anarch, what > do you get for your investment? sure, there are cards that allow you to become an anarch. Just as there are cards that allow you to become X clan, get X discipline, get certain titles, change sect, become THINGY. > Anarchs have their own master cards and their own titles, etc., but > most notably they have the three-way cards which require you be an > anarch and have one of the three listed disciplines. Some, like Smash > and Grab, have three fairly different uses. Others more or less do the > same thing in three different ways. But no matter how you use Anarchs, > you have available to you--for the first time in V:TES history-- not true. Bloodlines. Do you recall OUTFERIORs? > the > ability to include discipline-based effects which all your vampires can > use without your vampires having those disciplines in common. > So then how do I maintain that Anarchs will rule the world? Simple: > Because unlike existing disciplines, which must each be confined to > doing some subset of things, not true. Siren is intercept for protean. Requirements will continue to includeother effects. > Anarch-only cards may do anything which > the inlaid discipline can do. Because unlike existing disciplines, > which have had much of their history written already, projectile is a new chapter in celerity. As is selective silence. > Anarchs do not > have many decent cards behind them yet. Or many cards for any given > discipline at all. Because if I'm right, and LSJ said that no mechanic > would be left behind in future sets, then Anarchs will continue to get > new cards. And Anarch-only cards unite many vampires across > disciplines. this is an ok remark, but, you know, there's no reason why three ways or even two ways couldn't exist for non anarchs. There's no reason why Xways can't exist for black hand, or redlist, or any OTHER trait/keyword. Its just thematic a a current design choice that only anarch have access to 3ways (Bloodlines disciplines have access to 2ways, technically, usually referred to outferiors). > cohesiveness is bound to increase simply by having more things > interconnecting the anarchs. > > So basically, I suppose I'm saying that each discipline will have no > more new cards, virtually, after awhile. Including the "discipline" > Black Hand. But not including the discipline "Anarchs"--they just have > way more room to grow before becoming anything like broken, because of > the combination "discipline+anarch" in order to play it. And every other 'keyword' can create its own unique niches. Even titles. Imagine threeways based off of primogin titles. Imagine discipline requiring cards, that are also playable by any vampire with X trait. Etc... etc... > > That's all. > > -- Brian > > Perhaps I should note that dual-discipline cards have this same sort of > potential? There are just more currently introduced permutations, technically. Though the possibilities are nigh infinite with variation of 'combine X trait with Y trait. Combine ands ors buts and nots'

On 22 Apr 2005 17:36:41 -0700, <firstco...@aol.com> wrote: > I love mechanics. > > Not the big greasy guys who fix cars, but the ones introduced with each > new set. A set is remembered for and defined by its new mechanics. > And if V:TES is going to see little in the way of new Govern-level, or > even Undead Strength-level library cards (to avoid power creep) and > little in the way of new effects for old disciplines (to avoid > diversification beyond identity), then mechanics are destined to become > much of what is the future of V:TES. > > I would simply like to take a moment to reflect on some mechanics we've > seen in past sets, and then (as the title of this thread suggests), > explain why I think anarchs are going to grow to become far more > powerful. > > Yes, I said it. Anarchs will RULE YOU ALL. Read on: [snip] Interesting read. Two points: 1. Introducing new trait-type mechanics should IMHO be handled with care. Otherwise you might end up with so many traits that you need to explain them on the cards (like in TOCCG), and the whole point of consistency and brevity seems to be a bit defeated. 2. Thanks to prudent design, as with every new thing, the Anarchs started below the power curve. They do get a new toy every now and then, though. I do not, however, expect them to surpass the power curve (or get significantly closer to it than the currently prevalent main strategies). Once they have enough "power cards" to be generally competitive, new cards will just flesh them out, adding much diversity (and little real competitive strength). > Perhaps I should note that dual-discipline cards have this same sort of > potential? No new rant, though. Dual-discipline cards and Anarch cards add new variety to old vampires, and allow you to build new decks from old cards. They lend great variety to the game. -- Bye, Daneel

Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The Event Mechanic > > ------------------ > > its just a new card type, almost duplicable by axing it and having > trifle-esque master cards playable during your discard phase... we > might as well have cards only playable during the untap phase, which > you'll use an untap phase action to play, or influence phase cards, > which you'll use transfers to play, and so on... Maybe it is, technically speaking. But all the events we've seen so far are different to most master cards in that they affect all players in the same way. In fact, with the exception of Dr. Marisa Fletcher, CDC, once an event is in play, it doesn't matter who played it (which is one of the reasons why I think it would be more 'fitting' to leave events in play after the controller is ousted). I'll bet if the mechanic existed back then, cards like Strained Vitae Supply would have been events. Too bad they missed the opportunity to rectify Anarch Revolt. ;) Rogar

In message <opspsggp...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >1. Introducing new trait-type mechanics should IMHO be handled with care. > Otherwise you might end up with so many traits that you need to explain > them on the cards (like in TOCCG), and the whole point of consistency > and brevity seems to be a bit defeated. This assumes that all such traits have inherent rules supporting them. Things like "Boon", "Werewolf", "Black Hand" and "Vehicle" are all trait-type mechanics, but none require excessive card text. (Save for when such things were retrofitted onto existing cards, which is a slight problem, but rarely excessive.) Then you only need cards which specifically target and/or require and/or grant and/or whatever that. I think Black Hand showed how to do that in an extremely good, careful, considered and useful way. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

Daneel wrote: > 1. Introducing new trait-type mechanics should IMHO be handled with care. > Otherwise you might end up with so many traits that you need to explain > them on the cards (like in TOCCG), and the whole point of consistency > and brevity seems to be a bit defeated. For rules-based traits, sure. Non-rules-based traits (like "animal", "ghoul", "gun", "haven", and "Black Hand") don't run the danger of that. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:24:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> 1. Introducing new trait-type mechanics should IMHO be handled with >> care. >> Otherwise you might end up with so many traits that you need to explain >> them on the cards (like in TOCCG), and the whole point of consistency >> and brevity seems to be a bit defeated. > > For rules-based traits, sure. > > Non-rules-based traits (like "animal", "ghoul", "gun", "haven", and > "Black > Hand") don't run the danger of that. Yes, true. Simple traits like that are just fine and add more depth to the game by allowing cards to refer to sets of cards. -- Bye, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Depth? Chess has depth. A game which has over 30 things to which to refer to is clunky. Having said this, it is important to have card traits so one can refer to their kind in future sets. I would argue that having a set based off of a particuar trait and just having cards that refer to that trait, is a cop out as far as design goes. I mean, its THE theme of card expansions... hmm... we need new cards... I know! Lets print a new keyword and have cards refer to it within this expansion! Woot! There's another 70 some cards. This sets pratically done. :) (yes I'm over simplifying ccg expansion design...) ~SV

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > Daneel wrote: >>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:24:22 GMT, LSJ >>>Non-rules-based traits (like "animal", "ghoul", "gun", "haven", and >>>"Black >>>Hand") don't run the danger of that. >> >>Yes, true. Simple traits like that are just fine and add more depth to the >> game by allowing cards to refer to sets of cards. > > Depth? Chess has depth. A game which has over 30 things to which to > refer to is clunky. ? Chess has over 30 things to consider. There are 21 legal options with 21 possible responses to each of those, for a total of 441 things to consider, when making your opening move if you only want to think one move ahead. The "but I don't have to consider them all" defense is easily paralleled in VTES. (smilie-terminated humor excised). [ quoted text not captured ]

21? i'm lost 8 pawns moving 1 ahead 8 panws moving 2 ahead 4 knights have 2 exits which is the 21th? Andrea

andrea....@infinito.it wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Resignation. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

as in START (W) e2-e4 (B) <dropping the king> good game, i resign Wellllll ...yes......... i did not think of that. Thanks ;-) Andrea

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > > Resignation. :-) Or you could offer a draw, I guess. Cheers, WES

LSJ wrote: > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > > Daneel wrote: > >>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:24:22 GMT, LSJ > >>>Non-rules-based traits (like "animal", "ghoul", "gun", "haven", and > >>>"Black > >>>Hand") don't run the danger of that. > >> > >>Yes, true. Simple traits like that are just fine and add more depth to the > >> game by allowing cards to refer to sets of cards. > > > > Depth? Chess has depth. A game which has over 30 things to which to > > refer to is clunky. > > ? > Chess has over 30 things to consider. I'm not talking to things to consider. I'm talking about things to which one could refer. I guess the analogy from chess to VTES doesn't work so well... the point I was trying make was 1.) chess has so few pieces but it makes you think. 2.) VTES has a lot of pieces and makes you think. but does having more pieces mean you have to think MORE or that the type of thinking you're doing is more rewarding, or that the game play is more rewarding? Not neccesarily... typically I've found in ccgs I've played: The more mechanics and keywords you throw into it, the clunkier the game gets... Simple IS good. ~SV

In message <1114559705.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >I would argue that having a set based off of a particuar trait and just >having cards that refer to that trait, is a cop out as far as design >goes. I mean, its THE theme of card expansions... hmm... we need new >cards... I know! Lets print a new keyword and have cards refer to it >within this expansion! Woot! In a very real sense, you're right. However, this is essentially inevitable. In any reasonably complex game with a relatively small card pool (e.g. the first set of any complex CCG), there will be many things you haven't done. When printing more cards, you have a number of choices: - reprint old cards. A good choice, for a number of reasons, but which can only go so far. - fill in the gaps of strategies that you simply haven't had space to print before. In Jyhad terms, that might be (say) cards like the EuroBrujah. - print subtle variations of existing cards. The Advancement mechanism is the most obvious version of this, but many other examples exist. e.g. Redirection vs Deflection. Then you have to print new things, once you've decided you're done with the above for now. These are going to be: - cards which are driven by card text interactions of new mechanics - cards which are driven by new rules. Evolution of CCGs is essentially all about: - providing new players with the tools they need - providing old players with cool new stuff [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Apr 2005 10:51:05 -0700, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > LSJ wrote: >> Screaming Vermillian wrote: >> > Daneel wrote: >> >>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:24:22 GMT, LSJ >> >>>Non-rules-based traits (like "animal", "ghoul", "gun", "haven", > and >> >>>"Black >> >>>Hand") don't run the danger of that. >> >> >> >>Yes, true. Simple traits like that are just fine and add more depth > to the >> >> game by allowing cards to refer to sets of cards. >> > >> > Depth? Chess has depth. A game which has over 30 things to which to >> > refer to is clunky. >> >> ? >> Chess has over 30 things to consider. > > I'm not talking to things to consider. I'm talking about things to > which one could refer. I guess the analogy from chess to VTES doesn't > work so well... I agree, it was a bit too apples to oranges. > the point I was trying make was 1.) chess has so few pieces but it > makes you think. 2.) VTES has a lot of pieces and makes you think. Yes. One is a traditional board game, the other is a collectible card game. No need to go into board games, by the way. Consider the normal 52-card pack. Only 52 cards, yet the combinations are almost limitless even within a single game. It isn't as colorful as VTES, and it has no cool vampire theme, but the games you can play can be about as fun. The difference is that VTES is a collectible card game. It is expandable (and was/is designed to be expanded). > but does having more pieces mean you have to think MORE or that the > type of thinking you're doing is more rewarding, or that the game play > is more rewarding? Not neccesarily... > > typically I've found in ccgs I've played: The more mechanics and > keywords you throw into it, the clunkier the game gets... Simple IS > good. Indeed. But part of the charm of CCGs is that when a new expansion comes out, (almost) every deck can include at least one card from it. Or even if not, the numerous new options are bound to appear in other decks, contributing to a dynamic balance (as opposed to the static balance of the 52-pack). -- Bye, Daneel

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1114559705.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: > >I would argue that having a set based off of a particuar trait and just > >having cards that refer to that trait, is a cop out as far as design > >goes. I mean, its THE theme of card expansions... hmm... we need new > >cards... I know! Lets print a new keyword and have cards refer to it > >within this expansion! Woot! > > In a very real sense, you're right. However, this is essentially > inevitable. meh. I'm a purist. If done correctly I don't feel so cheap and used afterwards. :) Lets see if I can think of a CCG that doesn't make me feel crappy after it pulls these stunts... hmm... Duelmaster? yes and no... there's some that make me feel bad... hmm... no. They all make me feel quesy. DM makes me feel the least so afterwards though... > In any reasonably complex game with a relatively small card pool (e.g. > the first set of any complex CCG), there will be many things you haven't > done. When printing more cards, you have a number of choices: > > - reprint old cards. A good choice, for a number of reasons, but which > can only go so far. > > - fill in the gaps of strategies that you simply haven't had space to > print before. In Jyhad terms, that might be (say) cards like the > EuroBrujah. > > - print subtle variations of existing cards. The Advancement mechanism > is the most obvious version of this, but many other examples exist. > e.g. Redirection vs Deflection. > > > Then you have to print new things, once you've decided you're done with > the above for now. > > These are going to be: > > - cards which are driven by card text interactions of new mechanics > > - cards which are driven by new rules. > > > > Evolution of CCGs is essentially all about: > > - providing new players with the tools they need > - providing old players with cool new stuff but does cool new stuff have to be cool predictable (to people who've played other ccgs before) new stuff? The history of CCGs is ony 10 years... do we need a mechanistically (is that a word?) oriented revolution for me to feel happy about CCGdom? Eh. Back to making decks w/o dom nor weenies. ~SV

In message <1114661323.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >but does cool new stuff have to be cool predictable (to people who've >played other ccgs before) new stuff? That depends on what level you think what's happened is predictable. Advancement is sort of like some of the storyline characters in (say) Legend of the Five Rings, but I wouldn't say it was predictable. Certainly, it wasn't predictable in the sense of "Oh, we're going to get X." In the sense of "Well, we know that release X is going to cover Anarchs" then some of the inclusions are semi-predictable. The anarchs as a pseudo-sect/designator, the inclusion of Barons[0]... that's pretty likely. The use of Fee Stakes as a non-political way to gain titles is interesting. However, things like (say) the Three Ways were pretty unpredictable. Knowing that something will come in, however, does not mean that you know how it will work. If you look back at the newsgroup at the time of Magazine being released, there was a lot of speculation about it when it turned up on the preview list. Some people absolutely knew how it was going to work and why that was a piece of crap. In fact, knowing that a particular item is going to be represented (e.g. an Anarch sect, Baron titles) doesn't mean that you know *how* it's going to be represented. How many of us expected there to be no inherent Anarchs, other than merged vampires? I'd have bet good money on there being at least a handful of innate Anarchs in the set. On some level, though, huge swathes of mechanics are predictable. Your suggestions for cards with a level that is usable by non-primary vampires are predictable - the fallback concept of Bloodlines discipline cards already "predicts" that, for example. Vast swathes of concepts are "predictable" on that level, depending on how far and wide you cast your net. [0] Indeed, I remember predicting that Barons would have to pay more to contest a title. That wasn't based on playing other CCGs, however. That was based on some knowledge of the back-story, such that most Anarchs don't have as firm a grip or solid a support-base as most Princes/Archbishops. [ quoted text not captured ]