I was reading the Lasombra's Who's Who of VTES page (which I think is a
fabulous idea by the way, very fun to read), and when I came upon Matt
Green's page, I noticed his response to question #4:
<quote>
Q4: If you could add something to the game, what would it be?
Multiple vampire combat. I'd like to see a Sabbat pack take apart an Inner
Circle member by force of numbers.
</quote>
What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change feasible?
It's true that we have some of that already, mostly in Sanguinus combat, but
I'm sure that this is not exactly what Matt was talking about.
This to me sounds very interesting and it could possibly add a whole lot of
strategies to the game. But would it be too unbalancing, favoring combat
decks too much? Would it cause unnecessary changes to the already
uber-complicated structure of combat? Is it possible to add such a mechanic
without muddying the pre-range, manuever, strike, press order? And
ultimately, does the mechanic of multiple vampire combat really differ all
that much from what we have now with most dedicated rush decks? In other
words, would it be fundamentally different than simply having all of your
minions bum's rush some poor vampire one right after the other? In some
respects, sure, I think because in the multiple vampire combat, the attacked
minion would only be able to strike one of your minions (unless through
additionals of course). However, is that worth fundamentally changing how
combat can play out, risking another playerbase outcry a la Grouping or 7/7?
It seems to me that it could be possible as long as there are appropriate
costs for taking such an action. But then again, its late and I haven't
really given it too much thought besides "hey, that might be cool."
Comments?
Peteo
>What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change feasible?
Not very.
Multiple vampire combat is extremely messy. Take a look at the Werewolf CCG:
Rage for example. They tried to incorporate multiple minions in a combat but I
always found that to be a very unwieldy mechanic. It always turned out to be
too unbalanced or too ineffective (in other words, too extreme one way or the
other).
Note that there was always the unspoken possibility of multiple vampires in
combat. Take for example the Jyhad/VTES version of Burst of Sunlight which did
1R/2R agg to all vampires in combat. Not just to this vampire and the opposing
vampire, but *all* vampires. Of course this has been revised in Camarilla
Edition to Strike: 1R/2R, aggravated. This striking vampire also takes 1
aggravated damage.
Also, from the other cards currently in existence, additional combatents is
best emulated by having other combats follow (i.e. Hidden Lurker, Fast
Reaction, Coordinated Attacks, etc.).
It's possible that VTES could have been designed to allow such grand melees to
occur. More likely than not, it would have de-stabilized the game IMO. But
considering how far along in development we are, I think it's too late to
re-design this aspect.
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021118015401...@mb-fc.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
The closest thing I can think of is a card you have to play pre-range, do
not replace, and allows another vampire of the same clan, sect, circle
whathaveyou to enter combat with the opposing minion after this combat is
finished. With a press? With +1 hand damage? With -1 Hand Damage to who
ever he is fighting? With 2 manuvers? This idea might spawn a very
powerful card, but more likley it would beget wallpaper. Dave B.
>The closest thing I can think of is a card you have to play pre-range, do
>not replace, and allows another vampire of the same clan, sect, circle
>whathaveyou to enter combat with the opposing minion after this combat is
>finished. With a press? With +1 hand damage? With -1 Hand Damage to who
>ever he is fighting? With 2 manuvers? This idea might spawn a very
>powerful card, but more likley it would beget wallpaper.
Another important limiting factor (and one one should consider conceptually) is
the current rules that prevent combat queueing. Of course I understand why the
ruling exists (and I agree with it) since otherwise it would be far too
difficult to figure out which combat comes next. But the status quo, which
prevents one from starting another combat if another is already coming up also
greatly weakens the concept of multiple minions engaged in some giant brouhaha.
Halcyan 2
Peter Oh wrote:
(snip)
> Multiple vampire combat. I'd like to see a Sabbat pack take apart
> an Inner Circle member by force of numbers.
(snip quoting of matt)
> What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change
> feasible? It's true that we have some of that already, mostly in
> Sanguinus combat, but I'm sure that this is not exactly what Matt
> was talking about.
There one thing you must consider :
All the vampires employed by the same methuselah scarcely know what others
are doing : they don't even know they serve the same master. That's why they
are acting on their own and vampire coordination mechanics is so rare (but
of course there are exceptions)
Now, i think it's not too late to introduce multiple vampire combat with a
tweak. Try this :
Dual Rush : tap another of your untapped, controlled vampires when you play
this card. Both this acting vampire and the chosen vampire. Both vampires
enter combat with a ready vampire of your predator and prey. During this
combat, only this acting vampire and the defending vampire can play "before
range" cards. The defending vampire can choose to strike this acting vampire
or the chosen vampire, but not both. At the end of combat, if one of your
vampires is burned or in torpor, the other burns 2 blood.
So if this action is blocked, the chosen vampire remains tapped,and there is
a cost for failure =)
who can add something to make the mechanism better ?
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote:
>>What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change feasible?>It's possible that VTES could have been designed to allow such grand melees to
>occur. More likely than not, it would have de-stabilized the game IMO. But
>considering how far along in development we are, I think it's too late to
>re-design this aspect.
In fact, multi-minion combat *was* a part of the original design,
if I recall correctly.
Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction were originally designed to allow
a second member of your "team" to get into combat with you when
your action was blocked or you blocked an action, respectively.
It proved too unweildy in playtest and was scrapped. HL and FR took
on the form that you see them in today in the initial release
(except for that sideline form of Hidden Lurker caused by the
misprinting of the action symbol instead of the action modifier
symbol in the initial release).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu)
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dd8dba8$0$26445$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
> Peter Oh wrote:
> (snip)
> > Multiple vampire combat. I'd like to see a Sabbat pack take apart
> > an Inner Circle member by force of numbers.
> (snip quoting of matt)
>
> > What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change
> > feasible? It's true that we have some of that already, mostly in
> > Sanguinus combat, but I'm sure that this is not exactly what Matt
> > was talking about.
>
> There one thing you must consider :
> All the vampires employed by the same methuselah scarcely know what others
> are doing : they don't even know they serve the same master. That's why
they
> are acting on their own and vampire coordination mechanics is so rare (but
> of course there are exceptions)
>
> Now, i think it's not too late to introduce multiple vampire combat with a
> tweak. Try this :
>
> Dual Rush : tap another of your untapped, controlled vampires when you
play
> this card. ****Both this acting vampire and the chosen vampire****. Both
vampires
> enter combat with a ready vampire of your predator and prey. During this
> combat, only this acting vampire and the defending vampire can play
"before
> range" cards. The defending vampire can choose to strike this acting
vampire
> or the chosen vampire, but not both. At the end of combat, if one of your
> vampires is burned or in torpor, the other burns 2 blood.
I don't understand the wording on this. I think you meant to say that "Both
this acting vampire and the chosen vampire enter combat with a minion
controlled by another Methuselah". We already have a card which simulates
this better: Haven Uncovered. Also, how would Obedience affect this card?
Blood Brother Ambush? Slave Rule?
We have a clean mechanism for multiple members fighting in combat. It is
kind of like the old Ninja movies where the hero gets attacked by a group of
ninjas but only fights them one at a time.
"I mean I spend all this time sneaking up on them, but when I yell before I
attack, they hear me and turn around. Do we always have to yell when we
attack someone?.... Oh, and can we start using guns? ", Chris Farley at the
meeting of the Brotherhood of Ninjas Local 1905
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
XZealot wrote:
>> Dual Rush : tap another of your untapped, controlled vampires when
>> you play this card. ****Both this acting vampire and the chosen
>> vampire****. Both vampires enter combat with a ready vampire of
>> your predator and prey. During this combat, only this acting
>> vampire and the defending vampire can play "before range" cards.
>> The defending vampire can choose to strike this acting vampire or
>> the chosen vampire, but not both. At the end of combat, if one of
>> your vampires is burned or in torpor, the other burns 2 blood.> I don't understand the wording on this. I think you meant to say
> that "Both this acting vampire and the chosen vampire enter combat
> with a minion controlled by another Methuselah". We already have a
> card which simulates this better: Haven Uncovered. Also, how would
> Obedience affect this card? Blood Brother Ambush? Slave Rule?
If the action is *blocked* then you just blocked the acting vamp as usual,
except that the chosen vamp is still tapped. That's that simple.
> We have a clean mechanism for multiple members fighting in combat.
> It is kind of like the old Ninja movies where the hero gets
> attacked by a group of ninjas but only fights them one at a time.
hidden lurker or fast reaction are enoughe for me =)
but i just wanted to point that it's possible =)
> Multiple vampire combat. I'd like to see a Sabbat pack take apart an Inner
> Circle member by force of numbers.
> </quote>
>
> What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change feasible?
> It's true that we have some of that already, mostly in Sanguinus combat, but
> I'm sure that this is not exactly what Matt was talking about.
The closest that we currently have to this is Fast Reaction/Hidden
Lurker, in which minions take turns to fight one opponent, and
Sanguinus, in which vampires help out their buddies but don't
directly get involved. Martyr's Resilience and Save Face works a bit
like this.
A discipline-less Hidden Lurker would work, provided that it had some
kind of drawback. "Do not replace this card until after combat" would
probably be essential.
As Hidden Lurker helps to get around S:CE, a discipline-less version
should not have this ability. So maybe something like:
Name: Group Attack (lame name, I know)
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Do not replace this card until after combat. Usable only by an
untapped minion other than the acting minion after the acting minion
is blocked and combat is over. Tap this minion. This minion now enters
combat with the blocking minion.
The second method, the I-help-my-buddy method, might allow the
secondary minion to participate in the fight, but should entail some
risk to him as well; otherwise you could rush someone with Dimple and
allow Lithrac to Compress the opposing minion with impunity!
It's probably not a good idea to allow the helping minion to gain
additional strikes, or you'd have brujah teams each blurring for a
total of six strikes!
Maybe something like this:
Name: Group Fight
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 Blood
Only usable before range is determined, by an untapped minion not
involved in
the current combat. This minion gains a strike against the opposing
minion during each round of combat, and cannot play additional
strikes. The opposing minion gains an optional additional strike each
round of combat, only usable against this minion.
That's how I think it might work.
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/wraith
"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:aranjf$gfa72$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de...
> In fact, multi-minion combat *was* a part of the original design,
> if I recall correctly.
>
> Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction were originally designed to allow
> a second member of your "team" to get into combat with you when
> your action was blocked or you blocked an action, respectively.
>
> It proved too unweildy in playtest and was scrapped. HL and FR took
> on the form that you see them in today in the initial release
> (except for that sideline form of Hidden Lurker caused by the
> misprinting of the action symbol instead of the action modifier
> symbol in the initial release).
However, at this point in time, wouldn't it be feasible to mirror the
tradition of cards like HL and FR (as well as the several Sanguinus combat
cards) to get other effects that mimic combat between multiple vampires?
E.g.
No Retreat
Combat card
Only playable by an untapped ready vampire you control other than the one
you control in the current combat. Only playable before range is determined.
Tap this vampire. If the combat reaches the press step, then there is a
press to continue combat, and the opposing vampire may not press to end
combat.
Pass The Parcel
Combat card
Only playable by an untapped ready vampire you control other than the one
you control in the current combat. Only playable before range is determined.
Tap this vampire. If this vampire has a weapon, then this weapon is
transferred to the vampire in combat.
etc.
Just a thought anyway... :)
Regards,
Mike Nudd
> Maybe something like this:
>
> Name: Group Fight
> Cardtype: Combat
> Cost: 1 Blood
> Only usable before range is determined, by an untapped minion not
> involved in
> the current combat. This minion gains a strike against the opposing
> minion during each round of combat, and cannot play additional
> strikes. The opposing minion gains an optional additional strike each
> round of combat, only usable against this minion.
How about this?
Riding Shotgun
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 Blood
Only useable after a minion with vehicle completes combat, by another
untapped minion with a vehicle controlled by the same Methuselah. Do not
tap the second minion. The second minion enters combat with the opposing
minion. There is an optional manuver given to your minion entering combat.
This would put an emphasis on Sport Bikes and Hawgs which should given you
maneuvers ( you know because vehicles move) in combat.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> reyda wrote>
> > Peter Oh wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > Multiple vampire combat. I'd like to see a Sabbat pack take apart
> > an Inner Circle member by force of numbers.
> >> (snip)>
> > What I'm wondering is, to what degree is such a design change
> > feasible? It's true that we have some of that already, mostly in
> > Sanguinus combat, but I'm sure that this is not exactly what Matt
> > was talking about.
>> There one thing <we> must consider:> All the vampires employed by the same methuselah scarcely know what others
> are doing : they don't even know they serve the same master. That's why they
> are acting on their own and vampire coordination mechanics is so rare (but
> of course there are exceptions)
>> (reword) It's not too late to introduce multiple vampire combat. Try this:>
> Dual Rush : tap another of your untapped, controlled vampires when you play
> this card. Both this acting vampire and the chosen vampire. Both vampires
> enter combat with a ready vampire of your predator and prey. During this
> combat, only this acting vampire and the defending vampire can play "before
> range" cards. The defending vampire can choose to strike this acting vampire
> or the chosen vampire, but not both. At the end of combat, if one of your
> vampires is burned or in torpor, the other burns 2 blood.
>
>
> So if this action is blocked, the chosen vampire remains tapped,and there is
> a cost for failure =)
>
> who can add something to make the mechanism better ?
How about this...
War Pack Rush
Combat
Cost: 1 pool for each minion
Tap one or more minions you control and burn one pool for each tapped
minion. (D) Enter combat with a minion controlled by another
methuselah. If this action is blocked, burn an additional pool.
Manuever, strike, press and damage prevention cards affect only one
minion at a time. The total ammount of damage from all your attacking
minion's strikes are resolved at once. The oppossing minion can choose
which of your attacking minions it strikes and additional strikes can
be directed at any one of your minions. Each of your attacking
minions suffers any enviromental damage individually.
The idea is to create a substantial cost in pool for the methuselah,
create a penalty for a failed action, allow the defender to respond
with additional strikes, environmental damage, and damage prevention
cards.
A combination of Carrion Crows, Blur and Skin of Steel could really
mess up this kind of pack rush... fair enough, eh?
Oh, and dominate and strike combat ends would effect all but one of
your chosen minions (you choose). This way the combat continues as if
it were a Bum's Rush or Ambush. It's a substatial cost to the
attacking methusalah (two or more pool) and now there's only one
minion to attack with.
What do you think?? Too wordy? Too hard to play with? Or is it
written poorly and makes no sense?
That's my contribution for the day...
Cheers,
Howard