10th Anniversary Love

Ha HA! I just got my 10th Anniversary sets! (dancing) Kevin, I think the visible foil stamp on the backside of the card is really only visible on about three of the cards in each tin, for some reason. Orb of Ulain? What game am I playing again? Wacky. I want to give it to Wendell Dellburton. In fact, I want to give EVERYTHING to Wendell Dellburton! And Carlton Van Wyk? Doctor119? My All Hunter, All the Time deck draws ever nearer. Now I just need enough Jake Washington (Bookworm!) cards to get the party started reliably. -- madness, madness in the system. heslin ----------------------------- "I'm not sure God wants us to be happy. I think he wants us to love, and be loved. But we are like children, thinking our toys will make us happy, and the whole world is our nursery. Something must drive us out of that nursery and in to the lives of others, and that something is suffering." ---C.S. Lewis

> ----------------------------- > "I'm not sure God wants us to be happy. I think he wants us to > love, and be loved. But we are like children, thinking our toys will > make us happy, and the whole world is our nursery. Something > must drive us out of that nursery and in to the lives of others, and > that something is suffering." > ---C.S. Lewis I assume you've seen the movie "Shadowlands". If not, you should. Anthony Hopkins plays C.S. Lewis. P.S. Pack some tissues. -- David Cherryholmes

I'm wondering what people's opinions are on the issue of certain Group 1 Vampires being somewhat underpowered. Don't get me wrong, I've always appreciated most of Group 1 because I find many of the vampires more nuanced or interesting as opposed to simply loaded with disciplines like the latter groups. Mariel, Anneke, Cordona and Democritus and many of their group 1 comrades are still unique vampires and/or just plain cost efficient. However you still have some of the usual suspects that get groans from players (As if I need to mention Appolonius at all at this point). When I had first heard of the group 1 vamps coming out in the tins, I was thinking that some of them might have some more severe text migrations or would be fleshed out a little more. This really wasn't the case, we ended up getting some clarifications on certain crypt cards, but that is about it. Which is fine for now I think. I still think that if they are going to reprint somebody like Appolonius though, that they would do so with the intention of possibly introducing a advanced version later on. It would make sense to me. What do others think? Eldacar

I believe Appolonius is enough, don't really need feel the need to see an Appolonius advanced... A Tariq advanced though would be a welcome surprise in KMW... George

Eldacar wrote: >I'm wondering what people's opinions are on the issue of certain Group >1 Vampires being somewhat underpowered. They are underpowered. The old vampires (i.e. pre Sabbat) used a different formula for how much stuff you got for your capacity, and what certain abilities cost (+1 bleed and +1 strength cost more). The result is that big vampires (8+) tend to seem underpowered compared to current vampires of the same size. As do vampires with +1 bleed or +1 strength. I figure that the designers didn't really see a need to fix them, as most of them are still perfectly useable, and the ones that are weak aren't weak in every situation. -Peter

No, the design team squandered a great opportunity to not reprint crap. Jeff [ quoted text not captured ]

jeff_kuta wrote: > No, the design team squandered a great opportunity to not reprint crap. > > Jeff > absolutely! now, not even advanced versions will save these vampires. jds

[ quoted text not captured ] But they're not all crap. It's true that the 8-10 capacity vampires are underpowered oftentimes, but that often has to do specifically with disciplines. In anycase, we got advanced versions of Tusk and that Tremere Primogen whose name I can't recall at the moment. A couple of more would have been interesting. And it would not have been a total waste of paper. Eldacar

> In anycase, we got advanced versions of Tusk and that Tremere Primogen > whose name I can't recall at the moment. A couple of more would have > been interesting. And it would not have been a total waste of paper. Well, as I recall in the last VTES developer chat, it was hinted that we would get more Advanced, and advancing group 1's would make them a little better. But saying that, I don't think the G1's are that bad. In fact I'm moving to using them in decks over the newer vampires (mainly for a change really), and they work ok. -- Colin "Eryx" Goodman Cambridge UK http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

Colin Goodman wrote: > But saying that, I don't think the G1's are that bad. In fact I'm moving to > using them in decks over the newer vampires (mainly for a change really), > and they work ok. Group 1's certainly aren't that bad, overall. -The 2-4's are generally identical to newer vampires (a 2 with 1 discipline; a 3 with 2 disciplines; a 4 with 3 disciplines or a superior and an inferior). -The 5-6's, barring vampires with +1 bleed and +1 strength, are generally the same as well (i.e. 5's with 2 superiors and an inferior like Raven/Camille or Felicia Mostrom; 6's with 2 superiors and 2 inferiors like Badger). Where the G1 5-6's suffer compared to current 5-6's is when they have special abilities--there is a good handfull of G1 5"s with 4 inferiors and a sketchy special ability (like, say, Tiberius, Scandalmonger or Sabine Lafitte) that look weak compared to current designs, and 6's with +1 strength/+1 bleed (look at Zack North and Adrianne and compare them to similar 6 pointers with the same special abilities) certainly pale in comparison. -The 7-8's have one less point of stuff than current 7-8's, which makes a difference in terms of total disciplines or special abilities, and they certainly look weak if they have +1 bleed/strength, but still, most of the G1 7-8's are very solid (see the likes of Selma the Repugnant, Gitaine St. Claire). Some of the 7-8's seem very weak (like, say, Ebaneezer Roush), but again, this is uasually due to having +1 strength or bleed. -The 9-10's in G1, again, lack about 2 points of stuff compared to current designs, so if you have, like, a 10 point G1 vampire with +1 bleed, say, he is going to look very soft compared to the G2/G3/G4 10 pointers. But still, they likely have a home somewhere. So overall, the only really significantly weak G1 vampires are generally the 9-10 pointers and the vampires with +1 strength or +1 bleed. As long as you tend to make those G1 vampires the fringe element, you'll never notice that the G1 vampires have slightly less stuff than the G2+ vampires. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

>They are underpowered. The old vampires (i.e. pre Sabbat) used a >different formula for how much stuff you got for your capacity, and >what certain abilities cost (+1 bleed and +1 strength cost more). The >result is that big vampires (8+) tend to seem underpowered compared to >current vampires of the same size. As do vampires with +1 bleed or +1 >strength. > >I figure that the designers didn't really see a need to fix them, as >most of them are still perfectly useable, and the ones that are weak >aren't weak in every situation. It's always a bad idea to ask something like "how often have you seen _ played?" because local metagames are so driven by individual players, but what I've seen is a dramatic decrease in the appearance of group 1s over the years and I'd expect similar experiences in many places. The best of the group - Malks in general, various Princes, midcap Gangrel, high cap Toreador, and whatever else - are not surprising to see, sure. But, take On a Darkling Plain's star Eliott Sinclair. All I hear out of Josh when Eliott comes up is how much this guy sucks. Sure ... now, when there are so many more choices. But, when playing a heavy Presence Toreador deck with only Jyhad cards, he kind of didn't suck. Jyhad was full of mistake vampires. As you say, a lot of mistakes had to do with higher caps and the way, way overcosting of +1 bleed/strength. But, there were mistakes the other way too with the likes of Gilbert, Nash, Anson. The latter mistakes are the primary reason we continue to see any group 1s as recent design has tended to smooth out the group 3s to where we lack so obvious power vamps. Group 4, OTOH, I'm not so sure about - seem to be going back to cheap Princes.

Curevei wrote: > It's always a bad idea to ask something like "how often have you seen _ > played?" because local metagames are so driven by individual players, but what > I've seen is a dramatic decrease in the appearance of group 1s over the years > and I'd expect similar experiences in many places. Really? I mean, yeah, there are certainly fewer G1 vampire decks around, but I think that is 'cause there are so many other clans available (7 G1 clans vs, what, 9 Sabbat clans, 4 Independant clans, 10 or so Bloodlines clans, lots of G3 vampires, etc) and 'cause people like using new stuff when they can, rather than 'cause the G1 vampires are overly weak. > > The best of the group - Malks in general, various Princes, midcap Gangrel, > high > cap Toreador, and whatever else - are not surprising to see, sure. But, take > On a Darkling Plain's star Eliott Sinclair. All I hear out of Josh when > Eliott > comes up is how much this guy sucks. Sure ... now, when there are so many > more > choices. But, when playing a heavy Presence Toreador deck with only Jyhad > cards, he kind of didn't suck. Sure--there are still lots of good G1 decks--G1/2 Nosferatu voting (Selma, Sheldon, Nikolaus, Murat); weenie protean is still much better as G1/2 than G2/3/4; old school Malks are still very solid; Anson/Aneke/Masika are all in use all the time; G1/2 Tremere are still very good for, like Cryptic Mission decks; etc. > Jyhad was full of mistake vampires. As you say, a lot of mistakes had to do > with higher caps and the way, way overcosting of +1 bleed/strength. But, > there > were mistakes the other way too with the likes of Gilbert, Nash, Anson. The > latter mistakes are the primary reason we continue to see any group 1s as > recent design has tended to smooth out the group 3s to where we lack so > obvious > power vamps. I dunno--I mean, yeah, Gilbert Duane is really powerful, but only 'cause, like, OBF/DOM is so scary, not 'cause he is overpowered in the sense that he has too much stuff, like, say, Anvil does. There are certainly a lot of mid cap G1's (in the 5-8 zone) that are kind of chaff, but there are still enough good vampires to build decks out of that I'd expect that they never totally fall off the map. As more and more new vampires come around, we'll see less and less of them, but that, again, is likely simply due to people liking new stuff and sheer numbers. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Curevei wrote: > > Jyhad was full of mistake vampires.... > There are certainly a lot of mid > cap G1's (in the 5-8 zone) that are kind of chaff... Right. I think you're both being a bit too lenient on this count. White Wolf had a great opportunity to "fix" some of the problems this game has had for 10 years (!!) but willfully chose to stick with the old tried and true *CRAP*. Sure, it might lessen confusion to some, but I still think they would have been better off tweaking all those old and gray vampires which never see the light of day except by masochists who want to force the issue. Bad marketing decision too. Can you guess how many folks would have bought THREE OF EACH 10th Anniversary set if the vampires were updated? I guarantee you it's more than those of us who are just buying one of each for completeness. GROUP 1 VAMPIRES THAT NEEDED FIXING: BRUJAH Anvil (too good) Bianca Appolonius Miranda Don Cruez GANGREL Zack North Gunther Quinton McDonnell Angus The Unruled MALKAVIAN Doctor Jest NOSFERATU Grendel, The Worm Eaten Tusk the Talebearer Sebastian Marley Lucretia, The Cess Queen TOREADOR Adrianne Eliott Sinclair, Virtuoso Thespian Tatiana Romanov TREMERE Sabinne Lafitte Lydia van Cuelen VENTRUE Jazz Wentworth Melissa Barton Luccia Paciola Democritus Now, I didn't even list those Group 1 vampires which I think could be improved but were sort of on the bubble a half point here or there. But that's TWENTY-THREE out of the 116 G1 vampires, about 20%, that were really needing some improvement. And the thing is, if those supremely weak vampires got just a little boost, people would play with the other non-"fixed" G1 vampires because the ENTIRE GROUP quality would go up significantly. Oh well. They've been re-printed and there's not a lot that can be done now. Jeff

>GROUP 1 VAMPIRES THAT NEEDED FIXING: >BRUJAH >Anvil (too good) Anvil is n-o-t too good. About as good a test we could come up with is to run numbers on how often vampires show up in competitive play. While we have possibly no useful data, I'd be sure that Anvil wouldn't show unusual amounts of use if we did have the data. Furthermore, at no time in the history of the game would I have expected to see Anvil's numbers be unusual. As for "points", since I don't believe the official point systems accurately reflect power, I'm not persuaded by him having too many points. He's no Joaquina. [snip a list I don't think accurately presents the total problem] >Now, I didn't even list those Group 1 vampires which I think could be >improved but were sort of on the bubble a half point here or there. But >that's TWENTY-THREE out of the 116 G1 vampires, about 20%, that were >really needing some improvement. And the thing is, if those supremely >weak vampires got just a little boost, people would play with the other >non-"fixed" G1 vampires because the ENTIRE GROUP quality would go up >significantly. If I thought anyone was interested in coming up with a good point system for evaluating the power of vampires, I could see the possible value of using points to argue who should or shouldn't be fixed, but until then, the standard I'd use is how often the vampire does/should see play. Does Tura see any more play than Bianca? Doesn't Democritus see at least some play? - That sort of thing. BTW, some group 1s probably shouldn't get help unless the game changes in a dramatic way. The 1/2 vampire pool for Malks is pathetic compared to what it could be yet Dominate plus stealth (plus P/Js on top of that) is so insanely powerful that 1/2 Malks still rank high. >Oh well. They've been re-printed and there's not a lot that can be done >now. The fact of the matter is that all CCGs are full of crap, which BTW is something I put on the heads of design and development. It might be fine to say "some cards will always be better than other cards" but the more you tolerate that the more extremes in power you produce. It's not worth the effort and pain to rehabilitate so many cards. You will drive the player base freaking crazy by trying. I'm surprised that V:TES has seen as much rehabilitation as it has. I would have thought trying to figure out where to draw the line between "we'll fix this" and "we won't bother" would have prevented most of what has happened. Off the top of my head, Concealed Weapon is the only one that comes to mind as being an easy choice since it was always obviously in error rather than just being bad. I, personally, might be fine with some ass DS card becoming not unplayable, but I don't see how it helps the game any to add another level of confusion to players who aren't as familiar with the game. It's just so much easier to print a new card that does what you wanted the old card to do. There are a couple of positive ways going forward to make crap better that don't involve changing cards. The first may or may not end up happening accidentally; if the metagame shifts, previously weak cards may suddenly become much more useful. Anachronism, which may still not be so hot but at least gets talked about for seeing play, would be an example. This is one of the reasons, if not the primary one, I'd like to see a bit more drama when new sets come out or whenever. Reevaluating cards for a changed metagame is kind of like getting new cards. The other is to come up with new cards/strategies that make better use of old junk. The anarch option has changed some valuations of older vamps (though, that it weakens Primogen even more was not a positive benefit). So, one thing that would be hugely useful is to do something big with Primogen. Yes, I'd be a bit concerned with the unintended effect of making solid vampires like Antoinette, Carna, and Tyler better. But, it may be possible to work around to some degree. I'd look at trying not to help the voting power of Primogen so much as doing something else for them as I'd be concerned with a general problem of Primogen with Presence turning into more Princes. And, to a degree, I'd have a "so what?" attitude towards elevating the better Primogen if it meant making a lot of other cards good enough to see play. "Some cards will always be better than others" cuts both ways - having not suck Primogen suddenly be better than [blank] is interesting simply because [blank] is *no longer* the best thing going. And, if you aid *everything* underpowered eventually, maybe you move to a greater total balance in the long run.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:27:42 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > -The 7-8's have one less point of stuff than current 7-8's, which makes a > difference in terms of total disciplines or special abilities, and they > certainly look weak if they have +1 bleed/strength, but still, most of > the > G1 7-8's are very solid (see the likes of Selma the Repugnant, Gitaine > St. > Claire). Some of the 7-8's seem very weak (like, say, Ebaneezer Roush), > but > again, this is uasually due to having +1 strength or bleed. I'd just like to point out that IMHO Ebanezer is not that bad. Compared with Ellen Fence, sure, he lacks a vote and his rush only works against weenie (huge drawback), but you get 2 stealth on the rush. He has Animalism and Potence instead of Auspex and Celerity (IMHO good tradeoff) to complement the common Obfuscate and Protean. I used him in a deck with Carver's Meat Packing and Storage for remarkable weenie-killing mayhem... ;) Of course, depending on the metagame, you might not be able to use his ability at all. Or need Wormwood... -- Bye, Daneel

jeff_kuta wrote: > Right. I think you're both being a bit too lenient on this count. Meh. Even the bad ones aren't that bad. They are behind a fringe discipline here and there (barring a few examples) and are still perfectly viable overall. I mean, yeah, it would have been nice if a few vampires got a few extra points in disciplines here and there, but overall, I'm not seeing so much of a problem. > White Wolf had a great opportunity to "fix" some of the problems this > game has had for 10 years (!!) but willfully chose to stick with the > old tried and true *CRAP*. Sure, it might lessen confusion to some, but > I still think they would have been better off tweaking all those old > and gray vampires which never see the light of day except by masochists > who want to force the issue. Ok then. Really. They aren't that bad. Even remotely. I mean, yeah, ok, Zack North and Adrianne aren't on the fast track to star-ville or anything, but again, most of them are, and always have been, prefectly fine. > Bad marketing decision too. Can you guess how many folks would have > bought THREE OF EACH 10th Anniversary set if the vampires were updated? > I guarantee you it's more than those of us who are just buying one of > each for completeness. Apparently, people are buying three of each set just to get the Lasombratude card, so they haven't really lost anything. That, and many new players will like having multiples of the new old vampires anyway. > GROUP 1 VAMPIRES THAT NEEDED FIXING: > BRUJAH > Anvil (too good) > Bianca > Appolonius > Miranda > Don Cruez Anvil is too good, but only by a point. No big deal. Bianca is *still* one of the backbone vampires of very successful +1 strength/CEL decks, that are geneally built using G1/2 simple *because* of access to Bianca. Yeah, she is down a 1/2 discipline point, but if they gave her bumb, she'd be a half point too good. It's a toss up. Miranda is still potentially useful in various situations. Appolonius and Don Cruez are still bad for being big. > GANGREL > Zack North > Gunther > Quinton McDonnell > Angus The Unruled All underpowered. But not so much that they are completely pointless in the appropriate deck. Except maybe Zack North. Who is total chaff. > MALKAVIAN > Doctor Jest He's fine. > NOSFERATU > Grendel, The Worm Eaten > Tusk the Talebearer > Sebastian Marley > Lucretia, The Cess Queen Grendel is perfectly fine (a 5 with a superior, 2 inferiors, and a special of some utility)--at worst, he is behind half a point. He is still a backbone vampire in decks using OBF. Tusk always sucked, but even still, you combine him with his advanced version, and he isn't that bad in an all OBF deck. Sebastian needs another superior discipline. Lucretia is a sketchy 10 pointer. > TOREADOR > Adrianne > Eliott Sinclair, Virtuoso Thespian > Tatiana Romanov All three are weak. All three have +1 something. Sad, but acceptible. > TREMERE > Sabinne Lafitte > Lydia van Cuelen Sabine is a point weak, but has pot/tha, which is newly useful. > VENTRUE > Jazz Wentworth > Melissa Barton > Luccia Paciola > Democritus Meh. The Ventrue can suck it up. > Now, I didn't even list those Group 1 vampires which I think could be > improved but were sort of on the bubble a half point here or there. But > that's TWENTY-THREE out of the 116 G1 vampires, about 20%, that were > really needing some improvement. I think "really" is overstating things. Yeah, the guys with +1 strength/+1 bleed holding them down are hosed. Otherwise, mostly not that big of a deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

Curevei wrote: > Anvil is n-o-t too good. About as good a test we could come up with is to run > numbers on how often vampires show up in competitive play. While we have > possibly no useful data, I'd be sure that Anvil wouldn't show unusual amounts > of use if we did have the data. Furthermore, at no time in the history of the > game would I have expected to see Anvil's numbers be unusual. > > As for "points", since I don't believe the official point systems accurately > reflect power, I'm not persuaded by him having too many points. He's no > Joaquina. Well, this is that silly semantic argument that results in endless discussions about Ian Forrestal. The fact of the matter is, yes, Anvil has too much stuff compared to most other 6 point vampires (the vast majority of 6 point vampires in the old set and the new set and all the middle sets have 6 points of stuff, where each level of a discipline is worth 1 point, and other abilities are worth something tomake up the difference). Anvil has, what, 7 points in disciplines and a vote, equalling about 7.5 points of stuff on a vampire that should have, compared to all of his classmates, 6 points of stuff. Does this make him "too powerful" in the sense that using him will automatically make you win games? No. But it does make him "too powerful" in the sense that he has too much stuff for his cost, much like Ian Forrestal, and in the same sense that Zack North is "underpowered"--using Zack North isn't going to make you *lose*games. Heck, you could win games all the time with Zack North in play with the appropriate deck. But he is still weak compared to his classmates--he should have, like, an extra superior discipline or something to make him the appropriate. If you are willing to accept that some vampires are "too weak" (i.e. don't get enough stuff for their cost--see Judah; Adrianne), then you need to accept that some vampires are "too strong". This doesn't mean that these vampires make you automatically win the game (due to the structure of the game). But it does mean that they are outside of the bounds of the established design system, and probably shouldn't be. This being said, I don't think it was particularly necessary to fix the G1 vampires, as most of them are fine. I mean, yeah, it would have been nice to see Zack North get PRO, Adrianne get PRE, Ebazeezer get POT, and Democritus get FOR. But that they didn't isn't that big of a deal in the long run, as still, most of the vampires are within the bounds of standard design. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > I'd just like to point out that IMHO Ebanezer is not that bad. Compared > with > Ellen Fence, sure, he lacks a vote and his rush only works against weenie > (huge drawback), but you get 2 stealth on the rush. He has Animalism and > Potence instead of Auspex and Celerity (IMHO good tradeoff) to complement > the common Obfuscate and Protean. Yeah, I think in all my recent discussion in this thread, I have been saying "Ebaneezer Roush" (who is a perfectly reasonable vampire) when I mean "Sebastian Marley" (who is a sketchy 7 pointer with one superior discipline and +1 strength). So anywhere you see me say "Ebaneezer Roush", do me a favor and mentally substitute "Sebastian Marley". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:30:52 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yeah, I think in all my recent discussion in this thread, I have been > saying > "Ebaneezer Roush" (who is a perfectly reasonable vampire) when I mean > "Sebastian Marley" (who is a sketchy 7 pointer with one superior > discipline > and +1 strength). So anywhere you see me say "Ebaneezer Roush", do me a > favor and mentally substitute "Sebastian Marley". Well, I've no plea for Marley... I have to agree on him with you. -- Bye, Daneel

>> Right. I think you're both being a bit too lenient on this count. > >Meh. Even the bad ones aren't that bad. They are behind a fringe discipline >here and there (barring a few examples) and are still perfectly viable >overall. I mean, yeah, it would have been nice if a few vampires got a few >extra points in disciplines here and there, but overall, I'm not seeing so >much of a problem. I don't think I have the patience to run through the data for the decks I've built this year and there would be some variables that distort the data in possibly unacceptable ways that would have to do with personal preferences, not just in terms of things like favoring one thing over another in general but in terms of what purpose any particular deck served when it was built. Having said that, I think the problem is obvious when taking into account the lack of (significant, any, ...) appearance of numerous group 1s in my decks and/or other data samples. You seem to be saying that these vampires are not so bad that they couldn't see play when our concern is that they are so bad that they don't see play. >> White Wolf had a great opportunity to "fix" some of the problems this >> game has had for 10 years (!!) but willfully chose to stick with the >> old tried and true *CRAP*. Sure, it might lessen confusion to some, but >> I still think they would have been better off tweaking all those old >> and gray vampires which never see the light of day except by masochists >> who want to force the issue. > >Ok then. Really. They aren't that bad. Even remotely. I mean, yeah, ok, Zack >North and Adrianne aren't on the fast track to star-ville or anything, but >again, most of them are, and always have been, prefectly fine. Fine in what context? Fine in that some use could be found for them? I don't rate that as a desirable threshold. The threshold for fine to me is that there's multiple *good* reasons to play a particular card. Lot of cards don't live up to that; it's the nature of the beast. But, I don't see the point to ignoring the problem. Actually, problems. First being that a significant portion of group 1s are already seeing trivial levels of play. Second being that there should be a continuous move toward wallpapering all group 1s as new cards get made not necessarily because all group 1s will get outclassed (some, like Anson, are hard to individually outclass) but because all 1/2 crypts will eventually get outclassed. Though, OTOH, the problems only exist if people care about playing with older cards. Might be a day when people stop caring. Of course, the reason this thread sprouted up at this time was that we suddenly got handed a bunch of these old, obsoleted cards. If each 10th Set was something like 20 cards, the 10 new and 10 of the best old, would people bother ranting about how crappy these cards are? >> GANGREL >> Zack North >> Gunther >> Quinton McDonnell >> Angus The Unruled > >All underpowered. But not so much that they are completely pointless in the >appropriate deck. Except maybe Zack North. Who is total chaff. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that Zack is worse than Gunther and Quinton? I don't think it's impossible for your view to be correct, but without any support for it, I'm not going to merit it. I find it difficult to come up with reasons to play the latter two where Zack slots into Pot/Pro decks (though I'd advance the idea that he'd eventually stop being useful in this way as a newer group combination will do the discipline mix better). >> MALKAVIAN >> Doctor Jest > >He's fine. Could make a joke out of this. I've seen him played in recent memory. *shrug* CCG players will play bad cards/strategies. I don't consider that justification for saying something is fine. He'd see a lot more play if he weren't so horribly designed. As long as we care at all how vampires are designed, it follows that we care that they aren't badly designed. >> Now, I didn't even list those Group 1 vampires which I think could be >> improved but were sort of on the bubble a half point here or there. But >> that's TWENTY-THREE out of the 116 G1 vampires, about 20%, that were >> really needing some improvement. > >I think "really" is overstating things. Yeah, the guys with +1 strength/+1 >bleed holding them down are hosed. Otherwise, mostly not that big of a deal. If the comparison is between seeing a reprint of a bunch of bad cards and not seeing any reprint, it's less important than if the comparison, which Jeff seems interested in, is between seeing a bunch of reprints of bad cards and seeing a bunch of bad cards rehabilitated.

>> Anvil is n-o-t too good. About as good a test we could come up with is to >run >> numbers on how often vampires show up in competitive play. While we have >> possibly no useful data, I'd be sure that Anvil wouldn't show unusual >amounts >> of use if we did have the data. Furthermore, at no time in the history of >the >> game would I have expected to see Anvil's numbers be unusual. >> >> As for "points", since I don't believe the official point systems >accurately >> reflect power, I'm not persuaded by him having too many points. He's no >> Joaquina. > >Well, this is that silly semantic argument that results in endless >discussions about Ian Forrestal. I see the arguments about Forestal being far more specific. And, I can't hold much interest in them because there's been a lack of real world connection. The real world connection could be made in arguing that Forestal's design is wrong because 1.) it's openended and will continue to get stronger as more cards are made and 2.) it can become overpowered rather easily by having more crypt options with similar abilities. >The fact of the matter is, yes, Anvil has too much stuff compared to most >other 6 point vampires (the vast majority of 6 point vampires in the old set >and the new set and all the middle sets have 6 points of stuff, where each >level of a discipline is worth 1 point, and other abilities are worth >something tomake up the difference). Anvil has, what, 7 points in >disciplines and a vote, equalling about 7.5 points of stuff on a vampire >that should have, compared to all of his classmates, 6 points of stuff. We aren't talking about the same thing. I'm not interested in what his point total is using existing/old point systems because I don't believe in the validity of those systems. Anvil is evidence of that since he's never been overpowered. What I'm saying is that Anvil is not as well designed as, for instance, Joaquina. Has to do with certain theories I have, including that superiors are worth more than twice inferiors and that inclan disciplines are worth more than out of clan *or* that the weight of value in disciplines drops off precipitously as you add disciplines, e.g. fourth discipline a vampire has is not worth much, fifth is essentially worthless. >Does this make him "too powerful" in the sense that using him will >automatically make you win games? No. Automatically winning games is a ridiculous level to be concerned with. Is he over the power curve? My calculations which are no doubt flawed but hopefully far less flawed have him as being at the top of the 6 cap design curve with a vampire like Joaquina being over it. >But it does make him "too powerful" in >the sense that he has too much stuff for his cost, much like Ian Forrestal, >and in the same sense that Zack North is "underpowered"--using Zack North >isn't going to make you *lose*games. Heck, you could win games all the time >with Zack North in play with the appropriate deck. But he is still weak >compared to his classmates--he should have, like, an extra superior >discipline or something to make him the appropriate. What is the point of a point system? I see it being a tool for designing balanced cards. In order to be useful, it has to display what is too powerful or what is underpowered with a high level of accuracy. A point system that ranked Anvil above all other 6 caps (I'm not saying you are saying this, but it's easier to use as an assumption) is a flawed point system. In all likelihood it is probably overvaluing his title and/or his extraneous disciplines and/or his discipline synergies. The last is very messy, I think, to incorporate into a point system. >If you are willing to accept that some vampires are "too weak" (i.e. don't >get enough stuff for their cost--see Judah; Adrianne), then you need to >accept that some vampires are "too strong". This doesn't mean that these >vampires make you automatically win the game (due to the structure of the >game). But it does mean that they are outside of the bounds of the >established design system, and probably shouldn't be. Of course there are too strong vampires. Anvil isn't one of them. Anson is. Joaquina is under my crude point system; precisely because she isn't overpowered makes me want to correct for that by putting something into my system that takes into account the relative power of disciplines/discipline synergies or the like. But, then, as I don't believe in doing things for other people that they don't care about, I'm not likely to ever get around to updating my old point systems. >This being said, I don't think it was particularly necessary to fix the G1 >vampires, as most of them are fine. I mean, yeah, it would have been nice to >see Zack North get PRO, Adrianne get PRE, Ebazeezer get POT, and Democritus >get FOR. But that they didn't isn't that big of a deal in the long run, as >still, most of the vampires are within the bounds of standard design. And, this is where we have what is likely a pointless dispute. I can see solid reasons for not fixing the old vampires. I don't consider nearly as many of them within the bounds of standard design as you do.

Curevei wrote: > Having said that, I think the problem is obvious when taking into account the > lack of (significant, any, ...) appearance of numerous group 1s in my decks > and/or other data samples. Yeah, see, I still use G1 vampires all the time. Rarely in, like, pure G1 decks, but I use G1/2 decks with a lot of G1 vampires constantly. Currently, I have 2 different Nosferatu voting decks that use multiple G1 vampires; a weenie protean deck that is abut half G1 vampires; an all fortitude deck that is, again, about half G1 vampires. A Cryptic mission deck that is about half G1 vampires. An all obfuscate deck that is about half G1 vampires. An all Spying Mission bleed deck, about half G1 vampires. I still use them all the time. I mean, yeah, I'm not, like, going out of my way to use the bad G1 vampires, nor am I restricting myself to *only* G1 vampires, but about half my many decks are currently G1/2s. > You seem to be saying that these vampires are not so bad that they couldn't > see > play when our concern is that they are so bad that they don't see play. Most of them, still, are perfectly useable. Again, the ones with +1 bleed and +1 hand damage are certainly weak. And some of the 9-10's are complete garbage (I've never used Apalonious, and it is unlikely I ever will). But the bulk of the vampires in the G1 set that aren't hindered by a now overcosted special ability are perfectly solid. > Fine in what context? Fine in that some use could be found for them? Fine in the sense that there are decks that use them. I'd say about half of the G1 vampires are just as good as any G2/3/4 vampire; about a quarter of them are slightly weak but still perfectly useable; of the remaining quarter of the set, half of those are weak, but fit in a niche somewhere, and the rest are total garbage. > Actually, problems. First being that a significant portion of group 1s are > already seeing trivial levels of play. Second being that there should be a > continuous move toward wallpapering all group 1s as new cards get made not > necessarily because all group 1s will get outclassed (some, like Anson, are > hard to individually outclass) but because all 1/2 crypts will eventually get > outclassed. Again, I'm not seeing that at all. All of the G1 vampires of capacity 1-4 are identical to current design standards. Most of the 5-6's are. Some of the 7-8's are, and many of them are really godo regardless. The 9-10 zoneis the really weak spot, but this doesn't, like, make the whole group outclassed. > Do you have any evidence to support the idea that Zack is worse than Gunther > and Quinton? Sure. Zack lacks superior disciplines, which there really is no excuse not to have if you cost 6 or more. Heck, I rarely use any 5's without superiors (barring particularly special cases, like Kyoko Shinsegawa or something). Gunther and Quinton have superior disciplines (discipline?), making them worth using in some deck somewhere. Zack is a 6 with zero superior disciplines. There are very few situations where it is worth spending 6 on a vampire with zero superior disciplines. On the other hand, there are multiple situations where it is worth spending 6+ on a vampire with one superior discipline. > If the comparison is between seeing a reprint of a bunch of bad cards and not > seeing any reprint, it's less important than if the comparison, which Jeff > seems interested in, is between seeing a bunch of reprints of bad cards and > seeing a bunch of bad cards rehabilitated. Again, I'm not saying that it would have been *bad* if a bunch of the G1 vampires were upgraded to current standards. But really, I'm not seeing it as that necessary, especially as they have been in use for 10 years, and many of them (at least in my experience) still see play all the time, in decks that do well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Curevei wrote: > We aren't talking about the same thing. I'm not interested in what his point > total is using existing/old point systems because I don't believe in the > validity of those systems. Anvil is evidence of that since he's never been > overpowered. Yeah, see, semantics. "Overpowered" is the issue here. Anvil *is* "overpowered" in the sense that he gets more stuff than 6 point vampires should, based on the established design template. I wouldn't really argue, however, that Anvil is "overpowered" in the sense that he gives you a noticable edge in game play, more so than other 6 point vampires. See, another problem here is that you don't belive in the validity of the design systems. Which strikes me as kind of like not believing in, like, the Sun. I mean, yeah, ok, whether or not the points attributed to abilities is correct (i.e. is a superior ability worth twice what an inferior is?) is certainly debatable, but the reality is that vampires *are* designed to fit a template, and vampires that have less stuff than they should are theoretically weak and vampires that have more stuff than they should are theoretically strong. Because of the way the game works, vampires that fall outside of the bounds of standard design aren't really a problem (for example, in an all Fortitude deck I have, Nakova is, like, the best vampire in the crypt, where she is technically weak, and will rarely see play in any other type of deck, where if she had, like, inferior dominate, she'd be pretty good on an absolute level), but they are still outside the bounds of standard design. > What I'm saying is that Anvil is not as well designed as, for instance, > Joaquina. ??? He is a 6 with 2 in clan superiors, in clan inferior, fringe dominate, and a vote. He strikes me as *much* better than Joaquina. Yeah, she has 3 in clan superiors, but I live in a land where it is rarely necessary to have 3 in clan superiors. See, that is why this debate is not going to go anywhere :-) > Has to do with certain theories I have, including that superiors > are > worth more than twice inferiors and that inclan disciplines are worth more > than > out of clan *or* that the weight of value in disciplines drops off > precipitously as you add disciplines, e.g. fourth discipline a vampire has is > not worth much, fifth is essentially worthless. Sure. But generally, I find having 2 superiors is usually enough (i.e. I rarely make decks that use three disciplines such that it is necessary to have 3 superiors, simply because it makes crypt building too difficult. On the other hand, I have plenty of decks that have 2 main disciplines that want superior, and then a fringe third discipline where I only require inferior, making Anvil an example of a really good vampire and Joaquina not as much). > Automatically winning games is a ridiculous level to be concerned with. Is he > over the power curve? My calculations which are no doubt flawed but hopefully > far less flawed have him as being at the top of the 6 cap design curve with a > vampire like Joaquina being over it. See, again, according to the design templates that you don't believe are a valid measure of anything, Anvil is at 7.5 points of stuff and Joaquina is at, like, 6.5. And I have used Anvil far more often than Joaquina. 'cause he fits in more decks, and is a very good vampire in more decks--Joaquina is only better than similar vampires in a deck that uses all three Ravanos disciplines and wants to use them all at superior. Anvil, on the other hand, is good in decks that want POT and CEL and then those with a back up discipline (dom for bounce; dom for Eurobrujah; pre for general Brujah action; heck is is even a staple is the fringe Cel/Tha decks I've seen around) and he also brings with him a vote, which is *always* useful (as opposed to Joaquina's ability, which is occasionally worth something). I mean, yeah, I have Joaquina is an all fortitude deck as she is better than other generic 6's with FOR as the deck equips sometimes, but in terms of general utility, I'd give Anvil a much higher score than Joaquina. Specifically *because* Anvil has too many extra inferior disciplines--you'll never use them all, no, but he will be really good in decks that use POT/CEL/pre or POT/CEL/dom or even something with Tha, and he is good and brings a vote with him, all for 6 points. > What is the point of a point system? To insure that all similarly priced vampires have a similar level of effectiveness. As you point out, it is certainly flawed--it is debatable if a superior is worth only double an inferior; it is debatable if 5 inferiors is worth the same as 2 superiors and an inferior; it is debateable if +1 strength is worth the same as +1 bleed or worth the same as 3 inferior disciplines. But given that everyone is using the same system, it'll balance out across the feild. Yeah, a 5 with DIS, DIS, dis is generally viewed as better than a 5 with dis, dis, dis, dis, and a special ability. But sometimes the special makes it worth using them. > I see it being a tool for designing balanced cards. In order to be useful, it > has to display what is too powerful or what is underpowered with a high level > of accuracy. A point system that ranked Anvil above all other 6 caps (I'm not > saying you are saying this, but it's easier to use as an assumption) is a > flawed point system. In all likelihood it is probably overvaluing his title > and/or his extraneous disciplines and/or his discipline synergies. The last > is very messy, I think, to incorporate into a point system. You are correct that it is difficult to incorporate all variables into the system such that it works perfectly. And it currently works well enough. And see, I still see Anvil as being really good--certainly better than other vampires of the same cost. Compare Anvil to Badger--Anvil is going to see more play in more decks and be worth more on the table. I mean, yeah, ok, if Anvil had a 6th discipline instead of being a Primogen, he'd be less useful. But if he were a 7, he still be almost just as good. > Of course there are too strong vampires. Anvil isn't one of them. Anson is. > Joaquina is under my crude point system; precisely because she isn't > overpowered makes me want to correct for that by putting something into my > system that takes into account the relative power of disciplines/discipline > synergies or the like. But, then, as I don't believe in doing things for > other > people that they don't care about, I'm not likely to ever get around to > updating my old point systems. Yeah, see, if Anson is overpowered (which he may or may not arguably be), it isn't 'cause of a flaw in the point system--it is 'cause he has a special ability that, by necesity, had to be given an arbitrary cost (as it isn't really quantifyable). That cost might be too low. But even if Anson cost 9, or cost 9 and only had DIS, DIS, dis, he still might be too powerful. Not 'casue the cost is wrong, but 'cause his ability is wrong and just incapable of having a correct cost. In regards to th other two, I'd still argue that Anvil is a better vampire than Joaquina on an absolute level. Assuming, like, say, Badger is a 5, Joaquina is a 6 and Anvil is a 7, in terms of overall utility and use. > And, this is where we have what is likely a pointless dispute. I can see > solid > reasons for not fixing the old vampires. I don't consider nearly as many of > them within the bounds of standard design as you do. That is 'cause you are using your own design system? Really though, again, all the 1-4's are identical (in a design sense) to the most recent vampires; the 5-6's are mostly the same (I know you seem to rate the 6 point DIS, DIS, DIS vampires that G1 doesn't have any of that I can recall as very useful--I tend not to use them that much, as I rarely use three disciplines in one deck, and consequently, there are usually multiple options for a DIS, DIS vampire that make using the 6 point DIS, DIS, DIS vampires unecessary), although there are certainly bad 5 and 6 pointers in the mix. Many of the 7-8's are just as good as current designs. The 9-10's tend to suffer in comparison. But as I suspect that decks tend to use more smaller vampires (i.e. most of the G1 vampires in play are the smaller ones that are up to the same design standards as currently used), still, that the large end of G1 is weaker is less noticable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yeah, see, if Anson is overpowered (which he may or may not arguably be), it > isn't 'cause of a flaw in the point system--it is 'cause he has a special > ability that, by necesity, had to be given an arbitrary cost (as it isn't > really quantifyable). That cost might be too low. But even if Anson cost 9, > or cost 9 and only had DIS, DIS, dis, he still might be too powerful. Not > 'casue the cost is wrong, but 'cause his ability is wrong and just incapable > of having a correct cost. Having the Parthenon in the game leads me to believe Anson's ability is worth about 2 points. 6 points of disciplines, a 1 point title, 2 point ability...that's about right for an 8 cap. Strong for a Group 1 8-cap, granted, and as the only vamp with that ability, he's greatly in demand. But balanced, IMHO. Vamps with strong special abilities seem to fit into more decks than vamps with the same point value in outlying disciplines.

>I see the arguments about Forestal being far more specific. And, I can't >hold >much interest in them because there's been a lack of real world connection. >The real world connection could be made in arguing that Forestal's design is >wrong because 1.) it's openended and will continue to get stronger as more >cards are made and 2.) it can become overpowered rather easily by having more >crypt options with similar abilities. I've spent time analyzing Ian Forestal in the past and came to the conclusion that he isn't especially overpowered (though I will admit to some potential bias!). He's paying three points for that special so it's not as if he's going to benefit from his special all that often (a comparable vampire would have DIS DIS DIS dis dis dis). In fact, in most of the decks that I use him in, I mainly use his special for a single discipline. I suppose he has his uses if you center the deck on him and sprinkle around cards from all the disciplines but I've seen different incarnations of such a deck and have yet to be impressed. I think that prior to Bloodlines and Anarchs, he really wasn't that good at all. (Once again, a similar vampire could have 3 inferior disciplines instead of that special and be almost as useful). He did get a big bump with Bloodlines, since he can access the Bloodlines discipline cards (though he's stuck with only the inferiors). The introduction of 3-way Anarch cards is also an advantage for him and I've seen a handful of amusing Ian Forestal Anarch decks. But in general, Anarch decks are still rather lacking. Nonetheless, I don't think Ian Forestal one-man shows are nearly as good as one-vampire decks centered around the likes of Lambach, Anneke, Tyler, or Tariq. He's still an 8-cap vampire, which means he's a major investment that can't simply be slapped into any deck. Is Ian stronger than he was pre-Bloodlines? Definitely. But is he broken? I don't think so. >We aren't talking about the same thing. I'm not interested in what his point >total is using existing/old point systems because I don't believe in the >validity of those systems. Anvil is evidence of that since he's never been >overpowered. > >What I'm saying is that Anvil is not as well designed as, for instance, >Joaquina. Has to do with certain theories I have, including that superiors >are >worth more than twice inferiors and that inclan disciplines are worth more >than >out of clan *or* that the weight of value in disciplines drops off >precipitously as you add disciplines, e.g. fourth discipline a vampire has is >not worth much, fifth is essentially worthless. I actually like the current system. While what you suggested makes some sense, isn't that also what led to some of the silliness in the Sabbat expansion? Where the best vampires for a discipline would be those that DON'T have it as an in-clan (since it would be cheaper for them)? Also, note that the gradual addition of cards like Rooftop Shadow, The Mole, Stunt Cycle, Sleep Unseen, and Madman's Quill is making out-of-clan disciplines useful, even if you aren't actively using them. And for the record, I think I'm on the same boat as Peter in records to the point system. (And I also think that Anvil is a stronger vampire than Joaquina). Halcyan 2

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > > What is the point of a point system? > > I see it being a tool for designing balanced cards. In order to be > useful, it > has to display what is too powerful or what is underpowered with a high > level > of accuracy. A point system that ranked Anvil above all other 6 caps (I'm > not > saying you are saying this, but it's easier to use as an assumption) is a > flawed point system. In all likelihood it is probably overvaluing his > title > and/or his extraneous disciplines and/or his discipline synergies. The > last is > very messy, I think, to incorporate into a point system. I have, in the past, used my own point system. It's fairly arbitrary, and in fact has to be arbitrary because it is based around each unique deck that I make. What I do is assign values based on what I want a particular deck to do. So, let's say I want to make a Lasombra with Presence deck. Obviously, Lasombras with Presence are going to value higher than those without. Since it is a votey deck, vampires with titles will value higher than those that do not. Gratiano will get more points than Tobias, even though Tobias has all the requisite disciplines at superior. I think we all do this mentally when we make a deck, but I don't know too many players that write it out like I often do. So, the official point system may make sense for designing vampires but it makes no sense to apply the same formula when designing a deck. If I was building a deck around [CHI/aus/pot] then Tereza Rostas would not suck... she would be ideal. (Of course, the deck itself might suck, but that's beside the point.) The official point system will give someone like Harrod a lot of points, based on the extra disciplines, but how useful are those disciplines in any given deck? How often have you used Arika's [aus]? When a high capacity vampire has disciplines outside of its clan, those disciplines will generally only be useful if you are building a deck around that vampire and its unique discipline spread. My decks based around Howler (and there have been a lot of them) always have one or two Obfuscate cards (usually Hidden Lurker). But if you weren't using her [obf], how much is it worth? Because of this, I feel that a lot of the larger vampires are getting shortchanged. Take Zayyat for example. I don't know offhand how much he would be worth according to the current design system, but I assume that he fits the template. But how useful is [aus/qui/tha] really? I would much rather have just [AUS] or just [THA]. (I'll pass on [QUI], thank you.) The design system may give him an appropriate cost, but he is effectively useless because his disciplines are all over the place. So my personal system would consider him a fairly shitty vampire in most decks. Other vampires who have a superior discipline outside of their clan are valued much higher by most people I know, because they can have interesting decks built around them. Moncada and Polonia both have [PRE]. Arika's [OBF] is always useful etc. I agree with Curevei that superior is much more valuable than the point system makes it out to be. And an off-clan superior is even more valuable, for the decks it makes possible. Overall, I would disagree that the official design system is flawed, exactly. Rather, it is useless for us end users trying to make a deck. Cheers, WES

On 19 Dec 2004 22:20:35 GMT, Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote: >>> MALKAVIAN >>> Doctor Jest >> >> He's fine. > > Could make a joke out of this. I've seen him played in recent memory. > *shrug* > CCG players will play bad cards/strategies. I don't consider that > justification for saying something is fine. He'd see a lot more play if > he weren't so horribly designed. Jest has 5 disciplines. Sure, 4 are inferior, but it's still 5 disciplines. If you play wacky discipline combos, he is da man in G1. (In G3 you get J. "Ozzy" who has the same disciplines, same capacity, same title, but two of his disciplines are at superior, though his ability is not any more useful). That said, I have to confess that Jest, like Le Dinh, is a good candidate if you play Brinksmanship, to reduce the prey to less than a full hand. I think the main problem are not cards with special abilities (who might get used just for the ability), but cards without them, whose lack of competitive disciplines make them pale in comparison to G3s. -- Bye, Daneel

Curevei wrote: >>>MALKAVIAN >>>Doctor Jest >> >>He's fine. > > > Could make a joke out of this. I've seen him played in recent memory. *shrug* > CCG players will play bad cards/strategies. I don't consider that > justification for saying something is fine. He'd see a lot more play if he > weren't so horribly designed. This isn't any attempt to refute your larger point, but Dr. Jest actually has a very good role to play in Brinksmanship decks. He has aus and for, and his special is absolutely killer when you are attempting the final step of stripping your prey's hand down to less than 7 cards in order to force the withdrawal. Recall that it is not an action. -- David Cherryholmes

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Sure. Zack lacks superior disciplines, which there really is no excuse not > to have if you cost 6 or more. Heck, I rarely use any 5's without superiors > (barring particularly special cases, like Kyoko Shinsegawa or something). > Gunther and Quinton have superior disciplines (discipline?), making them > worth using in some deck somewhere. Zack is a 6 with zero superior > disciplines. There are very few situations where it is worth spending 6 on a > vampire with zero superior disciplines. On the other hand, there are > multiple situations where it is worth spending 6+ on a vampire with one > superior discipline. For a long time, though, pot/pro was not especially easy to come by, which increased Zack's appeal. He wasn't a 10 cap, and he could flow the cards in your deck. I never neglected Badger in order to triple up on him or anything, but 1 of Zack and 1 of her (him? it?) seemed better to me than 2 of her. Also, you have to account for the disciplines you are using, where some of them are perfectly fine at inferior, while others require superior to approach competitiveness. I would place both pot and pro in the former category, thus upping Zach's relative hotness. All these caveats are why I agree that any point system should be a loose guideline at best, since I think any system that embraced all the necessary complexities would be unwieldy. -- David Cherryholmes

I think it was Wes <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net>, who once wrote: > I have, in the past, used my own point system. It's fairly arbitrary, and in > fact has to be arbitrary because it is based around each unique deck that I > make. > > What I do is assign values based on what I want a particular deck to do. So, > let's say I want to make a Lasombra with Presence deck. Obviously, Lasombras > with Presence are going to value higher than those without. Since it is a > votey deck, vampires with titles will value higher than those that do not. > Gratiano will get more points than Tobias, even though Tobias has all the > requisite disciplines at superior. > > I think we all do this mentally when we make a deck, but I don't know too > many players that write it out like I often do. I do the same thing. Usually it's 1 point for inferior, 2 for superior, but sometimes (mostly when I don't like the outcome of my calculations and I want certain vampires to appear higher (is that cheating? ;) ) ) I will award nothing for inferior if I need the superior effect of cards, or I will award 3 to superior in one important discipline, or I will give an extra point for having both main disciplines at superior. I usually rate votes lower than in the official system; like a third of a point per vote. Yes, I added thirds of a point (8 -> 8+ -> 9- -> 9). It's kind of cumbersome, would be easier to just multiply everything by 3 or something, but I keep it for sentimental reasons. ;) Still, specials remain difficult to rate accurately. Does anyone have a clever system for that? Rogar

Emmit wrote: >Having the Parthenon in the game leads me to believe Anson's ability is >worth about 2 points. Maybe, maybe not--it is a lot easier to get Anson in to play and keep him in play than the Parthenon--having enough Parthenons in your deck to be certain of drawing one is difficult to manage, but having, like, 7 Ansons in a deck (heck, you could use 9 if you really want to be certain) isn't at all out of the realm of useful. >6 points of disciplines, a 1 point title, 2 point ability...that's about right for an 8 cap. >Strong for a Group 1 8-cap, granted, and as the only vamp with that ability, he's greatly in > demand. But balanced, IMHO. Again, it isn't necessarily the cost that is the problem, if any problem exists at all (I see a lot of moaning about Anson based master abuse decks, but I'm personally not seeing much of a problem, but that's me)--as I mentioned before, if Anson giving out a free master phase is a problem, then if Anson was an 8 point Prince with AUS, pre, cel and his special ability (making it cost, like, 3 or 4 points, depending on the system), he'd still be a problem. There is no good way to cost his ability, 'cause there isn't really anything to compare it to (well, other than Parthenon, but that has a lot of other baggage attatched to it that Anson doesn't--you have to draw it out of 90 cards, it is much more likely to be contested, stolen, burned down, it doesn't come with 2 votes and some superior disciplines, etc), and if there is a problem, say, changing the cost of the ability wouldn't really fix it. -Peter

Halcyan 2 wrote: >I've spent time analyzing Ian Forestal in the past and came to the conclusion >that he isn't especially overpowered (though I will admit to some potential bias!). Yeah, again, we run into issues with language--"Overpowered" is a wacky word that means different things. As I have argued many times, Ian is "overpowered" in the sense that he gets way too much stuff for his cost (much like Anvil is "overpowered"), but he isn't "overpowered" in the sense that he is going to give you a significant advantage in winning the game because of it, 'cause *no* vampires are "overpowered" in that sense (well, arguments could be made that Anson is that "overpowered", but that isn't a cost issue). >He's paying three points for that special so it's not as if he's going to >benefit from his special all that often (a comparable vampire would have DIS > DIS DIS dis dis dis). In fact, in most of the decks that I use him in, I mainly > use his special for a single discipline. I suppose he has his uses if you > center the deck on him and sprinkle around cards from all the disciplines but > I've seen different incarnations of such a deck and have yet to be impressed. Sure--rarely will Ian ever get milage out of his myriad of disciplines, but if he does, he can be really worth his salt (Sackett keeps threatening to make a "This summer, in a theatre near you, Ian Forrestal *as* Ian Forrestal *in* Ian Forrestal is the Best Damned Anarch Ever!" deck that certainly has promise in theory). But still, he has, like, 25 inferior disciplines for 3 points when everyone else in the game has to pay point for point for every extraneous inferior discipline. >Definitely. But is he broken? I don't think so. Again, it comes down to what you are actually talking about, just like Anvil--is Anvil going to win you the game 'cause he hits the table? No, 'cause no vampires have that effect in the game, due to the structure of the game. But Anvil is still a point too strong (making him a very good vampire) and Ian is, like, 20 points too strong (making him potentially a very good vampire), where Joaquina is only, like, half a point too strong (making her certainly good, but not a killer). >I actually like the current system. While what you suggested makes some sense, >isn't that also what led to some of the silliness in the Sabbat expansion? >Where the best vampires for a discipline would be those that DON'T have it as >an in-clan (since it would be cheaper for them)? Yeah, see, that was a problem--in Sabbat, vampires only paid half for out of clan disciplines. So often, you'd have better out of clan vampires than in clan vampires, due to the discipline spread you happened to be using. >Also, note that the gradual addition of cards like Rooftop Shadow, The Mole, >Stunt Cycle, Sleep Unseen, and Madman's Quill is making out-of-clan disciplines >useful, even if you aren't actively using them. And Ian Forrestal less wamdigious. >And for the record, I think I'm on the same boat as Peter in records to the >point system. (And I also think that Anvil is a stronger vampire than >Joaquina). Me too! :-) -Peter

Halcyan 2 wrote: >I've spent time analyzing Ian Forestal in the past and came to the conclusion >that he isn't especially overpowered (though I will admit to some potential bias!). Yeah, again, we run into issues with language--"Overpowered" is a wacky word that means different things. As I have argued many times, Ian is "overpowered" in the sense that he gets way too much stuff for his cost (much like Anvil is "overpowered"), but he isn't "overpowered" in the sense that he is going to give you a significant advantage in winning the game because of it, 'cause *no* vampires are "overpowered" in that sense (well, arguments could be made that Anson is that "overpowered", but that isn't a cost issue). >He's paying three points for that special so it's not as if he's going to >benefit from his special all that often (a comparable vampire would have DIS > DIS DIS dis dis dis). In fact, in most of the decks that I use him in, I mainly > use his special for a single discipline. I suppose he has his uses if you > center the deck on him and sprinkle around cards from all the disciplines but > I've seen different incarnations of such a deck and have yet to be impressed. Sure--rarely will Ian ever get milage out of his myriad of disciplines, but if he does, he can be really worth his salt (Sackett keeps threatening to make a "This summer, in a theatre near you, Ian Forrestal *as* Ian Forrestal *in* Ian Forrestal is the Best Damned Anarch Ever!" deck that certainly has promise in theory). But still, he has, like, 25 inferior disciplines for 3 points when everyone else in the game has to pay point for point for every extraneous inferior discipline. >Definitely. But is he broken? I don't think so. Again, it comes down to what you are actually talking about, just like Anvil--is Anvil going to win you the game 'cause he hits the table? No, 'cause no vampires have that effect in the game, due to the structure of the game. But Anvil is still a point too strong (making him a very good vampire) and Ian is, like, 20 points too strong (making him potentially a very good vampire), where Joaquina is only, like, half a point too strong (making her certainly good, but not a killer). >I actually like the current system. While what you suggested makes some sense, >isn't that also what led to some of the silliness in the Sabbat expansion? >Where the best vampires for a discipline would be those that DON'T have it as >an in-clan (since it would be cheaper for them)? Yeah, see, that was a problem--in Sabbat, vampires only paid half for out of clan disciplines. So often, you'd have better out of clan vampires than in clan vampires, due to the discipline spread you happened to be using. >Also, note that the gradual addition of cards like Rooftop Shadow, The Mole, >Stunt Cycle, Sleep Unseen, and Madman's Quill is making out-of-clan disciplines >useful, even if you aren't actively using them. And Ian Forrestal less wamdigious. >And for the record, I think I'm on the same boat as Peter in records to the >point system. (And I also think that Anvil is a stronger vampire than >Joaquina). Me too! :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Perfectly valid point, but this wasn't taken into consideration when he was designed. :) Jeff

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Emmit wrote: > >Having the Parthenon in the game leads me to believe Anson's ability > >is worth about 2 points. > > Maybe, maybe not--it is a lot easier to get Anson in to play and keep > him in play than the Parthenon--having enough Parthenons in your deck > to be certain of drawing one is difficult to manage, but having, like, > 7 Ansons in a deck (heck, you could use 9 if you really want to be > certain) isn't at all out of the realm of useful. True. On the other hand, you can play and use the Parthenon on your first turn, giving you the potential for more master phases than Anson can give you. The Parthenon is vulnerable to Arson, Kine Dominance, Disputed Territory, Sudden Reversal, etc., but not to Bum's Rush, Mind Rape, Banishment, Haven Uncovered, etc. Rumors of Gehenna is harder to get into play and easier to remove than either, but costs no pool. What I'm saying is that Anson's ability is unusual, but there's not a total absence of cards to compare it to. We can take a stab at costing it reasonably. Agiatas' special is harder to cost, IMHO. > >6 points of disciplines, a 1 point title, 2 point ability...that's > about right for an 8 cap. > >Strong for a Group 1 8-cap, granted, and as the only vamp with that > ability, he's greatly in > demand. But balanced, IMHO. > > Again, it isn't necessarily the cost that is the problem, if any > problem exists at all (I see a lot of moaning about Anson based master > abuse decks, but I'm personally not seeing much of a problem, but > that's me)--as I mentioned before, if Anson giving out a free master > phase is a problem, then if Anson was an 8 point Prince with AUS, pre, > cel and his special ability (making it cost, like, 3 or 4 points, > depending on the system), he'd still be a problem. There is no good way > to cost his ability, 'cause there isn't really anything to compare it > to (well, other than Parthenon, but that has a lot of other baggage > attatched to it that Anson doesn't--you have to draw it out of 90 > cards, it is much more likely to be contested, stolen, burned down, it > doesn't come with 2 votes and some superior disciplines, etc), and if > there is a problem, say, changing the cost of the ability wouldn't > really fix it. > > -Peter I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I agree. Weighing the more esoteric abilities against disciplines is an exercise in comparing apples to oranges. But given that the designers might release future vamps with similar master-granting abilities, it is useful to settle on a reasonable cost for Anson's power. Otherwise, if the ability were assigned some whacked-out cost (half a point, or five points), they'd end up wasting valuable playtest time determining that the vamp built with the whacked-out cost needs rebalancing, when they should be spending that time determining if a vamp built with a more reasonable cost needs rebalancing.

In message <BDEB16EC.1BD57%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Yeah, I think in all my recent discussion in this thread, I have been saying >"Sebastian Marley" (who is a perfectly reasonable vampire) when I mean >"Sebastian Marley" (who is a sketchy 7 pointer with one superior discipline >and +1 strength). So anywhere you see me say "Sebastian Marley", do me a >favor and mentally substitute "Sebastian Marley". Hmm. I think it's more confusing this way. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > I would place both > pot and pro in the former category, thus upping Zach's relative hotness. Oh--sure. On a similar level, Nakova was a super-star for a long time just 'cause she was a 6 with pot/FOR and Gwendolyn was the only vampire in the game with POT/FOR. But still, all of these vampires are underpowered, and pretty much always have been, good discipline combos or no (Zack needs a superior discipline; Nakova needs another discipline; Gwendolyn needs a special ability, even if only a lame one like Harrod...) [ quoted text not captured ]

If they didn't want to upgrade the crap, why didn't they at least create advanced versions of what should have been. This would wallpaper old G1 vamps, but it would at least make the older, mostly high cap vamps playable. No one plays with Appolonius now. Would it be that bad if we saw an advanced G1 version that was balanced and had marginal (if any) sync with the original? The marginal sync would minimize the abusiveness of "dial-a-crypt." Nat

tigernat1 wrote: > If they didn't want to upgrade the crap, why didn't they at least > create advanced versions of what should have been. Who is to say they won't? > No one plays with Appolonius now. No one played Appolonius 10 years ago. 'Cause he is just bad. > Would it be that bad if we saw an > advanced G1 version that was balanced and had marginal (if any) sync > with the original? The marginal sync would minimize the abusiveness of > "dial-a-crypt." No, it wouldn't be bad at all. Although, it wouldn't make Appolonius more likely to be used. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message <snip good stuff> > Because of this, I feel that a lot of the larger vampires are getting > shortchanged. Take Zayyat for example. I don't know offhand how much he > would be worth according to the current design system, but I assume that > he fits the template. But how useful is [aus/qui/tha] really? I would much > rather have just [AUS] or just [THA]. (I'll pass on [QUI], thank you.) The > design system may give him an appropriate cost, but he is effectively > useless because his disciplines are all over the place. So my personal > system would consider him a fairly shitty vampire in most decks. > Not to turn this into an all-about Zayyat thread, but I think he becomes worthwhile when you consider the 2 votes, a sort-of built-in GtU, and a sort-of built-in Lost in Crowds. Combine him with Giant's Blood, the Rack, or a Golconda (once he's empty from his built-in action) for extra bloaty goodness. Of course, you're absolutely right that he would be even better if he had AUS or THA insted of aus/tha/qui. - Pat

In message <BDECBAAF.1BDC9%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >David Cherryholmes wrote: >> I would place both >> pot and pro in the former category, thus upping Zach's relative hotness. > >Oh--sure. On a similar level, Nakova was a super-star for a long time just >'cause she was a 6 with pot/FOR and Gwendolyn was the only vampire in the >game with POT/FOR. > >But still, all of these vampires are underpowered, and pretty much always >have been, good discipline combos or no (Zack needs a superior discipline; >Nakova needs another discipline; Gwendolyn needs a special ability, even if >only a lame one like Harrod...) I'm not sure that Zack was underpowered - with the caveat of "was" being "when he was designed". He was cheap access to pot/pro, and also cheap access to +1 strength. Potence found it difficult to get to agg damage converters[0], and Protean found it difficult to get to additional damage - Ritual Challenge being about your best option. And the Jyhad packeting rules meant that single points of agg damage were unable to burn anyone. Hence - +1 damage = potential for burny goodness. Still, they might have overcosted that a little - but they did seem to treat burning vampires as a costly issue. I might have given him ANI, were it me. [0] Pulled Fangs doesn't count here. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <BDECBAAF.1BDC9%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija > <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: > >David Cherryholmes wrote: > >> I would place both > >> pot and pro in the former category, thus upping Zach's relative hotness. > > > >But still, all of these vampires are underpowered, and pretty much always > >have been, good discipline combos or no (Zack needs a superior discipline; > >Nakova needs another discipline; Gwendolyn needs a special ability, even if > >only a lame one like Harrod...) > > I'm not sure that Zack was underpowered - with the caveat of "was" being > "when he was designed". [snip all sorts of valid points about Jyhad '94] The point is that there is a new design standard and a large proportion of the reprinted Group 1 vampires just aren't up to snuff *now*. It would have been a simple matter to add a superior here and there and make things so much better. Shoot, I would have been happy if Constanza and Donal lost DOM and got PRE. Sure the would be less powerful, but it would have opened up a lot more options for G1/2 Brujah, which are heavily influenced by these two vampires' existence (and lack of Presence). Jeff

James Coupe wrote: > I'm not sure that Zack was underpowered - with the caveat of "was" being > "when he was designed". Oh, when he was desgined, he was just fine, as when he was designed, +1 strength cost 2 points. As thegame evolved, however, it became apparent that +1 hand damage (even with protean) was not worth an extra superior discipline, so in retrospect, he turned out kind of wank. I mean, yeah, Bianca is behind about half a point too, and theoretically is in the exact same place as Zack (4 points in disciplines and +1 strength for a 6), but Bianca, having a superior discipline (and that being the highly synchronous CEL), is perfectly fine, if even pretty good--as mentioned before, she is still one of the main reasons that +1 strength/CEL decks (which are pretty good, overall) remain in the G1/2 camp. > Potence found it difficult to get to agg damage converters[0], and > Protean found it difficult to get to additional damage - Ritual > Challenge being about your best option. And the Jyhad packeting rules > meant that single points of agg damage were unable to burn anyone. Oh, sure--all very valid. Certainly in the original set, where pot/pro were few and far between, and 2 aggro damage was an important threshold due to the aggro rules at the time (as witnessed by the disparity between Ivory Bow and Flame Thrower--you really think Flame Thrower would be *four* pool if designed under the current aggro rules?), Zack wasn't that bad--I used him all the time in decks that liked to IG and hit you for 7 aggro damage. But, like, 8 years later in the evolution of the game, a 6 with no superior disciplines really isn't worth playing, wacky discipline combos or no. > Still, they might have overcosted that a little - but they did seem to > treat burning vampires as a costly issue. I might have given him ANI, > were it me. Yeah, see, if he had a single superior discipline, he'd be fine--in fact, he'd have been huge in the original set. Now, he'd be pretty solid (and even slightly overpowered as a 6, having DIS, dis, dis, dis, +1 strength for 6.5 points). PRO or ANI would have been good. FOR would have matched him very nicely with Badger and Nakova (and a bunch of Blood Brothers, now). But again, where Bianca is a good vampire due to having a superior discipline, Zack isn't as much. [ quoted text not captured ]

jeff_kuta wrote: > The point is that there is a new design standard and a large proportion > of the reprinted Group 1 vampires just aren't up to snuff *now*. It > would have been a simple matter to add a superior here and there and > make things so much better. Well, really, that is a different point than what James was talking about. Granted, it was the original point, but not the one we were on :-) Anyway, you are completely correct. A lot of the G1 vampires are behind the curve compared to the current designs. But again, they aren't that bad--all the 1-4's are identical and the 5-6's are mostly just as good as current designs, and those, really, are the vampires that tend to see most play. The larger end of the spectrum still have a lot of playable vampires, even if they are behind the ball a bit--for every, like Appolonius or Democritus (who see little play), there is a Sheldon or Selma (who see a lot of play all the time). > Shoot, I would have been happy if Constanza and Donal lost DOM and got > PRE. Sure the would be less powerful, but it would have opened up a lot > more options for G1/2 Brujah, which are heavily influenced by these two > vampires' existence (and lack of Presence). ??? Wha? Donal and Constanza are A) not reprinted in the 10th anniversary set and B) Fantastic, when combined with Anvil, Taco Bell, and Volker. Yeah, they don't fit with most other vampires in their clan, but their existance is easily remedied by mixing in !Brujah, who fit easily and nicely in to Brujah decks. Again, the G1 vampires have a lot of holes. But the holes are not so huge that they require fixing, and if you fix some of the vampires that are really bad, you kind of have to fix everyone in the 7-10 zone (i.e., like, half the vampires in the set) as they are *all* under a few points (current design gives 7-8 pointers X+1 points and vampires with 9-10 X+2 points, where the Jyhad set game them one less point of stuff), as well as multiple vampires below that or around that that have +1 strength/bleed, or some weird special ability that was overcosted originally. For instance, yeah, Zack North really could use a superior discipline, but if you give him a superior, you need to give Bianca another discipline, and she doesn't really need one. And Tusk should get another discpline too (or another superior), and Sebastian Marley too. And if they are going to fix the G1's, they should get a lot of the G2's--Nakova and Judah each should have an extra discipline point, for instance. And if you are going to upgrade the weaker vampires, you are going to need to downgrade the vampires from the Sabbat set that paid half price for out of clan disciplines (as that was the system used in that set...) Which would end up with, likely over a hundred vampires errataed/reprinted to fix a point or two of cost disparity (likely more vampires than library cards with errata/reprints), which would make a real mess of all out vampire collections. Is it really worth it, when, really, the G1 vampires usually work out fine, excepting a very noticable handfull? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > and Flame Thrower--you really think Flame Thrower would be *four* pool if > designed under the current aggro rules?), Zack wasn't that bad--I used him Flamethrower was designed under the current agg rules (except that it had packeting[0], which actually made it slightly weaker). [0] Assuming that packeting was part of the design and not merely an overlooked ambiguity that was subsequently resolved by the addition of packing very early on by the ruling body. -- 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/

LSJ wrote: > Flamethrower was designed under the current agg rules (except that it had > packeting[0], which actually made it slightly weaker). > > [0] Assuming that packeting was part of the design and not merely an > overlooked ambiguity that was subsequently resolved by the addition > of packing very early on by the ruling body. Well, Flamethrower was designed under a different rules set, where it was incredibly difficult to burn vampires, and Flamethrower was one of the only easy ways to do so in the set. If Flamethrower were designed today, would it cost 4 pool? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >>Flamethrower was designed under the current agg rules (except that it had >>packeting[0], which actually made it slightly weaker). >> >>[0] Assuming that packeting was part of the design and not merely an >>overlooked ambiguity that was subsequently resolved by the addition >>of packing very early on by the ruling body. > > > Well, Flamethrower was designed under a different rules set, where it was > incredibly difficult to burn vampires, and Flamethrower was one of the only > easy ways to do so in the set. > > If Flamethrower were designed today, would it cost 4 pool? Sure, based on Improvised FT, Blow Torch, Kali's Fang, etc. A better question would be: If Ivory Bow were designed today, would it cost 1 pool? :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote > > Not to turn this into an all-about Zayyat thread, but I think he becomes > worthwhile when you consider the 2 votes, a sort-of built-in GtU, and a > sort-of built-in Lost in Crowds. Combine him with Giant's Blood, the Rack, > or a Golconda (once he's empty from his built-in action) for extra bloaty > goodness. (Hi Pat. I think we met at the DC qualifier earlier this year, if I am not mistaken.) Yeah, the specials need to be considered also, you're right. The question in this case would be how much Zayyat's special is worth in a given deck. Personally, I don't actually find his specials to be all that appealing, and have not personally used him in any decks yet. He just doesn't... fit right. Having votes is not bad, but he doesn't really fit the profile that most of my decks need in a voter. His GtU ability is ok, I guess, but it seems more trouble than it's worth. It's costing him 3 blood to transfer 3 blood as an action. It just doesn't seem very cost-effective to me. By the time you have influenced out Zayyat and then used his ability to add 3 to someone else, you've probably been bled for 10. The stealth for 2 blood is nice if you really need it, but it comes with a pretty hefty price tag. I'm not sure, just by looking at him, what he would do that really needs 2 stealth to get through. He's not the most terrible vampire in the world, granted... he's just the one example I picked as having an official point cost that doesn't translate into efficiency where building decks is concerned, in my opinion. If you are building around [ANI + FOR + PRO] you have an entire clan-and-a-half to work with. I'm not sure, given this, why anyone would choose Zayyat over, say, any other Gangrel or !Gangrel. > Of course, you're absolutely right that he would be even better if he had > AUS or THA insted of aus/tha/qui. I find that most of the decks that really interest me are made with off-clan disciplines, mostly at superior. [OBT + PRE], [PRO + SER], [AUS + QUI] etc. Usually this type of deck requires using a star vampire like Moncada, Nadima or Tegyrius. A vampire like Zayyat is much less likely to inspire me to build a deck around him, based on his not having AUS, THA... or maybe even QUI. Has anyone actually used him effectively in a deck yet? I see two decks in the TWDA that use a few copies of him. Not sure, by looking at those decks, that he is a major component of either. Hard to say... Cheers, WES

Peter D Bakija wrote: > jeff_kuta wrote: > > > Shoot, I would have been happy if Constanza and Donal lost DOM and got > > PRE. Sure the would be less powerful, but it would have opened up a lot > > more options for G1/2 Brujah, which are heavily influenced by these two > > vampires' existence (and lack of Presence). > > ??? > > Wha? Donal and Constanza are A) not reprinted in the 10th anniversary set > and B) Fantastic, when combined with Anvil, Taco Bell, and Volker. Yeah, > they don't fit with most other vampires in their clan, but their existance > is easily remedied by mixing in !Brujah, who fit easily and nicely in to > Brujah decks. But, you shouldn't have to remedy it! They're clanmates!! I still think the designers were on massive drugs and forgot that Presence was Brujah in-clan that day. > Is it really worth it, when, really, the G1 vampires usually work out fine, > excepting a very noticable handfull? I disagree with you here. I just did a quick manual count of the TWD archive for the last 50 winners dating back to June 2004. Merely 11 of those decks were Group 1/2. The *vast* majority of winners were 2/3, quite probably due to fans of Indie and Sabbat clans having some fun, not to mention the existence of Palla Grande and Week of Nightmares. There were even a couple 3/4 decks in there. Now, of the 11 Group 1/2 winners all except one were either 1) Nosferatu Royalty; 2) Anson bastardization; 3) Weenie Obf or Pre; 4) Anneke Blocks All. There was also a Cel/+1str deck in there using Crusher and Bianca. I was surprised there weren't any old school Malks or Ventrue winning in recent memory. The last time for Malks was Feb 2004. Last time for Ventrue was May 2004. My point still is that if some extremely weak vampires had been strategically targetted and fixed, then the relative worth of Group 1 would have increased as a whole. You don't have to fix them all to create better synergies by filling a couple gaping holes here and there. Oh, back to my comment about the EuroBrujah Princes: I was just thinking to myself, what if Constanza and Donal had PRE, *and* if they'd lowered Miranda and Tura to 7-cap. Wouldn't that just rock to make an army of Brujah with Enchant Kindred and Prince power? As it is now, you're stuck with Dominate Brujah, which really limits your choices. The existence of Second Tradition and amazing P/J votes also factors in heavily. Anyway, no chance we can change it now, but I just wanted to voice my disappointment and wish things had been "made right." It would have been so easy to do and personally I don't think the consequences of dealing with a confused player base (if you even accept that to be), would be overshadowed by the happy player base from improved oldies but (not so) goodies. Jeff

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:cqb62...@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote >> >> Not to turn this into an all-about Zayyat thread, but I think he becomes >> worthwhile when you consider the 2 votes, a sort-of built-in GtU, and a >> sort-of built-in Lost in Crowds. Combine him with Giant's Blood, the >> Rack, or a Golconda (once he's empty from his built-in action) for extra >> bloaty goodness. > > (Hi Pat. I think we met at the DC qualifier earlier this year, if I am not > mistaken.) > You are not mistaken... and glad to know you'll still speak to me despite the viciously irresponsible bleed of mine that was bounced to you in the C-A-C final. :) > Yeah, the specials need to be considered also, you're right. The question > in this case would be how much Zayyat's special is worth in a given deck. > Personally, I don't actually find his specials to be all that appealing, > and have not personally used him in any decks yet. He just doesn't... fit > right. > I have this idea that he's useful in an aus-pro wall deck... get a auspex skill card on him (to fix the problem you pointed out), then use his special to pop out smaller vamps, possibly combining with Gather. But it's only a concept so far, I haven't actually made it work yet. > Having votes is not bad, but he doesn't really fit the profile that most > of my decks need in a voter. > Clearly not somebody you'd include just for votes, but useful for picking up that extra pool from a Bribes, or maybe snagging a stray point of KRC damage on your prey. >> Of course, you're absolutely right that he would be even better if he had >> AUS or THA insted of aus/tha/qui. > > I find that most of the decks that really interest me are made with > off-clan disciplines, mostly at superior. [OBT + PRE], [PRO + SER], [AUS + > QUI] etc. Usually this type of deck requires using a star vampire like > Moncada, Nadima or Tegyrius. A vampire like Zayyat is much less likely to > inspire me to build a deck around him, based on his not having AUS, THA... > or maybe even QUI. > I have a PRO-SER deck with Nadima & Mirembe that's rather fun and have been thinking about building a PRO-PRE vote deck around Nehsi & Una. (The latter actually inspired by Colin's Disciples clan with AUS-PRO-PRE... Form of Mist with political actions is very sweet, IMO.) > Has anyone actually used him effectively in a deck yet? I see two decks in > the TWDA that use a few copies of him. Not sure, by looking at those > decks, that he is a major component of either. Hard to say... > I rarely see him hit the table, you're right on that score... the only Gangrel 10-cap that seems to appear with any regularity is Wynn. - Pat

LSJ wrote: > Sure, based on Improvised FT, Blow Torch, Kali's Fang, etc. Reasonable. > > A better question would be: If Ivory Bow were designed today, would > it cost 1 pool? :-) An even better point :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

jeff_kuta wrote: > But, you shouldn't have to remedy it! They're clanmates!! I still think > the designers were on massive drugs and forgot that Presence was Brujah > in-clan that day. Ok. They are really good vampires with really good discipline spreads that make really good decks. I mean, yeah, ok, they have trouble fitting in with Presence based Brujah decks, but that the Brujah have 2 vampire slots filled with incredibly good vampires with DOM hardly strikes me as a huge issue. I mean, yeah, Dalliyah isn't real useful for the Nosferau as a whole either, but she is still really good to use in general. > I disagree with you here. I just did a quick manual count of the TWD > archive for the last 50 winners dating back to June 2004. Merely 11 of > those decks were Group 1/2. The *vast* majority of winners were 2/3, > quite probably due to fans of Indie and Sabbat clans having some fun, > not to mention the existence of Palla Grande and Week of Nightmares. > There were even a couple 3/4 decks in there. But you are looking back to January 2004. Of course there are fewer G1/2 crypts--people like using new stuff. Newer players don't have as much access to G1 vampires. > Now, of the 11 Group 1/2 winners all except one were either 1) > Nosferatu Royalty; 2) Anson bastardization; 3) Weenie Obf or Pre; 4) > Anneke Blocks All. There was also a Cel/+1str deck in there using > Crusher and Bianca. There isn't any reason at all that G1/2 Malkavian or Ventrue (which you mention below) shouldn't be in there, except that people like using new stuff. > My point still is that if some extremely weak vampires had been > strategically targetted and fixed, then the relative worth of Group 1 > would have increased as a whole. You don't have to fix them all to > create better synergies by filling a couple gaping holes here and > there. You don't have to, no, but fixing a few is setting a significant precident that doesn't need to start, especially when most of the G1 vampires, again, are perfectly reasonable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > There isn't any reason at all that G1/2 Malkavian or Ventrue (which you > mention below) shouldn't be in there, except that people like using new > stuff. > > i agree g1 ventrue is still pretty strong and you still see it quite often strangely g1 malks are right now a bit rarely seen, but i am pretty sure that good old hardcore stealth bleed using OBF/DOM will resurface soon. i still consider G1 gangrel the better gangrel so with the exception of a few vamps group one is still very good and competitive! stefan

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > i agree g1 ventrue is still pretty strong and you still see it quite often > strangely g1 malks are right now a bit rarely seen, but i am pretty sure > that good old hardcore stealth bleed using OBF/DOM will resurface soon. > i still consider G1 gangrel the better gangrel > so with the exception of a few vamps group one is still very good and > competitive! Pretty much--Obf/Dom S+B is still very valid. G1 Ventrue are still very solid. G1 Gangrel (excepting the bad ones) are kind of better then the current ones, and G1/2 is certainly better for weenie Protean (which is a good deck type). G1 Nosferatu are are all pretty solid. G1/2 Tremere are very reasonable as Tremere go. G1 Torreador are certainly not that much worse, overall, than the G3. Again, there are certainly a handfull of real dogs in G1. But overall, they aren't uncompetetive. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > jeff_kuta wrote: > > GROUP 1 VAMPIRES THAT NEEDED FIXING: > > BRUJAH > > Anvil (too good) > > Bianca > > Appolonius > > Miranda > > Don Cruez > > Anvil is too good, but only by a point. No big deal. Bianca is *still* one > of the backbone vampires of very successful +1 strength/CEL decks, that are > geneally built using G1/2 simple *because* of access to Bianca. Yeah, she is > down a 1/2 discipline point, but if they gave her bumb, she'd be a half > point too good. It's a toss up. Miranda is still potentially useful in > various situations. Appolonius and Don Cruez are still bad for being big. TWD decks featuring each: Anvil: 14 (Euro-Brujah mainstay) Bianca: 2 (CEL/+1str synergy) Appolonius: ZERO Miranda: ZERO Don Cruez: Several, but he's a Justicar. > > GANGREL > > Zack North > > Gunther > > Quinton McDonnell > > Angus The Unruled > > All underpowered. But not so much that they are completely pointless in the > appropriate deck. Except maybe Zack North. Who is total chaff. Zack: One (featured Silvia Gio and he got lucky) Gunther: 3 (Auspex was key in all) Quinton: ZERO Angus: Several, but he's a Justicar. For comparison, here's how many times Camille Devereux won: 13. > > MALKAVIAN > > Doctor Jest > > He's fine. Doctor Jest: Zero. Granted, DOM/OBF doesn't need any help so why bother? For comparison, here's Gilbert Duane: 27 wins (!!) > > NOSFERATU > > Grendel, The Worm Eaten > > Tusk the Talebearer > > Sebastian Marley > > Lucretia, The Cess Queen > > Grendel is perfectly fine (a 5 with a superior, 2 inferiors, and a special > of some utility)--at worst, he is behind half a point. He is still a > backbone vampire in decks using OBF. Tusk always sucked, but even still, you > combine him with his advanced version, and he isn't that bad in an all OBF > deck. Sebastian needs another superior discipline. Lucretia is a sketchy 10 > pointer. Grendel: 3! OBF is that good. Tusk: 2 Sebastian: ZERO Lucretia: ZERO For comparison, here's Sheldon: 11 wins > > TOREADOR > > Adrianne > > Eliott Sinclair, Virtuoso Thespian > > Tatiana Romanov > > All three are weak. All three have +1 something. Sad, but acceptible. Adrianne: ZERO Elliott: 1! Tatiana: Several, but she's a Prince. For comparison, here's Felicia Mostrom: 11 > > TREMERE > > Sabinne Lafitte > > Lydia van Cuelen > > Sabine is a point weak, but has pot/tha, which is newly useful. Sabinne: 1! Go Gargoyles! Lydia: 1! For comparison, here are Justine and Cardano: 6 each > > VENTRUE > > Jazz Wentworth > > Melissa Barton > > Luccia Paciola > > Democritus > > Meh. The Ventrue can suck it up. Jazz: Several Melissa: 1 Luccia: 1 Democritus: Several, but he's a Justicar. For comparison, here's Sir Walter Nash: 27 Now, granted, that most of these vampires that I chose as comparisons were a bit over the power curve, but that is more indicative of the power of DOM and Princes than anything else. I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that these vampires really aren't that good in comparison to the others in their Group. A nip here and a Tusk there and the set could have been dramatically improved in cohesion (more superior disciplines where appropriate) and variety (more playable vampires > more viable strategies). Jeff

jeff_kuta wrote: > I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that these vampires really > aren't that good in comparison to the others in their Group. A nip here > and a Tusk there and the set could have been dramatically improved in > cohesion (more superior disciplines where appropriate) and variety > (more playable vampires > more viable strategies). I never said that there weren't cruddy vampires in G1. There certainly are. But then there are cruddy vampires in G2 (Judha? Nakova? Monique?) And now that they have really nailed down what they are doing, G3 and G4 seem to all be pretty solid. But overall, G1 is certainly viable (well, ya know, when matched with G2). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote > > You are not mistaken... and glad to know you'll still speak to me despite > the viciously irresponsible bleed of mine that was bounced to you in the > C-A-C final. :) Ah, what was your made-up clan again? I know it featured SER. Mine were the CEL/FOR/THA "Historical Anarchs". I was quite proud of them heheh. Really loved that format, by the way. Kind of makes discussions like this a little more interesting when you have actually had to build your own vampires! > Clearly not somebody you'd include just for votes, > but useful for picking up that extra pool from a Bribes, > or maybe snagging a stray point of KRC damage on your prey. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to include Zayyat though. Including him for that reason strikes me as reactive way of building a deck. Personally, I try not to build around what other people will play, generally speaking. Because if you get it wrong... Of course, reactive planning for core strategies like general vote (Delaying Tactics) or general bleed (Deflection) is different. > I have a PRO-SER deck with Nadima & Mirembe that's > rather fun and have been thinking about building a PRO-PRE > vote deck around Nehsi & Una. (The latter actually inspired > by Colin's Disciples clan with AUS-PRO-PRE... Form of > Mist with political actions is very sweet, IMO.) (Don't forget Maxwell... he might fit well in that deck). I remember Colin's clan. Religious theme IIRC. Both Colin and Aaron Steele had penciled in their C-A-C vampires onto index cards like ten minutes beforehand. Cheapskates :) Other than that, yeah, Colin's deck was pretty scary, and fun to watch. > I rarely see him hit the table, you're right on that score... the only > Gangrel 10-cap that seems to appear with any regularity is Wynn. I hardly ever see Wynn any more either. The original multi-rush deck. That takes me back... Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:cqdp5...@enews2.newsguy.com... > > "Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote >> >> You are not mistaken... and glad to know you'll still speak to me despite >> the viciously irresponsible bleed of mine that was bounced to you in the >> C-A-C final. :) > > Ah, what was your made-up clan again? I know it featured SER. > Knights of the Round Table, Camarilla. PRO-SER-DOM. > Mine were the CEL/FOR/THA "Historical Anarchs". I was quite proud of them > heheh. > I had Dennis, the Anarcho-Syndicalist in my clan. > Really loved that format, by the way. Kind of makes discussions like this > a little more interesting when you have actually had to build your own > vampires! > Yep, it was a lot of fun. Maybe we can twist Josh's arm to run it again this summer, maybe even allowing BL disciplines this time. >> Clearly not somebody you'd include just for votes, >> but useful for picking up that extra pool from a Bribes, >> or maybe snagging a stray point of KRC damage on your prey. > > I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to include Zayyat though. Including > him for that reason strikes me as reactive way of building a deck. > Personally, I try not to build around what other people will play, > generally speaking. Because if you get it wrong... > You're most likely right... I just keep thinking there's something that can be done with him. >> I have a PRO-SER deck with Nadima & Mirembe that's >> rather fun and have been thinking about building a PRO-PRE >> vote deck around Nehsi & Una. (The latter actually inspired >> by Colin's Disciples clan with AUS-PRO-PRE... Form of >> Mist with political actions is very sweet, IMO.) > > (Don't forget Maxwell... he might fit well in that deck). > Agreed... I was going to start with Nehsi & Una, since they have inherent titles, but Max is a very good #3 vamp. Also thinking Rise of the Nephtali to get Nehsi pumped up to 4 sitting votes. >> I rarely see him hit the table, you're right on that score... the only >> Gangrel 10-cap that seems to appear with any regularity is Wynn. > > I hardly ever see Wynn any more either. The original multi-rush deck. That > takes me back... > Cherryholmes had a Wynn-Talbot's-Masochism deck at the Chantilly IPST. I didn't get to play against it, but it was apparently quite fearsome. - Pat

[ quoted text not captured ] As I've been reading through this thread, I keep thinking that it should be obvious that a mistake was made when some of the G1 vampires weren't improved in some way. Even if only a handful of them had been "upgraded" with a superior discipline that they had in inferior (or whatever else would have made them more playable), then we all would have benefited from it. The players would be happy because there would be a few more useful vampires that were mostly regarded as wallpaper for the last several years. The sales probably would have gone up for the set, so the folks at White Wolf would have been pleased with that outcome. I certainly would be much more interested in these anniversary sets if some of the vampires were "fixed" instead of being the same old useless junk they have been for years. And even the collectors might have been pleased because their original vamps would have been even more unique. Of course, I don't know much about how the collectors think... Are their collectors in this newsgroup who can answer that question? Would you guys have been ok with such changes? The more I think about it, I simply can't understand why anyone at White Wolf would sanction the reprinting of cards or vamps that are considered to be wallpaper by most people. A little tweaking here and there could have gone a long way to make these two sets a LOT more interesting. Isn't there a middle ground between making a few small improvements and reworking almost all of the G1 vampires? I think that choosing the most obviously bad vampires and making a few minor changes would have left everyone fairly satisfied with the results. Even if it was only 5-10 vamps, that could have caused quite a stir of excitement within most playgroups. Personally, I hope that the people at White Wolf will hear the complaints and comments of everyone that is talking about the anniversary sets and make some adjustments to any sets they print in the future. I like the idea of "fixing" a few cards here and there... it certainly breaths new life into cards that have been shelved or are being used as drink coasters or bookmarks. So my personal request goes something like this... - Smaller expansions, more often - Fix some of the reprints that have obvious problems - Create advanced versions of G1 vamps that are truly useful - Continue to listen to the players for ideas and suggestions (as you have in the past) ...and keep making the game fun and interesting for all the new players and old players alike, without suddenly rocking the boat so much that people quit and walk away from the game or split off into separate groups. Just a few thoughts from someone who is currently on the sidelines... Cheers, Howard

On 23 Dec 2004 19:52:43 -0800, <hdma...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Isn't there a middle ground between making a few small improvements and > reworking almost all of the G1 vampires? I think that choosing the > most obviously bad vampires and making a few minor changes would have > left everyone fairly satisfied with the results. Even if it was only > 5-10 vamps, that could have caused quite a stir of excitement within > most playgroups. 5-10 vamps can be "reworked" through advancement. This way the integrity of the VTES and Jyhad sets is (mostly) preserved. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > A better question would be: If Ivory Bow were designed today, would > it cost 1 pool? :-) Maybe this is a sign from LSJ that maybe some future meta shifts in punishing those who weild low cost unique weapons is in order? :) Things like reaction 1 blood aus: Untap this reacting minion. It attempts to block the current action. If the acting minion possesses a unique weapon, this reacting minion may prevent one damage in the resulting combat. AUS: As above, but reduce the cost to play this card by one. That'd really give a little tweak to Ivory Bows usefulness. Just a little tweak though.

Howard wrote: >>The more I think about it, I simply can't understand why anyone at White Wolf would sanction the reprinting of cards or vamps that are considered to be wallpaper by most people. A little tweaking here and there could have gone a long way to make these two sets a LOT more interesting.>> Sure--but how do you decide which vampires need tweaking, if you aren't going to upgrade all of the vampires that are behind the current design ball? *All* of the 8-10 cap vampires in G1 are underpowered. As are all the vampires with +1 bleed and +1 strength. As are most of the vampires with a special ability that would likely be costed less these days. Which of these get tweaked? And if you are going to tweak a few of them, how do you justify tweaking a few and not tweaking all that need upgrading? >>Isn't there a middle ground between making a few small improvements and reworking almost all of the G1 vampires?>> Maybe. Maybe not. Again, how do you choose? >> I think that choosing the most obviously bad vampires and making a few minor changes would have left everyone fairly satisfied with the results.>> Who are the most obviously bad vampires? Are some more obviously bad than others? >> Even if it was only 5-10 vamps, that could have caused quite a stir of excitement within most playgroups.>> If they are only going to fix 5-10, wouldn't it just be better to make Advanced versions that are an improvement that don't make the original versions become errataed? Like, say, an Advanced Zack North with a superior discipline and some very fringe disadvanatge, or something like that. If they are only gonna change a couple guys, why make things difficult when they could just use the Advanced mechanic? -Peter