RPG Vs CCG Inconsistencies.

Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. But still, the world is the same one and the ONLY reason I came to the CCG is because I loved the RPG. I don't think I'm the only one in that case. So it pains me to see now and again that when rules decisions are made (mainly by our friendly and everloving LSJ) they only take the "logical" aspects into account, and not at all the RPG issues. Two recent examples are : - of course, the allies who at one time were supposed to go into torpor, and now still take one normal damage because they're exposed to the sun and learned some Thaumaturgy or Potence - and the subject of the new text or Ritual of the Bitter Rose was discussed on our forum, and I realised what an aberration that was. The Ritual is exactly that : a somehow magical preparation allowing people to share a diablerie. Now, it can be used during combat, and even Assamites can use it, even without Tajdid. There are others. I don't expect LSJ to come back on these rulings once more (as much as I would appreciate it). What I would like is for these little things to count from now on. Maybe it would be good, Scott, if in your very busy aggenda you found the time to read some novels and or / RPG rules or supplements ? Or do you already know all that by heart and just decide it doesn't matter ? Well, it does to me, and I'd like other roleplayers to tell us if it disturbs them too or if they don't care. With all due respect for the great work LSJ has done and will do (just given my 2 cents to improve the results a little), Orpheus

>- of course, the allies who at one time were supposed to go into torpor, and >now still take one normal damage because they're exposed to the sun and >learned some Thaumaturgy or Potence Um...you might be interested to know that the new Burst of Sunlight will deal aggravated damage to an opposing ally, which kind of also blows the "logic" thing. Hmmm...a Werewolf and an Arms Dealer getting hurt when you expose them to sunlight... >- and the subject of the new text or Ritual of the Bitter Rose was discussed >on our forum, and I realised what an aberration that was. The Ritual is >exactly that : a somehow magical preparation allowing people to share a >diablerie. Now, it can be used during combat, and even Assamites can use it, >even without Tajdid. Um...there's a reason why Assamites are Blood Cursed (for balance purposes). Giving them a very easy way to circumvent this disadvantage would not be a good idea. Halcyan 2

> - and the subject of the new text or Ritual of the Bitter Rose was discussed > on our forum, and I realised what an aberration that was. The Ritual is > exactly that : a somehow magical preparation allowing people to share a > diablerie. Now, it can be used during combat, and even Assamites can use it, > even without Tajdid. The Assamites can use it during combat (without Tajdid) if they burn a vampire by aggro damage. But what is the use of the Ritual if you burn a vampire by aggro damage ? He has 0 blood on him, and all your vampires gain ... nothing. Hoooray! Of course you have cycled a card ;-). I think the combat aspect was intended to be used in conjuction with Amaranth, which is diablerie. Probably it should have read "if you burn a vampire by diablerie". -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de johanne...@vekn.de

Johannes Walch wrote: ::: - and the subject of the new text or Ritual of the Bitter Rose ::: was discussed on our forum, and I realised what an aberration ::: that was. The Ritual is exactly that : a somehow magical ::: preparation allowing people to share a diablerie. Now, it can be ::: used during combat, and even Assamites can use it, even without ::: Tajdid. :: :: The Assamites can use it during combat (without Tajdid) if they :: burn a vampire by aggro damage. But what is the use of the Ritual :: if you burn a vampire by aggro damage ? He has 0 blood on him, and :: all your vampires gain ... nothing. Hoooray! Of course you have :: cycled a card ;-). Thetmes, Jalal or other assamites with an extra master potence can play decapitate... If ya know what i mean... Taste of Death + Decapitate + Ritual might be boring... :: I think the combat aspect was intended to be used in conjuction :: with Amaranth, which is diablerie. Probably it should have read :: "if you burn a vampire by diablerie". This is exactly how it was handled in the past. But now the text has changed and nobody noticed until someone created a deck revolving around this new text. why the change ? and how many cards were changed during the "harmonization" to Camarilla Edition ? Reyda, remember life boon...

On 20 Jan 2003, Halcyan 2 wrote: > Um...there's a reason why Assamites are Blood Cursed (for balance purposes). Yeah, 'cause it says so, right in the RPG. > Giving them a very easy way to circumvent this disadvantage would not be a good > idea. Um, because then they will diablerize everyone on the table with their massive vote lock? David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

Orpheus wrote: > Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. But still, the world > is the same one and the ONLY reason I came to the CCG is because I loved the > RPG. I don't think I'm the only one in that case. So it pains me to see now > and again that when rules decisions are made (mainly by our friendly and > everloving LSJ) they only take the "logical" aspects into account, and not > at all the RPG issues. And while that is perfectly understandable, I find the fact that the RPG makes decisions that ignore the world of the card game troubling. I want the RPG to adhere *exactly* to the decisions that are made for the CCG... Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "she tore down Paris on the tail of Thom Paine but the left wing's broken and the right's insane" -Bowie

David Cherryholmes wrote: :: On 20 Jan 2003, Halcyan 2 wrote: :: ::: Um...there's a reason why Assamites are Blood Cursed (for balance ::: purposes). :: :: Yeah, 'cause it says so, right in the RPG. :: ::: Giving them a very easy way to circumvent this disadvantage would ::: not be a good idea. :: :: Um, because then they will diablerize everyone on the table with :: their massive vote lock? I dont think it's really a problem. Just rush the titled guys first, and the Two votes from Thetmes + the Edge can grant you more diablerie than you can imagine.

Peter D Bakija wrote: :: Orpheus wrote: :: ::: Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. But still, ::: the world is the same one and the ONLY reason I came to the CCG ::: is because I loved the RPG. I don't think I'm the only one in ::: that case. So it pains me to see now and again that when rules ::: decisions are made (mainly by our friendly and everloving LSJ) ::: they only take the "logical" aspects into account, and not at all ::: the RPG issues. :: :: And while that is perfectly understandable, I find the fact that :: the RPG makes decisions that ignore the world of the card game :: troubling. I want the RPG to adhere *exactly* to the decisions :: that are made for the CCG... yeah, i understand what you're meaning... Okay, it's whining. But why does this CCG places arbitrary rules on some specific cases (blood curse) only to bypass them using twisted ways ? I'm still wondering why the "math logic" must be applied to every ruling decision =/

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<b0gnsj$qhs$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > - and the subject of the new text or Ritual of the Bitter Rose was > discussed > > on our forum, and I realised what an aberration that was. The Ritual is > > exactly that : a somehow magical preparation allowing people to share a > > diablerie. Now, it can be used during combat, and even Assamites can use > it, > > even without Tajdid. > > The Assamites can use it during combat (without Tajdid) if they burn a > vampire by aggro damage. or by decapitate... [ quoted text not captured ]

> > With all due respect for the great work LSJ has done and will do (just given > my 2 cents to improve the results a little), > yeah! and what about scarecrow's brain?! ...sorry...back to the mst3k marathon... chris, waffle king of milwaukee ---The MOOSE has failed me! -Zim, 'Invader Zim'

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, reyda wrote: > :: Um, because then they will diablerize everyone on the table with > :: their massive vote lock? > I dont think it's really a problem. Just rush the titled guys first, and the > Two votes from Thetmes + the Edge can grant you more diablerie than you can > imagine. I dunno.... I can imagine a lot. The Assassin's lack of an answer to S:CE on a level equal to IG is *good*. Not being able to commit diablerie is just fluff from the RPG... if they get points for it according to the build schema it isn't obvious to me. And not being able to commit diablerie to finish the job, in a clan that is almost entirely focused on combat, is a significant limitation. And that bit about rushing the voters and munching at will based on two table votes is shakey as hell. Maybe you could pull it off occasionally, but there's just too many ways that could go south on you for it to be much of a balance consideration. [ quoted text not captured ]

I can understand sacrificing RPG elements to make a better CCG. What I don't understand is adding incorrect RPG elements which don't contribute to the CCG. I speak particularly of one rule that has started to become questioned within my own playgroup: Aggravated Damage. Okay, it sends a vampire to torpor because the damage it inflicts cannot be healed, and, by the rules, if a vampire takes damage it cannot heal, it goes to torpor. In the RPG, Aggravated Damage is pretty much the same as normal damage, except it has the potential to burn a vampire. So, Aggravated Damage in V:TES should be handled as: For every point of aggravated damage a vampire sustains, one Blood must be burned to prevent destruction. It's cool seeing someone actually get to use Additional Strikes after inflicting Aggravated Damage. But, best of all, weenie vamps don't take out large vamps with a single point of aggravated damage. -t!MmY, the Mad Inker

"Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> wrote in message news:<3e2bd9f1$0$253$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. But still, the world > is the same one and the ONLY reason I came to the CCG is because I loved the > RPG. I don't think I'm the only one in that case. So it pains me to see now > and again that when rules decisions are made (mainly by our friendly and > everloving LSJ) they only take the "logical" aspects into account, and not > at all the RPG issues. <snip reasonable examples> I'd like to point out, to be fair, that some of the recent rules changes have had the added (if not intended) benefit of being more consistent with the RPG. 1. I always wondered how a Prince could pull off being hospitable to himself (in reference to the acting Prince no longer being able to play 5th Trad on him/herself). 2. I also always wondered how Day Operation was supposed to prevent allies from blocking a vampire (in reference to Day Op now making actions unblockable by vampires only). "Hey, human, go stop that vampire prince from being hospitable to himself!" "Nahhh, it's noon. I'm on lunch hour." -Mummy

> For every point of aggravated damage a vampire sustains, one Blood > must be burned to prevent destruction. > > It's cool seeing someone actually get to use Additional Strikes after > inflicting Aggravated Damage. But, best of all, weenie vamps don't > take out large vamps with a single point of aggravated damage. Aggrevated Damage is not all about weenies taking out big vamps. Aggravated damage is an advantage of a few disciplines/clans, if you tune down the aggro damage some clans would be unable to win a game (esp. the ones using protean/thauma). They are not able to deal 10 damage with a single strike as with Potence. And most of the big vamps have means of avoiding the aggro pokes (S:CE, Prevention, Obedience...)... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> wrote in message news:<3e2bd9f1$0$253$626a...@news.free.fr>... > I don't expect LSJ to come back on these rulings once more (as much as I > would appreciate it). What I would like is for these little things to count > from now on. Maybe it would be good, Scott, if in your very busy aggenda you > found the time to read some novels and or / RPG rules or supplements ? Or do > you already know all that by heart and just decide it doesn't matter ? Well, > it does to me, and I'd like other roleplayers to tell us if it disturbs them > too or if they don't care. > ...I'd urge you to consider exactly which cards it is that you've chosen for 'consistency' before criticizing LSJ. Question 1: Did he and his Design Team actually design it? Or is it a problem inherited from WotC? I suspect you'll find vastly fewer incosistencies in the newly printed cards, which are the only ones viable for criticizing LSJ on. Lastly, of course, it is the stated priority of WW itself that rules consistency comes before WoD synergy. That's a good thing, too, considering how lopsidedly powerful the high-end discipline effects are in VTM... Would you really want CCG consistency with Temporis 8, or some such? ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

>Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. But still, the world >is the same one and the ONLY reason I came to the CCG is because I loved the >RPG. I don't think I'm the only one in that case. So it pains me to see now >and again that when rules decisions are made (mainly by our friendly and >everloving LSJ) they only take the "logical" aspects into account, and not >at all the RPG issues. That a CCG isn't perfectly thematic isn't true for every CCG based off of something? I only see thematics being an issue in design where it's still possible to merge thematics and mechanics harmoniously. Once published, it's too late.

In message <b0hc0p$4da$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >Aggrevated Damage is not all about weenies taking out big vamps. Aggravated >damage is an advantage of a few disciplines/clans, if you tune down the >aggro damage some clans would be unable to win a game (esp. the ones using >protean/thauma). Protean, perhaps. It's certainly a popular method. However, I'd dispute Thaumaturgy. As has been shown consistently by Xian, and others, the Tremere tend to work better as a bruise and bleed style clan, with a few bounce/intercept/whatever toolbox cards around. Going for the second round aggro is rarely productive, except - as with all decks - having a few surprises around. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

David Cherryholmes wrote: :: The Assassin's lack of an answer :: to S:CE on a level equal to IG is *good*. are you kidding ? ;) Thin Blood followed by a Psyche (or Jallal's special) means you have burned 3 blood to enter combat again. When you're empty, i doubt you can S:ce for long... :: And that bit about rushing the voters and munching at will based :: on two table votes is shakey as hell. I'm sorry but when there is no vter left on the table, 2 votes from any big Assamite + Edge is enough to grant you a sucessful diablerie. Not to mention you may have an alliance with another player to let you munch those annoying voters. :: Maybe you could pull it off :: occasionally, but there's just too many ways that could go south :: on you for it to be much of a balance consideration. I guess you didn't face a strong assamite deck recently ? say, one filled with final nights cards ? =)

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, reyda wrote: > Thin Blood followed by a Psyche (or Jallal's special) means you have burned > 3 blood to enter combat again. When you're empty, i doubt you can S:ce for > long... Cool. It's still not as good as a grapple-like effect. > I'm sorry but when there is no vter left on the table, 2 votes from any big > Assamite + Edge is enough to grant you a sucessful diablerie. Not to mention > you may have an alliance with another player to let you munch those annoying > voters. I'm ignoring alliances; they cancel out. True, once you've gotten rid of *all* the other voters on the table (not getting Blood Hunted in the process), then the rest of your diableries are no-brainers. If you think that's trivial -- and I'll even spot you that your Assamites will have Sooper Dooper combat that torporizes every minion they target -- well, it isn't trivial. And since in the really real world Assamite combat isn't even as good as what I'm stipulating, then clearly they do not become unbalanced by being able to diablerize. You also have "get this ten cap out" in your equation, which makes you dead dead deader-than-dead against a fair chunk of decks. Or, here's a different argument: if Assamites are too powerful if they can diablerize, why are they not unbalanced by the simple inclusion of Tajdid in every Assamite deck? > I guess you didn't face a strong assamite deck recently ? say, one filled > with final nights cards ? =) Only when I'm loaning out decks.... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: :: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, reyda wrote: ::: I guess you didn't face a strong assamite deck recently ? say, ::: one filled with final nights cards ? =) :: :: Only when I'm loaning out decks.... ;) excellent ;)

> > Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. But still, the world > > is the same one and the ONLY reason I came to the CCG is because I loved the > > RPG. I don't think I'm the only one in that case. So it pains me to see now > > and again that when rules decisions are made (mainly by our friendly and > > everloving LSJ) they only take the "logical" aspects into account, and not > > at all the RPG issues. > > And while that is perfectly understandable, I find the fact that the RPG > makes decisions that ignore the world of the card game troubling. I want the > RPG to adhere *exactly* to the decisions that are made for the CCG... > > > Peter D Bakija Velly funny, Doctol Jones. ;-) But you just folget one thing : da roleplaying game came way befole da cald game, and da spilit of da game cam flom it. Yes ? Olfeus

[ quoted text not captured ] I have to agree with that. It is different from what I "complained" about : here we're not talking about changing the effect and / logic of the WOD (i.e. allies don't go to torpor or Assamites can't diablerize), but about the rendition of a RPG effect into a CCG. It has been this way (aggravated = torpor) since the beginning of the game, which doesn't mean it's good but still has an importance ; and the way in which it has been reduced (need 2 aggro damage to burn at 0 blood) has reduced this advantage way too much. Orpheus

I'll answer to the 2 previous posts in one here : > ...I'd urge you to consider exactly which cards it is that you've > chosen for 'consistency' before criticizing LSJ. Question 1: Did he > and his Design Team actually design it? Or is it a problem inherited > from WotC? In the two examples I cited, it is recent. And allow me to precise that I DO NOT criticize LSJ, for 2 reasons : on the whole he does a great job (which I wouldn't do for all the gold in the world as he is the obvious scapegoat), and he isn't the sole responsible of decisions made. What I criticize is some of his decisions, and his tendency to overlook the RPG aspects. But I do not forget or deny all the good he did for the game in the last years, and I urge everybody not to forget it. This was in no way a personnal attack, and the people who know me will understand I do not say this by fear of any consequence, just because I don't want my ideas to be interpreted in the wrong way. My intent is solely to point out some things I think are largely perfectible, never to put down someone whose work I highly respect on the whole (all jokes apart). > I suspect you'll find vastly fewer incosistencies in the newly printed > cards, which are the only ones viable for criticizing LSJ on. See above. But generally speaking, you're of course right. > Lastly, of course, it is the stated priority of WW itself that rules > consistency comes before WoD synergy. That's a good thing, too, > considering how lopsidedly powerful the high-end discipline effects > are in VTM... Would you really want CCG consistency with Temporis 8, > or some such? ;-) YEEEEEESSSS !!!! But once more, that's not the question. It has been established since the beginning of this game that the level of the discipline in the RPG wasn't a factor in the CCG. WHile it is a thing we can eventually regret, we got used to it, and it is just a matter of rendition, not of big inconsistencies like allies fearing the sun etc. > That a CCG isn't perfectly thematic isn't true for every CCG based off of > something? Nothing can be perfectly thematic, oeuf corse, but I think we have to stay coherent on large matters. > I only see thematics being an issue in design where it's still possible to > merge thematics and mechanics harmoniously. Once published, it's too late. I disagree. Some tules were changed, sometimes for the worse, once the cards were published, and sometimes even re-published. So it's never too late (even if it should be avoided unless really important). Yours from the Land of Perdition, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > Velly funny, Doctol Jones. ;-) But you just folget one thing : da > roleplaying game came way befole da cald game, and da spilit of da game cam > flom it. Yes ? I mean, sure, but what difference does that make? They are two different games--sure, they have a shared source material, but so do a lot of things. VTES works the way that it does because it works better that way. Sure, now that WW runs the ship, there is a lot more connection between the two, or so I understand (i.e. I hear that all the new vampires are from the RPG somewhere), which is good and all in terms of marketing, but doesn't mean that everything needs to be identical. Again--two different games. In reality, I don't play the RPG. I have limited, if any, interest in the RPG (I read the rule book once. I even made a character, just to see how the system worked), and I'm perfectly happy that the two remain distinct where appropriate. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > What I criticize is some of [LSJ's] decisions, and his tendency to overlook the RPG aspects. Don't confuse "weighing the RPG aspects against the needs of the game" with "overlooking the RPG aspects." > But I > do not forget or deny all the good he did for the game in the last years, > and I urge everybody not to forget it. This was in no way a personnal > attack, and the people who know me will understand I do not say this by fear > of any consequence, just because I don't want my ideas to be interpreted in > the wrong way. My intent is solely to point out some things I think are > largely perfectible, never to put down someone whose work I highly respect > on the whole (all jokes apart). As always, well-reasoned alternatives to the status quo are welcome. -- 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/

Hi LSJ, glad you answered personnaly. I hate to speak about people in their "absence" (although of course you could read it all). > > What I criticize is some of [LSJ's] decisions, and his tendency to overlook the RPG aspects. > > Don't confuse "weighing the RPG aspects against the needs of the > game" with "overlooking the RPG aspects." OK. So let's say I think the needs of the game sometimes don't weight enough to overcome the RPG aspects. Were the Thau or Pre using allies too powerful for game balance ? If so, they should be errated, not "turned into vampires" for a turn. Did U want the Ritual top be used with Amaranth ? Then the phrasing could have differed. You of course see what I mean, right ? > > But I > > do not forget or deny all the good he did for the game in the last years, > > and I urge everybody not to forget it. This was in no way a personnal > > attack, and the people who know me will understand I do not say this by fear > > of any consequence, just because I don't want my ideas to be interpreted in > > the wrong way. My intent is solely to point out some things I think are > > largely perfectible, never to put down someone whose work I highly respect > > on the whole (all jokes apart). > > As always, well-reasoned alternatives to the status quo are welcome. Uh ??? Me no understand english good... What Statu Quo ? Orpheus

In message <3e2cfe6c$0$14172$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> writes: >Uh ??? Me no understand english good... What Statu Quo ? Status Quo = the current situation. In voting, you can often have half a dozen different options and "status quo" i.e. no change. So, if people have well-reasoned changes away from the present situation, LSJ will look at them. As will the rest of the group, if you post them here. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3e2c7691$0$240$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> writes: >It has been this way (aggravated = >torpor) since the beginning of the game, which doesn't mean it's good but >still has an importance ; and the way in which it has been reduced (need 2 >aggro damage to burn at 0 blood) has reduced this advantage way too much. You're forgetting that this is how the game was designed. The current system is, in fact, actually *easier* to burn vampires than when designed. (The 'packeting' system does not exist.) Aggravated damage was not supposed to be dealt out willy-nilly. That the Gangrel did not have so easy access to uber-damage (like the Brujah) was supposed to make it harder to burn people. That way, diablerie, politics and the blood hunt can be a stronger part of the game than they would be. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BA51F391.B836%PD...@bigplanet.com>, Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> writes: >Sure, now >that WW runs the ship, there is a lot more connection between the two, or so >I understand (i.e. I hear that all the new vampires are from the RPG >somewhere), which is good and all in terms of marketing, but doesn't mean >that everything needs to be identical. Most of the vampires, yes. But even then, there are options as to which vampires get chosen (card game considerations) and how they get implemented is a definite card game consideration. Not all their disciplines cross-over, for instance, and special abilities are handled individually. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3e2c6a36$0$1870$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >are you kidding ? ;) >Thin Blood followed by a Psyche (or Jallal's special) means you have burned >3 blood to enter combat again. When you're empty, i doubt you can S:ce for >long... Do bear in mind, however, that Jalal and Thin Blood both cost a blood to use. And the Path of Blood is hard-ish to defend, with Assamite's love of intercept. Nor, as the aggressor, are you in a position to guarantee anything for your strike. You don't know what they've played. Of course, Rapid Thought is a good card - and with a nicely usable inferior too, but then you start having to tack on more guess-work cards and less hitting cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I dunno.... I can imagine a lot. The Assassin's lack of an answer to S:CE >on a level equal to IG is *good*. Not being able to commit diablerie is >just fluff from the RPG... if they get points for it according to the >build schema it isn't obvious to me. And not being able to commit >diablerie to finish the job, in a clan that is almost entirely focused on >combat, is a significant limitation. Maybe it's just me but I've always been under the impression that Assamites got the restriction because up till Ancient Hearts, they had the easiest access to agg damage and other nasty combat cards. With Blood Agony and Taste of Death for agg or Blurred Blood Sweats, sending opposing vampires to torpor would be a bit too easy for them and that this was the only thing to keep them from having a diablerie-fest. I'm sure they might have wondered a bit when they came up with the Tzimisce, but I do think that the Blood Curse is a good check and balance for (or rather against) the Assamites. Halcyan 2

>I have to agree with that. It is different from what I "complained" about : >here we're not talking about changing the effect and / logic of the WOD >(i.e. allies don't go to torpor or Assamites can't diablerize), but about >the rendition of a RPG effect into a CCG. It has been this way (aggravated = >torpor) since the beginning of the game, which doesn't mean it's good but >still has an importance ; and the way in which it has been reduced (need 2 >aggro damage to burn at 0 blood) has reduced this advantage way too much. Maybe I'm just completely off my rocker but I get the sneaking suspicion that Richard Garfield knew what he was doing when he designed aggravated damage for the game... Halcyan 2

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3e2cfe6c$0$14172$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus > <orph...@free.fr> writes: > >Uh ??? Me no understand english good... What Statu Quo ? > > Status Quo = the current situation. It is written without the ending "S", since both words are in ablative: "Statu quo". Greetings, Damnans

Orpheus wrote: > > Hi LSJ, glad you answered personnaly. I hate to speak about people in their > "absence" (although of course you could read it all). > > > > What I criticize is some of [LSJ's] decisions, and his tendency to > overlook the RPG aspects. > > > > Don't confuse "weighing the RPG aspects against the needs of the > > game" with "overlooking the RPG aspects." > > OK. So let's say I think the needs of the game sometimes don't weight enough > to overcome the RPG aspects. Then you should present your arguments. > Were the Thau or Pre using allies too powerful > for game balance ? Are they not balanced now? If so, present your evidence. > If so, they should be errated, not "turned into vampires" > for a turn. They are not "turned into vampires" for a turn. You should become more acquainted with the rulings if you want to make convincing arguments to change things. > Did U want the Ritual top be used with Amaranth ? Then the > phrasing could have differed. You of course see what I mean, right ? Yes. You want per-card errata to help make the CCG match the RPG, with no other benefit (that you've shown). The benefit of matching the RPG doesn't weigh more than the drawback of adding errata. > > As always, well-reasoned alternatives to the status quo are welcome. > > Uh ??? Me no understand english good... What Statu Quo ? It's latin. It means the current state of things. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3e2cfe6c$0$14172$626a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> mumbled something about: >Hi LSJ, glad you answered personnaly. I hate to speak about people in their >"absence" (although of course you could read it all). > >> > What I criticize is some of [LSJ's] decisions, and his tendency to >overlook the RPG aspects. >> >> Don't confuse "weighing the RPG aspects against the needs of the >> game" with "overlooking the RPG aspects." > >OK. So let's say I think the needs of the game sometimes don't weight enough >to overcome the RPG aspects. Were the Thau or Pre using allies too powerful Then you're wrong. When designing the game, the needs of the game outweigh ALL other concerns. The RPG is very convenient for story and flavor, and ignoring the RPG completely would be a terrible decision. But slavish adherence to the RPG at the expense of the game does the game no good whatsoever. Some portions of the RPG are noticeably difficult to implement in the game... or are more trouble than they're worth, and hence discarded. For example, it's possible to play Taste of Vitae when in combat with an Assamite. Now, from what I understand, this is not something one would normally do in the RPG, as the Assamites' blood is effectively poison. But implementing it in the card game would require all kinds of exceptions and rules and things to remember, so it is ignored for the sake of the game. Would it be good flavor for the game if you couldn't Taste against an Assamite? Sure. Is it feasible to implement this in the game? No. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

In message <3E2D3EC5...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes: >> Status Quo = the current situation. > >It is written without the ending "S", since both words are in ablative: "Statu >quo". Not in English it isn't. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=status%20quo is one reference. There are many others. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3E2D3EC5...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > writes: > >> Status Quo = the current situation. > > > >It is written without the ending "S", since both words are in ablative: "Statu > >quo". > > Not in English it isn't. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=status%20quo is one reference. > There are many others. I have also searched the Merriam-Webster dictionary and you are right. Surprisingly for me, "Status quo" exists in English (although it is not correct Latin). However there is a similar expression in English which keeps the correct Latin form: "in statu quo" (in the former or same state). The ways of languages evolution are usually mysterious ;-P Greetings, Damnans

"Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> wrote in message news:<3e2bd9f1$0$253$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Okay, I know : we are playing a Card game, not a RPG. Actually i think we ARE playing an RPG [albeit we don't need those stupid dice and rock/paper/scissors pantomimes to regulate OUR conflicts], but we are not pretending to be snotty little neonate vampires with delusions of maintainable or recoverable humanity, rather we are pretending to be ancient manipulative utterly inhuman and comprehensively well-informed monster vampires. And as such, we know that all that stuff in the *other* RPGs' source books is almost complete disinformation. In fact if the younger vampires had any literary skills whatsoever they too would know this, just by comparing the versions of the WoD in the Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, Mage, Mummy, Hunter and Wraith books, which all quite deliberately and very cleverly contradict one another in all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. They can't all be right, and in fact none of them is right. Not even WE know the truth, but we're a lot closer than they are to it!

> >It has been this way (aggravated = > >torpor) since the beginning of the game, which doesn't mean it's good but > >still has an importance ; and the way in which it has been reduced (need 2 > >aggro damage to burn at 0 blood) has reduced this advantage way too much. > > You're forgetting that this is how the game was designed. Not forgetting, didn't know. Compared to the old vet you are, I'm a newbie !! ;-) > The current system is, in fact, actually *easier* to burn vampires than > when designed. (The 'packeting' system does not exist.) > > Aggravated damage was not supposed to be dealt out willy-nilly. That > the Gangrel did not have so easy access to uber-damage (like the Brujah) > was supposed to make it harder to burn people. That way, diablerie, > politics and the blood hunt can be a stronger part of the game than they > would be. Sure. But still frustrating when you have the possibility to aggrav, but can deal only one damage to a vampire with 1 blood who will go to torpor anyway. Orpheus

> >I have to agree with that. It is different from what I "complained" about : > >here we're not talking about changing the effect and / logic of the WOD > >(i.e. allies don't go to torpor or Assamites can't diablerize), but about > >the rendition of a RPG effect into a CCG. It has been this way (aggravated = > >torpor) since the beginning of the game, which doesn't mean it's good but > >still has an importance ; and the way in which it has been reduced (need 2 > >aggro damage to burn at 0 blood) That was one, BTW. > has reduced this advantage way too much. > Maybe I'm just completely off my rocker but I get the sneaking suspicion that > Richard Garfield knew what he was doing when he designed aggravated damage for > the game... > > Halcyan 2 LOL. Let's hope he did. But then nobody's perfect. Aven me, sometimes... na, bad example. Orpheus, Prince of Modesty-sur-plage.

> >Uh ??? Me no understand english good... What Statu Quo ? > > Status Quo = the current situation. Thanks, I know my latin, but what I meant is me no understand what LSJ saying. > In voting, you can often have half a dozen different options and "status > quo" i.e. no change. > So, if people have well-reasoned changes away from the present > situation, LSJ will look at them. As will the rest of the group, if you > post them here. Ok. Me understand now. Thank you much good. You give money to me ? Me poor prince no money, need dollar to eat blood good. You give money to me or me drink blood you. And eat cards you. Orpheus, illegal french alien.

James Coupe wrote: :: In message <3e2c6a36$0$1870$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, :: reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: ::: are you kidding ? ;) ::: Thin Blood followed by a Psyche (or Jallal's special) means you ::: have burned 3 blood to enter combat again. When you're empty, i ::: doubt you can S:ce for long... :: :: Do bear in mind, however, that Jalal and Thin Blood both cost a :: blood to use. And the Path of Blood is hard-ish to defend, with :: Assamite's love of intercept. this is quite true, bit you can overcome : play with 5 path of blood in your deck. Even if someone tries to detroy it (which is great, a guy destroying the path is not bleeding you for 4 !) you can play another one. If you have two or more asamites ready, the amount of blood you will save from your vampires (usually blood doll'ed) on the turn you play a path is incredible. Especially if you rely on the Thin blood/wave of lethargy combo, each vampire will save 3 to 4 blood in a single combat. You may even try to play with Vascular explosion, just for the fun of doing so. In addaition, i'd say that Quietus cards are costy, but don't forget Jalal and his mates can benefit from Provisions of Silsilla. Blood/ Pool managment being the key in any deck, multiple blood dools combined to the Provisions can last longer than any voter may expect. :: Nor, as the aggressor, are you in a position to guarantee anything :: for your strike. You don't know what they've played. This is true, again =) but when you face some Voting monkeys, the worst thing that can happen is entombment or coma. Undead persistence might be an option, but in this case i'll use my psyche to press out of the combat. Lazverinus remains a freakin' problem though =) If you don't get confident, there's still Preternatural evasion to avoid any Ph34r 3ff3kt ;) :: Of course, Rapid Thought is a good card - and with a nicely usable :: inferior too, but then you start having to tack on more guess-work :: cards and less hitting cards. I don't really use this card, and it's a shame -but decks being limited to 90 cards... I'd rather use something more versatile like a dodge/additional strike... :: -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3e2da83f$0$242$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> writes: >> Aggravated damage was not supposed to be dealt out willy-nilly. That >> the Gangrel did not have so easy access to uber-damage (like the Brujah) >> was supposed to make it harder to burn people. That way, diablerie, >> politics and the blood hunt can be a stronger part of the game than they >> would be. > >Sure. But still frustrating when you have the possibility to aggrav, but can >deal only one damage to a vampire with 1 blood who will go to torpor anyway. True enough. I also find it frustrating that my Malkavians aren't massive combat monsters. It is supposed to be hard to kill vampires outright with damage, without being impossible. A little frustration is inevitable, with that as a design criterion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3e2db30f$0$9665$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >this is quite true, bit you can overcome : play with 5 path of blood in your >deck. Even if someone tries to detroy it (which is great, a guy destroying >the path is not bleeding you for 4 !) you can play another one. The comparison I'd make is that, if you're playing 5 Path of Blood per deck and, what, 3 per game, that's 3 pool which you could have brought out Harika Guljan with, or similar. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Sure. But still frustrating when you have the possibility to aggrav, but can > >deal only one damage to a vampire with 1 blood who will go to torpor anyway. > > True enough. I also find it frustrating that my Malkavians aren't > massive combat monsters. They AREN'T ?!?! They should be... ;-) Orpheus

> > OK. So let's say I think the needs of the game sometimes don't weight enough > > to overcome the RPG aspects. > > Then you should present your arguments. On the example which started it all this time, the Ritual could have just been rephrased, as proposed by someone, to be usable in combat or during any time when diablerie occurs. There was absolutely no need that I can see to make it usable with Decapitate or when burning a vampire. The card was interesting enough, especially with new combinations possible like the one with Tyler. Same can be said ot the allies thing, but I won't start that one all over again, it has been developped on big enough threads. What are your arguments to the contrary ? > > Were the Thau or Pre using allies too powerful > > for game balance ? > > Are they not balanced now? If so, present your evidence. I don't know about the Herald, never played Baali. I know that the Rafastios, for example, were much more interesting before. Allies are a very interesting part of the game, and yet underplayed except for a few. I don't think that many allies should suffer from the problems caused by one. If he was that problematic in the first place, he shouldn't have been made, or should quickly have been errated. He he was not unbalanced, then no need to change anything. > > If so, they should be errated, not "turned into vampires" > > for a turn. > > They are not "turned into vampires" for a turn. > > You should become more acquainted with the rulings if you want to > make convincing arguments to change things. Come on L-Scott, I was polite and respectful to you, don't take me for an idiot. I know the rules well enough (although of course not as well as the guy who does them...), and you know that I do. Some of us need time to do others things with their lifes, and avoid long paraphrases when they know the persons they speak with are capable of understanding what they mean. Want me to develop ? (time...). Let's say that for me it is so aberrant that an ally should suffer consequences of, say, the sun "as a vampire" just because they are strong (and are given Potence as a simplification for game systems, not as if they actually possessed a vampiric discipline - they can't as they aren't vampires), this is so incredibly illogical to me that it appears as if, by some miracle by above, they were suddenly "turned into vampires" for the action. I know that is not the case, thank you. And I guess you also know that even frenchmen are capable or irony ? Well, that was some. > > Did U want the Ritual top be used with Amaranth ? Then the > > phrasing could have differed. You of course see what I mean, right ? > > Yes. > > You want per-card errata to help make the CCG match the RPG, with > no other benefit (that you've shown). The benefit of matching the RPG > doesn't weigh more than the drawback of adding errata. I didn't want any errata. You made recent modifications to a card which didn't seem to cause any problem. But of course, you are going to show us the benefits of that, right (irony again...) ? > > > As always, well-reasoned alternatives to the status quo are welcome. > > > > Uh ??? Me no understand english good... What Statu Quo ? > > It's latin. It means the current state of things. I know. What I meant was "which statu quo", my english is even worse than my latin. ;-) In other words, I wondered what you meant. But James explained it quite clearly. Orpheus

Hey, someone I didn't tackle with in a while... This Derek Ray could be my Arch-enemy... Too bad I'll never find someone worthy of this status. There would be Reyda but he's my friend... :0) > >OK. So let's say I think the needs of the game sometimes don't weight enough > >to overcome the RPG aspects. Were the Thau or Pre using allies too powerful > > Then you're wrong. LOL. I almost missed his manicheism. Let's do it his way : "No I'm not. You are. And always one more than you, and eternal unbreakable mirror and your bullets bounce off me." Always loved a good, mature argument. > When designing the game, the needs of the game outweigh ALL other > concerns. The RPG is very convenient for story and flavor, and ignoring > the RPG completely would be a terrible decision. But slavish adherence > to the RPG at the expense of the game does the game no good whatsoever. For once, we almost agree. Except that when a change isn't direly needed in the CCG and that it is totally contrary to the spirit of the RPG, it shouldn't occur IMO. > Some portions of the RPG are noticeably difficult to implement in the > game... or are more trouble than they're worth, and hence discarded. I agree. It has been the case in many choices since the beginning. > For example, it's possible to play Taste of Vitae when in combat with an > Assamite. Now, from what I understand, this is not something one would > normally do in the RPG, as the Assamites' blood is effectively poison. > But implementing it in the card game would require all kinds of > exceptions and rules and things to remember, so it is ignored for the > sake of the game. Interesting example. You are right in that example. But then nothing except in the name of the card tells us that the blood gained comes directly from the opponent (yes, it IS logically implied, but not told). It could symbolise that your morals are up because you inflicted damage to your enemy. > Would it be good flavor for the game if you couldn't Taste against an > Assamite? Sure. Is it feasible to implement this in the game? No. One big difference with the case discussed tonight : the Blood Curse has been induced in the CCG from the beginning, while nothing has ever been said about the fact to drink Assamite blood (through Theft of Vitae for example). You see, I'm not that kind of maniacals (I'm another kind). I don't want the card game to exactly stick the the RPG, for one very simple reason : it is impossible, and we all know it. I think the creative teams have done a great rendition job, so no problem. But the logic should be applied as often as possible, and big notions from the RPG disturbed as seldom as possible. Little details about the clans don't weight enough in the ballance most of the time. Now, allies in torpor is a BIG distorsion of game spirit, one that the readers of the novesl (very numerous among Jyhad players) will also have trouble understanding or accepting. Allowing a diablerie ritual to happen during a fight is illogical "per se", and allowing a diablerie ritual to work for characters who have been prohibited in the card game to diablerise (s or z ? never know...) is an aberration. You'll also notice that I asked for the advice of the Roleplaying community. There are, I'd say, 3 things involved in the pleasure of buying this wonderful game of ours : - collecting - playing a strategic game - recreating the mood of the stories (RPG, novels...) we love, or discover through the CCG. For me the last two aspects are important, and will be I think for many people (collecting is fun, but not the essence of it for me : a means to do nice decks, not a goal). For those who also enjoy the imagination part, a minimal coherence is required. The others (among which you seem to rank) of course won't care. Orpheus [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> wrote in message news:<3e2c7955$0$226$626a...@news.free.fr>... > I'll answer to the 2 previous posts in one here : > > > ...I'd urge you to consider exactly which cards it is that you've > > chosen for 'consistency' before criticizing LSJ. Question 1: Did he > > and his Design Team actually design it? Or is it a problem inherited > > from WotC? > > In the two examples I cited, it is recent. Right. Recent changes to problematic cards _designed by_ the previous WotC Design team (was my point) > > Lastly, of course, it is the stated priority of WW itself that rules > > consistency comes before WoD synergy. That's a good thing, too, > > considering how lopsidedly powerful the high-end discipline effects > > are in VTM... Would you really want CCG consistency with Temporis 8, > > or some such? ;-) > > YEEEEEESSSS !!!! > > But once more, that's not the question. It has been established since the > beginning of this game that the level of the discipline in the RPG wasn't a > factor in the CCG. WHile it is a thing we can eventually regret, You won't find me crying... ;-) > we got used > to it, and it is just a matter of rendition, not of big inconsistencies like > allies fearing the sun etc. > The following (double carat marked text) was erroneously cited a a quote from myself. I'll let whoever wrote it reply... > > That a CCG isn't perfectly thematic isn't true for every CCG based off of > > something? > > Nothing can be perfectly thematic, oeuf corse, but I think we have to stay > coherent on large matters. > > > I only see thematics being an issue in design where it's still possible to > > merge thematics and mechanics harmoniously. Once published, it's too > late. > > I disagree. Some tules were changed, sometimes for the worse, once the cards > were published, and sometimes even re-published. So it's never too late > (even if it should be avoided unless really important). > > Yours from the Land of Perdition, > > Orpheus Regards DaveZ Atom Weaver

James Coupe wrote: :: In message <3e2db30f$0$9665$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, :: reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: ::: this is quite true, bit you can overcome : play with 5 path of ::: blood in your deck. Even if someone tries to detroy it (which is ::: great, a guy destroying the path is not bleeding you for 4 !) ::: you can play another one. :: :: The comparison I'd make is that, if you're playing 5 Path of Blood :: per deck and, what, 3 per game, that's 3 pool which you could have :: brought out Harika Guljan with, or similar. This is true, but Harika is too weak to be useful in this type of combat. She cannot also benefit from Clandestine contract, which is a big minus. If you really want to be prepared against all odds (and other fighters as well), believe me you'll need that superior celerity and superior quietus. Harika is worth 3 pool, yes, but Jallal, despite his 6 capacity , is worth twelve pool since his built in psyche guarantees that your rush action will have a real effect, even if only to make your target spend 2 S:ce cards per turn. if i really wanted to spend 3 pool on "non fighters" i'd rather influence weenies like Julius and antoinette which can commit diablerie for your assamites. Of course, you can still fake out + taste of death with Harika, and itmay also work but it's not the same deck concept ;)

In message <3e2dc213$0$243$626a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> mumbled something about: >Hey, someone I didn't tackle with in a while... This Derek Ray could be my >Arch-enemy... Too bad I'll never find someone worthy of this status. There >would be Reyda but he's my friend... :0) You'd have to get in line for that one, I'm afraid. Some other people might want to claim me first. ;) >> >OK. So let's say I think the needs of the game sometimes don't weight >enough >> >to overcome the RPG aspects. Were the Thau or Pre using allies too >powerful >> >> Then you're wrong. > >LOL. I almost missed his manicheism. Let's do it his way : My Manischewiscz? What? >"No I'm not. You are. And always one more than you, and eternal unbreakable >mirror and your bullets bounce off me." > >Always loved a good, mature argument. If I had ended my message there, your comparison might begin to have some semblance of approaching partial accuracy. However, I DID go on to explain why your statement was wrong... so save your moralising and gother-than-thou attitude, eh? >> When designing the game, the needs of the game outweigh ALL other >> concerns. The RPG is very convenient for story and flavor, and ignoring >> the RPG completely would be a terrible decision. But slavish adherence >> to the RPG at the expense of the game does the game no good whatsoever. > >For once, we almost agree. Except that when a change isn't direly needed in >the CCG and that it is totally contrary to the spirit of the RPG, it >shouldn't occur IMO. But your statement above is almost contrary to that. I don't agree that the RPG aspects -ever- weigh enough to overcome the needs of the game. This doesn't mean that the new Assamites should have been designed without the Blood Curse and the old ones left to rot. A balance needed to be drawn. I will also call your attention to your phrase "when a change isn't direly needed in the CCG ... it shouldn't occur." We'll be visiting it again a few times in the near future. >> For example, it's possible to play Taste of Vitae when in combat with an >> Assamite. Now, from what I understand, this is not something one would >> normally do in the RPG, as the Assamites' blood is effectively poison. >> But implementing it in the card game would require all kinds of >> exceptions and rules and things to remember, so it is ignored for the >> sake of the game. > >Interesting example. You are right in that example. But then nothing except >in the name of the card tells us that the blood gained comes directly from >the opponent (yes, it IS logically implied, but not told). It could >symbolise that your morals are up because you inflicted damage to your >enemy. It could. To satisfy some purists, a change could be made to Taste of Vitae explaining how the concept works. But the change isn't direly needed, because it's the CCG, not the RPG. >> Would it be good flavor for the game if you couldn't Taste against an >> Assamite? Sure. Is it feasible to implement this in the game? No. > >One big difference with the case discussed tonight : the Blood Curse has >been induced in the CCG from the beginning, while nothing has ever been said >about the fact to drink Assamite blood (through Theft of Vitae for example). One can explain Taste of Vitae away, but not Theft of Vitae. But again... the change isn't direly needed. >rendition job, so no problem. But the logic should be applied as often as >possible, and big notions from the RPG disturbed as seldom as possible. Right. However, this must be balanced against the fact that the game is complicated enough without constantly making changes. We already had a situation once (post 7/7) where FAR too many things had to be explained. Since we weren't getting new cards (and therefore no reprints), we didn't have any other option; something had to be done, or the game wouldn't have continued. If a big notion from the RPG was designed in wrong (can't drink Assamite blood) from the start, it'll usually hurt more to change it than it will leaving it as-is. >Little details about the clans don't weight enough in the ballance most of OK, I'd like to see you try to pass THAT statement off to anyone who's a fan of the Assamites in the RPG. =) >the time. Now, allies in torpor is a BIG distorsion of game spirit, one that Allies can't go to torpor anymore, though. And here's one insoluble problem for the RPGers: Distinguish between aggravated damage from sunlight, and aggravated damage from a Flamethrower. (Yep, you guessed it: card text on Burst of Sunlight. But this just illustrates one of the gotchas when you start poking at things to be accurate -- you'd have to come up with two different definitions of aggravated damage.) >the readers of the novesl (very numerous among Jyhad players) will also have >trouble understanding or accepting. Allowing a diablerie ritual to happen >during a fight is illogical "per se", and allowing a diablerie ritual to >work for characters who have been prohibited in the card game to diablerise >(s or z ? never know...) is an aberration. It's far from illogical. The novels feature several prominent scenes of someone winning in a fight and immediately afterwards diablerising the victim. RtBR, as a combat card, obviously assumes the not-at-all farfetched step of the ritual occurring immediately AFTER combat. The original wording of the card was clearly arranged to allow for RtBR to follow up an Amaranth, as that was the only way to burn someone in combat with blood still on them in Jyhad. There has been no dire need to change this, because AFAIK the only way to burn a vampire in combat now WITHOUT using Amaranth is Decapitate... and NO Assamite has superior Potence. Allowing Assamites to receive the blood from RtBR when a non-Cursed vampire commits the diablerie doesn't seem farfetched at all to me. While I don't know the exact RPG-ish details of RtBR, it seems obvious that one vampire does the actual diablerizing, and the others only share in the blood... which doesn't violate the Blood Curse in MY book. It also points up that when an RPG detail is sufficiently obscure (the exact ritual), changing the CCG in any fashion to cater to it is simply unnecessary. >You'll also notice that I asked for the advice of the Roleplaying community. That's a frightening idea. You're almost guaranteed to get a lot of emotional, biased diatribes, and probably a lot less substance than you'd want. Sure, some people will have some good ideas, but is it worth filtering through the crap? >There are, I'd say, 3 things involved in the pleasure of buying this >wonderful game of ours : >- collecting One I don't share. >- playing a strategic game The primary, for me. >- recreating the mood of the stories (RPG, novels...) we love, or discover >through the CCG. Then you're playing the RPG and simply using the CCG as a prop. That's fine -- do what you will, and I don't even believe that there's necessarily anything "bad" about it, as long as you keep playing by the same rules the rest of us do. But do realize what you're doing. I would add a fourth: - generating our OWN stories from the CCG. There's a subtle difference between this and the last. >For me the last two aspects are important, and will be I think for many >people (collecting is fun, but not the essence of it for me : a means to do >nice decks, not a goal). For those who also enjoy the imagination part, a >minimal coherence is required. The others (among which you seem to rank) of >course won't care. Ad hominem gother-than-thou silliness. A person with no imagination would not see the humor in the Possession and counter-Possession scenario -- competing Necromantic Methuselahs fighting over the control of a particularly powerful spirit. The minimal coherence you require is already present (see above for explanations of RtBR, etc.) You seem to be asking for complete adherence... but just to the things YOU object to. That can't ever happen, because you draw from the RPG viewpoint, not the CCG viewpoint. For example, the owner of the all-things-Thaumaturgy website (The Path of Cones, for their pointy hats) would like to see Wake turned into a Tremere-only card, its disadvantage totally removed, and other clans left with only Forced Awakening. He can present arguments with about as much substance as you have above -- but there's still no need to change the CCG, so Wake will be staying put. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: :: For example, it's possible to play Taste of Vitae when in combat :: with an Assamite. Now, from what I understand, this is not :: something one would normally do in the RPG, as the Assamites' :: blood is effectively poison. But implementing it in the card game :: would require all kinds of exceptions and rules and things to :: remember, so it is ignored for the sake of the game. :: :: Would it be good flavor for the game if you couldn't Taste against :: an Assamite? Sure. Is it feasible to implement this in the game? :: No. It's the first thing i pointed when i wrote an article (in a dead magazine) about the introduction of assamites. T'was all about Tasting and thieving vitae, and i must say regret this couldn't have been implemented in a way or another in the card game. come on, "Sterile" is in the rulebook, and means "cannot create other vampires, perform embrace or abomination action". Why "Blood cursed" can't be found near : cannot commit diablerie. During combat, opponents can steal blood from this vampire, but with no effect. When this vampire burns blood in combat due to damage, opposing vampire cannot gain blood from it. (or something like that ;) ) It wouldn't be so difficult =)

In message <3e2e25ce$0$12667$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, "reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: > >:: Would it be good flavor for the game if you couldn't Taste against >:: an Assamite? Sure. Is it feasible to implement this in the game? >:: No. > >It's the first thing i pointed when i wrote an article (in a dead magazine) >about the introduction of assamites. T'was all about Tasting and thieving >vitae, and i must say regret this couldn't have been implemented in a way or >another in the card game. It could have been easily implemented when Ancient Hearts was released. >come on, "Sterile" is in the rulebook, and means "cannot create other >vampires, perform embrace or abomination action". Why "Blood cursed" can't >be found near : cannot commit diablerie. During combat, opponents can steal >blood from this vampire, but with no effect. When this vampire burns blood >in combat due to damage, opposing vampire cannot gain blood from it. (or >something like that ;) ) But that's not an accurate depiction of the RPG, right? Attempting to Theft an Assamite should result in nasty aggravated damage, as I understand things. >It wouldn't be so difficult =) I don't agree. It would require either multiple rules changes (which are to be avoided because the whole point of a CCG is that the rules are printed on the card), or multiple errata (which is unwieldy and is to be avoided for much more obvious reasons). And why? to change the effect of a very small subset of cards on a very small subset of vampires in a non-intuitive way (if you don't have RPG knowledge, you don't know why you can't drink Assamite blood) that will occur only occasionally, and as a result will be forgotten and misplayed more often than not by people. More exceptions is a bad thing. "Taste of Vitae works, EXCEPT..." [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > come on, "Sterile" is in the rulebook, and means "cannot create other > vampires, perform embrace or abomination action". Why "Blood cursed" can't > be found near : cannot commit diablerie. During combat, opponents can steal > blood from this vampire, but with no effect. When this vampire burns blood > in combat due to damage, opposing vampire cannot gain blood from it. (or > something like that ;) ) Small note: Assamite blood isn't inherently poisonous, although Quietus can turn a quantity of vitae into poison. Assamites are poisoned by drinking vampiric vitae. That's why they can't commit diablerie; it would kill them, in addition to having no benefit. The proposed change to "Blood Cursed" (which I think is unneccesary!) would be something like: "This vampire cannot commit diablerie, cannot steal blood from an opposing vampire, nor gain blood lost in combat from an opposing vampire." Which is pretty fierce for a combat-oriented clan in the CCG (makes Theft of Vitae and Taste of Vitae unusable). It's not like Assamites sweep tables all the time. james o'rance http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/vampire

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > But that's not an accurate depiction of the RPG, right? Attempting to > Theft an Assamite should result in nasty aggravated damage, as I > understand things. Prior to the curse being removed, a non-Assamite that tried to drink vitae (using the Thaumaturgy discipline or by feeding) from an Assamite would have no issues. An Assamite trying to do the same to a non-Assamite would be in a world of pain. An Assamite trying to do the same to a fellow Assamite would have no issues. I think so anyway. When the curse was laid by the Tremere on the Assamites there were some weird loopholes... wiggle room. This led also to the practice of Assamites keeping the blood of their victims in special containers and then saving those containers up for a generation-lowering ritual. But then again, it's been years since I read those books. I may have it all backwards. Cheers, WES P.S. Come to think of it, those containers might make an interesting card. Kind of like Canopic Jars but useful.

Wes wrote: :: P.S. Come to think of it, those containers might make an :: interesting card. Kind of like Canopic Jars but useful. mildly represented on the card "ghouls of plaza moreira" =)

>> But that's not an accurate depiction of the RPG, right? Attempting to >> Theft an Assamite should result in nasty aggravated damage, as I >> understand things. > >Prior to the curse being removed, a non-Assamite that tried to drink vitae >(using the Thaumaturgy discipline or by feeding) from an Assamite would have >no issues. > >An Assamite trying to do the same to a non-Assamite would be in a world of >pain. You know, while we're at it, why don't we implement the rules for Blood Bonds? Each time a vampire steals or tastes blood from another vampire, he/she receives a Blood Bond counter. When a vampire has three Blood Bond counters from one other vampire, burn all the appropriate counters and this vampire cannot block that other vampire for the remainder of the game, unless he/she plays a Vaulderie. So Al-Ashrad cannot block Jaroslav any more since he already Thefted from him twice and Tasted his Vitae once. He has 2 Smudge counters for the two times he Thefted from Smudge, 1 Helena counter for Tasting her blood, and 1 Tyler counter for Thefting from her. I mean really guys...come on... Halcyan 2

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e2f7a4c$0$5880$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Bah... the Ghouls, while pretty cool, do not lower the Assamite's generation (or raise the capacity). What if you traded counters for a skill card or something. That would be kinda neat. Cheers, WES

Halcyan 2 wrote: :: You know, while we're at it, why don't we implement the rules for :: Blood Bonds? :: :: Each time a vampire steals or tastes blood from another vampire, :: he/she receives a Blood Bond counter. (snip) :: So Al-Ashrad cannot block Jaroslav any more since he already :: Thefted from him twice and Tasted his Vitae once. He has 2 Smudge :: counters for the two times he Thefted from Smudge, 1 Helena :: counter for Tasting her blood, and 1 Tyler counter for Thefting :: from her. :: :: I mean really guys...come on... It would add undesired complexity, that's true... but I like the idea of having "smudge counters" swinging around though =)

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rqtr2v8u9sv8ta2vb...@4ax.com>... > In message <3e2dc213$0$243$626a...@news.free.fr>, > "Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> mumbled something about: > > >trouble understanding or accepting. Allowing a diablerie ritual to happen > >during a fight is illogical "per se", and allowing a diablerie ritual to > >work for characters who have been prohibited in the card game to diablerise > >(s or z ? never know...) is an aberration. S in the UK, Z in America. :) > >For me the last two aspects are important, and will be I think for many > >people (collecting is fun, but not the essence of it for me : a means to do > >nice decks, not a goal). For those who also enjoy the imagination part, a > >minimal coherence is required. The others (among which you seem to rank) of > >course won't care. > > Ad hominem gother-than-thou silliness. CCGs are *so* not goth. :P > For example, the owner of the all-things-Thaumaturgy website (The Path > of Cones, for their pointy hats) OMG Derek. Now I want to register www.thepathofcones.com ! Combination Tremere and traffic-cones-in-bizarre-locations website. You bastard! > would like to see Wake turned into a Tremere-only card, its disadvantage > totally removed, and other clans left with only Forced Awakening. He can > present arguments with about as much substance as you have above -- but > there's still no need to change the CCG, so Wake will be staying put. Does this mean there's no point to registering it now, since you have pre-emptively defeated my eminently sensible arguments? Xian i can't believe i ate the whole thing...

In message <dbc1153.03012...@posting.google.com>, xb...@qwest.net (Xian) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rqtr2v8u9sv8ta2vb...@4ax.com>... >> Ad hominem gother-than-thou silliness. > >CCGs are *so* not goth. :P That doesn't mean he wasn't being gother-than-thou. :) >> For example, the owner of the all-things-Thaumaturgy website (The Path >> of Cones, for their pointy hats) > >OMG Derek. Now I want to register www.thepathofcones.com ! >Combination Tremere and traffic-cones-in-bizarre-locations website. >You bastard! I knew that would pull you out of the woodwork! Now my plan to TAKE OVER THE WORLD can finally be properly implemented, with you distracted by the cones! (...somewhere around, i have some pictures of traffic cones and the use we put them to around 15 years ago. No, they're not obscene... but they are funny. =) >> would like to see Wake turned into a Tremere-only card, its disadvantage >> totally removed, and other clans left with only Forced Awakening. He can >> present arguments with about as much substance as you have above -- but >> there's still no need to change the CCG, so Wake will be staying put. > >Does this mean there's no point to registering it now, since you have >pre-emptively defeated my eminently sensible arguments? No, you can register it anyway. =) Just expect me to register www.thepathofcrones.com (Ahrimanes), www.thepathofstones.com (Visceratika), and www.thepathoftones.com (Melpominee). =) [ quoted text not captured ]