New Caitiff (and new vampires)

I didn't bother looking at the new vampire previews much, except I noticed MacNeil get's an advanced copy, but then I was like "oh hey, that's brujah and it was in aphabetical... I wonder if those other names were Caitiff" and I look and then I shout "woohoo!". I've soooo been waiting for new caitiff for a long time now. BTW, so vampires are being printed as U2. There's three uncommon slots in a pack, so its possible that we won't be getting any vampires in our packs sometimes then, yes? They keep changing their packaging scheme on us, but Ithink this one's identical to bloodlines, yes? ~SV

vermillian wrote: > They keep changing their packaging scheme on us, but Ithink this one's > identical to bloodlines, yes? No. But it matches Final Nights. Bloodlines was 6C/4U/1R (like Sabbat War). BTW: The "packaging scheme" is chosen based on the content of the set. -- 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: > vermillian wrote: >> They keep changing their packaging scheme on us, but Ithink this >> one's identical to bloodlines, yes? > > No. But it matches Final Nights. Does that mean that we will have R Vampires ? Mathieu

[ quoted text not captured ] It means that the booster pack composition in Final Nights was also 7 cards from the Common sheet, 3 cards from the Uncommon sheet, and 1 card from the Rare sheet in each booster, just like it will be for the Anarch booster packs. It says nothing about the composition of the Common, Uncommon, or Rare sheets in either the Anarchs or the Final Nights expansions. [ quoted text not captured ]

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.03041...@posting.google.com>... > I didn't bother looking at the new vampire previews much, except I > noticed MacNeil get's an advanced copy, but then I was like "oh hey, > that's brujah and it was in aphabetical... I wonder if those other > names were Caitiff" and I look and then I shout "woohoo!". > > I've soooo been waiting for new caitiff for a long time now. The big question for me is whether these are just "replacement" Caitiff for the original set (ie - group 3 Caitiff to go with 2/3 crypts) or are they going to be more interesting than that? Maybe with slightly higher capacities, like Alfred Benezri for the Pander. That's what I'd like to see. > BTW, so vampires are being printed as U2. There's three uncommon slots > in a pack, so its possible that we won't be getting any vampires in > our packs sometimes then, yes? Well, so far there are no uncommon library cards, so best guess is that those three uncommon slots get filled with vamps. This works for me, as a box of boosters will generally allow me to get or trade for on average two copies of each except for the U1s, plus whatever the spread is in the starters. And if the U1s are all the Advanced vamps, that's about ideal. But look at what's missing in our alphabetical list after only 10 vamps: Ahrimanes, Assamites, Baali, Blood Brothers, Brujah Antitribu, Daughters of Cacophony and Followers of Set. Most of these are not surprising (though I was REALLY hoping to see another Daughter in this set), but the numbers make me wonder what IS in the set. There are 51 vamps, and we can assume that 13 of those will be Gangrel, based on the numbers from CE. There are 5 Caitiff and 2 Brujah, and unless we assume that the Brujah got royally screwed (which would be odd for the Anarch expansion), there will probably only be one or two of each of the other standard base clans. Even if we include Lasombra and Tzimisce in those standard clans (basically any non-independent clan that doesn't have an Antitribu) and assume two for each that only accounts for 14 more vamps, making a total of 34 vamps. Let's assign 4 more slots to surprise inclusions such as Pander or the odd bloodline or sabbat clan, and then we seem to have about 13 slots left. That's an entire clan. An entire clan that DOESN'T have a starter. What the heck could they possibly put in that space that wouldn't get a precon? Here's my theory, and I desperately hope I'm right: Tremere Antitribu. 13 new ones, all Group 4 so you can play them with Allejandro but not with the rest. And then we'll hopefully see reprints of the !Tremere-specific library cards as well. Notice that we haven't gotten up to "G" in the library list yet? Gargoyle Slave would be the first !Tremere library card that would appear in the list (although they might forgo that now that Gargoyles are a clan). The only problem with this is my previous assumption that there are no uncommon library cards in this expansion, so they would have to either dump or adjust rarity on Spirit Summoning Chamber and University Hunting Ground. Anyway, no idea if I'm right, but wouldn't that be cool?

vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote in message news:<6f81fa2c.03041...@posting.google.com>... > vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.03041...@posting.google.com>... > Ahrimanes, Assamites, Baali, Blood Brothers, Brujah Antitribu, > Daughters of Cacophony and Followers of Set. yeah, the lack of any indy support is sad... > Most of these are not surprising (though I was REALLY hoping to see > another Daughter in this set), but the numbers make me wonder what IS > in the set. There are 51 vamps, and we can assume that 13 of those > will be Gangrel, based on the numbers from CE. There are 5 Caitiff > and 2 Brujah, and unless we assume that the Brujah got royally screwed > (which would be odd for the Anarch expansion), there will probably > only be one or two of each of the other standard base clans. Even if > we include Lasombra and Tzimisce in those standard clans (basically > any non-independent clan that doesn't have an Antitribu) and assume > two for each that only accounts for 14 more vamps, making a total of > 34 vamps. Let's assign 4 more slots to surprise inclusions such as > Pander or the odd bloodline or sabbat clan, and then we seem to have > about 13 slots left. That's an entire clan. An entire clan that > DOESN'T have a starter. What the heck could they possibly put in that > space that wouldn't get a precon? This is a good question, and deserves to get bumped. Speculations? > Here's my theory, and I desperately hope I'm right: > > Tremere Antitribu Oh that's retarded. Keep dreaming. my thoughts are of 15 gangrel, 2 brujah, 2 ventrue, 2 toreador, 2 nos, 2 tremere, 5 caitiff, 5 pander, 2 lasombra, 2 tzimisce, 2 gangrel antitribue, 2 !tremere: the other 8... I don't know! ~SV

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.03042...@posting.google.com>... > > Ahrimanes, Assamites, Baali, Blood Brothers, Brujah Antitribu, > > Daughters of Cacophony and Followers of Set. > > yeah, the lack of any indy support is sad... Well, I figure more Sabbat are next and then more Independent, and after all the four major Indy clans have a TON of vamps these days. > > Tremere Antitribu > > Oh that's retarded. Keep dreaming. I think "retarded" is a little harsh, but I realize you're probably right. The thing is...actually I'll continue after your list... > my thoughts are of 15 gangrel, 2 brujah, 2 ventrue, 2 toreador, 2 nos, > 2 tremere, 5 caitiff, 5 pander, 2 lasombra, 2 tzimisce, 2 gangrel > antitribue, 2 !tremere: the other 8... I don't know! Seems to be a sensible spread. Lord knows the !Gangrel could certainly use a little help out of this expansion, but as far as 15 Gangrel in the boosters, I'm skeptical. We already know that the 51 number doesn't include the precons, so there will be probably be 15 anyway including the two precon-only Gangrel (one of which is Beckett). So maybe there could be a few extra !Gangrel. But that's still a lot of unaccounted-for slots. I really do think it makes sense to stick another clan in there, but who else, if not the !Tremere? All the Group 1s are finished transitioning to Group 3 in this expansion, so you can't really do another whole Cam clan, and anyone else would be forced to move up to Group 4, because with one exception (the !Tremere), the all have way too many Group 2s to allow 13 more Group 3s. They certainly won't do that to any of the Independents yet, since they have no Group 3s at all. Any other Sabbat clans wouldn't fit in the expansion, and all of them have support from Sabbat War, which has been rereleased. The !Tremere are sought after and rare, so printing new ones at some point makes sense, particularly because they have shown they are continuing to print new ones. Perhaps not now, but hopefully soon. So yeah, what else could go there? Anything happening in the World of Darkness that might indicate? If we go with current setting, we might be able to hope for some new !Salubri and maybe even some smaller Harbingers, but somehow I doubt it.

I think that it will be impossible that Ahrimanes return to the VTES since in the RPG all of her are dead (They all sacrifice for an unknow cause). The !Tremere is also impossible for the same reason (Tremere himself destroy all of the Antitribu, and now is in the body of his former apprentice Goratrix) I dont think that there will be more !Salubri since in RPG said Adonai embraced a little couple of warriors, and with another 4 vamps in Bloodlines seems to be enough. The Salubri with that 3 super-vamps need not more, and that bloodline never had more of 6 or 7 vamps in RPG nowadays. The same occur with the Nagaraja and the True Brujah (And i am yet surprised that WW not entered in Bloodlines the last bloodline in V:TM, the Old-Clan Tzimisce (vamps with dom instead vic)maybe not included for not complicated more the game). The Daughters and Samedi IMO are the Bloodlines that may be increased, but it seems not to be in the plans of WW. The rest of Bloodlines are all Sabbat and i dont think that they will receive new vamps in a set of Independents. Maybe it will be a little help with special vampires from the RPG (Genina for Samedi, Angelo for the Blood Brothers). Since from the Week of Nightmares the few Ravnos that stay alive are a little mad, i dont think we will ever see more of the Rom people. I would like to see more Giovanni, FoS and Assamites, but i think again that it not seems to be the plans of WW. With all that things in mind i think there will be a lot of Advanced group 2-3 vamps and little new vamps of former sets. All of this are my opinion and i can be in an error, of course. PD: I didnt read any opinion of a unexpected super vamp in anarch, i dont know if you watch him but it is here, he will come, The Camarilla Warlord, Karsh!. I think that he will even stronger than Xaviar...or maybe equal of power of Xaviar :). PD2: Sorry for my poor English, i am spanish xD.

Ashenbach <Ashe...@iespana.es> wrote: : I think that it will be impossible that Ahrimanes return to the VTES : since in the RPG all of her are dead (They all sacrifice for an unknow : cause). The !Tremere is also impossible for the same reason (Tremere : himself destroy all of the Antitribu, and now is in the body of his : former apprentice Goratrix) Ahrimanes and !Tremeres seem highly unlikely.. They also already have a quite nice set of Vampires so besides the rpg perspective they don't even need new Vamps. : I dont think that there will be more !Salubri since in RPG said Adonai : embraced a little couple of warriors, and with another 4 vamps in : Bloodlines seems to be enough. Then again, the !Salubri Vamps are crappy and not enough to build a !Salubri deck without some serious, and deck-cripling, tinkerin with non-!Salubri Vamps into the crypt. Even one more with VAL/val would help quite a bit.. It was nice to see some added interest into melee weapons which simply can't be used if you want to build a good deck but with the lack of Valerent vamps it goes to waste. : from the RPG (Genina for Samedi, Angelo for the Blood Brothers). Since : from the Week of Nightmares the few Ravnos that stay alive are a : little mad, i dont think we will ever see more of the Rom people. A small Ravnos, insane from a few diableries would be nice.. Besides, they if any fit as random oddities into the Anarch mix ;) //T

I'll be very dissapointed if there are only 2 Brujah in the set. This is supposed to be the Anarchs after all. ------------------------- Love is what we're born with. Fear is what we learn here.

"Eryx" <colind...@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje news:20030423094245...@mb-m07.aol.com... > I'll be very dissapointed if there are only 2 Brujah in the set. This is > supposed to be the Anarchs after all. > It seems that all of you aren't aware of a fact: There are 3 precon starters (gangrel, anarchs and barons) and Beckett is supposed to be in a precon, as it is not in the partial checklist we have seen by now. So , there is room for more cam clans vamps like, say, more brujahs, toreador, nossies and caitiff. We'll see it, once the full checklist is seen and we'll get a chance to guess how many unlisted vamps will come with the precons. Hope more lesser sabbats will be seen, as are panders and !salubris. Smiling Tom, the Anarch [ quoted text not captured ]

> The !Tremere is also impossible for the same reason (Tremere > himself destroy all of the Antitribu, and now is in the body of his > former apprentice Goratrix) Maybe in a future set we can see an advanced Goratrix! Goratrix has to be more powerful now that Tremere is... well... Goratrix, but still Tremere...But looks like Goratrix...UM (Why do I get the feeling I am trying to pitch the sequal to "Being John Malkovich") > PD: I didnt read any opinion of a unexpected super vamp in anarch, i > dont know if you watch him but it is here, he will come, The Camarilla > Warlord, Karsh!. I think that he will even stronger than Xaviar...or > maybe equal of power of Xaviar :). If they are true to the Stats in Children of the Night, Karsh would be able to lay the beats on any of the new justicars, including Xaviar. But if WW remains consistant with other vampires from taken VTM we can expect him to be slightly powered down. Which is a good thing for game balance. Cecil

"Tom,Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<b869fo$fn6$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>... > "Eryx" <colind...@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:20030423094245...@mb-m07.aol.com... > It seems that all of you aren't aware of a fact: There are 3 precon starters > (gangrel, anarchs and barons) and Beckett is supposed to be in a precon, as > it is not in the partial checklist we have seen by now. So , there is room > for more cam clans vamps like, say, more brujahs, toreador, nossies and > caitiff. We'll see it, once the full checklist is seen and we'll get a > chance to guess how many unlisted vamps will come with the precons. > > Hope more lesser sabbats will be seen, as are panders and !salubris. Really I'm interesting (amongst other things) in what's in the precons for Barons and Gangs... And what 'new' vampire's clans will be... perhaps thats where we'll see more Brujah, or Caitiff (which we've already passed on the checklist). ~SV

"Tom,Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<b869fo$fn6$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>... > "Eryx" <colind...@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:20030423094245...@mb-m07.aol.com... > > I'll be very dissapointed if there are only 2 Brujah in the set. This is > > supposed to be the Anarchs after all. > > > It seems that all of you aren't aware of a fact: There are 3 precon starters > (gangrel, anarchs and barons) and Beckett is supposed to be in a precon, as > it is not in the partial checklist we have seen by now. So , there is room > for more cam clans vamps like, say, more brujahs, toreador, nossies and > caitiff. We'll see it, once the full checklist is seen and we'll get a > chance to guess how many unlisted vamps will come with the precons. Actually, it says that there are only going to be two non-booster vamps in each precon. That means four extra non-Gangrel beyond what's on the checklist. I somehow doubt all four will be Brujah, but we can hope at least one of them is. > Hope more lesser sabbats will be seen, as are panders and !salubris. Agreed.

>Seems to be a sensible spread. Lord knows the !Gangrel could >certainly use a little help out of this expansion, but as far as 15 >Gangrel in the boosters, I'm skeptical. We already know that the 51 >number doesn't include the precons, so there will be probably be 15 >anyway including the two precon-only Gangrel (one of which is >Beckett). So maybe there could be a few extra !Gangrel. But that's >still a lot of unaccounted-for slots. I really do think it makes >sense to stick another clan in there, but who else, if not the >!Tremere? All the Group 1s are finished transitioning to Group 3 in >this expansion, so you can't really do another whole Cam clan, and >anyone else would be forced to move up to Group 4, because with one >exception (the !Tremere), the all have way too many Group 2s to allow >13 more Group 3s. They certainly won't do that to any of the >Independents yet, since they have no Group 3s at all. Any other >Sabbat clans wouldn't fit in the expansion, and all of them have >support from Sabbat War, which has been rereleased. The !Tremere are >sought after and rare, so printing new ones at some point makes sense, >particularly because they have shown they are continuing to print new >ones. Perhaps not now, but hopefully soon. Not entirely relevant as I don't see it pertaining to Anarchs, but there's still no Serpents of Light, !Assamites, and !Ravnos in the game. I can only hope (in vain) that a future set has precons for these four and !Tremere.

Curevei wrote: > Not entirely relevant as I don't see it pertaining to Anarchs, but there's > still no Serpents of Light, !Assamites, and !Ravnos in the game. Anka, a !Ravnos, was introduced in Final Nights. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tom,Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<b869fo$fn6$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>... [snipped] > We'll see it, once the full checklist is seen and we'll get a > chance to guess how many unlisted vamps will come with the precons. > From the Anarch Preview web page: Each preconstructed deck contains 2 new vampires that aren't found in the boosters. Hardy Range Prince of Bochum http://www.vekn.de

>Anka, a !Ravnos, was introduced in Final Nights. The CCG recognizes that the !Brujah, !Gangrel, !Malks, !Nos, !Toreador, and !Ventrue are clans. The CCG does not recognize that !Ravnos is a clan. Anka, within the CCG, is a Ravnos not a !Ravnos. While I can see problems with introducing the other antitribu at this stage as certain clan cards should probably apply to both of them, such as the Paths applying to both the clan and its antitribu, if the game was going to bother with the antitribu distinctions with the Cam clans, then it should bother with them with the independents as well. It wouldn't break the game to have many more vampires with similar discipline spreads any more than it currently breaks the game to have two sets of Brujah or two sets of Toreador. In fact, it would likely help the still underpowered Assamites.

Mayhaps some insight can be gleaned from the WW site: "Each preconstructed deck contains 2 new vampires that aren't found in the boosters." My guess is that the checklist is for the boosters only. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Preview_Anarchs.html dan in baltimore "Tom,Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<b869fo$fn6$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>... [ quoted text not captured ]

Curevei wrote: >>Anka, a !Ravnos, was introduced in Final Nights. > > Anka, within the CCG, is a Ravnos not a !Ravnos. Within the CCG, a !Ravnos is a Ravnos who belongs to the Sabbat (just like in the RPG), since there is no peculiar "CCG-only" meaning given to the term. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Anka, within the CCG, is a Ravnos not a !Ravnos. > >Within the CCG, a !Ravnos is a Ravnos who belongs to the Sabbat (just like >in the RPG), since there is no peculiar "CCG-only" meaning given to the term. Since Anka is a Ravnos within the CCG, then you end up with a situation where a !Ravnos is a Ravnos. Sounds insipid to me.

[ quoted text not captured ] In the RPG, a !Ravnos *is* a Ravnos (who sides with the Sabbat). They are sometimes just referred to as "The Ravnos of the Sabbat" or "Sabbat Ravnos". If you want to call it insipid, that's up to you. What would you call using two distinct clans to represent a single clan? [ quoted text not captured ]

> In the RPG, a !Ravnos *is* a Ravnos (who sides with the Sabbat). They are sometimes > just referred to as "The Ravnos of the Sabbat" or "Sabbat Ravnos". > > If you want to call it insipid, that's up to you. Come on. In the RPG, a !Nos *is* a Nos (who sides with the Sabbat). Plus, while we're at it, Durga Syn is called "Ravnos Antitribu of the Camarilla" in Children of the Inquisition. Does it make any sense at all ? ~Gor

Goratrux wrote: >>In the RPG, a !Ravnos *is* a Ravnos (who sides with the Sabbat). They are sometimes >>just referred to as "The Ravnos of the Sabbat" or "Sabbat Ravnos". >> >>If you want to call it insipid, that's up to you. > > Come on. In the RPG, a !Nos *is* a Nos (who sides with the Sabbat). True. I don't see what about that inspires a "Come on." directive, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Goratrux wrote: > >>In the RPG, a !Ravnos *is* a Ravnos (who sides with the Sabbat). They are sometimes > >>just referred to as "The Ravnos of the Sabbat" or "Sabbat Ravnos". > >> > >>If you want to call it insipid, that's up to you. > > > > Come on. In the RPG, a !Nos *is* a Nos (who sides with the Sabbat). > > True. I don't see what about that inspires a "Come on." directive, however. "Come on" was the result of a case of very mild exasperation. It seemed as if you were dismissing the (to me) obvious fact that the CCG treats antitribu as an entirely distinct clan, whereas the distinction is blurred in the RPG. Your answer to Curevei seemed (to me) to avoid his point, which was not "Do I have the right to qualify some rule as insipid?" but rather "How come Ravnos vs !Ravnos is treated differently from Brujah vs !Brujah in the CCG?" That said, if I hurt any feelings, accept my lowly apologies. ~Gor

>What would you call using two distinct clans to represent a single clan? The way the game has worked since Sabbat.

Curevei wrote: >>What would you call using two distinct clans to represent a single clan? > The way the game has worked since Sabbat. And not introducing new clans when existing clans suffice is the way the game has worked since Sabbat. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

>The CCG recognizes that the !Brujah, !Gangrel, !Malks, !Nos, !Toreador, and >!Ventrue are clans. The CCG does not recognize that !Ravnos is a clan. Damnit Ian! We're really offended you forgot about the almighty !Tremere... Halcyan 2

>Not entirely relevant as I don't see it pertaining to Anarchs, but there's >still no Serpents of Light, !Assamites, and !Ravnos in the game. > >I can only hope (in vain) that a future set has precons for these four and >!Tremere. Why? The !Gangrel, !Malkavians, !Nosferatu, Pander, and !Toreador don't have starters yet either... Halcyan 2

>Then again, the !Salubri Vamps are crappy and not enough to build a >!Salubri deck without some serious, and deck-cripling, tinkerin with >non-!Salubri Vamps into the crypt. Even one more with VAL/val would help >quite a bit.. It was nice to see some added interest into melee weapons >which simply can't be used if you want to build a good deck but with the >lack of Valerent vamps it goes to waste. The !Salubri suck and that's the way things are gonna be. Throwing them another vampire would be throwing another vampire slot down the drain. !Salubri are losers. Deal with it... =P Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030425020722...@mb-m10.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] They do suck at the moment, mainly because of a lack of access to Fortitude. All they would need though, is another vampire that was something like a 5-cap with FOR and VAL and they would be a hell of a lot stronger. Regards, Mike

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:17:46 +0100, "Mike Nudd" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote: > >"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20030425020722...@mb-m10.aol.com... >> >Then again, the !Salubri Vamps are crappy and not enough to build a >> >!Salubri deck without some serious, and deck-cripling, tinkerin with >> >non-!Salubri Vamps into the crypt. Even one more with VAL/val would help >> >quite a bit.. It was nice to see some added interest into melee weapons >> >which simply can't be used if you want to build a good deck but with the >> >lack of Valerent vamps it goes to waste. >> >> >>The !Salubri suck and that's the way things are gonna be. Throwing them >>another vampire would be throwing another vampire slot down the drain. >>!Salubri are losers. Disagree on that point. Having another Vampire would help reduce crypt redundency. That's almost always a good thing. >They do suck at the moment, mainly because of a lack of access to Fortitude. >All they would need though, is another vampire that was something like a >5-cap with FOR and VAL and they would be a hell of a lot stronger. Disagree that their primary problem is the lack of access to Fortitude. Out of the 5 Vampires available, only 2 have their in-clan discipline of Valeren at superior. Normally I'd say that Sanguine Inst. & Freak Drive would get it done, but with so much of their deck being geared towards Melee combat there's very little room available for extras. Perhaps if they weren't built as such a one-trick pony via their discipline cards or Blessing of the Name. Would be nice if they were a bit more versatile. The design team could use my idea of printing a Ranged Melee Weapon (tm). >Regards, > >Mike Ditto, BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

> >>The !Salubri suck and that's the way things are gonna be. Throwing them > >>another vampire would be throwing another vampire slot down the drain. > >>!Salubri are losers. > > Disagree on that point. Having another Vampire would help reduce crypt > redundency. That's almost always a good thing. > > >They do suck at the moment, mainly because of a lack of access to Fortitude. > >All they would need though, is another vampire that was something like a > >5-cap with FOR and VAL and they would be a hell of a lot stronger. > > Disagree that their primary problem is the lack of access to Fortitude. > Out of the 5 Vampires available, only 2 have their in-clan discipline of > Valeren at superior. Normally I'd say that Sanguine Inst. & Freak Drive > would get it done, but with so much of their deck being geared towards > Melee combat there's very little room available for extras. > Well, not that far. One guy in Barcelona has build several !salubri decks, even reaching final rounds in 25 players with them. He has tried several combinations, but all of them had the same "build your own vamps" module (6 sanguine instructions, 3 fortitude skill cards), backing the crypt with Mathias/Tariq/Omaya for some spread, depending on the specialization. He had built a straight Intercept-Permanent combat, multi rush and a force of will bleeders, thanks to a really great card called sense vitality. Even at outferior was good for vamps that deplet themeselves so easily. All of them are mainly permanent decks, and combat cards were reduced to a few valeren cards (2-4 sword of samiel and the other one that aggravates melee weapons), several fortitude cards and telepathic trackings. But in all of theme, he has proven that a good use of 8-10 blessing of the name as a multi-freak drive can give you games.

> Perhaps if they weren't built as such a one-trick pony via their > discipline cards or Blessing of the Name. > Would be nice if they were a bit more versatile. The design team could > use my idea of printing a Ranged Melee Weapon (tm). Bernie, Just to burst your bubble. I thought up a ranged melee weapon back in July of 2002. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lance+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+ group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.ga mes.trading-cards.jyhad&selm=p72X8.76992%24wj4.6973945%40e3500-atl2.usenetse rver.com&rnum=14 Portion reprinted for your benifit. Lance Melee Weapon Cost 1 pool Does strength damage at range and acts like a Wooden Stake or Halberd Cost 2 pool Does strength +1 damage at range I love your ideas though. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> The design team could > use my idea of printing a Ranged Melee Weapon (tm). > > BernieTime > Lansing, Michigan Like what, a "Twenty-Foot Pike"? The whole point of ranged combat is 'beyond the reach of fists+melee weapons.' (And I don't just mean for the CCG, the same thematically holds true. Thematically, you're never, ever, ever going to find a weapon that counts as a 'melee weapon' that can't be outranged by guns. Much less thrown sewer lids. :) ) Heck, a melee is often defined as 'hand-to-hand' as it is. Also, if memory serves there's nothing in the RPG that indicates that Valeran is every useful on any ranged weapon - it's all about the more immediate, visceral, vengeful feel of smiting your hated foes up close and personal, not sniping them with bows and arrows from afar. Okay, a little more seriously: Out of curiousity, what benefit to game balance/play do you think would be gained by having a CCG Melee Weapon usable at range? -John

>Okay, a little more seriously: Out of curiousity, what benefit to game >balance/play do you think would be gained by having a CCG Melee Weapon >usable at range? That melee weapon combat is horrid losing to too many things to list. At least, a ranged melee weapon or mechanic for MWing at long range would beat "I maneuver" which should make it viable combat. But, I'm with you on the thematic problems of long range MW combat.

On 25 Apr 2003 12:26:41 -0700, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote: >> The design team could >> use my idea of printing a Ranged Melee Weapon (tm). >> >> BernieTime >> Lansing, Michigan > >Like what, a "Twenty-Foot Pike"? The whole point of ranged combat is >'beyond the reach of fists+melee weapons.' (And I don't just mean for >the CCG, the same thematically holds true. Thematically, you're never, >ever, ever going to find a weapon that counts as a 'melee weapon' that >can't be outranged by guns. Much less thrown sewer lids. :) ) Heck, a >melee is often defined as 'hand-to-hand' as it is. If Smudge can beat you up with his mystical drum, then why should a Ranged Melee Weapon be anti-thematic to VTES? Take a look at Japanese/Chinese weaponry, there are a number of Melee Weapons that work at range beyond the ol' european Pike/Halbard. >Also, if memory serves there's nothing in the RPG that indicates that >Valeran is every useful on any ranged weapon - it's all about the more >immediate, visceral, vengeful feel of smiting your hated foes up close >and personal, not sniping them with bows and arrows from afar. I get just as much satisfaction from beating someone over the head with a quarterstaff or a mace. As long as my target goes down and stays down (Yeah, I grew up in Detroit). >Okay, a little more seriously: Out of curiousity, what benefit to game >balance/play do you think would be gained by having a CCG Melee Weapon >usable at range? A Long Range Melee Weapon [LRMW] effects !-Salubri combat by: 1. Eliminates the need to stuff tons of Maneuvers in a deck, important as the !-Sal don't have any room for "fat" in their combat decks. There would need to be some solid playtesting to check and see if such a device would be balanced for play, but I don't think it would be a problem. 2. Close range grapple still nullifies the weapons advantage 3. Combat Ends still trumps !-Sal combat 4. A generic LRMW would be an okay card in sealed or constructed for any Vampire's use. Obviously best when held by !-Sal or +1 strength type dudes. 5. I like smacking people in the head that maneuver to long, that do nothing but stand there and wave. >-John

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote: >> Perhaps if they weren't built as such a one-trick pony via their >> discipline cards or Blessing of the Name. >> Would be nice if they were a bit more versatile. The design team could >> use my idea of printing a Ranged Melee Weapon (tm). > >Bernie, >Just to burst your bubble. I thought up a ranged melee weapon back in July >of 2002. No bubbles bursted here Norm, great minds think alike hahaha.. :-) The earliest incarnation of the RMW from me was in Nov 2002, so ya still have me beat by a couple o' months :-P I don't claim that any of my custom designs are mind boggling new, but I design my cards without looking to see what others have come up with. So I do claim that my customs are my ideas, not having derived from outside input. There are certain to be other customs out there which are similar is design. >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lance+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+ >group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.ga >mes.trading-cards.jyhad&selm=p72X8.76992%24wj4.6973945%40e3500-atl2.usenetse >rver.com&rnum=14 > >Portion reprinted for your benifit. > >Lance > >Melee Weapon >Cost 1 pool > >Does strength damage at range and acts like a Wooden Stake > >or > >Halberd > >Cost 2 pool > >Does strength +1 damage at range > > >I love your ideas though. Thanks man, I do fully intend to stop on down south one of these days for one of those steaks & creole cookin' you promised me. >Norman S. Brown, Jr. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

> Thanks man, I do fully intend to stop on down south one of these days > for one of those steaks & creole cookin' you promised me. You got the easiest trip of anyone. All you need is a boat. The Mississippi River awaits. [ quoted text not captured ]

Teemu T Vilen <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<b85onn$pt9$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>... > Ashenbach <Ashe...@iespana.es> wrote: > : I think that it will be impossible that Ahrimanes return to the VTES > : since in the RPG all of her are dead (They all sacrifice for an unknow > : cause). The !Tremere is also impossible for the same reason (Tremere > : himself destroy all of the Antitribu, and now is in the body of his > : former apprentice Goratrix) > > Ahrimanes and !Tremeres seem highly unlikely.. They also already have a > quite nice set of Vampires so besides the rpg perspective they don't > even need new Vamps. > It is highly likely that we will get !Tremere. Fred Hooper's site lists one of the new vamps as "Saiz" and in the Guide to the Sabbat Saiz is a !Tremere. Chris.

> Like what, a "Twenty-Foot Pike"? The whole point of ranged combat is > 'beyond the reach of fists+melee weapons.' (And I don't just mean for > the CCG, the same thematically holds true. Thematically, you're never, > ever, ever going to find a weapon that counts as a 'melee weapon' that > can't be outranged by guns. Much less thrown sewer lids. :) ) Heck, a > melee is often defined as 'hand-to-hand' as it is. <snipped> > Okay, a little more seriously: Out of curiousity, what benefit to game > balance/play do you think would be gained by having a CCG Melee Weapon > usable at range? Well, it shouldn't be that way, as others had said, ranged combat is beyond mw reach. But a Melee weapon with an In-built maneuver should prove really helpfull to this guys. Something like: Whip 1 pool Strenght damage, with an optional maneuver, only usable to move to close range. If it strikes opponent, opposing minion cannot press to end combat or maneuver to long range the next combat turn. Adding things like blessing of the name and vengeance of samiel, this would prove something to keep in mind. > > -John Smiling Tom, The Anarch

> > > >Like what, a "Twenty-Foot Pike"? The whole point of ranged combat is > >'beyond the reach of fists+melee weapons.' (And I don't just mean for > >the CCG, the same thematically holds true. Thematically, you're never, > >ever, ever going to find a weapon that counts as a 'melee weapon' that > >can't be outranged by guns. Much less thrown sewer lids. :) ) Heck, a > >melee is often defined as 'hand-to-hand' as it is. > > If Smudge can beat you up with his mystical drum, then why should a > Ranged Melee Weapon be anti-thematic to VTES? > Take a look at Japanese/Chinese weaponry, there are a number of Melee > Weapons that work at range beyond the ol' european Pike/Halbard. Good point. If there were a ranged melee weapon that were magical and unique, that might work. Or instead the Sal! could have a card like the Arahmines "Wildebeast" that would grant the ability to use melee weapons at range. But to say that a pike weapon would be useable at range doesn't really fit. Pikes and spears do have range on something like a sword or brass knuckles, but no one with a bow or a .44 is going to someone with that weapon walk right up to range and strike. The person with the missile weapon is going to shoot before they enter range (which is why guns get that maneuver). Unless the pikeman counters with their own maneuver, or sneaks up on them ("bum's rush" which gives them a maneuver), the pikeman is hopelessly outranged. > > >Also, if memory serves there's nothing in the RPG that indicates that > >Valeran is every useful on any ranged weapon - it's all about the more > >immediate, visceral, vengeful feel of smiting your hated foes up close > >and personal, not sniping them with bows and arrows from afar. > > I get just as much satisfaction from beating someone over the head with > a quarterstaff or a mace. As long as my target goes down and stays down > > (Yeah, I grew up in Detroit). > A quarterstaff is what... 7 feet long? To me a quaterstaff and a mace are close range weapons. > >Okay, a little more seriously: Out of curiousity, what benefit to game > >balance/play do you think would be gained by having a CCG Melee Weapon > >usable at range? > > A Long Range Melee Weapon [LRMW] effects !-Salubri combat by: > > 1. Eliminates the need to stuff tons of Maneuvers in a deck, important > as the !-Sal don't have any room for "fat" in their combat decks. > There would need to be some solid playtesting to check and see if such a > device would be balanced for play, but I don't think it would be a > problem. > 2. Close range grapple still nullifies the weapons advantage > 3. Combat Ends still trumps !-Sal combat > 4. A generic LRMW would be an okay card in sealed or constructed for any > Vampire's use. Obviously best when held by !-Sal or +1 strength type > dudes. > 5. I like smacking people in the head that maneuver to long, that do > nothing but stand there and wave. My suggestion would be either make it magical and unique, or make it a !Sal power. Cecil

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:10:53 +0200, "Tom,Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote: >> Like what, a "Twenty-Foot Pike"? The whole point of ranged combat is >> 'beyond the reach of fists+melee weapons.' (And I don't just mean for >> the CCG, the same thematically holds true. Thematically, you're never, >> ever, ever going to find a weapon that counts as a 'melee weapon' that >> can't be outranged by guns. Much less thrown sewer lids. :) ) Heck, a >> melee is often defined as 'hand-to-hand' as it is. ><snipped> >> Okay, a little more seriously: Out of curiousity, what benefit to game >> balance/play do you think would be gained by having a CCG Melee Weapon >> usable at range? > >Well, it shouldn't be that way, as others had said, ranged combat is beyond >mw reach. > >But a Melee weapon with an In-built maneuver should prove really helpfull to >this guys. > >Something like: >Whip >1 pool >Strenght damage, with an optional maneuver, only usable to move to close >range. If it strikes opponent, opposing minion cannot press to end combat or >maneuver to long range the next combat turn. Explain to me how a Whip strikes for Strength damage? >Adding things like blessing of the name and vengeance of samiel, this would >prove something to keep in mind. >> >> -John > >Smiling Tom, The Anarch > > BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

> >Something like: > >Whip > >1 pool > >Strenght damage, with an optional maneuver, only usable to move to close > >range. If it strikes opponent, opposing minion cannot press to end combat or > >maneuver to long range the next combat turn. > > Explain to me how a Whip strikes for Strength damage? Dooooh!!! That's right, my fault. Then, here it comes this rewording: strike: 1 damage [ quoted text not captured ]