Is it Time to Retire Top Cards

All this talk about Voter Captivation, and when cards should and should not get changed, has reminded me of something I've been noodling about for while. Very often when I'm thinking about building decks that include new cards I find myself abandoning them in favor the old standbys. Grooming the Protege? Eh, Blood Doll is probably better. Auto-da-fe? Better to stick with KRC. The same few cards have been dominating game spaces like combat, pool gain, and politics since the game arrived. This is typical of CCGs - the first batch contains cards that end up on the very high end of the power curve. Other long-lasting games have dealt with this via banning and/or set rotation. I'm not advocating for that. I would suggest that the old-standbys are constricting design choices on two levels. Cards shouldn't be introduced that are better than the old power cards, and there's not much point in designing cards that are worse. Similarly, for players, you can jump though hoops to try to gain advantage by doing something new. Or you can play the same cards we've been playing for 12 years - because they are still the best there is for doing what they do. Is it time to kill our darlings? Can we take the top cards, the moldy oldies, thank them for years of faithful service, extend our gratitude for the multitude of VPs, and offer then a long overdue retirement? Banned or nerfed, that's a supplemental debate, I would like to offer up the following old friends for "the block" - not because they are broken, or dominate the meta-game (they aren't and don't) - but because it's time for somebody new. Kine Resources Contested Conservative Agitation Consanguineous Boon Blood Doll Torn Signpost Carrion Crows .44 Magnum Direct Intervention Voter Captivation Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would be good for the game? -Ben Swainbank

> Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? I don´t.

You have a point, although I am not sure how this could be done in a good way. Anyway, add Govern the Unaligned and Deflection to the list.

In article <1171490923.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation > Consanguineous Boon > Blood Doll > Torn Signpost > Carrion Crows > .44 Magnum > Direct Intervention > Voter Captivation I'd probably throw Govern and Conditioning into the fire as well. Of those you mention, as much as I see where you are coming from, I'd likely still leave Blood Doll alone. Like, all the other cards above have a way to make a version that is the same, yet slightly less effective (KRC costs a blood, Con Boon gives you less pool, Torn Signpost costs a blood, whatever). Blood Doll, however, not so much--it is such a fundamental and important card, and there isn't really a way to make a new version that is less effective, yet still useful. Like, I'm not seeing that is idea is going anywhere. But I like it as a concept :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Ben Swainbank napsal: [ quoted text not captured ] I know what you mean. but: the idea of a good old player-friendly non-Magic game is exactly that, you can come back to the game after 10 years of retirement and still be competitive with your old cards. that is the thing which differs VTES from all other CCGs, IMO. (in Magic, my super hot 1995 green-red Kird Ape/Ernham Djinn/Elvish Archer/Stormbind/Berserk etc. would be considered a joke today) together with these cards, you are throwing to the trashcan all the player veterans, who simply dont want to chase every new expansion. the older-the-stronger is still better than the opposite situation (called also the dreaded power curve).

On Feb 14, 11:08 pm, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > All this talk about Voter Captivation, and when cards should and > should not get changed, has reminded me of something I've been > noodling about for while. Very often when I'm thinking about building > decks that include new cards I find myself abandoning them in favor > the old standbys. Grooming the Protege? Eh, Blood Doll is probably > better. Grooming the Protégé is better than Blood doll to speed up your deck. > The same few cards have been dominating game spaces like combat, pool > gain, and politics since the game arrived. This is typical of CCGs - > the first batch contains cards that end up on the very high end of the > power curve. Other long-lasting games have dealt with this via banning > and/or set rotation. I'm not advocating for that. > > I would suggest that the old-standbys are constricting design choices > on two levels. Cards shouldn't be introduced that are better than the > old power cards, and there's not much point in designing cards that > are worse. Similarly, for players, you can jump though hoops to try to > gain advantage by doing something new. Or you can play the same cards > we've been playing for 12 years - because they are still the best > there is for doing what they do. The fact that there are cards that have been dominating game spaces does not imply it is a bad thing for the game. We will always have that "problem" (I do not think it is a problem) as long as more VTES expansions are released. These new and welcome expansions are and will be providing cards that do other things or similar things that many players will use as well. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm all in favor of a retirement party for certain cards, but only "problem" cards, not cards which are useful and perhaps slightly powerful. I wouldn't ban any of the cards on your list, though Carrion Crows and Direct Intervention are probably the two worst offenders IMO. I'd be happy if Carrion Crows cost 1 blood because it's environmental damage and not strike dependent. While there has been discussion about Voter Cap lately, I still think it is harder now for vote decks than ever before. There are so many titles scattered about, especially in Third Edition, that you have to push very hard to get anything through with 4 opponents (or negotiate exceedingly well). Dominate (of course) is the biggest problem in the game. Still. After 13 years. Even after Deflection was reduced in power recently after that old ruling was dredged up. I think the jury is still out whether this makes Dominate less powerful (bounce not as good) or about on par (still the best bleeders). Govern and Conditioning could go and the game would not be any worse for the wear. It'd just be slightly harder for Dominate clans to win, but they'd still do well. FYI, 38 of the 91 (41.8%) winners in the latest storyline had Dominate in-clan. I'd venture several of the other winning decks also featured Dominate- graft of some sort. Jeff

> > I would suggest that the old-standbys are constricting design choices > > on two levels. Cards shouldn't be introduced that are better than the > > old power cards, and there's not much point in designing cards that > > are worse. Similarly, for players, you can jump though hoops to try to > > gain advantage by doing something new. Or you can play the same cards > > we've been playing for 12 years - because they are still the best > > there is for doing what they do. The greatest asset this game has, imo, is the fact that 12 year old cards are still competitive in the current meta. Credit has to be given to the design crew in regards to the care they've taken in that respect. In every other CCG I've played, rotation is almost always the straw that breaks the camel's back. I don't believe those old cards are restricting design. I believe the devs are more than capable of taking the game in new and interesting directions, and they've demonstrated that there's still plenty of fertile territory within the WoD paradigm. However, I believe LSJ and co are, probably for the very reasons stated above, too conservative in introducing new concepts for fear of blowing the power curve, with the result that these new concepts/strats are simply dismissed out of hand by the majority of the player base, and they just go back to the trusty ol' SB/ConsAgg merry-go-round. Best example of this, to my mind, is KMW, and the concepts of Red List and Trophies. Very cool idea, had the potential to give combat a big boost, but due to the added complication of including a red list/ trophy module in already crowded and card thirsty combat decks for what is to my mind [and many others, apparenly] far, far too little return from the Trophies [a Hunting ground - wow....] the whole concept seemed to fall quite flat. The new ideas and concepts are already there. The last few years have given us Red List/Gehenna/Hunters/Anarchs. I think the design team have already demonstrated they're capable of thinking of the ideas, they just need to be a little braver in their implementation, imo.

In message <1171490923.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ben Swainbank <bswai...@hotmail.com> writes: >Kine Resources Contested >Conservative Agitation >Consanguineous Boon >Blood Doll >Torn Signpost >Carrion Crows >.44 Magnum >Direct Intervention >Voter Captivation > >Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would >be good for the game? Purely on the point of the cards you've chosen, I'm in two minds between Torn Signpost and Immortal Grapple. I'm not sure which is more of a top card here. Or, at least, which card being lost would shuffle decks along a bit more. Hmmm. Regarding practical applications, I think you'd have more than a little trouble introducing it to the game. However, what you might have more luck with is trying out the occasional Build-Your-Own-Storyline with some radical Banned lists. Work the Banned list around a story, and see if you can get WW interested to do something fun with your work afterwards. A small Build-Your-Own-Storyline every few months where players can add new cards to the banned list for the next format, say. Set it during the collapse of the world/the coming of Gehenna? If White Wolf wanted to try something like this, they could - of course - try out their own Storyline where such cards were restricted/banned/pe nalized/affected by some global card/whatever. Perhaps a bunch of cards that get put in play at the start of each game, which radically alter certain cards but which have a (tough) burn condition, or something. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1171490923.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > I find myself abandoning [new newer cards] in favor the old standbys. That's because you're a good deckbuilder and you use the best available options. There are a few exceptions of course. But the new options are generally spice, not meat and potatoes. In the past, what had profound impact on our deckbuilding? For me, it was Bloodlines. Lots of new options to explore, with lots of shiny new discipline-based toys to sprinkle in with all the staple cards. A competitive deck or two even came out of that set (Ahrimane wall, Turbo Baron, Kiasyd-Lasomba combo). Since then.....Anarchs.....Black Hand......Abombwe. Each of which have limited playability compared to the older, tried and true archetypes and certainly lack the depth that 13 years of published card options provide. Imbued are both viable and interesting - but it's one deck archetype in my mind. So, we're stuck a little bit. Some of the new crypt options are great- but they still benefit from using the old staple cards. > I would suggest that the old-standbys are constricting design choices > on two levels. Cards shouldn't be introduced that are better than the > old power cards, and there's not much point in designing cards that > are worse. This is where I wonder about the current conservative approach to card design. It may be good for the game.....preventing the power escalation other games have seen.....but it sure makes it tough to get excited about new cards and new sets. When I open new sets, I don't even look at the library cards until I've parsed all the new crypt cards - that's where the potential usually lies. > Is it time to kill our darlings? I don't think so. I think it's time to develop cards that have a similar effect in the game, knowing that we might indeed overstep with a new card. I understand not wanting to make the PtO/RtI type mistakes, but we might be able to a take risk for two. > I would like to offer up the following old friends for "the block" > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation > Consanguineous Boon > Blood Doll > Torn Signpost > Carrion Crows > .44 Magnum > Direct Intervention > Voter Captivation Since you asked..... Minion Tap Govern the Unaligned Conditioning Deflection (mostly because of the don't tap clause) Freak Drive Taste of Vitae Forgotten Labyrinth Parity Shift Kindred Spirits Temptation (self-tempting) Cheers! D.

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171495752.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > FYI, 38 of the 91 > (41.8%) winners in the latest storyline had Dominate in-clan. I'd > venture several of the other winning decks also featured Dominate- > graft of some sort. > FWIW, my !Gangrel deck featured the Soldat-Sebastian Goulet-Phillippe Rigaud axis, plus skill cards for Doyle, so yeah, Dominate seems to, well, dominate. As far as Ben's modest proposal, I would completely disagree with the suggestion of banning any cards en masse. For me, the biggest single attractor for this game, after the multi-player aspect, is the fact that you don't have to keep track of a slew of banned cards. Another big plus is that a new player can buy a collection on eBay, or snag a box of Jyhad boosters, and be up and running quickly and cheaply. I would hate for my hypothetical noob to find his Governs and .44's and Deflections to be worthless. I think it was Duffin who first made the suggestion (in the dreaded Voter Capitivation thread) that sweeping changes would best be made in a new game (possibly something based on V:tR, perhaps?), and I think he's right on target (as usual). - Pat

> > I would like to offer up the following old friends for "the block" > > Kine Resources Contested > > Conservative Agitation > > Consanguineous Boon > > Blood Doll > > Torn Signpost > > Carrion Crows > > .44 Magnum > > Direct Intervention > > Voter Captivation > > Since you asked..... > > Minion Tap > Govern the Unaligned > Conditioning > Deflection (mostly because of the don't tap clause) > Freak Drive > Taste of Vitae > Forgotten Labyrinth > Parity Shift > Kindred Spirits > Temptation (self-tempting) Hell why where at it why not simply say any cards from previous editions are now nerfed and rotate sets on a yearly basis. Anything before Third Edition is now illegal for tournament play and then rotate everything out the following year. Let's go call the game "V: The Eternal Gathering". I play L5R.....set rotation is gay, it forces me to spend more money on a game I play for enjoyment. With a new rotation coming in July for L5R the entire playerbase in my area is seriously debating on sinking more money into this new set. The previous set rotation for L5R saw the player base drop by a staggering 50%. Is Vampire that broken, that cards need to be rotated out? YGO uses stable cards in every deck, lets have a huge ban list as well (sighs). If you start rotating sets out for Vampire then the VTES players in the local area will quickly dissapper. One of VTES most pleasing options is that you can still play with "Ye Ancient" cards and still have a competitive deck. Fight the Rotation monster!!!!!!!! Fight the Rotation monster!!!!!!! VTES most pleasing "Asset" is that it has NO BANNED CARDS and NO SET ROTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Through this is merely my opinion :o)

> VTES most pleasing "Asset" is that it has NO BANNED CARDS and NO SET > ROTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not true. I had only just traded for a couple extra copies of Succubus Club to use in my Theo/Beast Mercenary deck and then bam! It's banned. I almost cried that day. :( --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Goddam. My rant is foiled before it even begins. Okay NEARLY NO BANNED CARDS!!!!!! ;-)

Jeff Kuta wrote: FYI, 38 of the 91 > (41.8%) winners in the latest storyline had Dominate in-clan. I'd > venture several of the other winning decks also featured Dominate- > graft of some sort. > The Assamite win in LA was a Dominate Assamite deck. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Feb 15, 9:08 am, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > All this talk about Voter Captivation, and when cards should and > should not get changed, has reminded me of something I've been > noodling about for while. Very often when I'm thinking about building > decks that include new cards I find myself abandoning them in favor > the old standbys. Yep, especially with vote decks. KRC is too good. > > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation > Consanguineous Boon > Blood Doll > Torn Signpost > Carrion Crows > .44 Magnum > Direct Intervention > Voter Captivation > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? > My list: Kine Resources Contested - Maybe split 3 pool between 2 meths Conservative Agitation - Use (number of Meths - 1) Consanguineous Boon - Same text but set max pool gain to 4 Direct Intervention - Ban Voter Captivation - Lots of talk about this one already Praxis/Crusade - Vamp must be above 4 cap Govern/Conditioning - Ban Golconda - One per game Chris.

> Dominate (of course) is the biggest problem in the game. Still. After > 13 years. Even after Deflection was reduced in power recently after > that old ruling was dredged up. I think the jury is still out whether > this makes Dominate less powerful (bounce not as good) or about on par > (still the best bleeders). Govern and Conditioning could go and the > game would not be any worse for the wear. It'd just be slightly harder > for Dominate clans to win, but they'd still do well. FYI, 38 of the 91 > (41.8%) winners in the latest storyline had Dominate in-clan. I'd > venture several of the other winning decks also featured Dominate- > graft of some sort. I think the main problem with dominate is that it is readily available to vamps who can generate decent - copious amounts of stealth or block denial (I mean dominate itself can generate both to some extent). It also has the best rush hoser in the game in Obedience. It is one of the worst aspects of the game IMO, that it is seen for decks to do well, they need to pack some kind of bleed redirection which comes back to 2 disciplines in a game with 28. But without bleed redirection, stealth bleed becomes too powerful. Unfortunately, there is little that can really be done to remedy this problem as far as I can see, without a complete rewrite of the rules and the cards, and that is obviously just not possible. So Dominate, in all its glory stays. I try to build decks that don' t use bleed redirection so much, and have been generally fairly successful in doing so by using a mixture of rush, intercept, bloat or just try to be quicker than my predator. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But a lot of my decks (I have 28 now), don't pack redirection. Some of them have done well in tournies. Hmmm, I'm waffling.... I do that sometimes. Down with dominate - up with Potence! :D [ quoted text not captured ]

> Kine Resources Contested - Maybe split 3 pool between 2 meths > Conservative Agitation - Use (number of Meths - 1) > Consanguineous Boon - Same text but set max pool gain to 4 > Direct Intervention - Ban > Voter Captivation - Lots of talk about this one already > Praxis/Crusade - Vamp must be above 4 cap > Govern/Conditioning - Ban > Golconda - One per game I don't agree with banning DI. DI is a great leveller. If you're going to ban DI, you need to look at the ramifications, and what kind of cards DI can protect you from. Maybe limit DI to once per Methusela per game, but I wouldn't outright ban it. One of the things that I'd like to see, is not the banning of cards, but how cross table shennanigans work. I hate being voted out across table, and not having any ability to block the action. That is the single biggest annoyance when the ubiquitous weenie vote deck hits the table. I'd like to see the block rule changed for votes. Terms for the referendum must be set when the votes is being called (before blocks are called for). Anyone who is targeted by the vote can then block it in addition (or instead - it really doesn't matter) to the normal blockers. It sucks that you can get PTO'd across table. It sucks that you can be ousted across table. With no ability to stop it (unless you're packing AUS, SPI, Enzo Giovanni, or vote cancel cards). But just how many vote cancel cards can you play and still have a viable deck? When does enough become enough? If I play 4 Delaying Tactics and a DI, then what happens when Bob across table has 3 PTO's and 3 Banishments and really wants to axe me? I've got to be untapped to play DT, and I can only play 1 DI in a turn, and it costs a pool. Hmmm, waffling again - turning into a mini-rant. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] sweet idea! can i christen it 'The Cripples League'? :D i'd totally be down for a few games where i see cards people had to dust off to play.

Another voice here rallying against set rotation and dropping of old cards. It is an impressive achievement that after 12 years not only is every set still legal for play, but that all the critical cards are kept in print and available to new players. Regarding the power level, I really dont think that the original Jyhad cards were overpowered. Jyhad was the single best and most balanced set to ever come out for the game. It is the benchmark on which all else has been done, and rightly so. Sets like Bloodlines and Final Nights were fantastic because they added very playable clans (or corrected the problem with old clans) in very very elegant ways that didnt in any way change how the game was played. Less competitive sets like Anarchs or KMW are still waiting for some expansions to do to them what Final Nights did to Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts. Removing those original cards or sets to make the more recent additions balanced would be a mistake. The solution is to bring forward better balance with ffuture expansions. What you can do however, is identify individual cards released since Jyhad that have dramatically affected how games are played. I think Carrion Crows was one definite such card. I remember first seeing that card and shaking my head in disapproval. If the effects only lasted for the round instead of the whole combat it would have been more balanced, but as it was it was essentially free environmental damage the equivalent of 2 murder of crows on your vamp, only without the blood cost or the time to recruit factor. Immediately you saw weenie decks with aid from bats and Carrion Crows popping up, and recent cards like Pack Alpha have only barely begun to reverse some of the effects that single card had on how the game is played. The most recent addition to dramatically change the game was Mirror Walk IMO. There is a card that simply should not have been printed (the superior version at least). Way to change the Tremere from a clan that required serious thought and discipline in deck building into mindless and fearless forward bleeders. Whereas cards like Telepathic Tracking and Wind Dance were exactly the kind of thing the clan needed, Mirror Walk was just overkill. It really should have been a little less powerful (more along the lines of Stealth Ritus). It is these crucial cards that appear here and there that should be seriously evaluated. My main concern with the game has been that slowly disciplines are beginning to resemble each other more and more. Intercept for celerity? Stealth for thaumaturgy? Discipliness intercept and stealth? Abbot??? More and more decks begin to resemble each other. The day we see discipliness bleed redirection cards is the day the game will finally jump the shark (like a Gangrel who can redirect bleeds, who would have thought that would ever happen 5 years ago?).

[ quoted text not captured ] In no way shape or form do I agree with what you are saying. Retiring cards from general play is a very bad idea. If you dont want to see them in tourney play thats a little different. If you find you cannot compete with decks that play blood dolls then grab more sudden reversals, cant handle KRC, play more vote defense. Adapt rather than complain. Do not try to change the game to suit you. Just my humble opinion of course.

d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > I play L5R.....set rotation is gay, Perhaps in L5R they tolerate bigotry? We don't here. Please stop. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

[ quoted text not captured ] I would look at my play style if I were you. Why does it become an issue with you and your cross table ally. Only reason your ally would have to vote you out is either, you are too powerful and he fears you, or you are being an A hole, excuse my language. I guess maybe he is an A hole and cross tables you just cause he does not like you.

> The new ideas and concepts are already there. The last few years have > given us Red List/Gehenna/Hunters/Anarchs. I think the design team > have already demonstrated they're capable of thinking of the ideas, > they just need to be a little braver in their implementation, imo. They've made that 'braver' step yet. It's called Nights of Reckoning. And see what happened. No wonder the (perceived) 'excess caution' for anarch and red list mechanics. Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo

The fact that one doesn't need to bother with absurd banned, restricted and whatever else lists is one of the reasons I play this game. I quit magic for many reasons, the important ones were the need to chase down new sets and cards to be able to play at all, the fact I can't play at all with the cards I would like to, etc. You want to be creative and use new cards? Do so! It doesn't seem to me that there are no decks in the TWDA that don't use new cards. Instead of closing other people's options, try to be a bit open-minded yourself. I say that this game is unique and great for -among others- this aspect - being able to play with all the cards you have (barring the few that just needed the banning, and they are ante and speak in rhymes cards...). I say I would be disappointed and saddened if some rotation of sorts took place. There are just none, zero cards that need to go. Some cards are at the top of the power curve, but that is going to be the case no matter what you do. I don't want any watered down KRCs, VoterCaps or Deflections. If I am to play a game which designers would be too lazy to create new, interesting things and instead just screw the old stuff over (which is not the case yet, mind you), I might as well go back to magic. There it is the standard approach of solving things, but then again, that's why I play V:tES - it's different than all the other games I have played to this day, and I want it to be left the way it is and evolve instead of artificial "enhancements".

I personally think this is a horrible idea. I myself use new cards all the time. It is the ability to have the freedom to build what ever I want is one of the reasons I love this game soo much. Vtes isn't other CCGs where getting money from the players is our only concern it is about style and about class. Crazie Cory Seattle, WA

> I would look at my play style if I were you. Why does it become an > issue with you and your cross table ally. Only reason your ally would > have to vote you out is either, you are too powerful and he fears you, > or you are being an A hole, excuse my language. I guess maybe he is an > A hole and cross tables you just cause he does not like you.- Hide quoted text - Play style is irrelevant. It is the fact that it can be done without recourse (effectively). That is a blight on the ruleset which otherwise is very good. If you are the target of something, you should have the capacity to defend against it. It occurs with all other minion aspects of the game - bleed, rush, assorted (d) actions. But when a vote is called, the mere fact that the rules allow you to be ousted across table without the ability to defend yourself is rather poor. If you are powerful, you can be rushed across table - but I can block rushes with expendable minions, play reaction cards such as Obedience etc. If you are powerful, then the table can conspire to flick bleeds at you, but you can block them, or flick them yourself. It's not a matter of power, it's a matter of votes not working in a way that allow a legitimate defence. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Of those you mention, as much as I see where you are coming from, I'd > likely still leave Blood Doll alone. Like, all the other cards above > have a way to make a version that is the same, yet slightly less > effective (KRC costs a blood, Con Boon gives you less pool, Torn > Signpost costs a blood, whatever). Blood Doll, however, not so much--it > is such a fundamental and important card, and there isn't really a way > to make a new version that is less effective, yet still useful. Eh? Pool cost is the normal suggestion tossed up for reigning in Blood Doll.

> Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? At worst you would kill the game, and at best, you would split the player base into the "VEKN" and the "Rebels" Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp The National Jyhad League is rising. I see its shadow and hear its footsteps.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think that another possible solution is being missed here: why doesn't White Wolf just print some new cards on par with the older cards? Why does the power curve have to exist? Why can't other disciplines get bleed bounce for example? The game designers are the ones keeping the old cards on top of the pile, so they must want it that way. I don't want to see too many nerfs because I have enough time out tables as it is. I really think that newer cards need to be more potent across the board.

On 15 feb, 00:59, "Pat" <patrick.l...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: > I think it was Duffin who first made the suggestion (in the dreaded Voter > Capitivation thread) that sweeping changes would best be made in a new game > (possibly something based on V:tR, perhaps?), and I think he's right on > target (as usual). > As much as I don't want to say this: It would be for the best, actually. A lot of players over here are getting tired of the game. :(

On 15 feb, 07:54, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > On Feb 15, 9:08 am, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > All this talk about Voter Captivation, and when cards should and > > should not get changed, has reminded me of something I've been > > noodling about for while. Very often when I'm thinking about building > > decks that include new cards I find myself abandoning them in favor > > the old standbys. > > Yep, especially with vote decks. KRC is too good. > > > > > Kine Resources Contested > > Conservative Agitation > > Consanguineous Boon > > Blood Doll > > Torn Signpost > > Carrion Crows > > .44 Magnum > > Direct Intervention > > Voter Captivation > > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > > be good for the game? > > My list: > > Kine Resources Contested - Maybe split 3 pool between 2 meths > Conservative Agitation - Use (number of Meths - 1) parity shift? > Consanguineous Boon - Same text but set max pool gain to 4 > Direct Intervention - Ban Yes :-) > Voter Captivation - Lots of talk about this one already > Praxis/Crusade - Vamp must be above 4 cap And justicar: above 6? > Govern/Conditioning - Ban Scouting mission should cost a blood. > Golconda - One per game Or golconda should have the same effect as the Name forgotten.

On 15 feb, 13:54, "J" <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I would look at my play style if I were you. Why does it become an > > issue with you and your cross table ally. Only reason your ally would > > have to vote you out is either, you are too powerful and he fears you, > > or you are being an A hole, excuse my language. I guess maybe he is an > > A hole and cross tables you just cause he does not like you.- Hide quoted text - > > Play style is irrelevant. It is the fact that it can be done without > recourse (effectively). The game punishes that kind of behavior in giving your predator a point and 6 pool... >That is a blight on the ruleset which > otherwise is very good. If you are the target of something, you > should have the capacity to defend against it. It occurs with all > other minion aspects of the game - bleed, rush, assorted (d) actions. > But when a vote is called, the mere fact that the rules allow you to > be ousted across table without the ability to defend yourself is > rather poor. Delaying tactics.... Otherwise Sudden doesn't prevent people from being killed by a cross table master, BH ritual against an event that's played cross table. Why the cross table vote hate? > > If you are powerful, you can be rushed across table - but I can block > rushes with expendable minions, play reaction cards such as Obedience > etc. If you are powerful, then the table can conspire to flick bleeds > at you, but you can block them, or flick them yourself. It's not a > matter of power, it's a matter of votes not working in a way that > allow a legitimate defence. Delaying tactics, poison pill, have enough votes yourself, a number of reactions that give you votes....

Nosferatu_3 schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. Let愀 rather think on how to create new and exciting cards instead of messing with the tech that has been good for 10+ years. All this talk about nerfing old card is so totally useless since it will never happen anyway because the business-risk for WW in scaring of the players seems far to big for me. -- johannes walch

In article <DQYAh.76471$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] How much pool do you make it cost? At 1 pool, it is irrelevant (i.e. you'll still see Blood Doll as much as you do now). Make it more costly, and it probably drops by the way side. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <1171510752.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > I play L5R.....set rotation is gay, Haven't we been through this one enough already? For cripes sake. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 15, 9:29 am, "Nosferatu_3" <bowle...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 9:15 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: (snip) > I think that another possible solution is being missed here: why > doesn't White Wolf just print some new cards on par with the older > cards? Why does the power curve have to exist? Agree. Not only new cards/sets should be on par (or at least not significantly less powerfull), they should also be viewed as a way to revisit old concepts and bring them to that level. This is exactly what I hope SoC will do that for the Black Hand. > Why can't other disciplines get bleed bounce for example? Copying existing effects will not add to the game, it will only bring it to a very boring level. Don't copy, innovate! Keep it Simple, Confusion of the Eye and Terra incognita are recent examples of new cards that open new possibilities without copying existing effects. Are those cards on par with deflection? probably not, but it's not a problem for me. Not every strategies/effects should be open to every clans/disciplines. Would you really want to play a bleed/stealth Gargoyle deck? or a Samedi political deck? I might try it at some point just for the fun of it... I just don't want the choose the clan I play based only on esthetic criteria. >The game designers are the > ones keeping the old cards on top of the pile, so they must want it > that way. I don't want to see too many nerfs because I have enough > time out tables as it is. I really think that newer cards need to be > more potent across the board. I don't think they do. The "basic" cards such as Blood Doll and KRC need to stay. The new cards need to bring new ways to build around them. My 2 pools. Fouez

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:er1uqo$d8s$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Exactly. Let´s rather think on how to create new and exciting cards > instead of messing with the tech that has been good for 10+ years. > > All this talk about nerfing old card is so totally useless since it will > never happen anyway because the business-risk for WW in scaring of the > players seems far to big for me. But what about Voter Captivation? And Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy (coming soon)? And before that Fifth Tradition, etcetera? I am not so sure that White Wolf is at all concerned about scaring away players with card-text migrations. I would agree with you that maybe they SHOULD be. But I don't know that they ARE. Josh hi johannes!

On Feb 15, 7:45 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <DQYAh.76471$qO4.14...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Eh? Pool cost is the normal suggestion tossed up for reigning in Blood Doll. > > How much pool do you make it cost? At 1 pool, it is irrelevant (i.e. > you'll still see Blood Doll as much as you do now). Make it more costly, > and it probably drops by the way side. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html I disconcur. Cost of 1 = more hesitation = less likely to use in end (or even mid) game != irrelevant. -Jason

[ quoted text not captured ] Or, to cast it in a more positive light, the game, while excellent, might be served well by a re-examination of the mechanics in the bright shiny light of the various recent CCG mechanical innovations, followed by a re-launch that re-aligns it with the current WoD setting. Goodness knows, fantasies of such an event generates an urge in me to make a publicly inappropriate metaphor, revolving around arousal and excitement. -Jason

On Feb 15, 10:51 am, "Fouez" <f...@aei.ca> wrote: > On Feb 15, 9:29 am, "Nosferatu_3" <bowle...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 9:15 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > (snip) > > > I think that another possible solution is being missed here: why > > doesn't White Wolf just print some new cards on par with the older > > cards? Why does the power curve have to exist? > > Agree. Not only new cards/sets should be on par (or at least not > significantly less powerfull), they should also be viewed as a way to > revisit old concepts and bring them to that level. This is exactly > what I hope SoC will do that for the Black Hand. > > > Why can't other disciplines get bleed bounce for example? > > Copying existing effects will not add to the game, it will only bring > it to a very boring level. Don't copy, innovate! Keep it Simple, > Confusion of the Eye and Terra incognita are recent examples of new > cards that open new possibilities without copying existing effects. > Are those cards on par with deflection? probably not, but it's not a > problem for me. Not every strategies/effects should be open to every > clans/disciplines. Would you really want to play a bleed/stealth > Gargoyle deck? or a Samedi political deck? I might try it at some > point just for the fun of it... I just don't want the choose the clan > I play based only on esthetic criteria. First off, it was just an example. But secondly, I think more bleed- redirecting capable disciplines are desperately needed. What's wrong with duplicating effects? I'm not suggesting that every strategy is open to every clan. I want a proliferation of bleed-redirection to help curb the attractiveness of sneak bleed as well as get an ability spread to more than two disciplines. For all of us who like combat, look at the OBSCENE amount of disciplines that can S:CE. Now even THA can cancel a combat while acting. Given that bounce is a similar foil to bleeding, I don't see what it would hurt to give a COUPLE more disciplines bounce. > > >The game designers are the > > ones keeping the old cards on top of the pile, so they must want it > > that way. I don't want to see too many nerfs because I have enough > > time out tables as it is. I really think that newer cards need to be > > more potent across the board. > > I don't think they do. The "basic" cards such as Blood Doll and KRC > need to stay. The new cards need to bring new ways to build around > them. I'm not suggesting that Blood Doll or KRC go anywhere. But why can't newer options be as potent? I didn't mean "more potent" as in more potent than existing stuff. I mean "more potent" than they are now. Why should we be forced to build around old stuff? Why is Sha-Ennu no where near as good as Arika? Would it have killed the game to make a Sabbat vampire as powerful as Arika? Of course not. Now we just keep getting to see Arika over and over still. Look at Auto-de-Fe. Would it have killed the game to add an additional effect that cardinals can outright burn younger Cammies with it? The printed effect would hold for other sects. I don't understand why the designers are holding back so much. The cat is already out of the bag with the cards in play. No reason not to keep printing to that power level. Frankly, it's good for avoiding time outs to keep the power level relatively high. > > My 2 pools. > > Fouez

Joshua Duffin schrieb: > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message > news:er1uqo$d8s$1...@news01.versatel.de... > >> Exactly. LetŽs rather think on how to create new and exciting cards >> instead of messing with the tech that has been good for 10+ years. >> >> All this talk about nerfing old card is so totally useless since it will >> never happen anyway because the business-risk for WW in scaring of the >> players seems far to big for me. > > But what about Voter Captivation? And Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic > Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy (coming soon)? And before that Fifth > Tradition, etcetera? I am not so sure that White Wolf is at all concerned > about scaring away players with card-text migrations. > > I would agree with you that maybe they SHOULD be. But I don't know that > they ARE. Perhaps the stir-up from the community that resulted from banning SC,DU,KS was a little warning that one cannot go too far. And the controversy about changing those cards was far less (read there was more of a common opinion that they need change) than that about VC. I can only hope that it is indeed the case. Johannes hope to see you in gothenburg!

On Feb 15, 9:29 am, "Nosferatu_3" <bowle...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 9:15 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > > > be good for the game? > > > At worst you would kill the game, and at best, you would split the > > player base into the "VEKN" and the "Rebels" > > > Comments Welcome, > > Norman S. Brown, Jr > > XZealot > > Archon of the Swamp > > > The National Jyhad League is rising. I see its shadow and hear its > > footsteps. > > I think that another possible solution is being missed here: why > doesn't White Wolf just print some new cards on par with the older > cards? They do print some, it is just that inertia is fully in place in many places in VTES. >Why does the power curve have to exist? It does and always will such is the nature of collating data with 2 values. >Why can't other > disciplines get bleed bounce for example? .....Major Boon.... >The game designers are the > ones keeping the old cards on top of the pile, so they must want it > that way. I don't want to see too many nerfs because I have enough > time out tables as it is. Try Combat.... [ quoted text not captured ]

Kine Awakening: master or gehenna event Cards that require dominate cost 1 more blood. Costs? Any vampire may burn this card by...

On Feb 15, 12:11 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Feb 15, 9:29 am, "Nosferatu_3" <bowle...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 9:15 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > > > > be good for the game? > > > > At worst you would kill the game, and at best, you would split the > > > player base into the "VEKN" and the "Rebels" > > > > Comments Welcome, > > > Norman S. Brown, Jr > > > XZealot > > > Archon of the Swamp > > > > The National Jyhad League is rising. I see its shadow and hear its > > > footsteps. > > > I think that another possible solution is being missed here: why > > doesn't White Wolf just print some new cards on par with the older > > cards? > > They do print some, it is just that inertia is fully in place in many > places in VTES. I would just like it if they printed more than "some". > > >Why does the power curve have to exist? > > It does and always will such is the nature of collating data with 2 > values. > Okay, I guess I wasn't specific enough. Why does the power curve have to exist to the magnitude that it appears to right now in the game state? > >Why can't other > > disciplines get bleed bounce for example? > > .....Major Boon.... Weak. Major Boon has it's place, but it's limitation to once a turn is awful. See? Someone suggests that a couple other disciplines get let in on the magic that is bounce and then we start getting all these marginal solutions already introduced in the game. There is no reason at all that bounce is limited to two disciplines. > > >The game designers are the > > ones keeping the old cards on top of the pile, so they must want it > > that way. I don't want to see too many nerfs because I have enough > > time out tables as it is. > > Try Combat.... Not necessarily a guarantee. In my playgroup, there is a lot of cooperation against combat decks as they dominated for a long while. Without a permarush, crosstable rescues eat up rush cards like no tomorrow. And that Ventrue only needs one blood from a hunt to oust you! But I digress. I was merely pointing out that I DON'T want nerfs. I want new stuff to be BETTER than what has been coming off their printing sheets. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

On Feb 14, 6:34 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > > I would suggest that the old-standbys are constricting design choices > > > on two levels. Cards shouldn't be introduced that are better than the > > > old power cards, and there's not much point in designing cards that > > > are worse. Similarly, for players, you can jump though hoops to try to > > > gain advantage by doing something new. Or you can play the same cards > > > we've been playing for 12 years - because they are still the best > > > there is for doing what they do. > > The greatest asset this game has, imo, is the fact that 12 year old > cards are still competitive in the current meta. Credit has to be > given to the design crew in regards to the care they've taken in that > respect. In every other CCG I've played, rotation is almost always the > straw that breaks the camel's back. > > I don't believe those old cards are restricting design. I believe the > devs are more than capable of taking the game in new and interesting > directions, and they've demonstrated that there's still plenty of > fertile territory within the WoD paradigm. However, I believe LSJ and > co are, probably for the very reasons stated above, too conservative > in introducing new concepts for fear of blowing the power curve, with > the result that these new concepts/strats are simply dismissed out of > hand by the majority of the player base, and they just go back to the > trusty ol' SB/ConsAgg merry-go-round. > > Best example of this, to my mind, is KMW, and the concepts of Red List > and Trophies. Very cool idea, had the potential to give combat a big > boost, but due to the added complication of including a red list/ > trophy module in already crowded and card thirsty combat decks for > what is to my mind [and many others, apparenly] far, far too little > return from the Trophies [a Hunting ground - wow....] the whole > concept seemed to fall quite flat. > > The new ideas and concepts are already there. The last few years have > given us Red List/Gehenna/Hunters/Anarchs. I think the design team > have already demonstrated they're capable of thinking of the ideas, > they just need to be a little braver in their implementation, imo. I suspect that erring on the side of caution was a conscious choice and a wise one, as it's easier to expand the power of new mechanisms than to contract it. And I think expansion (pun intended) for Black Hand, Anarchs, Red List, etc will be coming soon enough.

What about making a discipliness bounce card? Interested in players opinions and thoughts on this one.

In article <1171577306.0...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > What about making a discipliness bounce card? > > Interested in players opinions and thoughts on this one. That has been brought up a lot. Lots of folks are very enthusiastic about this sort of idea. Personally, I'd like to see more flexible, useful bleed reduction (like, say, an obf card which was [obf: +1 stealth/OBF: Reduce a bleed by 2] or something) get passed around instead. But that is me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 16, 9:08 am, d21_...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > What about making a discipliness bounce card? > > Interested in players opinions and thoughts on this one. Nup. Restrictions on Bleed Bounce is better rather than create more of it. Deflection, 1 blood [dom] Only usable when you are being bled. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is bleeding that Methuselah. The acting minion may burn 2 blood or life to cancel this card as it is played. [DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire. Redirection [dom] Only usable when a younger vampire or ally is bleeding you. Tap this reacting vampire. The acting minion is now bleeding your prey. This reacting vampire does not untap as normal. [DOM] As above, but the acting vampire can be the same age or older. Telepathic Misdirection, 1 blood [aus] This reacting vampire gets +1 intercept. [AUS] Only usable when you are being bled by an ally or younger vampire. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now attempting to bleed that Methuselah. or something like that?? of course there will be plenty of dissidents, but meh! [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Seems to me that BLEED is the problem and BOUNCE (or reduction) is the solution. Make bleed harder to defend against, as your suggestions above indicate, then heavy bleed decks will proliferate even more, making the game less enjoyable and feasible deck selection less diverse. Jeff

On Feb 15, 12:55 pm, d21_...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > > > > VTES most pleasing "Asset" is that it has NO BANNED CARDS and NO SET > > > ROTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > Okay NEARLY NO BANNED CARDS!!!!!! ;-) This is the reason why I stopped playing L5R and instead concentrated on my vtes addiction. Playing vtes means that 99% of cards I have are legal in tournaments. Sure, I lament the loss of Madness of the Bard and sometimes get frustrated seeing all those Dramatic Upheavals sitting lifelessly in my card box, but that is nothing compared to looking at my old L5R collection where about 5% of cards are still legitimate (could be less now, they may have changed editions again!) I don't mind the very occasional ban of certain cards that produce an undesirable effect on tournaments (like table seating swapping or resource swapping), but I think one of the selling points of vtes is that cards aren't banned because they are perceived to be too powerful (only exception being Return For Innocence). We see the occasional tweak to cards for game balance but not the insane constant molestation of the environment seen in games like L5R. Simcof

Kevin M. wrote: > d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote: >> I play L5R.....set rotation is gay, > > Perhaps in L5R they tolerate bigotry? We don't here. Please stop. > Thank you. You said that much more peacefully than I was thinking. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Feb 16, 1:37 am, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 feb, 07:54, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > > My list: > > > Kine Resources Contested - Maybe split 3 pool between 2 meths > > Conservative Agitation - Use (number of Meths - 1) > > parity shift? Yes Parity Shift as well. Perhaps it moves three instead of five? > > > Consanguineous Boon - Same text but set max pool gain to 4 > > Direct Intervention - Ban > > Yes :-) > > > Voter Captivation - Lots of talk about this one already > > Praxis/Crusade - Vamp must be above 4 cap > > And justicar: above 6? Sounds good. > > > Govern/Conditioning - Ban > > Scouting mission should cost a blood. > > > Golconda - One per game > > Or golconda should have the same effect as the Name forgotten Sounds good too. Chris.

> > Perhaps the stir-up from the community that resulted from banning > SC,DU,KS was a little warning that one cannot go too far. I don't see it that way. The game is better off with them banned and the fact that there were naysayers at the time shouldn't put WW off doing it again if it is in the interests of the game. > And the > controversy about changing those cards was far less (read there was more > of a common opinion that they need change) than that about VC. > > I can only hope that it is indeed the case. I think the opposite is true. I think WW have become, if anything, more inclined to make necessary changes. Witness the recent change to the withdrawal rule and LSJ's mooted changes to DI and VC. I can't think of a single card change since WW took over as being a bad move. They've all been good moves that have improved the game. Some examples: Majesty, 2nd Tradition, 5th Tradition, Concealed Weapon. Chris.

> Seems to me that BLEED is the problem and BOUNCE (or reduction) is the > solution. Make bleed harder to defend against, as your suggestions > above indicate, then heavy bleed decks will proliferate even more, > making the game less enjoyable and feasible deck selection less > diverse. > > Jeff- Hide quoted text - I do actually agree - which I think I mentioned earlier in this topic, that removal of flick, or heavy mod would make bleed more powerful. Of course, Deflection alone is why so many decks will be packing dominate. I was just tossing stuff out because I was bored... ;) Bleed does need to be toned down if anything is toned down. I know I'd like to see Dummy Corporation modified. Dummy Corporation Master: location, trifle. You may burn this card when you are being bled to reduce the bleed amount by 2. A Methusela may have no more than 1 Dummy Corporation in play at a time. As it is, Dummy Corp isn't really good enough. I play it in some decks, but not many. We shouldn't be forcing people to play with Dominate or Auspex to be competitive. Maybe an option to fixing the bleed problem is that Bleed (D) actions cannot be modified? Or that once you play a bleed modification, you cannot play any further action modifiers. Not that great, but it gets around people playing a Conditioning to dig for stealth, or then freak driving and calling a vote. Or maybe the bleed mods need to be toned down? Conditioning, 1 blood After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [dom] +1 bleed [DOM] +2 bleed. Threats After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [dom] +1 bleed [DOM] If this bleed is successful, this vampire may burn 2 blood to untap at the end of the turn. Bonding, 1 blood After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [dom] +1 bleed [DOM] +1 bleed +1 stealth Command of the Beast, 1 blood [dom] +1 bleed, after playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [DOM] +1 bleed. Aire of Elation, 1 blood After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [pre] +1 bleed [PRE] +2 bleed. If this acting vampire is a Toreador, they may burn a blood to gain +1 stealth during this action. Confusion, 1 blood After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [dem] +1 bleed. [DEM] +1 stealth and +1 bleed. Eyes of Chaos, 1 blood After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [dem] +1 bleed [DEM] If this bleed is successful you may look at the hand of the bled methusela and discard 1 card of your choice. Foreshadowing Destruction After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. If this bleed does not oust this vampire is burnt. [dom] +2 bleed [DOM] +3 bleed. Revelation of Desire, 1 blood After playing this card, you cannot play another ction modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. [ser] +1 bleed. [SER] Burn X of your corruption counters from a minion controlled by the target Methusela to get +X bleed against that Methusela. Sense the Sin [aus] Only usable when a younger vampire is acting. +1 intercept. [dai] +1 intercept. +2 intercept if the acting minion has a corruption counter. [DAI] After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. Burn 1 blood to gain +2 bleed. Minions with corruption counters get -1 intercept when attempting to block this action. Walk of Caine Choose X ready Blood Brothers you control who belong to the same circle as this acting vampire (including this acting vampire). Each chosen vampire must burn a blood, or this card has no effect. [san] After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. +X bleed (maximum +3). Only usable as a bleed action is announced. [SAN] As [san] above, but usable any time before the action is resolved. Ones that could stay the same are: Iron Glare, Ancestors Insight, Burning Touch, Bear Baiting, Changeling, Fata Morgana, Guruhi are the Land, Predators Mastery, Quicksilver Contemplation, Spying Mission, True Love's Face, Truth of a Thousand Lies, Weight the Heart. [ quoted text not captured ]

> They've made that 'braver' step yet. It's called Nights of Reckoning. > And see what happened. NoR was "brave" in that it took the game in an entirely different direction. Many players [i among them] don't really think it was a positive direction. Watching an imbued player play solitaire with himself from 5 or so minutes every turn isn't many people's idea of fun. > No wonder the (perceived) 'excess caution' for anarch and red list > mechanics. Well firstly I dont' think there's anything "percieved" about the weakness. I think it's very real, particularly with Anarchs, who still really struggle years after they were introduced. Secondly, Anarchs were released before NoR, so I dont' think the outcry against Imbued is any kind of excuse for the caution displayed in introducing narchs. I think it's reasonable to see clans or entirely new concepts like Black Hand take a couple of expansions to get rolling. But KMW and the concept of Red Lists were basically introducing a means by which combat could be more competitive, and give it varying means by which to become sustainable and gain VP. Sorry, but given the readily apparent problems combat has, I really expected more. Is ANY trophy really worth the effort it takes, and the dillution your deck suffers, when you insert a reliable Red List/ Trophy module into it?

> Sorry, but given the readily apparent problems combat has, I really > expected more. Is ANY trophy really worth the effort it takes, and the > dillution your deck suffers, when you insert a reliable Red List/ > Trophy module into it? Hunting Ground and Domain on Anneke is worth it in my books, and Clan Respect in storylines. --> J

In message <1171594171.9...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: >I can't think of a single card change since WW took over as being a >bad move. They've all been good moves that have improved the game. >Some examples: Majesty, 2nd Tradition, 5th Tradition, Concealed >Weapon. Bad moves, or bad implementations? Fifth Tradition is sometimes seen as too weak. The first rewrite of Tomb was seen as too expensive and too slow, and the current rewrite still isn't too popular. Thoughts Betrayed sees, essentially, no play these days. That's not to say that some action to weaken those cards wasn't needed - it was needed - but the actual implementation was probably wrong. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Feb 15, 11:24 am, lysande...@excite.com wrote: > What you can do however, is identify individual cards released since > Jyhad that have dramatically affected how games are played. I think > Carrion Crows was one definite such card. I remember first seeing > that card and shaking my head in disapproval. If the effects only > lasted for the round instead of the whole combat it would have been > more balanced, but as it was it was essentially free environmental > damage the equivalent of 2 murder of crows on your vamp, only without > the blood cost or the time to recruit factor. Immediately you saw > weenie decks with aid from bats and Carrion Crows popping up, and > recent cards like Pack Alpha have only barely begun to reverse some of > the effects that single card had on how the game is played. I can't really understand all the fuss about 1 Animalism card. It's arguably the most powerful card in the entire Discipline, yes but how many exist in Dominate. If it weren't for this card - would we really see plain Animalsm decks (like we have Fort, Ausp, Presence, Potence etc). No! This card allowed that option. Who really played Aid from Bats on a regular basis? This is a great card because it brought forward another deck strategy and allowed players to use old never-played cards. > The most recent addition to dramatically change the game was Mirror > Walk IMO. There is a card that simply should not have been printed > (the superior version at least). Way to change the Tremere from a > clan that required serious thought and discipline in deck building > into mindless and fearless forward bleeders. Whereas cards like > Telepathic Tracking and Wind Dance were exactly the kind of thing the > clan needed, Mirror Walk was just overkill. It really should have > been a little less powerful (more along the lines of Stealth Ritus). Have you seen the latest rankings in the Cultist storyline - Where does the "all-powerful" Thaumaturgy feature. I am grateful to WW for designing the card that makes the Tremere competitive. They needed it, badly!

On Feb 14, 10:08 pm, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? Of course not.

>Thoughts Betrayed sees, essentially, no play these days. Come to Lisbon, and see thoughts betrayed used by combat decks that use Dominate, almost every day. It's a rare thing a table that doesn't count at least one or two decks with it....

d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > What about making a discipliness bounce card? > > Interested in players opinions and thoughts on this one. Googlegroups: "Disciplineless Bounce" will provide many posts to address your interest.

On Feb 16, 12:23 pm, "b.jaci...@gmail.com" <b.jaci...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Is that so? ...

> Sorry, but given the readily apparent problems combat has, I really > expected more. Is ANY trophy really worth the effort it takes, and the > dillution your deck suffers, when you insert a reliable Red List/ > Trophy module into it? The only problem combat has is that combat kills and then combat dies. Trophies alleviate that second part. Comment Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

On 14 Feb 2007 14:08:44 -0800, Ben Swainbank <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Is it time to kill our darlings? Can we take the top cards, the moldy > oldies, thank them for years of faithful service, extend our gratitude > for the multitude of VPs, and offer then a long overdue retirement? Not a good idea for two reasons. One is backward compatibility - many players steered away from ToCG because of the Type. Nerfing old timers and printing new, less powerful cards in their stead has a similar feel to it. Two is, the main issues with the game - at least in my perspective - are not solid, useful cards, but rather 1) weenies 2) walls and 3) game killers like PTO. I find it premature to argue about sail color when there are holes in the hull... > Banned or nerfed, that's a supplemental debate, I would like to offer > up the following old friends for "the block" - not because they are > broken, or dominate the meta-game (they aren't and don't) - but > because it's time for somebody new. No, I don't think there's time for such newness. If there is waning creator energy, then it might be time for in influx of new creativity, rather than a drastic redesign of the power-curve. > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation > Consanguineous Boon > Blood Doll > Torn Signpost > Carrion Crows > .44 Magnum > Direct Intervention > Voter Captivation > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? I'm not sure how gutting the game would benefit the player base. There's a good deal of controversy in where VtES is headed anyway; I'm all for radiating some tranquility and reliability towards the player base. If I were a designer, I'd strengthen VtES through the following points: - Card Quality Assurance - make sure all cards are visually designed, and printed in a quality way. Have someone check for typos, art inconsistency and printed card quality. - Tournament Incentive - instead of pissing off players by printing truckloads of legendary card promos that a lot of players never see regardless of tournament attendance I'd think of a system to ensure that whatever incentive is used to lure players in for the tournaments are really reaching them (2006 Qualifier T-Shirts anyone?). - Enforce card versatility - there are dozens of fractions and requirements in the game. Disciplines, clans, sects, special descriptors - you name it. I see countless non-mainstream opportunities there, like powerful multi-discipline effects, solid clan-based cards, power-up for underdog concepts (Sword of Caine looks promising in this respect). - Coherence in design - I'd steer clear of fumbles like NoR, and rather innovate within some accepted boundaries. I, for one, would love to see some sort of chronological or spatial separation - I've been pondering ways how regions could be introduced into the game, like tying certain cards to certain bases of power, or how a special edition Dark Ages set could be at least partially incorporated into the game (like, having a separate non-compatible vampire group, and having the rule in place that DA cards can be used in VtES if the requirements are met, but not vice verse). I wouldn't nerf existing cards that do not upset the game one way or another. -- Regards, Daneel

My opinion is that no card should be banned/nerfed/phased out unless the particular card in question has been deemed detrimental by the game's designers, or a credible consensus of judges. The latter being ambiguous because IMO it would probably take a series of studies/ research and long drawn out debates by people to represent the players. Madness of the Bard, Kindred Restructure, Political Upheaval were all banned because they took away from the game itself. Be it by taking too much time, or just not " Play. The. Game.". That is at least my impression. I don't know of any official statement (if any) on any particular banning of a card. I do agree however that the original game, "Jyhad" has given us basically the most complete set of core cards that I can think any game has ever designed. Here is my problem with these "tried and true" veteran cards. I am building a deck. Let's say it is using dominate. Out of 90 Cards maximum I'm sure 30-40 maybe more card slots are allready filled with deflection, govern, blood doll, wakes (any kind), etc etc . If you are building a bleed/combat/ or a vote deck, their own "module" is basically self created. Over the years, new sets have brought along new cards, some variants on the old ones. Redirection for example. I can only think of 2 times when I've seen Redirection chosen over deflection. 1. Card Limits were enforced. Someone would allready have lets say 6 deflections and under a group's card limit they chose redirection for more bounce. 2. Once and awhile, in a very small window a deck's design comes up when redirection would be better off for them than deflection. Blood doll and Grooming the Protege are now interchangable depending on deck type. I've had on and off discussions with Brian Moritz about how it seems that when you build a deck, it is allready about 1/3 full of necessities. It gets a little deflating (stale if you will) that when you make a deck, we all at some degree start out with less cards to really choose from, at least from a competitive side. To sum it up. These veteran cards aren't really broken, so don't fix them. Instead follow the lead of Grooming the Protege for a decent to good substitute for blood doll in different circumstances. Maybe I just don't like hearing " to make it better/more competitive, you should add (DI, more deflections, DOMINATE)". the list goes on. Maybe it's just me and the game is less fresh for me. Maybe I'm stuck in a deck construction mechanic rut. Aaron the guy over ----> there

> The only problem combat has is that combat kills and then combat > dies. Trophies alleviate that second part. I think your first sentence is a drastic over-simplification, and your second somewhat true, though I don't believe Trophies go far enough in addressing that single [of several facing combat] issue.

b.ja...@gmail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Why? I can see some uses of it but the cost of 2 blood is rather problematic I think. -- johannes walch

Ben Swainbank: > All this talk about Voter Captivation, and when cards should and > should not get changed, has reminded me of something I've been > noodling about for while. Very often when I'm thinking about building > decks that include new cards I find myself abandoning them in favor > the old standbys. Grooming the Protege? Eh, Blood Doll is probably > better. Auto-da-fe? Better to stick with KRC. You just didn't try enough. Any VTES set has a lot of brilliant new cards that are MORE powerful than the existing cards (at least in some decks). Black Forest Base is a crap? Yawp Court is unplayable? Frontal Assault doesn't worth its price - sell them to me! :) On the Qui Vive is the first Wake for allies (and for vampires, too!) Grooming the Protege is the real acceleration without Governs. In the right deck (Klaus Konrecht wall, for instance) Auto-da-fe can be better than KRC, since you may wish to slow the breeding deck crosstable. Almost all new cards from Third Edition are playable and competitive... besides Cracking the Wall, of course :) If anybody has any decks with this stupid card, please post them to me! > The same few cards have been dominating game spaces like combat, pool > gain, and politics since the game arrived. This is typical of CCGs - > the first batch contains cards that end up on the very high end of the > power curve. Other long-lasting games have dealt with this via banning > and/or set rotation. I'm not advocating for that. On the contrary, the most famous CCG syndrome is the increasing power of the new cards. Magic is the best example. > I would suggest that the old-standbys are constricting design choices > on two levels. Cards shouldn't be introduced that are better than the > old power cards, and there's not much point in designing cards that > are worse. Similarly, for players, you can jump though hoops to try to > gain advantage by doing something new. Or you can play the same cards > we've been playing for 12 years - because they are still the best > there is for doing what they do. Sure, these cards are the best for doing this, but the new cards usually do something different. You can play the old cards, and you can play the new cards. New cards inspire the new decks that weren't possible or competitive before. There isn't any problem. > Is it time to kill our darlings? Can we take the top cards, the moldy > oldies, thank them for years of faithful service, extend our gratitude > for the multitude of VPs, and offer then a long overdue retirement? > > Banned or nerfed, that's a supplemental debate, I would like to offer > up the following old friends for "the block" - not because they are > broken, or dominate the meta-game (they aren't and don't) - but > because it's time for somebody new. > > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation > Consanguineous Boon > Blood Doll > Torn Signpost > Carrion Crows > .44 Magnum > Direct Intervention > Voter Captivation > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? > You're missing the most obvious fact: any "rotation" is a ROBBERY. The players were hunting for cards, they were paying huge prices, and suddenly Clever Mr. X declares that their cards are just beautiful pieces of paper. This cannot be tolerated! I left Magic because of this, and note that I was a certified judge (Level 2), not just a common player! The game doesn't need almost any changes currently. If you are tired of KRC, Blood Dolls or something else - build a deck without them. It's possible, I assure you. Overall, you sound like a child who became tired of his favorite toy and broke it (my son is 4, so I know this behavior quite well). Will you be happy with slightly altered KRC or Blood Doll just because they are new? I guess not. At least my son tends to become tired of such "new" toys very quickly :) 2 All other "lovers of change": Please realize that the game is well-balanced now, so removing any cards will just make it LESS balanced - so I cannot understand why are you talking about "overpowered" Carrion Crows and other cards. Are Carrion Crows dominate the tournaments? How many Crows are in the TWD? Not very much. Carrion Crows is a brilliant card for Animalism; removing it will make Animalism weak and Fortitude will be too strong. Voter Captivation CAN be toned down a little and still be popular, though I don't consider it "overpowered". PTO is clearly overpowered, so it MUST be toned down, but it would be great if it would still be popular as well. The game needs DI as a remedy against "weird" decks and strategies, though I'd prefer a cost of X pool where X = (number of Direct Interventions in the ash heap) +1: some decks pack a lot of DIs, and the game become a "direct clash of Methuselahs" :( Besides that, the game is just fine, and it doesn't need any serious changes. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] > Ector- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I agree; rotation is insane. I also agree that trophies do not gear nearly far enough in making non-weenie combat more viable. That is probably the most hamstrung deck archetype, and it's kind of a shame. I guess not everything is going to be competitive.

On Feb 19, 7:07 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On the contrary, the most famous CCG syndrome is the increasing power > of the new cards. Magic is the best example. Yes. One alternative to power creep, that still allows for some movement within the "tier 1" metagame, is making occasional changes to the top cards. > > You're missing the most obvious fact: any "rotation" is a ROBBERY. You're missing the obvious fact that I'm not asking for set rotation. Neither is anybody else. Perhaps we can stop stomping on that straw man. > 2 All other "lovers of change": > Please realize that the game is well-balanced now, so removing any > cards will just make it LESS balanced By that logic, won't adding cards also make it less balanced? I am a lover of change. That's the thing about CCGs -- they change. There are plenty of games that don't change (Chess, Monopoly...). I prefer change. It does not have to lead to less balance - just a different balance. Otherwise not much has changed. > I cannot understand why are > you talking about "overpowered" Carrion Crows and other cards. > The game doesn't need almost any changes currently. If you are tired > of KRC, Blood Dolls or something else - build a deck without them. > It's possible, I assure you. I'm just off a great weekend of V:tes at the NEQ. I've got a lot of love for the game right now and a bunch of new deck ideas. So, I should probably point out a few things: First off, I agree that the game is very well balanced right now. Walking around at the qualifier this weekend, I'm guessing there were about 30 different, distinct deck types being played among the players. Great variety and decks of all shapes and sizes. I don't think vote, or weenies, or walls or anything is particularly dominant. In general, V:tes set design has been great and the new sets consistently introduce new "good" stuff. Second, I'm a fairly prolific and not very conservative deck builder. I am always striving to build decks that both new and good. I always want to play with the new toys. I don't have much interest in making decks that are tired or that suck. Nor am I excited about playing against sucky and/or tired decks. But I respect that people should build and play whatever they want. What seems like old hat to me might be fresh and fun (or just good) to somebody else. So, I don't complain much. So, what's the problem? While there is a great variety and balance in the game, there is also some stagnation in the top tier. With any deck I answer the question of "how good is it?" by doing a checklist against the top types. Can it stop powerbleed? Control breed/boon? What if Arika is my predator? Weenie vote? Potence rush? That "benchmark" list has changed a little in the past 10 years, but not much. Most of the decks that have won Continental Championships could have been built in previous millennium. I am against set rotation. But I do have some envy of way the "rotators" can (are forced to) rediscover and reinvent the game and the top tier periodically. The downside is that you can pretty much throw away your old cards. Very bad. I would suggest that the best of both worlds would be to occasionally take the scalpel to the top 0.1%. Move the top tier by selectively adding a cost and cutting efficiency here and there. Move cards from the no-brainer, top of the heap, back into the position of being a contender fighting for deck space. This isn't really anything new. The most obvious case was the Camarilla Edition reprints. Was the game broken when Majesty was free and you could refill with 5th Tradition? No. But I would argue that the game is better because those changes were made. In retrospect, the benefits of those changes outweighed the (admittedly non-trivial) costs of assimilating them. I suggest that another wave may be warranted and offer some candidates. I would even suggest that such changes become part of the official game balance evolution strategy (we have one right?). Instead making it a surprise (V:tes players don't seem to like surprises) make it routine. With every set, change 1 card. Introduce 200 new cards. Tweak 1 old one. Put it in the preview. Yes, its change for the sake of change. But very, very slow change... > The game needs DI as a remedy against "weird" decks > and strategies, Right. We wouldn't want any of those "weird" decks creeping into the game. That would be no fun. -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank: > On Feb 19, 7:07 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > > You're missing the most obvious fact: any "rotation" is a ROBBERY. > > You're missing the obvious fact that I'm not asking for set rotation. > Neither is anybody else. Perhaps we can stop stomping on that straw > man. Looking from a "Tier 1 mountain", a set is just a few Tier 1 cards from the set. Thus, asking about "retiring" some Tier 1 cards is virtually the same as rotating out the set, from that perspective. I wasn't the only person considering your suggestion a rotation, and I wasn't the first one. Looks like you should find different words... > > 2 All other "lovers of change": > > Please realize that the game is well-balanced now, so removing any > > cards will just make it LESS balanced > > By that logic, won't adding cards also make it less balanced? I am a > lover of change. That's the thing about CCGs -- they change. There are > plenty of games that don't change (Chess, Monopoly...). I prefer > change. It does not have to lead to less balance - just a different > balance. Otherwise not much has changed. Adding new cards that should inspire new powerful decks without destroying the existing decks is the most difficult part of a designer's job. And current VTES designers seem to do that job very good. Change-lovers can grab the new cards and build the new decks, while change-haters can play the old goodies. I still can't see any reason of changing (or banning) the old cards. You CAN build the new decks - that's great. You are bored to see the old decks of other players - sorry, but these are THEIR decks, not yours, and your boredom isn't a valid reason for suggesting prohibiting them. The best option is to build a new deck that will deal with the majority of the "boring" decks and force the players to learn something new :) > Second, I'm a fairly prolific and not very conservative deck builder. > I am always striving to build decks that both new and good. I always > want to play with the new toys. I don't have much interest in making > decks that are tired or that suck. Nor am I excited about playing > against sucky and/or tired decks. But I respect that people should > build and play whatever they want. What seems like old hat to me might > be fresh and fun (or just good) to somebody else. So, I don't complain > much. > > So, what's the problem? While there is a great variety and balance in > the game, there is also some stagnation in the top tier. With any deck > I answer the question of "how good is it?" by doing a checklist > against the top types. Can it stop powerbleed? Control breed/boon? > What if Arika is my predator? Weenie vote? Potence rush? That > "benchmark" list has changed a little in the past 10 years, but not > much. Most of the decks that have won Continental Championships could > have been built in previous millennium. I have the similar attitude to the deckbuilding, but I also like to tinker with Tier 2 decks built around the new cards, because sometimes they appear to be stronger that seemed first. We don't have any "stagnation" here in Belarus, because there are just 20-30 players here, and all players here are "new" by your standards. There are some favorite decks, but only a small portion of them "could have been built in previous Millenium". It seems to me that you underestimate the value of the new cards. Third Edition has mostly reprints, but it's easy to note the staple cards like Mirror Walk, Frontal Assault or (BANG! BANG!) Heart of Nizchetus, as well as Stavros, Malgorzata, Luc, Klaus and many other brilliant vampires. LoB had almost nothing for the existing decks, but it inspired a lot of new decks. Looks like No Secrets From the Magaji is a new deck archetype now, and I built an awesome Create Gargoyles/ Tupdogs deck with Raking Talons, Immortal Grapples, Rolls, Crawling Chambers and Rockhearts. Frankly, you've never seen such vicious combination of breeding and rush; with the appearance of Frontal Assault and Yawp Court the deck became "almost Tier 1". KMW had a lot of Tier 1 cards: Edged Illusion, Forced March, Leathery Hide, True Love's Face, and even the dreaded Tumnimos! Looks like that old players just didn't have time or ambition to build the decks that could NOT have been built in the previous millenium :) > I am against set rotation. But I do have some envy of way the > "rotators" can (are forced to) rediscover and reinvent the game and > the top tier periodically. The downside is that you can pretty much > throw away your old cards. Very bad. I would suggest that the best of > both worlds would be to occasionally take the scalpel to the top 0.1%. > Move the top tier by selectively adding a cost and cutting efficiency > here and there. Move cards from the no-brainer, top of the heap, back > into the position of being a contender fighting for deck space. > > This isn't really anything new. The most obvious case was the > Camarilla Edition reprints. Was the game broken when Majesty was free > and you could refill with 5th Tradition? No. But I would argue that > the game is better because those changes were made. In retrospect, the > benefits of those changes outweighed the (admittedly non-trivial) > costs of assimilating them. > > I suggest that another wave may be warranted and offer some > candidates. I would even suggest that such changes become part of the > official game balance evolution strategy (we have one right?). Instead > making it a surprise (V:tes players don't seem to like surprises) make > it routine. With every set, change 1 card. Introduce 200 new cards. > Tweak 1 old one. Put it in the preview. > > Yes, its change for the sake of change. But very, very slow change... > I'm absolutely sure that printing the new cards that are somewhat better than old ones is much better than changing the staple cards. Any changes are needed only when the designer considers the card somewhat overpowered and doesn't want to create the new cards of the same power. The mentioned Majesty and 5th Tradition are the examples of such cards. Voter Captivation is probably falling into the same category. But most of the other cards you're marked for "retirement" aren't. Just look at some variations of the cards: Blood Doll* - allows moving blood from vampire to your pool, not backwards, but up to 2 blood per turn. Probably this should cost 1 pool. Carrion Crows* - deal 3 damage at long range, but only one damage (or even no damage) at close range. Direct Intervention* - you can cancel only combat cards, but this version is free (no pool cost). Probably, even a trifle. KRC* - select 2+ players, divide damage = (difference in votes "for" and "against" the referendum) evenly among the players (round down). You see, there's absolutely no need in changing the old cards. We just need something new :) Yours, Ector

On 15 feb, 10:47, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > d21_...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > > I play L5R.....set rotation is gay, > > Perhaps in L5R they tolerate bigotry? We don't here. Please stop. > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas We don't? Just keep in mind: Deep inside we're all normal. B :P

On Feb 23, 8:41 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Ben Swainbank:> On Feb 19, 7:07 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Any changes are needed only when the designer considers the card > somewhat overpowered and doesn't want to create the new cards of the > same power. Agreed. If a new alternative card can't be created without being competative or "broken" then the original might be a candidate for change. Right? > Just look at some variations of the cards: Yes, lets do that... > Blood Doll* - allows moving blood from vampire to your pool, not > backwards, but up to 2 blood per turn. Probably this should cost 1 > pool. If it doesn't cost a pool, its mostly just a better Blood Doll. If it does cost a pool, I would expect most everyone to stick with Blood Doll. Either way, Blood Doll or New Blood Doll continue to eclipse most other Tier 2 pool gain masters (Instability, King's Rising, Ascendance, Grooming the Protege etc...). > Carrion Crows* - deal 3 damage at long range, but only one damage (or > even no damage) at close range. 3R environmental every round? For free? Other than Carrion Crows, can you think of a combat card that approaches this power level? Howler would have fun with it... if only she had a way to stop S:CE... > Direct Intervention* - you can cancel only combat cards, but this > version is free (no pool cost). Probably, even a trifle. So, if I'm blocking I can stop S:CE or grapples or prevent or hitback or maneuvers all with one Trifle card? That'll make creating combat decks easier. It'll go great in my Howler Super-Crows deck. > KRC* - select 2+ players, divide damage = (difference in votes "for" > and "against" the referendum) evenly among the players (round down). Yeah. Arkia plays Killer-KRC and Awe. That's 26 votes in favor. Your Justicar votes against? Fine. Lets do 18 damage to my prey ... and 4 to my grand-prey... Oooh Voter Cap! > You see, there's absolutely no need in changing the old cards. We just > need something new :) Consider me unconvinced. I expect your suggestions were off-the-cuff, but they just point out the extent to which these cards dominate their "space" and the difficulty of designing around them. -Ben Swainbank

> 3R environmental every round? For free? Other than Carrion Crows, can > you think of a combat card that approaches this power level? Howler > would have fun with it... if only she had a way to stop S:CE... Super Dom Cailean. Thoughts, Trap, DotB, Crows... long long long ad infinitum = DEAD. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 24, 12:21 am, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:41 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Ben Swainbank:> On Feb 19, 7:07 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Any changes are needed only when the designer considers the card > > somewhat overpowered and doesn't want to create the new cards of the > > same power. > > Agreed. If a new alternative card can't be created without being > competative or "broken" then the original might be a candidate for > change. Right? Absolutely. > > Just look at some variations of the cards: > > Yes, lets do that... > > > Blood Doll* - allows moving blood from vampire to your pool, not > > backwards, but up to 2 blood per turn. Probably this should cost 1 > > pool. > > If it doesn't cost a pool, its mostly just a better Blood Doll. If it > does cost a pool, I would expect most everyone to stick with Blood > Doll. Either way, Blood Doll or New Blood Doll continue to eclipse > most other Tier 2 pool gain masters (Instability, King's Rising, > Ascendance, Grooming the Protege etc...). I disagree with the both points. Do you never use Blood Doll to prevent hunting? Most players do this regularly. Lacking the possibility is a serious drawback. Even for 1 pool this card would be great with some blood-gaining like multiple Thefts of Vitae. I didn't try to create a card that would completely destroy the Blood Doll, actually. > > Carrion Crows* - deal 3 damage at long range, but only one damage (or > > even no damage) at close range. > > 3R environmental every round? For free? Other than Carrion Crows, can > you think of a combat card that approaches this power level? Howler > would have fun with it... if only she had a way to stop S:CE... Do you think it would be overpowered? I don't. But is was just an example created in a hurry. > > Direct Intervention* - you can cancel only combat cards, but this > > version is free (no pool cost). Probably, even a trifle. > > So, if I'm blocking I can stop S:CE or grapples or prevent or hitback > or maneuvers all with one Trifle card? That'll make creating combat > decks easier. It'll go great in my Howler Super-Crows deck. This would never be overpowered, IMHO. And intercept decks could use a boost. > > KRC* - select 2+ players, divide damage = (difference in votes "for" > > and "against" the referendum) evenly among the players (round down). > > Yeah. Arkia plays Killer-KRC and Awe. That's 26 votes in favor. Your > Justicar votes against? Fine. Lets do 18 damage to my prey ... and 4 > to my grand-prey... Oooh Voter Cap! Well, this card was a bad example. But, actually, your reply just demonstrates how Awe is overpowered. Does the game really needs a card that provides +20 votes or more? Yours, Ector

In article <1172347190.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > This would never be overpowered, IMHO. And intercept decks could use a > boost. Intercept decks could use a boost? In what world? Like, yeah, intercept decks aren't super good at *winning* games, yeah, but that is a good thing--offense should be better than defense (and generally is in most parts of this game), otherwise the game grinds down into a defensive standstill. Currently, you can pretty easily build a reasonably good intercept deck that can very reliably get 2VPs per game (from being the last guy left at the table). Which is fine, 'cause if intercept decks got too good at winning games while being completely defensive, the game stops being interesting. > Well, this card was a bad example. But, actually, your reply just > demonstrates how Awe is overpowered. Does the game really needs a card > that provides +20 votes or more? Awe isn't overpowered. Awe is perfectly fine. It has a very steep cost for a strong effect. Most of the time, Awe is simply overkill--if you have significant table votes, or overlapping non Awe modifiers (Bewitching+Iron Glare+Scalpel Tongue or whatever). In decks that *don't* have access to significant table vote weight or overlapping vote mods (i.e. you are the Settites, say), Awe is a powerful tool that lets you compete with all the other vote heavy hitters who do have access to overlapping vote mods. But in the case of, like, Arika/Ventrue Law Firm kinda stuff, Awe is more often than not just pure overkill. Especially 'cause it is so gosh darn expensive to play (for 1 blood at PRE, Awe is *less* useful than Bewitching...) Where Awe becomes a serious enabling factor is in a situation where the number of votes you win by becomes significant, and when the blood cost becomes a non factor. Hmm. I wonder what could set up such a situation? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

My two pool: Trophies: Combat has a pool gain/bleed defence (same thing IMHO) problem in general. So create a trophy that gives perma bloat/bounce effeft eg. Trophy: Defence Master. Trophy. When in play, allows the minion's methuselah to tap this card during his or her masterphase to gain 2 pool. If this card is untapped, the meth pay 1 pool and tap this card to select a new target for a bleed. A vampire may have only one T:D That, i would play. It only becomes truly usefull in multiples, which means your combat has to kill multiple vamps. Not all that easy really... (excepting tariq/tupdog etc style silliness :) Bounce: Disciplineless bleed bounce is a GOOD idea. Still, i would prefer something like the above, so as to empower a somewhat under powered strategy, brining it, and this is the important bit, up to par with bleed, breed, bloat and vote Set Rotation: Set rotation is bad!!!!! You ban my cards that I have spent blood, tears and lots of time acquiring, i will be just somewhat slightly miffed. Okay, i lie, i'll be pissed off beyond belief Power Curve Caution: Why not create new cards that have the ability of the old supahs? Taking the time to flush out the bugs in a news system in an idea, by allowing a fews sets before jacking up the idea, is great. If the GOOD cards for that idea do appear before tooooo long. (please make Black hand powerful, please make Black hand powerful, please make Black hand powerful, please make Black hand powerful, please make Black hand powerful, please make Black hand powerful ;) Variety and creativity: The designers are good at what they do. The ability to introduce new ideas, while still allowing existing archetypes to exist is an unbelievably complex exercise. There is always some guy out there who will take an innocent looking, playteset new card, and try to break it. However, i do agree with a few previous posters that there is a need to stick to 1 major theme, and not go outside the darkness....... Still, all in all, they have made less mistakes and gotten more right than a number of other CCG's. And that, we should be thankful for. Voting: The suggested idea of allowing the target of a ref to be able to block would be beautiful. Go ahead little miss arika, my tariq does not have any AUS, no ma'am, dont you worry your little head about that none........... But this might give Walls too much again, as sometimes the only way to get past the buggers is oust your gradnprey, then your prey and on as normal. But what kind of decks can target non prey/pred vamps? Bleed (KS) and vote. Rush to a lesser extent, but the point is there So all in all, what i truly feel would help without harming too much, is giving combat an ousting/bloating boost, allowing "freak" decks access to new powerful toys, and reducing the unbalanced power level of SB/SV. Have a good day now!

> Banned or nerfed, that's a supplemental debate, I would like to offer > up the following old friends for "the block" - not because they are > broken, or dominate the meta-game (they aren't and don't) - but > because it's time for somebody new. > > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation > Consanguineous Boon > Blood Doll > Torn Signpost > Carrion Crows > .44 Magnum > Direct Intervention > Voter Captivation > > Any cards I missed? Anybody else think a little retirement party would > be good for the game? Only in small amounts for a change--NOT as the new standard. ALL set rotation in early CCGs started as an "alternate" format, which was later standardized. If you just want constructed without the old staples, run that tournament--but don't try to make it a format. I'd be worried about the game's direction at that point. If you want help deciding what cards should go, I don't think Torn Signpost should go. If you cut cards only as strong as Signpost, then you have to cut Theft of Vitae and Raven Spy, and I don't think that's a good thing. Assuming that this tournament would be awesome--which I think is safe to assume--here are my suggestions for your list: Parity Shift Week of Nightmares Freak Drive Kindred Spirits Shambling Hordes War Ghoul Deflection Bowl of Convergence Carlton Van Wyk Why these? Because at every continental championship, I see most of these cards at every table. If your goal is to freshen up the face of the game, removing these would go a long way. Also, why Blood Doll without Minion Tap? Wouldn't removing either one just force a migration towards the other? Or what about Tribute to the Master? Looking forward to the finished set of rules, -- Brian

Ben Swainbank schrieb: > Kine Resources Contested > Conservative Agitation Huh? Those are the primary and practically only tools for a vote deck to damage and oust your prey (aka "the good thing"). If you get rid of those how will you ever oust someone with a vote deck? Of course there are still Domain Challenge and such, but they are rather random since they tend to damage a lof of Methusalehs. If you take away those cards vote is practically dead (except for Parity Shift / PTO or some trick decks like Free States Rant). You want to make Auto-Da-Fe playable? Certainly it will be one of the "better" options then, but it will still suck so people won´t play votes. Please keep in mind that with all of your suggestions Dom or Pre bleed is still VERY viable, but vote isn´t. Is that the point? -- johannes walch

Sorry for the empty post. Somebody is testing Google groups, and they're working strangely. Peter D Bakija: > In article <1172347190.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > This would never be overpowered, IMHO. And intercept decks could use a > > boost. > > Intercept decks could use a boost? In what world? Like, yeah, intercept > decks aren't super good at *winning* games, yeah, but that is a good > thing--offense should be better than defense (and generally is in most > parts of this game), otherwise the game grinds down into a defensive > standstill. Currently, you can pretty easily build a reasonably good > intercept deck that can very reliably get 2VPs per game (from being the > last guy left at the table). Which is fine, 'cause if intercept decks > got too good at winning games while being completely defensive, the game > stops being interesting. Yes, intercept decks could use a boost, in this world. They usually cannot stop effectively stop S&B prey, and they usually cannot survive combat with Rush decks (their intercept cards are useless in this fight). Intercept decks already play DI to cancel combat cards, so why do they have to pay pool for it? > > Well, this card was a bad example. But, actually, your reply just > > demonstrates how Awe is overpowered. Does the game really needs a card > > that provides +20 votes or more? > > Awe isn't overpowered. Awe is perfectly fine. It has a very steep cost > for a strong effect. Most of the time, Awe is simply overkill--if you > have significant table votes, or overlapping non Awe modifiers > (Bewitching+Iron Glare+Scalpel Tongue or whatever). In decks that > *don't* have access to significant table vote weight or overlapping vote > mods (i.e. you are the Settites, say), Awe is a powerful tool that lets > you compete with all the other vote heavy hitters who do have access to > overlapping vote mods. But in the case of, like, Arika/Ventrue Law Firm > kinda stuff, Awe is more often than not just pure overkill. Especially > 'cause it is so gosh darn expensive to play (for 1 blood at PRE, Awe is > *less* useful than Bewitching...) Yes, Awe is worse than Bewitching if you need only 4 votes. So, you will play Awe only if you need to push your votes despite any opposition. Bewitching + Iron Glare + Scalpel is three cards. You can find deadly three-card combos in any CCG, but the ability to push any vote with one card should be restricted to "once per game" cards like Dia de Los Muertos, IMHO. PTO would become slightly "less broken" without Awe. A deck with Malgorzata, Radu Bistry and Velya has 9 permanent votes, and Arika wouldn't easily pass PTO with such opposition, even with Bewitching. With Awe, she burns any non-Cam vampire with ease. > Where Awe becomes a serious enabling factor is in a situation where the > number of votes you win by becomes significant, and when the blood cost > becomes a non factor. Hmm. I wonder what could set up such a situation? You're talking about Voter Captivation. Surely, VC prohibits creating the new political cards and modifiers with a blood cost. But Awe prohibits creating the new cards that would depend on the difference of votes. Is it interesting to vote if everybody knows that the referendum is likely to pass? But if the difference really matters, this becomes interesting. Deals are made and broken, and so on. Awe + VC is a deadly combo: you will push any vote, refill your vampire and gain 2 pool. But maybe Awe should be changed instead of VC? After all, we could create a lot of interesting cards based on difference of votes - if we had no cards of +20 votes. For instance, take my KRC* and apply the limitation - no more than 4 damage to each player. Or even 3 damage. It would be an interesting card, right? Unfortunately, the cards like Awe prohibit the whole mechanic. Yours, Ector

In article <1172510007.0...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Yes, intercept decks could use a boost, in this world. They usually > cannot stop effectively stop S&B prey, and they usually cannot survive > combat with Rush decks (their intercept cards are useless in this > fight). All decks have weaknesses. Intercept/Wall decks tend to be good defensively (i.e. hard to oust) but have difficulty getting GWs (as they tend to only ever get 2VPs). Which is a reasonable tradeoff--if intercept decks were good defensively, hard to oust *and* they could reliably get 3VP game wins, why would anyone play anything else? When building an intercept deck, you generally have to trade defense for offense--the more defense you have, the less offense, and vice-versa. It is a design function. Intercept decks, in the grand scheme, don't need any more success than they have. As offense *needs* to be better than defense. As otherwise, the game isn't going to work. > Intercept decks already play DI to cancel combat cards, so why > do they have to pay pool for it? I don't understand this sentence at all. > Yes, Awe is worse than Bewitching if you need only 4 votes. So, you > will play Awe only if you need to push your votes despite any > opposition. Sure. And you pay through the nose for it. The only reason Awe seems overpowered is, well, 'cause of Voter Cap. > You're talking about Voter Captivation. Yep. Not wanting to open that can of worms again, but in and of itself? Awe is totally reasonable (strong effect, but incredibly high cost). Awe becomes scary when Voter Cap is attached. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija: > In article <1172510007.0...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Yes, intercept decks could use a boost, in this world. They usually > > cannot stop effectively stop S&B prey, and they usually cannot survive > > combat with Rush decks (their intercept cards are useless in this > > fight). > > All decks have weaknesses. Intercept/Wall decks tend to be good > defensively (i.e. hard to oust) but have difficulty getting GWs (as they > tend to only ever get 2VPs). Which is a reasonable tradeoff--if > intercept decks were good defensively, hard to oust *and* they could > reliably get 3VP game wins, why would anyone play anything else? When > building an intercept deck, you generally have to trade defense for > offense--the more defense you have, the less offense, and vice-versa. It > is a design function. > > Intercept decks, in the grand scheme, don't need any more success than > they have. As offense *needs* to be better than defense. As otherwise, > the game isn't going to work. Firstly, I didn't suggest so great boost that it would allow intercept decks to get 3VPs reliably. Just a modified DI that would cancel only combat cards, but fot free. Secondly, intercept decks aren't going to get even 2 VPs automatically. After all, other players are getting pool for the ousting. And don't forget the time limit. > > Intercept decks already play DI to cancel combat cards, so why > > do they have to pay pool for it? > > I don't understand this sentence at all. I wanted to say that a modified DI that could cancel only combat cards, but for free, would be preferable for the intercept decks, but it wouldn't be so overpowered to make everybody play intercept. > > Yes, Awe is worse than Bewitching if you need only 4 votes. So, you > > will play Awe only if you need to push your votes despite any > > opposition. > > Sure. And you pay through the nose for it. The only reason Awe seems > overpowered is, well, 'cause of Voter Cap. So, you insist that the game needs a mechanic allowing to push any vote with just one card. I disagree. After all, there are no ways of getting +20 stealth with one card (even Forest of Shadows provides limited number of stealth). Yes, there are cards "vampires cannot block this action", but they usually lead to torpor, or at least require two disciplines (Beast Meld). And even despite these cards, designers created some ways to foil unblockable actions: Champion, Yawp Court. Offense should beat defense, but not all the time - there shouldn't be the unstoppable offense, too. And there are no limits on using Awe, you can play 10 copies or more. Awe is preventing creation of new powerful political cards, even not dependant on the vote difference. One could use "inbuilt votes against" mechanic to limit the power of new card, but Awe nullifies such mechanic. For instance: Stripped-Off Power (+1 stealth Political Action, 1 vote) Requires a ready vampire. Choose a titled vampire. If the referendum is successful, that vampire loses his or her title. You have 5 votes against this referendum. Without Awe, this card could be created. With Awe, it would be completely broken. It would be too easy to achieve a vote lock on the table. Don't you see now that Awe prohibits creating new cards as much as VC? > > You're talking about Voter Captivation. > > Yep. Not wanting to open that can of worms again, but in and of itself? > Awe is totally reasonable (strong effect, but incredibly high cost). Awe > becomes scary when Voter Cap is attached. And Voter Cap becomes scary when Awe is attached :) In a healthy environment, achieving a vote lock should be difficult enough. And if you aren't sure that each your vote would pass, Voter Cap becomes a reasonable card. If you cannot push any votes, it becomes a dead card at all! Without Awe, a table always has some chances of keeping VCs at bay. Vote against, torporize a vampire with most votes, and so on. But with Awe, the only chance left is playing the vote-cancelling effect, and they aren't always available. So, I vote for nerfing Awe instead of VC. But VC also could be downgraded a bit - what about gaining just 1 pool instead of 2 at superior? Yours, Ector

On Feb 27, 4:20 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Firstly, I didn't suggest so great boost that it would allow intercept > decks to get 3VPs reliably. Just a modified DI that would cancel only > combat cards, but fot free. Oh. Ok. I was clearly just responding to "intercept decks could use a boost" rather than "I'm suggesting a free DI for combat cards". But that sounds like a horrid idea (the free DI for combat cards). But isn't a conversation I'm pursuing. > So, you insist that the game needs a mechanic allowing to push any > vote with just one card. I disagree. Where do I "insist" this? I'm just saying that in a design sense, in and of itself, Awe is very reasonable. It has a strong effect (that more often than not is simply overkill) and a high cost. > After all, there are no ways of > getting +20 stealth with one card (even Forest of Shadows provides > limited number of stealth). Sure. But there are significant limits to the amount of stealth you need based on the amount of intercept you'll run into. Votes work on a different scale. Getting up to +4 stealth, most of the time, is very sufficient. Getting up to +12 votes, a great deal of the time, is not. > there > shouldn't be the unstoppable offense, too. And there are no limits on > using Awe, you can play 10 copies or more. There is plenty of unstoppable offense (Dia de los Muertes, Strange Day, Daring the Dawn, Horrific Countenance, Flaming Candle). Awe is sort of unstoppable offense (which still gets nerfed by Delaying Tactics and DI) with a huge cost (like Horrific Countenance, say). Again, where Awe becomes a big issue is, when, ya know, the cost isn't an issue anymore. -Peter

On Feb 26, 10:06 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Ben Swainbank schrieb: > > > Kine Resources Contested > > Conservative Agitation > > Huh? Those are the primary and practically only tools for a vote deck to > damage and oust your prey (aka "the good thing"). If you get rid of > those how will you ever oust someone with a vote deck? This is true. And with Voter Cap and/or Con Boon nerfed I'm suggesting we change the way vote decks gain pool (and thus play defense). So, yes. This would create a very big hole in the way vote decks work. I would expect this hole to get filled in with new cards. The fact that the nerfing of handful of Jyhad-era cards would kill the vast majority of vote decks suggests to me that the vote game is pretty stale and could use some shock therapy. > Please keep in mind that with all of your suggestions Dom or Pre bleed > is still VERY viable, but vote isn´t. Is that the point? > That isn't the point. I am aware that my suggestions hit the vote, combat, and pool gain spaces pretty hard and leave the stealth/beed/ interecept/bounce area untouched. My reasoning there is that there aren't really any "outliers" in the stealth/bleed space. The cards, across the various disciplines are all designed and costed along pretty much the same lines. I don't see any serious candidates for change. Also, due to the proliferation of new intecept and anti-bleed tricks over the years, and a few new stealth/block fails toys as well, the steath-bleed meta game has actually evolved quite a bit. -Ben Swainbank

On Feb 27, 3:52 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 4:20 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > But > that sounds like a horrid idea (the free DI for combat cards). But > isn't a conversation I'm pursuing. Why do you think this idea is horrid? > > > After all, there are no ways of > > getting +20 stealth with one card (even Forest of Shadows provides > > limited number of stealth). > > Sure. But there are significant limits to the amount of stealth you > need based on the amount of intercept you'll run into. Votes work on a > different scale. Getting up to +4 stealth, most of the time, is very > sufficient. Getting up to +12 votes, a great deal of the time, is not. This scale is different because when you play stealth against intercept, most of the time you're playing against one vampire. When you're pushing a vote, you can play against the WHOLE TABLE. Why on Earth a card allowing you to outvote the whole table shouldn't be restricted to "once per game" or similar? Doesn't it destroy the whole idea of voting and politics? > > there > > shouldn't be the unstoppable offense, too. And there are no limits on > > using Awe, you can play 10 copies or more. > > There is plenty of unstoppable offense (Dia de los Muertes, Strange > Day, Daring the Dawn, Horrific Countenance, Flaming Candle). Awe is > sort of unstoppable offense (which still gets nerfed by Delaying > Tactics and DI) with a huge cost (like Horrific Countenance, say). > Again, where Awe becomes a big issue is, when, ya know, the cost isn't > an issue anymore. Good examples, really! Dia de los Muertos, Strange Day, Flaming Candle can be played only once per game. Daring the Dawn is a way to torpor. Horrific Countenance has a fixed huge cost that prevents from using multiple copies of it - you aren't going to pay 4 blood for pushing each action, especially if you can get +2 stealth for 1 blood (Earth Control), which would be enough in most cases. You cannot just cycle Countenance as you can do with Awe, playing it for zero. Actually, nobody is going to build a deck with 10 copies of any card from your list. Even 5 copies is unlikely. But 10 Awe is realistic - why not? Especially with multiple Voter Captivations. Even if VC get downgraded a bit, Awe + VC would still remain a very powerful combo. Awe really needs "once per game" restriction or at least the increasing cost, like Sibyl's Tongue, IMHO. Yours, Ector

In article <1172608248.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Why do you think this idea is horrid? 'Cause DI in and of itself is a horrid card that never should have been introduced into the game. Making another one that is free, even if only restricted to combat cards, just makes a bad mistake worse. And why would it only help intercept decks? > intercept, most of the time you're playing against one vampire. When > you're pushing a vote, you can play against the WHOLE TABLE. Which is why the scale of Awe is reasonable for the cost. If you are a Ventrue Law Firm deck with Arika, some Justicar, some Prince, and Ventrue HQ, Awe is rarely going to be necessary. If you are some Settite sneak and vote deck trying to compete against such a Ventrue deck, Awe is the only way you are ever going to get any votes passed. > Why on > Earth a card allowing you to outvote the whole table shouldn't be > restricted to "once per game" or similar? Doesn't it destroy the whole > idea of voting and politics? No more so than the rest of the game. Voting is rarely actually something the requires politics. Most of the time, either you can pass a vote (Awe or not) or you can't. If I have Arika, a Justicar, and a Prince. And then Ventrue HQ. And then a Bewitching, I have 17 votes available, including the vote from the PA. In such a situation, even without Awe, eexcept for the most vote heavy table, the votes I call are going to be a forgone conclusion. Doesn't mean I'll automatically win, but I'm likely going to pass most of my votes. Awe simply makes a few more of a lock, and lets some fringe strategies compete with the standards. > Good examples, really! Dia de los Muertos, Strange Day, Flaming Candle > can be played only once per game. Daring the Dawn is a way to torpor. > Horrific Countenance has a fixed huge cost that prevents from using > multiple copies of it - you aren't going to pay 4 blood for pushing > each action, especially if you can get +2 stealth for 1 blood (Earth > Control), which would be enough in most cases. Awe also has a huge cost that prevents you from using multiple copies of it. In theory. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-1BE9A0.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <1172608248.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >> Why do you think this idea is horrid? > >'Cause DI in and of itself is a horrid card that never should have been >introduced into the game. Making another one that is free, even if only >restricted to combat cards, just makes a bad mistake worse. And why >would it only help intercept decks? My main worry would be Majesty decks including it to kill IG, TT or whatever. I don't just mean Majesty of course, but S:CE and untap could be quite horrid with it, as would Form of Mist decks going against a wall, and similar sorts of things. >No more so than the rest of the game. Voting is rarely actually >something the requires politics. Most of the time, either you can pass a >vote (Awe or not) or you can't. If I have Arika, a Justicar, and a >Prince. And then Ventrue HQ. And then a Bewitching, I have 17 votes >available, including the vote from the PA. In such a situation, even >without Awe, eexcept for the most vote heavy table, the votes I call are >going to be a forgone conclusion. Doesn't mean I'll automatically win, >but I'm likely going to pass most of my votes. Awe simply makes a few >more of a lock, and lets some fringe strategies compete with the >standards. Kinda. Even with a lot of pro-vote cards (vote-pass tech, vote-cancellation tech etc.), you can still find yourself with a lot of "politics" to deal with. It does depend on whether you see it as politics, though. For example, if you have a reasonable amount of vote-pass tech on hand (the vote, Ventrue HQ here and there, BO, Bribes etc.), you may find it difficult getting through the intercept wall first. "I won't block you if you give 2 damage to *her*." Ditto, if you have to negotiate with a combat deck that wants to pound you INNA FACE. Because vote decks usually can be flexible, people may want you to... flex. Very group/environment dependent, though, and will fail spectacularly against some players (or when such extortion is attempted by some players). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Peter D Bakija: > In article <1172608248.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Why do you think this idea is horrid? > > 'Cause DI in and of itself is a horrid card that never should have been > introduced into the game. Making another one that is free, even if only > restricted to combat cards, just makes a bad mistake worse. And why > would it only help intercept decks? DI is a horrid card that should have never been introduced? Hmm. Did you ever think about the necessary level of interaction between players? Many good CCGs have "counter-cards", and nobody considers them "horrid". Magic has so many that there is an archetype of "counter-deck". AGOT has Paper Shield, and so on. We have just ONE card to cancel any minion card - and it should have never been introduced? I think, we should have more such cards. As long as they remain master cards, there isn't any danger of "counter-decks" here. > > intercept, most of the time you're playing against one vampire. When > > you're pushing a vote, you can play against the WHOLE TABLE. > > Which is why the scale of Awe is reasonable for the cost. If you are a > Ventrue Law Firm deck with Arika, some Justicar, some Prince, and > Ventrue HQ, Awe is rarely going to be necessary. If you are some Settite > sneak and vote deck trying to compete against such a Ventrue deck, Awe > is the only way you are ever going to get any votes passed. Why do you think that Setites should have the way to have their votes passed (multiple times) without having any permanent votes? Why? Would you like to have a Protean card providing +X stealth for X blood? It would be the only way Gangrels could compete against Wall decks. Horrific Countenance isn't as versatile and cannot be used in multiple copies. But who said that Gangrels should regularly beat intercept, as well as who said that Setites should regularly beat opposition of the other voting decks? > > Why on > > Earth a card allowing you to outvote the whole table shouldn't be > > restricted to "once per game" or similar? Doesn't it destroy the whole > > idea of voting and politics? > > No more so than the rest of the game. Voting is rarely actually > something the requires politics. Most of the time, either you can pass a > vote (Awe or not) or you can't. If I have Arika, a Justicar, and a > Prince. And then Ventrue HQ. And then a Bewitching, I have 17 votes > available, including the vote from the PA. In such a situation, even > without Awe, eexcept for the most vote heavy table, the votes I call are > going to be a forgone conclusion. Doesn't mean I'll automatically win, > but I'm likely going to pass most of my votes. Awe simply makes a few > more of a lock, and lets some fringe strategies compete with the > standards. If you invest in permanent votes, you may have a vote lock. But you will have to pay a lot for it, and fatties are risky. But even such decks could play some Awes since they are so easy to cycle (for 0 blood). The major question: if you DIDN'T invest much in permanent votes, why should you have the way to push the votes at all? > Awe also has a huge cost that prevents you from using multiple copies of > it. In theory. Awe is uber-flexible. Even without VC (just imagine that there's no VC in the game) Awe is much more powerful and flexible that it should be. If your votes are passing without Awe, you can cycle it for zero blood. Thus, you can have 10+ copies in your deck. X blood is NOT "a huge cost". Yours, Ector

On Feb 28, 8:59 pm, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > DI is a horrid card that should have never been introduced? Hmm. Did > you ever think about the necessary level of interaction between > players? Many good CCGs have "counter-cards", and nobody considers > them "horrid". Magic has so many that there is an archetype of > "counter-deck". AGOT has Paper Shield, and so on. We have just ONE > card to cancel any minion card - and it should have never been > introduced? I think, we should have more such cards. As long as they > remain master cards, there isn't any danger of "counter-decks" here. I try and play card X and someone else says no I play DI... that's not interaction, that's the computer saying no. I'm with Peter, it's a horrid card. Simon

James Coupe: > In message <pdb6-1BE9A0.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: > >In article <1172608248.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > My main worry would be Majesty decks including it to kill IG, TT or > whatever. I don't just mean Majesty of course, but S:CE and untap could > be quite horrid with it, as would Form of Mist decks going against a > wall, and similar sorts of things. I think that noncombat decks would stay with DI, since DI can cancel the Rush card itself, or any other dangerous card (for instance, Alastor). Besides, they aldready have Disengage against Grapples. And nothing prevents the opposing vampire from playing another TT or Psyche! after the first gets canceled. > Even with a lot of pro-vote cards (vote-pass tech, vote-cancellation > tech etc.), you can still find yourself with a lot of "politics" to deal > with. It does depend on whether you see it as politics, though. For > example, if you have a reasonable amount of vote-pass tech on hand (the > vote, Ventrue HQ here and there, BO, Bribes etc.), you may find it > difficult getting through the intercept wall first. "I won't block you > if you give 2 damage to *her*." Ditto, if you have to negotiate with a > combat deck that wants to pound you INNA FACE. Because vote decks > usually can be flexible, people may want you to... flex. > > Very group/environment dependent, though, and will fail spectacularly > against some players (or when such extortion is attempted by some > players). All this is true. Any voting deck should make some deals and be flexible. But if we assume that there are no intercept decks on the table, Awe will constantly break the vote balance. For instance, Player A has 3 votes, Players B and C have 4, and Player D has 2 votes. If player A wants to push his vote, he MUST deal with somebody to get his/her votes. Even Bewitching won't allow him to push the vote against the whole table, and that's perfect. The whole votes mechanic was meant to incorporate the need of such deals. The more permanent votes you have - the more you can trade for them. Playing large vampires with a lot of votes is risky, so the players should be rewarded for the risk. Awe completely destroys this mechanic. Player A can push any vote against the whole table, and that's horrible. "My Anneke plays Alastor. 10 votes against? She plays Awe!" Yes, Awe will cost some blood, so what? Even without VC Anneke can return that blood with Taste of Vitae and her new Assault Rifle :) And the most horrible thing is the fact that she can push such votes several times! Six Awe and six Alastors are quite logical, and I'm laughing at those Inner Circles (in fact, I can even push Justicar Retribution and burn them all!) This situation cannot be considered "normal". Vote mechanics wasn't meant to be broken so easily. Restricting Awe to "once per game" would be quite logical. Alternatively, one could add another restriction... like "X cannot be less than 3". This would at least prohibit free cycling and lead to the smaller number of copies in playable decks. Yours, Ector

On 28 feb, 08:59, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Peter D Bakija:> In article <1172608248.121596.191...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > > "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > Why do you think this idea is horrid? > > > 'Cause DI in and of itself is a horrid card that never should have been > > introduced into the game. Making another one that is free, even if only > > restricted to combat cards, just makes a bad mistake worse. And why > > would it only help intercept decks? > > DI is a horrid card that should have never been introduced? Hmm. Definitly. >Did > you ever think about the necessary level of interaction between > players? Many good CCGs have "counter-cards", and nobody considers > them "horrid". huh???? because other games do it, V:TES should do it? I demand casteling in V:TES in that case.... >Magic has so many that there is an archetype of > "counter-deck". AGOT has Paper Shield, and so on. We have just ONE > card to cancel any minion card - and it should have never been > introduced? The ONE card is exactly the problem. Why only one instead of different ones with smaller scope? and why the broad spectum? >I think, we should have more such cards. As long as they > remain master cards, there isn't any danger of "counter-decks" here. That's not the point, is it?

On Feb 28, 2:59 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > DI is a horrid card that should have never been introduced? Correct. But that is a whole other discussion. > Hmm. Did > you ever think about the necessary level of interaction between > players? Many good CCGs have "counter-cards", and nobody considers > them "horrid". DI is simply too blanket of an effect in a game where that sort of thing isn't really something that comes up much. Direct Intervention was a mistake on a vast level (Sabbat had a lot of mistakes, but that was one of the biggest). > We have just ONE card to cancel any minion card - and it should have never been > introduced? Correct. Why does there need to be a card that cancels any minion card? > Why do you think that Setites should have the way to have their votes > passed (multiple times) without having any permanent votes? Why? 'Cause it allows for more varied deck designs. Which leads to more interesting play environments. Awe (divorced for the moment from Voter Cap) is a strong card with a significant cost. In most standard political archetypes, it is overkill. In some fringier decks (like Settite Stealth Vote, which has lots of problems in and of itself to balance out the stealth and presence vote pushing), it is all there is to make the deck even viable in some situations. > Would you like to have a Protean card providing +X stealth for X blood? Sure. It wouldn't be that good. As it would be too expensive to play reliably. As you don't gain blood for having stealth (as opposed to when every vote you gain from Awe potentially gives you 2 blood). > It would be the only way Gangrels could compete against Wall decks. Faulty analogy, as they already have, ya know, Form of Mist. And Earth Control. And aggrivated damage and damage prevention. I think the Gangrel do just fine against Wall decks already. But we'll move on. > Horrific Countenance isn't as versatile and cannot be used in multiple > copies. It could if you refilled your vampire after a successful action with Horrific Countenance... > But who said that Gangrels should regularly beat intercept, as > well as who said that Setites should regularly beat opposition of the > other voting decks? I never said that they had to regularly beat the opposition of other voting decks. I said that because of Awe, they can be viable in the face of other, more standard voting decks. > If you invest in permanent votes, you may have a vote lock. But you > will have to pay a lot for it, and fatties are risky. But even such > decks could play some Awes since they are so easy to cycle (for 0 > blood). The major question: if you DIDN'T invest much in permanent > votes, why should you have the way to push the votes at all? 'Cause that is how the game works. There are plenty of ways to make votes pass without permanent table votes--Awe is just one of them (see: Justicar votes+Cryptic Rider; Malkavian Rider; stacked vote modifiers; Charming Lobby; Rant if you are an Anarch, etc). The game is designed so that you can pass votes without table weight. As otherwise, vote decks would be a very narrow field of decks rather than a wide one. As it stands, the decks that have the permanent table votes tend to be the best vote decks, still. But you can make other vote decks that work just fine. Because of cards like Awe. > Awe is uber-flexible. Even without VC (just imagine that there's no VC > in the game) Awe is much more powerful and flexible that it should be. Not so much. You use it once for a serious effect, and then you are out of blood. Just like with, say, Horrific Countenance. > If your votes are passing without Awe, you can cycle it for zero > blood. Thus, you can have 10+ copies in your deck. X blood is NOT "a > huge cost". It is a huge cost if you actually need the votes (assuming again, for argument's sake, that Voter Cap is not in the equation). Yeah, you can cycle it for nothing, which makes it flexible. But then it isn't doing you any good. You can play it to push a vote through, but against any significant opposition (again, say you are a Settite vote deck trying to compete against the Ventrue), you run out of blood quickly. Which is a reasonable trade off. Without Voter Cap, Awe is perfectly reasonable. Not trying to start up a discussion on Voter Cap again, but in the Awe+Voter Cap equation, I truly believe that the Voter Cap is the problematic element, not the Awe. -Peter

On Feb 28, 4:11 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Awe completely destroys this mechanic. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know about you, but when I build vote decks, I do so in such a way to remove the possibility that I might have to make deals and use politics. I want my vote deck to have vote lock as often as possible. This means that I'll want either very significant table votes (Justicars/ICs/Legendary Vampires/masters that give me votes) or ways to virtually be assured of pushing my votes through when I need them (Awe+Bewitching+Scalpel Tounge; Justicar/Cryptic Rider; Rant in my Anarch deck, etc). Once and a while, things fail, and my deck doesn't work in a vote sense. But I suspect that *most* folks, when building vote decks, do everything in their power to circumvent the mechanic that you seem to think that Awe destroys. Heck. Currently, I'm playing a funny Hermana's Menor vote deck. It is sketchy, but moderately effective (due to being an endless supply of 2 caps...) in a hit or miss kinda way (sometimes I just get shut down. Sometimes I start out well and am incredibly effective). If I can get a leg up early, I usually just get vote lock (i.e. get a Archbishop on my first action, get 2 more on my next turn, etc) quickly. In the last game I played, where I won, I had 8 Archbishops in play by the end of the game. 16 table votes. If that doesn't destroy the mechanic of "politics and deal making", I don't know what does... -Peter

On Feb 18, 11:49 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > The only problem combat has is that combat kills and then combat > > dies. Trophies alleviate that second part. > > I think your first sentence is a drastic over-simplification, and your > second somewhat true, though I don't believe Trophies go far enough in > addressing that single [of several facing combat] issue. You will have to pardon the late response, but what part of the above is an over-simplification. Any non-PJ/weenie/intercept combat deck is for the most part doomed to failure, and usually fails after it ruins 1 or 2 other players games. Is that clear enough for you. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp