Although I had and maybe submitted similar ideas before, this comes in
relation to the "save VTES" interrogations.
Oversize me (not the definitive title lol)
Action modifier
Only usable by a vampire above 6 [7 ?]. Put this card on a vampire who
succeeds in an action granted by his special card text if that action isn't
a rush action. Once per turn, if he hasn't performed any other action, the
vampire with this card can untap if he succeeds in using that specific
action, and cannot be untapped again this turn by any other means. Burn this
card if that specific action fails.
Ok, the terms of course need to be tuned somewhat. But you get the meaning :
Carlotta, Villon et al will get a little boost without getting For.
Personnal Sacrifice
Reaction
Only usable by a non-Camarilla vampire above 8. Not usable if that vampire
has Aus or Dom.
When a bleed against you is succesful, you can burn X blood from this
vampire to reduce the blled by X+1.
And this again :
Anticipation
Action Modifier
(1 blood ?)
Play as the action is announced.
Obf + Cel : only usable on cardless actions. If this action succeeds, and
after all modifiers have been applied, untap this acting vampire.
OBF + CEL : After this action is resolved, untap the acting vampire. Only
one Anticipation at superior can be used by a vampire each turn.
Etc...
--
Orpheus
-----------------------
My story doesn't happen in the sound of the notes
but in the silence between them.
That is where the magic happens.
Echo
Orpheus wrote:
> Although I had and maybe submitted similar ideas before, this comes in
> relation to the "save VTES" interrogations.
>
> Oversize me (not the definitive title lol)
> Action modifier
> Only usable by a vampire above 6 [7 ?]. Put this card on a vampire who
> succeeds in an action granted by his special card text if that action isn't
> a rush action. Once per turn, if he hasn't performed any other action, the
> vampire with this card can untap if he succeeds in using that specific
> action, and cannot be untapped again this turn by any other means. Burn this
> card if that specific action fails.
>
> Ok, the terms of course need to be tuned somewhat. But you get the meaning :
> Carlotta, Villon et al will get a little boost without getting For.
I really like this idea, but what about the poor schleps who have no
special card text, may I offer an alternative:
Strength of blood
Unique Master
Cost: 1 pool
Put this card into play. Any vampire with a capacity above 7 may untap
once per turn. Play this card when a gehenna event is played as an out
of turn master to cancel that event. If used in this way you gain an
additional master phase action but lose 1 discard phase action.
> Personnal Sacrifice
> Reaction
> Only usable by a non-Camarilla vampire above 8. Not usable if that vampire
> has Aus or Dom.
> When a bleed against you is succesful, you can burn X blood from this
> vampire to reduce the blled by X+1.
>
I'd drop the restrictions, but besides that, I like it fine.
> And this again :
>
> Anticipation
> Action Modifier
> (1 blood ?)
> Play as the action is announced.
> Obf + Cel : only usable on cardless actions. If this action succeeds, and
> after all modifiers have been applied, untap this acting vampire.
> OBF + CEL : After this action is resolved, untap the acting vampire. Only
> one Anticipation at superior can be used by a vampire each turn.
>
Don't like this one purely because it uses specific disciplines, I'd
rather see the card work purely based on capacity rather than any
establised discipline spread.
I see what you are doing here, giving players a incentive to play
bigger vamps again (if they don't anyway) and I think it's a pretty
good idea. Weenies, for all thier inherent drawbacks, are potentialy
incredibly powerful, purely based on the amount of actions they can
perform, let alone any disciplines they may possess. Actions speak
louder than words, and when those actions are 10+ bleeds for 2 or more,
the actions become pretty hard to ignore.
Sutekh_23
You can also add something like
Master
Wrath of the fattie
if this vampire leaves the ready region each methusaleh burns 1 (maybe
2) pool.
Something like the firs fame that dealed damage to your prey
[ quoted text not captured ]
Omael <omael....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can also add something like> Master
> Wrath of the fattie
> if this vampire leaves the ready region each methusaleh burns 1 (maybe
> 2) pool.
Sylvester Simms!
Orpheus skrev:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have many times suggested the "super-superior"-mechanic too spice
things up a bit.
Blood for the Blood God
Presence action
Cost: 1 blood
Inferior: Lame effect (maybe bleed +1)
Superior: Decent effect (maybe bleed +2)
"Super-superior" (Playable only by 8+ cap): Bleed for +2 and untap.
This was just an example, maybe overpowered. But I guess you got my
point. And no, the mechanic should not be named "super-superior", but
something cool, like maybe "Elder power" or something.
Also/alternatively, I suggest cards that power up elders of clans that
do not have the ability to take multiple actions. Something like
"Playable only by Nosferatu of 8+ cap".
Orpheus wrote:
> Although I had and maybe submitted similar ideas before, this comes in
> relation to the "save VTES" interrogations.
Friends in High Places
Event
Government
When this card comes into play, put X counters on it, where X is the
capacity of any ready vampire. Once per turn, when any vampire with
capacity X or larger successfully completes an action, his controller
may burn a counter off this card to untap that vampire. Burn this card
when it has no more counters.
Or personal sacrifice:
Master out of turn:
Requires a vampire with capacity above 7, if this vampire will leave
play another of your ready vampires took it's place.
maybe someclause that require the other vampire to be 2/N + 1 cap where
N is the fatty cap. and this could solve the pto against a sabbat
cardinal or aggropoke against alexandra.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I love it! Not only does it help fatties but once you have burned off
enough counters then the little vampires start to be able to use it as
well. Funky Weird!
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
[ quoted text not captured ]
Might be more interesting in reverse:
When this card comes into play, put X counters on it, where X is the
capacity of the smallest (? lowest? whatever) vampire you control.
Once per turn, when any vampire with capacity X or larger successfully
completes an action, his controller may add a counter to this card to
untap that vampire. Burn this card when it has 10 (? 11? 12?)
counters.
Xian
No need to burn the card in this case. If you're going to play 1 skill
card every turn to keep your untap special going, that's opportunity
cost enough.
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> jeff...@pacbell.net wrote:
> > Friends in High Places
> > Event
> > Government
> > When this card comes into play, put X counters on it, where X is the
> > capacity of any ready vampire. Once per turn, when any vampire with
> > capacity X or larger successfully completes an action, his controller
> > may burn a counter off this card to untap that vampire. Burn this card
> > when it has no more counters.
>
> I love it! Not only does it help fatties but once you have burned off
> enough counters then the little vampires start to be able to use it as
> well. Funky Weird!
Note that X doesn't change as counters get removed. By card text above,
X is set when the card is played and doesn't change.
[ quoted text not captured ]
That seems a little strange. That would mean that for Wormwood X would
always equal 10. If what you say is true, then after 3 turns of
players taking counters off of it, taking a smoke break, eating a
pizza, and having a political arguement about the nature of VTES how
would the players be able to remember what X originally was?
Anyway, it is a hypothetical card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Note that X doesn't change as counters get removed. By card text above,
> > X is set when the card is played and doesn't change.
>
> That seems a little strange. That would mean that for Wormwood X would
> always equal 10.
No. Card text.
> If what you say is true, then after 3 turns of
> players taking counters off of it, taking a smoke break, eating a
> pizza, and having a political arguement about the nature of VTES how
> would the players be able to remember what X originally was?
The same way they remember what the capacity of a minion affected by
Violet Tremain's turn-3 strike is.
> Anyway, it is a hypothetical card.
Sure. So there's to be no precision to the discussion, then?
LSJ wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Note that X doesn't change as counters get removed. By card text above,
> > > X is set when the card is played and doesn't change.
> >
> > That seems a little strange. That would mean that for Wormwood X would
> > always equal 10.
>
> No. Card text.
Okay, wormwood is clear, but the more intuitive reading of this
hypothetical card would be that you look at the card and the number of
counters on the card is the capacity you have to exceed. You can say
that X doesn't change, but that is just errata or clarification.
Let's read the card.
Friends in High Places
Event
Government
When this card comes into play, put X counters on it, where X is the
capacity of any ready vampire. Once per turn, when any vampire with
capacity X or larger successfully completes an action, his controller
may burn a counter off this card to untap that vampire. Burn this card
when it has no more counters.
The card reads that capacity required is equal to X, X equals the
number of counters, the number of counters is the required capacity of
the vampire to untap, and the number of counters decreases over time,
therefore the capacity required to untap decreases over time.
You know A=B and B=C and C=D and D=E therefore A=E
> > If what you say is true, then after 3 turns of
> > players taking counters off of it, taking a smoke break, eating a
> > pizza, and having a political arguement about the nature of VTES how
> > would the players be able to remember what X originally was?
>
> The same way they remember what the capacity of a minion affected by
> Violet Tremain's turn-3 strike is.
Ah, often a remembrance device is use (a marker or die).
> > Anyway, it is a hypothetical card.
>
> Sure. So there's to be no precision to the discussion, then?
Well, if you could discuss the hypothetical card without issuing an
errata or clarification that would be one thing. I believe the
imprecision appears when the mechanisms of the English language are
ignored.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Orpheus wrote:
> And this again :
>
> Anticipation
> Action Modifier
> (1 blood ?)
> Play as the action is announced.
> Obf + Cel : only usable on cardless actions. If this action succeeds, and
> after all modifiers have been applied, untap this acting vampire.
> OBF + CEL : After this action is resolved, untap the acting vampire. Only
> one Anticipation at superior can be used by a vampire each turn.
This doesn't help "fatties" so much as it makes assamites and
city-gangrel into multi-rush monsters.
(aside: are haven uncovered and talbot's chainsaw, archon etc
"cardless" for this purpose or not? contracts? they're not action
cards, but they are cards that provide for actions... what about
someone else's powerbase? maybe you'd need to be specific and state:
only basic bleed, hunt and encounter in torpor actions?)
For a positive contribution,
how about something on these lines:
Multi-Task
Action Modfier
(2 blood?)
Play after an action has successfully completed, only usable by a
tapped vampire with capacity above 7.
This vampire may take another action, as if untapped.
Only one Multi-Task may be played per turn.
(intention is to be a similar mechanism to Force of Will, obviously,
and to represent an old and magnificent vampire doing 2 things at once,
due to being old and magnificent)
Pecking Order
Action Modifier
Play after a successful action, only usable by a tapped vampire with
capacity above 7.
Deal 2 unpreventable damage to a vampire you control with capacity
below 5 and untap this vampire.
(possibly one per turn again...)
Of course the problem is: any extra untap-tech just adds on top of
freak-drive for the ones that can freak drive (+ forced march) anyway.
XZealot wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > Note that X doesn't change as counters get removed. By card text above,
> > > > X is set when the card is played and doesn't change.
> > >
> > > That seems a little strange. That would mean that for Wormwood X would
> > > always equal 10.
> >
> > No. Card text.
>
> Okay, wormwood is clear, but the more intuitive reading of this
> hypothetical card would be that you look at the card and the number of
> counters on the card is the capacity you have to exceed. You can say
> that X doesn't change, but that is just errata or clarification.
Clarification, yes. That is, a restatement of the only way card text
can be read.
> Let's read the card.
>
> Friends in High Places
> Event
> Government
> When this card comes into play, put X counters on it, where X is the
> capacity of any ready vampire. Once per turn, when any vampire with
> capacity X or larger successfully completes an action, his controller
> may burn a counter off this card to untap that vampire. Burn this card
> when it has no more counters.
>
> The card reads that capacity required is equal to X, X equals the
> number of counters,
No. It reads "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire", not "where X
is the number of counters".
> the number of counters is the required capacity of
> the vampire to untap, and the number of counters decreases over time,
> therefore the capacity required to untap decreases over time.
That's not how it reads.
> You know A=B and B=C and C=D and D=E therefore A=E
An 8-cap Baali plays Call the Great Beast. Then eventually puts two
more counters on it. Is his capacity now 10 (since X is the capacity of
this Baali, by card text)?
When you take a counter from Powerbase: Barranquilla, how is the
capacity of the Sabbat vampire upon whom X is based affected?
When you pay for an equipment with Ravnos Cache, do you burn some ready
Ravnos (or if some Ravnos are burned, do you remove counters)?
When you remove a counter from Slave Auction, whom do you oust?
> > > Anyway, it is a hypothetical card.
> >
> > Sure. So there's to be no precision to the discussion, then?
>
> Well, if you could discuss the hypothetical card without issuing an
> errata or clarification that would be one thing.
I'm discussing the card as it is given.
To discuss it in other ways is pointless -- it "could have" been
written many ways. The only meaningful discussion revolves around how
it is written.
> I believe the
> imprecision appears when the mechanisms of the English language are
> ignored.
Or rather, when the result arrived at by card text is ignored.
[ quoted text not captured ]
It was my intent that the card would work at Norm had assumed. I
wouldn't want the fatties to have all the fun.
I like Xian's version of the card as well. But if you start off with
less counters and work your way up, all the other Meths get a chance to
use it before you do which, while fair, is counteractive against the
card's original intent.
Friends in High Places
Event
Government
When this card comes into play, put X Favor counters on it, where X is
the capacity of any ready vampire. Once per turn, when any vampire with
capacity equal to or greater than the number of Favor counters
successfully completes an action, his controller may add a counter to
this card to untap that vampire.
With this wording, the card functions as I originally intended
(capacity based on number of counters on the card, not initial chosen
X). It also sets a lower bound for what vampires are allowed to curry
favor with the Government so you can screw over the seething masses if
you so desire. And there is no upper bound, so if you do manage to get
a vampire with an enormous capacity into play, you can keep going to
get free actions as far as you want.
Jeff
> > Let's read the card.
> >
> > Friends in High Places
> > Event
> > Government
> > When this card comes into play, put X counters on it, where X is the
> > capacity of any ready vampire. Once per turn, when any vampire with
> > capacity X or larger successfully completes an action, his controller
> > may burn a counter off this card to untap that vampire. Burn this card
> > when it has no more counters.
> >
> > The card reads that capacity required is equal to X, X equals the
> > number of counters,
>
> No. It reads "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire", not "where X
> is the number of counters".
X is a variable not a constant. X is the number of counters that is
equal to the capcity of a vampire. X decreases. What part of the
above do you not get?
> An 8-cap Baali plays Call the Great Beast. Then eventually puts two
> more counters on it. Is his capacity now 10 (since X is the capacity of
> this Baali, by card text)?
Wow! so by this convoluted chain of logic that you insist that the card
reads, if X is the capacity of the vampire then if by some strange
quirk the vampires capacity changes (skill card, violet tremane's
special) then the whole basis of who gets to untap changes, and of
course, this is in a unrecorded and unintuitive fashion. That doesn't
make sense.
> > > > Anyway, it is a hypothetical card.
> > >
> > > Sure. So there's to be no precision to the discussion, then?
> >
> > Well, if you could discuss the hypothetical card without issuing an
> > errata or clarification that would be one thing.
>
> I'm discussing the card as it is given.
>
> To discuss it in other ways is pointless -- it "could have" been
> written many ways. The only meaningful discussion revolves around how
> it is written.
>
> > I believe the
> > imprecision appears when the mechanisms of the English language are
> > ignored.
>
> Or rather, when the result arrived at by card text is ignored.
I believe I am reading the card text correctly and also as per
"designer intent". :P
[ quoted text not captured ]
I like the name "Friends in High Places" for a card. Here is the idea I
had for it.
Friends in High Places
Event
Government
Place X counters on this card where X is the capacity/cost for one of
your minions.
Spend X+1 counters to reduce a bleed by X.
Burn when all counters are spent.
[Optional addition to card maybe]:
A minion above 7 can spend X blood/life to burn X counters off this
card as a D action.
[Optional addition to card maybe]: Any of your minions with
capacity/cost above 7 can place a counter on this card as a +1 stealth
action (undirected) that cost 1 blood.
XZealot wrote:
> > No. It reads "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire", not "where X
> > is the number of counters".
>
> X is a variable not a constant. X is the number of counters that is
> equal to the capcity of a vampire. X decreases. What part of the
> above do you not get?
X is the capacity of the vampire, as you (and card text) say.
What part of "the capacity of the vampire does not decrease when
counters are removed" do you not get?
> > An 8-cap Baali plays Call the Great Beast. Then eventually puts two
> > more counters on it. Is his capacity now 10 (since X is the capacity of
> > this Baali, by card text)?
>
> Wow! so by this convoluted chain of logic that you insist that the card
> reads, if X is the capacity of the vampire then if by some strange
> quirk the vampires capacity changes (skill card, violet tremane's
> special) then the whole basis of who gets to untap changes, and of
> course, this is in a unrecorded and unintuitive fashion. That doesn't
> make sense.
Precisely.
This is the convoluted logic you are attemping to use.
It didn't make sense, so I illustrated that lack of sense by a parallel
example.
> > Or rather, when the result arrived at by card text is ignored.
>
> I believe I am reading the card text correctly and also as per
> "designer intent". :P
No. Your reading matches designer intent, but not card text.
See Jeff's updated card text for some card text that matches designer
intent.
My own first drafts frequently suffer the same problem. And, sadly,
some printed cards as well.
adam.hu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I like the name "Friends in High Places" for a card. Here is the idea I
> had for it.
>
> Friends in High Places
> Event
> Government
> Place X counters on this card where X is the capacity/cost for one of
> your minions.
> Spend X+1 counters to reduce a bleed by X.
> Burn when all counters are spent.
You're overloading X (see the problem Jeff's original card text had).
With X counters on the card, you cannot burn X+1 counters.
Try this:
Friends in High Places
Event
Government
Place a number of counters on this card equal to the capacity or cost
of one of your minions.
You may spend X+1 counters to reduce a bleed by X. Burn this card when
all counters are spent.
LSJ wrote:
> Friends in High Places
> Event
> Government
> Place a number of counters on this card equal to the capacity or cost
> of one of your minions.
> You may spend X+1 counters to reduce a bleed by X. Burn this card when
> all counters are spent.
IMHO, such card is going to be too popular even in decks without
fatties. Maybe, something like this:
"Place a number of counters on this card equal to the capacity or cost
of one of your minions. When a vampire with capacity less than the
number of counters on this card bleeds you, you may remove one counter
to reduce the bleed by 1"?
LSJ wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > > No. It reads "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire", not "where X
> > > is the number of counters".
> >
> > X is a variable not a constant. X is the number of counters that is
> > equal to the capcity of a vampire. X decreases. What part of the
> > above do you not get?
>
> X is the capacity of the vampire, as you (and card text) say.
> What part of "the capacity of the vampire does not decrease when
> counters are removed" do you not get?
Incorrect, the capacity of the original vampire has no effect on the
card other than setting the original amount of counters. After that it
is moot. As the number of counters on the card decreases the bottom
end of the range of the capacity of those vampires, who are able to use
the card to untap, also decreases. This only affects the range of
capacity of who can use the ability of the card to untap.
> > > An 8-cap Baali plays Call the Great Beast. Then eventually puts two
> > > more counters on it. Is his capacity now 10 (since X is the capacity of
> > > this Baali, by card text)?
> >
> > Wow! so by this convoluted chain of logic that you insist that the card
> > reads, if X is the capacity of the vampire then if by some strange
> > quirk the vampires capacity changes (skill card, violet tremane's
> > special) then the whole basis of who gets to untap changes, and of
> > course, this is in a unrecorded and unintuitive fashion. That doesn't
> > make sense.
>
> Precisely.
> This is the convoluted logic you are attemping to use.
> It didn't make sense, so I illustrated that lack of sense by a parallel
> example.>From what I understood from what you wrote, your arguement was that
capacity of those who could use the ability of the card was pegged to
the capacity of the original vampire. You stated that this was a
constant. I stated that this was variable by card text (which it is).
Your parallel example doesn't prove your point. Care to elaborate?
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> I am reposting this post with an edit as Google jammed some of my
> discussion into LSJ's discussion.
>
> XZealot wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > XZealot wrote:
> > > > > No. It reads "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire", not "where X
> > > > > is the number of counters".
> > > >
> > > > X is a variable not a constant. X is the number of counters that is
> > > > equal to the capcity of a vampire. X decreases. What part of the
> > > > above do you not get?
> > >
> > > X is the capacity of the vampire, as you (and card text) say.
> > > What part of "the capacity of the vampire does not decrease when
> > > counters are removed" do you not get?
>
> Incorrect, the capacity of the original vampire has no effect on the
> card other than setting the original amount of counters. After that it
> is moot. As the number of counters on the card decreases the bottom
> end of the range of the capacity of those vampires, who are able to use
> the card to untap, also decreases. This only affects the range of
> capacity of who can use the ability of the card to untap.
Let's say you played Friends in High Places and chose a 9-capacity
vampire. Replace all instances of 'X' with '9' on that card. That
should make it clear that the number of counters wouldn't change the
capacity of vampires who could use the ability.
--
Dorrinal Blackmantle
Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City
XZealot wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:
> > > > No. It reads "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire", not "where X
> > > > is the number of counters".
> > >
> > > X is a variable not a constant. X is the number of counters that is
> > > equal to the capcity of a vampire. X decreases. What part of the
> > > above do you not get?
> >
> > X is the capacity of the vampire, as you (and card text) say.
> > What part of "the capacity of the vampire does not decrease when
> > counters are removed" do you not get?
>
> Incorrect, the capacity of the original vampire has no effect on the
> card other than setting the original amount of counters.
Incorrect. It sets X.
Card text: "where X is the capacity of a ready vampire".
There is no card text to set X to the number of counters, as in "where
X is the number of counters on this card".
> After that it
> is moot. As the number of counters on the card decreases the bottom
> end of the range of the capacity of those vampires, who are able to use
> the card to untap, also decreases. This only affects the range of
> capacity of who can use the ability of the card to untap.
In Jeff's modified card text, yes.
The original card text limited the vampires who could take the action
by X rather than by the (varying) number of counters on the card.
Per card text, X is the capacity of that original vampire.
> >From what I understood from what you wrote, your arguement was that
> capacity of those who could use the ability of the card was pegged to
> the capacity of the original vampire. You stated that this was a
> constant. I stated that this was variable by card text (which it is).
> Your parallel example doesn't prove your point. Care to elaborate?
It has been elaborated beyond the bruised dead horse line already, but
sure:
Your assertion that the part of card text that says what X is ("where X
is the capacity of the vampire") is instead to be read as "where X is
the number of counters" for the secondary effect of the card is flawed.
It is flawed in a manner similar to the examples I gave (which
similarly transferred values the "wrong way").
<X> is assigned the value equal to <the capacity of a selected
vampire>.
<number of counters> is assigned a value equal to <X>.
When a counter is burned: <number of counters> is assigned a value
equal to <number of counters> minus one.
Q: What is the resulting value of X?
A: It is still the same as the capacity of the selected vampire
(assuming no other effect has altered that capacity in the interim).
> Orpheus wrote:
> > And this again :
> >
> > Anticipation
> > Action Modifier
> > (1 blood ?)
> > Play as the action is announced.
> > Obf + Cel : only usable on cardless actions. If this action succeeds,
and
> > after all modifiers have been applied, untap this acting vampire.
> > OBF + CEL : After this action is resolved, untap the acting vampire.
Only
> > one Anticipation at superior can be used by a vampire each turn.
>
> This doesn't help "fatties" so much as it makes assamites and
> city-gangrel into multi-rush monsters.
Well, it's good. Do you often see !Gangrel and Assamites rush decks win ? I
don't. The only assamites I see these days are Tariq, who already has access
to Freak Drive and Forced March, and bleed / Vote / Dominate, who could
possibly benefit from this but often would play it in inf, or it would make
a raise in crypt, allowing for a less-weenified variant. As for the
!Gangrels, apart from Enkidu (who has already access blah blah blah) I
seldom see any, and when I do they never win. All the most dreaded vamps
(Arika and co) have already access blah blah.
It would also give a new edge to : Pochtli, Echo + Juggler (as opposed to
EuroPrinces qho are better even with guns as of now), Ellen Fence, François
Villon and his court,
Beast could use it but would encourage the addition of Calebos (never
played) and Casino Reed (rather than the G2 Princes), etc.
> (aside: are haven uncovered and talbot's chainsaw, archon etc
> "cardless" for this purpose or not? contracts? they're not action
> cards, but they are cards that provide for actions... what about
> someone else's powerbase? maybe you'd need to be specific and state:
> only basic bleed, hunt and encounter in torpor actions?)
The precise card text would effectively have to be defined. I leave that to
the game designers in the eventuality that they would make a card based on
my idea.
> For a positive contribution,
> how about something on these lines:
>
> Multi-Task
> Action Modfier
> (2 blood?)
> Play after an action has successfully completed, only usable by a
> tapped vampire with capacity above 7.
> This vampire may take another action, as if untapped.
> Only one Multi-Task may be played per turn.
It's another idea. Possibly compatible, but needs limitations (see below).
> (intention is to be a similar mechanism to Force of Will, obviously,
> and to represent an old and magnificent vampire doing 2 things at once,
> due to being old and magnificent)
>
> Pecking Order
> Action Modifier
> Play after a successful action, only usable by a tapped vampire with
> capacity above 7.
> Deal 2 unpreventable damage to a vampire you control with capacity
> below 5 and untap this vampire.
> (possibly one per turn again...)
Nice.
> Of course the problem is: any extra untap-tech just adds on top of
> freak-drive for the ones that can freak drive (+ forced march) anyway.
Yes, it needs limitations. As stated elsewhere, the limitations can possibly
be : non-Camarilla, or forbid the vamp to untap during that turn (that way
it's useless to vamps who already etc etc.). That and thousands of other
ways not to make Arika even more powerful, but to help those who need it.
I also think that the possibility of reducing or even deflecting bleeds when
you control a big vampire without Dom or Aus would be a key to playing
otherwise nice vampires but who just "don't cut it".
Thanks for your inputs,
--
Orpheus
-------------------------
"You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase
in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe".
The Drummer, in Planetary.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not necessarily. Its a government card. Only one can be played (even if
original is burned). Same logic as Giant's blood. Its a good card but
if someone plays it first...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Friends in High Places
Etc etc.
Well, I hope that with all the discussion you had over this card we'll see
something along those lines soon !! ;-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Let's say you played Friends in High Places and chose a 9-capacity
> vampire. Replace all instances of 'X' with '9' on that card. That
> should make it clear that the number of counters wouldn't change the
> capacity of vampires who could use the ability.
I understand how LSJ is saying that he wants the card to work, and I
understand your explanation of how it would work in those
circumstances. But, the card was originally not written that way.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> <X> is assigned the value equal to <the capacity of a selected
> vampire>.
> <number of counters> is assigned a value equal to <X>.
> When a counter is burned: <number of counters> is assigned a value
> equal to <number of counters> minus one.
Understood.
Now let's talk about why Ventrue Investment isn't really an investment.
;P
[ quoted text not captured ]
Combat Frenzy
Combat
1 blood
Frenzy. Only playable by an acting vampire with capacity above 8 whose
oppponent was send into torpor, burned or send to the incapacitated
region.
Untap the acting vampire and start a new combat with another ready
minion controlled by the methuselah of the opposing minion.
Defence of the Elders
Only playable by a vampire with capacity above 8.
PRE combat: Combat ends
ANI reflex: Cancel a Frenzy card as it is played on this vampire.
OBF reaction: Playable after a succesful referendum. All effects on
this vampire are cancelled.
Wisdom of the Elders
Master
Only playable on a vampire with capacity above 8.
Put Wisdom of the elders on that vampire. That vampire goes into
torpor. Burn that card to cancel all actions directed on that vampire
or any master played or put on that vampire. A vampire can have only
one Wisdom of the Elders.
Frank
> Combat Frenzy
> Combat
> 1 blood
> Frenzy. Only playable by an acting vampire with capacity above 8 whose
> oppponent was send into torpor, burned or send to the incapacitated
> region.
> Untap the acting vampire and start a new combat with another ready
> minion controlled by the methuselah of the opposing minion.
Powerful !! Might need restrictions, Enkidu doesn't need that kind of boost.
He really doesn't !
> Defence of the Elders
> Only playable by a vampire with capacity above 8.
> PRE combat: Combat ends
> ANI reflex: Cancel a Frenzy card as it is played on this vampire.
> OBF reaction: Playable after a succesful referendum. All effects on
> this vampire are cancelled.
Although I'm not sure about the card you're proposing, I find the idea of
3ways in SUP dedicated to fatties excellent ! I would make them even better
but restrict them to untitled vamps. They usually are the worst fatties
around (10-Cap and not even a vote ?!). I could see something along the
lines of :
Elder Protection
Only usable by an untitled vampire with Capacity above 8.
PRE action modifier : gain 3 votes.
ANI reflex : Cancel a Frenzy card as it is played
CEL reaction : burn X blood from this vampire to reduce a bleed by X+1
> Wisdom of the Elders
> Master
> Only playable on a vampire with capacity above 8.
> Put Wisdom of the elders on that vampire. That vampire goes into
> torpor. Burn that card to cancel all actions directed on that vampire
> or any master played or put on that vampire. A vampire can have only
> one Wisdom of the Elders.
Too hasardous because of the going to torpor and usable only once. Also,
must I state that a vote isn't directed, and that vamp would still be
vulnerable to Banishment, PTO...
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> > Let's say you played Friends in High Places and chose a 9-capacity
> > vampire. Replace all instances of 'X' with '9' on that card. That
> > should make it clear that the number of counters wouldn't change the
> > capacity of vampires who could use the ability.
>
> I understand how LSJ is saying that he wants the card to work, and I
> understand your explanation of how it would work in those
> circumstances. But, the card was originally not written that way.
Apparently not (the "I understand" part).
It has nothing to do with how I want the card to work. I have no "want"
there either way. I was just explaining to you (and to Jeff,
apparently) how the card, as originally written, "worked" -- that is,
what card text effected.
The result of card text was different than what Jeff had intended (and,
perhaps coincidentally, your misreading of card text matched Jeff's
intent).
You want X to be something other than what card text says X is. That is
the sum total of the misunderstanding. Card text says X is the capacity
of some vampire. You want X to be "the number of counters remaining
currently on the card". Your position is not teneble under the original
card text, regardless of what you want or what I want.
XZealot wrote:
> > <X> is assigned the value equal to <the capacity of a selected
> > vampire>.
> > <number of counters> is assigned a value equal to <X>.
> > When a counter is burned: <number of counters> is assigned a value
> > equal to <number of counters> minus one.
>
> Understood.
>
> Now let's talk about why Ventrue Investment isn't really an investment.
> ;P
Card text.
LSJ wrote:
> You want X to be something other than what card text says X is. That is
> the sum total of the misunderstanding. Card text says X is the capacity
> of some vampire. You want X to be "the number of counters remaining
> currently on the card". Your position is not teneble under the original
> card text, regardless of what you want or what I want.
I want a pony.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
XZealot wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:> > > Now let's talk about why Ventrue Investment isn't really an investment.
> > > ;P
> >
> > Card text.
>
> It says investment on it. :P
So you think Muddled Vampire Hunter is a vampire?
:P
[ quoted text not captured ]
Clearly both "muddled" and "vampire" are adjectives modifying the noun
"hunter."
"Ventrue" appears to be an adjective modifying the noun "investment."
But yeah, I think there are lots of people who would prefer to see
certain cards "logically" fit into the category of card they "ought to
be."
Like, Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw ought to be melee weapons, etc.
Jeff
jeffk...@pacbell.net wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > XZealot wrote:
> > > > > Now let's talk about why Ventrue Investment isn't really an investment.
> > > > > ;P
> > > >
> > > > Card text.
> > >
> > > It says investment on it. :P
> >
> > So you think Muddled Vampire Hunter is a vampire?
> > :P
>
> Clearly both "muddled" and "vampire" are adjectives modifying the noun
> "hunter."
> "Ventrue" appears to be an adjective modifying the noun "investment."
The actual point is that the card name is not card text. Xzealot claims
that Ventrue Investment should be an investment because it has the word
investment somewhere on the card. I give Muddles as a parallel example
to disprove that logic.
If that parallel's absurdity is distasteful (which is the point,
actually), try these:
Gargoyle Slave
Muaziz, Archon of Ulugh Beg
Duck
> But yeah, I think there are lots of people who would prefer to see
> certain cards "logically" fit into the category of card they "ought to
> be."
Of course. And there are lots of people who would prefer to keep errata
to a minimum.
> Like, Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw ought to be melee weapons, etc.
Chainsaws don't inflict damage based on the wielder's strength. A
better example would be Rowan Ring. Or Torn Signpost.
[ quoted text not captured ]
He's both a Vampire and a Hunter. I should be able to play Conviction
cards on him before he hunts to gain blood. :P
[ quoted text not captured ]
Orpheus wrote:
> > Combat Frenzy
> > Combat
> > 1 blood
> > Frenzy. Only playable by an acting vampire with capacity above 8 whose
> > oppponent was send into torpor, burned or send to the incapacitated
> > region.
> > Untap the acting vampire and start a new combat with another ready
> > minion controlled by the methuselah of the opposing minion.
>
> Powerful !! Might need restrictions, Enkidu doesn't need that kind of boost.
> He really doesn't !
Enkidu already has Freak Drive. He doesnt even need to be succesful in
combat to untap. But you are right, the card would be broken, because
you could play it more than once a turn.
> > Defence of the Elders
> > Only playable by a vampire with capacity above 8.
> > PRE combat: Combat ends
> > ANI reflex: Cancel a Frenzy card as it is played on this vampire.
> > OBF reaction: Playable after a succesful referendum. All effects on
> > this vampire are cancelled.
>
> Although I'm not sure about the card you're proposing, I find the idea of
> 3ways in SUP dedicated to fatties excellent !
Thanks. I think that would really be the way to go. It is the concept
from anarchs used for fatties.
I would make them even better
> but restrict them to untitled vamps. They usually are the worst fatties
> around (10-Cap and not even a vote ?!). I could see something along the
> lines of :
Thinking about the game you are right that a limitation to untitled
vampires would be better. I still dont like it, because of background.
Why should an IC not be possible to do what another elder can? So i
would prefer, if the cards could be made in a way, that the big titles
have no real use for it.
> Elder Protection
> Only usable by an untitled vampire with Capacity above 8.
> PRE action modifier : gain 3 votes.
> ANI reflex : Cancel a Frenzy card as it is played
> CEL reaction : burn X blood from this vampire to reduce a bleed by X+1
You lose the defence against votes with your idea.
> > Wisdom of the Elders
> > Master
> > Only playable on a vampire with capacity above 8.
> > Put Wisdom of the elders on that vampire. That vampire goes into
> > torpor. Burn that card to cancel all actions directed on that vampire
> > or any master played or put on that vampire. A vampire can have only
> > one Wisdom of the Elders.
>
> Too hasardous because of the going to torpor and usable only once. Also,
> must I state that a vote isn't directed, and that vamp would still be
> vulnerable to Banishment, PTO...
It should only be a defence against FoM, Pentex, Sensory etc. (but
votes could be added). I like the idea of old vampires going
voluntarily into torpor to get more insight into the Jyhad.
But it is only an academic exercise ...
Frank