[lsj] NDA and talking about playtesting older sets

I'm really curious about some of the playtesting that went into previous sets. Are previous playtesters allowed talking about their playtesting experiences? Or is this restricted on NDAs? The reason I ask is that I'm curious about the design of the anarch set (did reformation show up in the anarch set's list of cards to be playtested, but was held off until Gehenna. Was the mechanic to go anarch different at the time of playtest, etc...). Thanks. ~SV

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.04040...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I playtested SW, FN and BL. IIRC, the NDA's I signed required that the material content of the playtesting not be discussed for 18 months after the release of the set. I guess that means its now safe to mention Cannon Fodder, and the original version of Lunatic Eruption, (and combining the two) for a laugh or two. If the NDA remained the same for Anarchs, (released May 2003), you'd have to wait for November/December of this year to get an answer. I don't know if the NDA remained the same. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:UjCcc.51413$702....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > > "vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:f987c6cd.04040...@posting.google.com... > > I'm really curious about some of the playtesting that went into > > previous sets. Are previous playtesters allowed talking about their > > playtesting experiences? Or is this restricted on NDAs? > > > > The reason I ask is that I'm curious about the design of the anarch > > set (did reformation show up in the anarch set's list of cards to be > > playtested, but was held off until Gehenna. Was the mechanic to go > > anarch different at the time of playtest, etc...). > > I playtested SW, FN and BL. IIRC, the NDA's I signed required that the > material content of the playtesting not be discussed for 18 months after the > release of the set. I guess that means its now safe to mention Cannon > Fodder, and the original version of Lunatic Eruption, (and combining the > two) for a laugh or two. Go for it! I know I'm curious. :-) > If the NDA remained the same for Anarchs, (released May 2003), you'd have to > wait for November/December of this year to get an answer. I don't know if > the NDA remained the same. I don't know if Scott is ever going to comment on this thread, but from my reading of the Anarchs NDA, the confidential information was protected for a period of 18 months following the *signing* of the NDA (not the release of the set). So our Anarchs NDAs should have expired in February of this year (having been signed in August 2002), and I had actually intended to look into spilling some beans by now, but hadn't gotten around to it. Maybe in the near future, if I don't forget. :-) Josh missed out on playtesting the "early years"

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:c4v2in$2anrmc$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > news:UjCcc.51413$702....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > > > > "vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:f987c6cd.04040...@posting.google.com... > > > I'm really curious about some of the playtesting that went into > > > previous sets. Are previous playtesters allowed talking about their > > > playtesting experiences? Or is this restricted on NDAs? > > > > > > The reason I ask is that I'm curious about the design of the anarch > > > set (did reformation show up in the anarch set's list of cards to be > > > playtested, but was held off until Gehenna. Was the mechanic to go > > > anarch different at the time of playtest, etc...). > > > > > I playtested SW, FN and BL. IIRC, the NDA's I signed required that > the > > material content of the playtesting not be discussed for 18 months > after the > > release of the set. I guess that means its now safe to mention Cannon > > Fodder, and the original version of Lunatic Eruption, (and combining > the > > two) for a laugh or two. > > Go for it! I know I'm curious. :-) > I'm doing this from memory, so please forgive any slight errors: The pre-playtested version of Shock Troops... Cannon Fodder Master Pool Cost: X Search your hand, library and ash heap for X master: discipline cards, and put them into play. Each Represents a non-unique 1 capacity vampire with 0 bleed, and the discipline of the skill card at the basic level. (These vampires cannot act the turn they come into play.*) * I'm not certain if it was this, or that they had a compulsory hunt action the first turn... Superior Lunatic Eruption was put into play, and it forced _every_ vampire to make a mandatory rush action (provided by text) for a turn. Hee hee... One of our playtesters put the two together with a bunch of Computer Hacks and combat defense. Setup with 15 one-caps off of the Cannon Fodder, and a !Malk with DEM. He'd tap out, drop the Lunatic Eruption as his last action, and force his prey to tap out rushing. Then, he'd defend as best he could, and try for a weenie oust in the following turn, when the LE went away... It wasn't foolproof (the DEM minion was a serious vulnerability), but it made for a pretty obscene kill ratio. If he didn't like his odds defending against his predator (say, if they had heavy combat), then he'd target a slew of prey's minions with inferior LE from the Cannon Fodder... Ahh, I miss playtesting sometimes, but then again I also like the suprise element of opening packs of a VTES expansion that I've never seen before, though. Black Hand made me particularly giddy... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<c4v2in$2anrmc$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > I don't know if Scott is ever going to comment on this thread, but from > my reading of the Anarchs NDA, the confidential information was > protected for a period of 18 months following the *signing* of the NDA > (not the release of the set). So our Anarchs NDAs should have expired > in February of this year (having been signed in August 2002), and I had > actually intended to look into spilling some beans by now, but hadn't > gotten around to it. Maybe in the near future, if I don't forget. :-) Go for it! I'd love to hear about playtesting era anarchs, or HECK even bloodlines!!! But more to the point, you know I'm a membor of the "I think anarchs are underwhelming" camp, so you can probably get at what I'm wanting to know about the playtesting. Were there ever vampires who were inherantly anarch? Did GO ANARCH and GALARIC'S LEGACY change at all? Were there some 3-ways included in your playtesting list that were not presented in the set? How drastically different were different versions of different 3-ways? (like, how did improvised tactics ever pass!) In general, though, I think this messge board needs more discussion of people's playtesting experiences for previous VTES sets. ~SV

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > Were there ever vampires who were inherantly anarch? I'll jump on this one. With our group NO vampires had inherent anarch ability.

> Were there ever vampires who were inherantly anarch? > Did GO ANARCH and GALARIC'S LEGACY change at all? > Were there some 3-ways included in your playtesting list that were not > presented in the set? > How drastically different were different versions of different 3-ways? > (like, how did improvised tactics ever pass!) > > In general, though, I think this messge board needs more discussion of > people's playtesting experiences for previous VTES sets. Rumour has it that Anarch Playtesters are bound by the NDA for at least 6 more months.

Raille, If you were a playtester, the NDA prohibits you from discussing this question for at least 6 more months. I could be wrong about the NDA though... David Wilson

vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Go for it! I'd love to hear about playtesting > era anarchs, or HECK even bloodlines!!! > > In general, though, I think this messge board needs more discussion > of people's playtesting experiences for previous VTES sets. It's been exactly 3 years to the day that we received the Bloodlines playtest materials. Here's what we received in the beginning, so that you can see the changes that were made, and the changes that weren't made. Our playgroup only received a portion of the set, so maybe someone who received the stuff we didn't can post it. Interesting things of note are: - the original 'Scarce' rule - the cards "Pater Szlachta", "Armor-Piercing Rounds", and "Death of the Drum", which were never printed - the weaker "Toreador's Bane" and "Mark V" - the original "Clotho's Gift" - the fact that 'Shadow Feint' gave Assamites firstest strike(!!!) Angela Preston Daughter of Cacophony for PRE MEL Camarilla: Angela must burn 1 blood to attempt to block an older vampire. You may tap Angela during your influence phase to untap any other vampire. Celeste, The Voice of a Secret Daughter of Cacophony pre mel Camarilla: Celeste gets -1 intercept when attempting to block a bleed action. Muse Daughter of Cacophony ani for mel Camarilla: -1 intercept. Delilah Monroe Daughter of Cacophony for pre MEL Sabbat: Delilah gets -1 intercept when attempting to block an older vampire. Gael Pilet Daughter of Cacophony chi pre FOR MEL Camarilla: Gael can never have more than 1 intercept. Any additional intercept she gains is lost. Bastille Opera House Master Master: unique location. Tap during a political action to gain X votes, where X is the number of ready Daughters of Cacophony you control. If you control no ready Daughters of Cacophony, you may tap and burn this card during a political action to gain 1 vote. Paris Opera House Master Daughters of Cacophony 2 pool Master: unique location. If you control no ready Daughters of Cacophony, you may discard this card from your hand during any Methuselah's discard phase. Tap to give a Daughter of Cacophony you control +1 stealth. Tap this card and tap a Daughter of Cacophony you control to give any minion +1 stealth. Concert Tour Action Daughters of Cacophony 1 blood +1 stealth action. If you control no ready Daughters of Cacophony, you may discard this card from your hand during your minion phase. Put this card on the acting Daughter of Cacophony. During this vampire's next untap phase burn this card instead of untapping this vampire and restore the vampire to full capacity with blood from the blood bank. Art's Traumatic Essence Action Melpominee/Auspex [aus]: (D) Tap any ready minion. [mel]: (D) Tap any ready minion and that minion burns 1 blood or life. <MEL>: (D) Put this card on any ready minion and tap that minion. The minion with this card burns 1 additional blood or life each time he or she attempts to take an action or block. During his or her master phase, the controller of the vampire with this card may tap this vampire and burn a pool to burn this card. A vampire may have only 1 Art's Traumatic Essence. Choir Action Melpominee +1 stealth action. [mel]: Put this card into play. Burn this card at the end of the turn. <MEL>: (D) Burn X Choir cards you control (not counting this one) to burn 2X pool from your prey's pool. Death of the Drum Combat Melpominee/Animalism Only usable at long range. [ani]: Strike: 1R damage. [mel]: Strike: 2R damage. <MEL>: Strike: 2R aggravated damage. Madrigal Action modifier/Reaction Melpominee/Presence This card may be played as an action modifier or a reaction card. Only usable during a referendum before votes are cast. [pre]: Only usable by a reacting vampire. Gain 2 votes. [mel]: Gain 2 votes. <MEL>: As, and any vampire voting in agreement with this vampire gains 1 blood from the blood bank. Any vampire voting in opposition to this vampire burns 1 blood. Blood is gained or lost when the results of the referendum are tallied. The Missing Voice Action modifier Melpominee/Celerity [cel]: This vampire burns 2 blood to get +1 stealth. [mel]: Allies and younger vampires get -1 intercept when attempting to block this action. <MEL>: +1 stealth. Toreador's Bane Combat Melpominee/Presence Only usable in combat with a Toreador, Toreador antitribu, ally or younger vampire. [pre]: Strike: dodge. [mel]: Strike: combat ends. <MEL>: Strike: combat ends, and if this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. Tourette's Voice Reaction Melpominee/Auspex [aus]: +1 intercept [mel]: Give any minion you control (including this one) +1 intercept. <MEL>: Give any minion +1 intercept. Juanita Santiago Ahrimanes ani, pre, spi Sabbat: Sterile. Nettie Hale Ahrimanes ani, cel, pre, spi, pro Sabbat: Nettie gets +1 stealth when employing retainers and recruiting allies. Sterile. Cynthia Ingold Ahrimanes pre ANI SPI Sabbat: Cynthia gets +1 strength in combat with a Camarilla vampire. Sterile. Howler Ahrimanes obf ANI PRE SPI Sabbat: Howler gets 1 optional maneuver each combat. She cannot use weapons. +1 strength. Sterile. The Siamese Ahrimanes ani pro PRE SPI Sabbat: +1 bleed. Sterile. Rule: Sterile Sterile vampires cannot take actions to create other vampires (e.g., cannot perform The Embrace action, The Third Tradition action, etc.) High Top Ally Ahrimanes 4 pool Unique werewolf with 3 life. 1 strength, 0 bleed. High Top gets +1 intercept. High Top may enter combat with any minion controlled by another Methuselah as a (D) action. High Top gets an additional strike each round and an optional maneuver once each combat. He may play cards requiring basic Celerity [cel] as a vampire with a capacity of 4; any cost in blood is paid with his life; if a card would give him blood, give him life instead. If High Top has less than 4 life during your untap phase, he gains 1 life. The Wildebeest Action Ahrimanes 1 blood +1 stealth action. Put this card on the acting Ahrimane. This Ahrimane gets +1 strength and -1 stealth and gets 1 optional maneuver each combat. He or she cannot use equipment and cannot have retainers (any retainers on this vampire are burned). A vampire can have only one The Wildebeest. Feral Spirit Master Put this card on any Gangrel or Gangrel antitribu you control. This vampire is no longer part of his or her original clan, but is now an Ahrimane (and Sabbat). This vampire has Spiritus [spi]; if the vampire already had Spiritus, he or she now has superior Spiritus <SPI>. This vampire is now sterile. Chameleon's Colors Combat Spiritus/Obfuscate 1 blood [obf]: Maneuver [spi]: Press, or maneuver with an optional press. <SPI>: Only usable at long range. Strike: combat ends. If this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. Engling Fury Action Spiritus/Fortitude +1 stealth action [for]: The acting vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank. [spi]: The acting vampire gains 1 blood from the blood bank. This vampire untaps at the end of the turn. <SPI>: The acting vampire gains 1 blood from the blood bank and untaps. He or she cannot perform another Engling Fury this turn. Falcon's Eye Reaction Spiritus/Animalism [ani]: This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. [spi]: +1 intercept. <SPI>: This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the normal prey, predator, or target restrictions for blocking actions. Nose of the Hound Action Spiritus/Auspex +1 stealth action. [aus]: (D) Enter combat with a minion who successfully bled you last turn. [spi]: As [aus] above, and this acting minion gets an optional maneuver during that combat. <SPI>: As [spi] above, but enter combat with any tapped minion controlled by another Methuselah. Speak with Spirits Reaction Spiritus/Auspex [aus]: +1 intercept. Only usable during a bleed action. [spi]: +1 intercept. <SPI>: Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire untaps and attempts to block. Once this action, this vampire can burn 1 blood to get +1 intercept. Strength of the Bear Combat Spiritus/Animalism 1 blood Only usable before range is determined. [ani]: This vampire gets +1 strength for the current round. [spi]: This vampire gets +1 strength for the remainder of combat. <SPI>: As [spi] above, with an optional press this round. Swiftness of the Stag Combat/Action modifier Spiritus/Celerity [cel]: Press. [spi]: Maneuver or press. <SPI>: +1 stealth. Nu, The Pillar True Brujah ani aus pro POT PRE TEM Independent: Once during your minion phase, Nu can burn a blood to untap. Nu cannot use cards that require Celerity. Scarce. Krassimir True Brujah nec dom pre POT TEM Independent: Krassimir gets 1 optional maneuver each combat. Krassimir cannot use cards that require Celerity. Scarce. Synesios True Brujah ser obf POT PRE TEM Independent: Synesios has 2 votes. You may pay a pool when you play a Master: Out-of- Turn card to gain an extra Master Phase Action in your next master phase. Synesios cannot use cards that require Celerity. Scarce. Rule: Scarce Only 1 "scarce" vampire of a clan can be in play (or contested) at a time. If a "scarce" vampire is put into play when a "scarce" vampire of that same clan is already in play (or being contested), then the vampires are contested just as if they were the same unique vampire. Tabriz Assembly Master True Brujah Unique master. If you control no ready True Brujah, you may discard this card from your hand during any Methuselah's discard phase. Put this card in play. Your hand size is 1 card larger. During your untap phase, a True Brujah you control gains 1 blood from the blood bank. Any vampire can burn this card as a referendum called as a +1 stealth political action; in that referendum, you get one additional vote. Internal Recursion Reaction Temporis/Presence 1 blood Only usable by a vampire who successfully blocks. [pre]: Strike: combat ends. [tem]: This blocking minion sets the range for the first round of the resulting combat. Skip the determine range step for that round. <TEM>: The acting minion doesn't untap during his or her next untap phase. Lapse Combat Temporis/Potence 2 blood Only usable before range is determined. [pot]: This vampire gets +2 strength this round. [tem]: The opposing minion cannot maneuver this round. <TEM>: The opposing minion cannot strike during the initial strike phase this round (other strike resolution effects are not affected). Frozen Object Action Temporis/Serpentis +1 stealth action. A Methuselah can have only one Frozen Object in play. [ser]: (D) Choose a Methuselah. That Methuselah burns any non-unique equipment cards in his or her hand. [tem]: Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire successfully blocks a (D) action, he or she may burn this card to do 2 damage to the acting minion before combat begins (damage not preventable). <TEM>: Put this card in play. You may burn this card when a bleed against you is successful (after the action is complete) to do 2 damage to the acting minion (after the action is complete). Clotho's Gift Combat Temporis/Obfuscate 1 blood [obf]: Maneuver. [tem]: Additional strike, or maneuver with an optional additional strike. <TEM>: As [tem] above, but with 2 additional strikes. Kiss of Lachesis Action Temporis/Serpentis 1 blood +1 stealth action. [ser]: (D) Burn a retainer or a non-unique equipment card. [tem]: (D) Burn a retainer, ally, or non-unique equipment card. <TEM>: Equip this vampire with a non-unique equipment card from any Methuselah's ash heap (this is always an undirected action), but pay only half the cost (round down) of the equipment. Domain of Evernight Action Modifier Temporis/Obfuscate [obf]: +1 stealth. [tem]: If this action is blocked, all damage done to vampires in the resulting combat is aggravated. <TEM>: Only usable when an action is successful. Untap this acting vampire. A vampire can play only one Domain of Evernight each turn. Clio's Kiss Action Temporis/Dominate 1 blood +1 stealth action. [dom]: (D) Burn 1 pool from a Methuselah who is contesting a card with you. [tem]: Exchange any card in your hand for any nonmaster, non-unique library card in your ash heap. <TEM>: (D) Choose a vampire card another Methuselah is contesting with you. That Methuselah yields that copy; return any blood counters on the yielded vampire to that Methuselah's pool. If there are no other Methuselah's contesting the vampire, place your copy of the vampire face up in your controlled region, untapped. Rewind Time Reaction Temporis/Presence 2 blood [pre]: Reduce a bleed against you by 1. [tem]: Burn an action card as it is played. That card has no effect (the acting minion is not tapped). <TEM>: Tap this reacting vampire to burn a non-out-of-turn master card as it is played during any other Methuselah's master phase (usable by a ready, untapped vampire even though there is no action). That master card has no effect. The Methuselah who played it gets another master phase action. Beast Meld Action modifier Animalism & Protean 2 blood [ani][pro]: +1 stealth. If this action is blocked, this vampire may prevent 1 damage during the resulting combat. <ANI><PRO>: Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. Not usable on a bleed action. Vampires cannot block this action. The Call Action Auspex & Dementation +1 stealth action. [aus][dem]: Move 2 blood from the blood bank to a younger vampire with Dementation in your uncontrolled region. <AUS><DEM>: As [aus][dem] above, but move 3 blood. Denial of Aphrodite's Favor Reaction/Combat Dominate & Fortitude This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. [dom][for]: Burn an action card a younger vampire plays that requires Presence [pre] as it is played. That card has no effect. Untap the acting vampire; that vampire cannot attempt the same action again this turn. <DOM><FOR>: Burn an action modifier or combat card a younger vampire plays that requires Presence [pre] as it is played. That card has no effect. Draught of the Soul Action modifier/Combat Auspex & Quietus Only usable when this acting vampire burns another vampire either by diablerie or while in combat. [qui]: This vampire gains 1 blood. [aus][qui]: This vampire gains 1 blood. Put this card on this vampire. The vampire with this card has +1 intercept. <AUS><QUI>: As [aus][qui] above, and this vampire gets +1 bleed when bleeding the controller of the burned vampire. Elemental Stoicism Combat/Action Fortitude & Obfuscate [for]: Prevent 1 non-aggravated damage. [for][obf]: This vampire treats all aggravated damage as normal damage for the remainder of combat. <FOR>[obf]: +1 stealth action. Put this card on this acting vampire. The vampire with this card treats aggravated damage as normal damage. Burn this card if the vampire goes to torpor. Feline Saboteur Action Animalism & Obfuscate [ani][obf]: (D) Choose any Methuselah. The chosen Methuselah discards 1 card at random from his or her hand. <ANI><OBF>: As [ani][obf] above, and the chosen Methuselah burns the top 4 cards of his or her library as well. Iron Heart Reaction Potence & Presence 1 blood [pot][pre]: Burn an action modifier that requires presence [pre] as it is played. That card has no effect. <POT><PRE>: As above, but burn an action modifier that requires dominate [dom]. Pater Szlachta Reaction Protean & Vicissitude 2 blood Only usable before this vampire's controller announces any block attempts. [vic]: For the remainder of this action, this vampire gets +1 strength. This vampire cannot use equipment for the remainder of the action. [pro][vic]: As [vic] above, and this vampire gets 1 optional maneuver each combat, and once each round he or she can strike for strength aggravated damage. <PRO><VIC>: As [pro][vic] above, and this vampire gets 1 optional additional strike each round. Martyr's Resilience Combat Auspex & Fortitude X blood Only usable by an untapped vampire not involved in the current combat. [aus][for]: Prevent X damage to a minion or retainer in combat. <AUS><FOR>: Prevent X+1 damage to a minion or retainer in combat. Madman's Quill Action Auspex & Dementation 1 blood [aus][dem]: (D) Bleed at +2 bleed. <AUS><DEM>: (D) Put this card on any ready minion, and put a card requiring Dementation from your hand on this card. While the minion with this card is ready, any vampire with Dementation in combat with the minion with this card or performing a (D) action against the controller of the minion with this card can use the effect of that card as if he or she had played it (paying the cost as normal). Any vampire can burn this card as an action that costs 2 blood. Nightmare Curse Action Auspex & Chimerstry 2 blood [chi]: (D) Tap a ready minion and untap this acting vampire. [aus][chi]: (D) Put this card on a ready minion and tap that minion. The minion with this card doesn't untap as normal. During this minion's controllers untap, he or she may burn a pool to untap this minion. Burn this card when the acting vampire leaves play. <AUS><CHI>: (D) Put this card on a ready minion and tap that minion. The minion with this card doesn't untap as normal. Burn this card when the acting vampire leaves play. Read the Winds Reaction Animalism & Auspex [ani][aus]: +1 intercept. If this vampire successfully blocks this action, he or she may pay one blood to untap after the action is complete. <ANI><AUS>: +1 intercept. Also usable by a tapped vampire, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept. Shadow Feint Combat Celerity & Obfuscate 2 blood Only usable before range is determined. [cel][obf]: This vampire gets First Strike this round. <CEL><OBF>: The opposing minion cannot use any strike during the initial strike step this round. The opposing minion gets an additional strike this round; this does not count against his or her additional strike effect limit for this round. Shroud of Absence Action modifier Dominate & Obtenebration [dom][obt]: +1 stealth <DOM><OBT>: As above, and if this action is blocked, this vampire may end combat as a strike during the first round of combat. Soul Painting Action Auspex & Presence 1 blood +1 stealth action. [aus][pre]: (D) Put this card on a ready vampire. Vampires with auspex get +1 intercept when attempting to block the vampire with this card. This vampire can burn this card as an action that costs 1 blood. <AUS><PRE>: As [aus][pre] above, but all vampires get +1 intercept when attempting to block the vampire. Poker Equipment 1 pool Melee weapon. Cold iron. Strength+1 damage each strike. If all of the damage done by this strike is prevented by a card or cards that require Fortitude [for], burn this weapon after strike resolution. Mark V Equipment 2 pool Weapon. Gun. 3R damage each strike. Only usable at long range. Only usable once per round. Improvised Flamethrower Equipment 2 pool Weapon. 2R aggravated damage each strike. Only usable once per combat. If the opposing minion inflicts any damage on this minion at long range (even if it is prevented), this weapon is burned and the bearer takes 2 additional aggravated damage. Armor-piercing Rounds Combat Ammo. Only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. For the remainder of combat, this gun inflicts - 1 damage each strike and the damage from this gun's strikes cannot be prevented. This is an ammo card. No more than one ammo card can be used on a gun each combat. Toy Chest Test Master 1 pool Master. Requires a ready Sabbat vampire with a capacity above 4. Burn a Sabbat vampire with a capacity below 4 that has been put into play since your last turn (not usable on a vampire that has been contested). True Faith Master Unique master. Put this card on a mortal ally you control, or pay two pool to put this card on any noninfernal minion you control. Actions requiring Dominate [dom] or Presence [pre] cannot be directed at this minion. If this minion is in combat with an infernal minion, any damage he inflicts is aggravated. Infernal minions cannot block or strike this minion. Burn this card if this minion becomes infernal. Rule: Cold iron vulnerability Damage a minion or retainer with cold iron vulnerability receives from a cold iron weapon is aggravated. > ~SV Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

To the playtesters of Bloodlines, Did any of you think Wildebeast was too weak given the Ahrimanes ability to use animalism retainers? David "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:uBldc.1334$HN3.360@fed1read07... [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Wilson" wrote: > > Death of the Drum > > Combat > > Melpominee/Animalism > > Only usable at long range. > > [ani]: Strike: 1R damage. > > [mel]: Strike: 2R damage. > > <MEL>: Strike: 2R aggravated damage. > > How come this was not printed? Too strong? Granted, free agg but only at long range, and only Gael has sup for. -Antero (or maybe they decided to add !Salubri as an afterthought and they had to make some room for them. That would explain their general weakness).

"David Wilson" wrote: > > Death of the Drum > > Combat > > Melpominee/Animalism > > Only usable at long range. > > [ani]: Strike: 1R damage. > > [mel]: Strike: 2R damage. > > <MEL>: Strike: 2R aggravated damage. > > How come this was not printed? Too strong? Granted, free agg but only [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Wilson" wrote: > > Death of the Drum > > Combat > > Melpominee/Animalism > > Only usable at long range. > > [ani]: Strike: 1R damage. > > [mel]: Strike: 2R damage. > > <MEL>: Strike: 2R aggravated damage. > > How come this was not printed? Too strong? Granted, free agg but only [ quoted text not captured ]

AL wrote: > How come this was not printed? Not all cards get printed. This one could've been held for later use (like Wind Dance was). That's slightly less likely now that it has been spoiled, though, but not out of the question. Or it could've been in the playtest for other reasons. Or dropped for theme. Or ... -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Whoa... thanks for that... More comments later when I actually read them all... What kind of comments did you send back to LSJ about the card set? ~SV

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40767FC8...@white-wolf.com>... > AL wrote: > > How come this was not printed? > > Not all cards get printed. > > This one could've been held for later use (like Wind Dance was). > > That's slightly less likely now that it has been spoiled, though, > but not out of the question. > > Or it could've been in the playtest for other reasons. > > Or dropped for theme. > > Or ... So discussing unprinted cards from previous set's playtesting files will ruin its chances of ever seeing print then? ~SV

> It's been exactly 3 years to the day that we received the Bloodlines > playtest materials. Here's what we received in the beginning, so that you > can see the changes that were made, and the changes that weren't made. Our > playgroup only received a portion of the set, so maybe someone who received > the stuff we didn't can post it. I was also in Kevin's playtest group. Bloodlines was great to playtest and I think it was a great set overall. Here's some of my comments... > Choir > Action > Melpominee > +1 stealth action. > [mel]: Put this card into play. Burn this card at > the end of the turn. > <MEL>: (D) Burn X Choir cards you control > (not counting this one) to burn 2X pool from > your prey's pool. We thought long and hard about how to make Choir just a little bit better because as it stands it's just a little too weak. I think we floated around the idea of Choir doing 2X+1 damage, or possibly more, but in the end it stayed as originally proposed. After all, it can't be bounced and it is at inherent stealth. > Death of the Drum > Combat > Melpominee/Animalism > Only usable at long range. > [ani]: Strike: 1R damage. > [mel]: Strike: 2R damage. > <MEL>: Strike: 2R aggravated damage. I think it was that it was free agg. But honestly I thought it would have been printed with just a blood cost. Maybe for Bloodlines 2.0? > Rule: Scarce > Only 1 "scarce" vampire of a clan > can be in play (or contested) at a > time. If a "scarce" vampire is put > into play when a "scarce" vampire > of that same clan is already in play > (or being contested), then the > vampires are contested just as if > they were the same unique > vampire. This was a tough rule to work with. We were playtesting scarce clans mostly in combination with other clans because of this rule and some scarce vampires just didn't mesh terribly well with any clan. I think the True Brujah benefitted this most from this change, although multiple Salubri are pretty strong as well. > Pater Szlachta > Reaction > Protean & Vicissitude > 2 blood > Only usable before this vampire's controller > announces any block attempts. > [vic]: For the remainder of this action, this > vampire gets +1 strength. This vampire cannot > use equipment for the remainder of the action. > [pro][vic]: As [vic] above, and this vampire gets > 1 optional maneuver each combat, and once > each round he or she can strike for strength > aggravated damage. > <PRO><VIC>: As [pro][vic] above, and this > vampire gets 1 optional additional strike each > round. I think Pater didn't get printed because at the time there was only one or two vampires that could use it. It was a good card, but it wasn't really worth bolting on PRO or VIC. I'm kinda sorry Kevin posted this even though NDA is up, this is a card that could really have been printed someday. > Read the Winds > Reaction > Animalism & Auspex > [ani][aus]: +1 intercept. If this vampire > successfully blocks this action, he or she may > pay one blood to untap after the action is > complete. > <ANI><AUS>: +1 intercept. Also usable by a > tapped vampire, even if intercept is not yet > needed, to untap and attempt to block with +1 > intercept. This card was so good in playtest and I'm really glad it didn't get changed. Granted it helps Tzi block decks more, but Omaya and I had some good times playtesting this card. > Shadow Feint > Combat > Celerity & Obfuscate > 2 blood > Only usable before range is determined. > [cel][obf]: This vampire gets First Strike this > round. > <CEL><OBF>: The opposing minion cannot > use any strike during the initial strike step this > round. The opposing minion gets an additional > strike this round; this does not count against > his or her additional strike effect limit for this > round. *sigh* This was my favorite card in the Bloodlines playtest. It finally gave the Assamites (and the City Gangrel, but whatever) FIRSTEST STRIKE!!! It was so good!!! I guess that's why it didn't get printed as you see here. While I still think SF is a great card, I would have much preferred this version. > Armor-piercing Rounds > Combat > Ammo. > Only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. > For the remainder of combat, this gun inflicts - > 1 damage each strike and the damage from > this gun's strikes cannot be prevented. This is > an ammo card. No more than one ammo card > can be used on a gun each combat. Another card I kinda wish hadn't been spoiled. The game needs more Ammo choices, it would make Magazine much better IMO. Of course, unpreventable damage should be hard to get (THA or QUI) so perhaps this one is best left unprinted. > Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) > "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 Aramis

[ quoted text not captured ] See above: "slightly less likely (...) but not out of the question". Flux

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.04040...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<c4v2in$2anrmc$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > > I don't know if Scott is ever going to comment on this thread, but from > > my reading of the Anarchs NDA, the confidential information was > > protected for a period of 18 months following the *signing* of the NDA > > (not the release of the set). So our Anarchs NDAs should have expired > > in February of this year (having been signed in August 2002), and I had > > actually intended to look into spilling some beans by now, but hadn't > > gotten around to it. Maybe in the near future, if I don't forget. :-) > > Go for it! I'd love to hear about playtesting era anarchs, or HECK > even bloodlines!!! > > But more to the point, you know I'm a membor of the "I think anarchs > are underwhelming" camp, so you can probably get at what I'm wanting > to know about the playtesting. Well, we brought up the weak card problems all the way through playtesting. Some of them got improved, but some of them never got improved enough to become really playable. I think we got better at picking out weak cards and demanding improvements after Anarchs (my group's first playtesting experience) and that might have something to do with why Black Hand seems stronger than Anarchs. (Or that might be giving my group way too much credit. :-) In Anarchs, Car Bomb was probably our greater success along these lines (even though it's not great now, it was originally *only* usable when a minion with a vehicle was acting); Delivery Truck our greatest failure (at least it's free now, instead of costing 1 pool). > Were there ever vampires who were inherantly anarch? As Raille said, there were never any vampires in our testing who were always inherently anarch. We did see Advanced Jeremy MacNeil in playtest, who was then (as he is now) an Anarch Baron in the advanced/merged version. (The advancement mechanic changed a couple times in playtest; it was significantly harder to use at first than it is now.) > Did GO ANARCH and GALARIC'S LEGACY change at all? Oh yes. In fact, the changes to the Anarch mechanic probably affected the strength/weakness of Anarch cards as much as anything. First of all, Anarchs were a Camarilla "sub-sect" throughout playtest. I don't know why they were changed to Independent in the actual printing. Galaric's Legacy always worked just as it does now. So did Seattle Committee, except that it started out doing its thing in the influence phase rather than master. Go Anarch and the cardless Anarch option didn't exist in round 1. Go Anarch was introduced in round 2 and worked just like it does now. We thought it might be over-strong, at the time, with the untap, but I don't know why we thought that, I guess we were young and naive. :-) In round 3, it actually got *improved* to be usable if your vamp was already an Anarch to gain 2 blood (with no untap). By round 3 reporting time, we thought that was strong, but not overpowered. But then it got printed without the alternate use. The cardless Anarch option was introduced in round 3 and was not an action - instead, you could do it once during your untap phase. (tap a vampire and burn 2 blood to become Anarch, or 1 blood if you already controlled an Anarch.) Obviously, not being blockable was a lot stronger for this option, and at the time we thought that devalued Galaric's Legacy relative to "cardless" and "Go Anarch" because Go Anarch could get you 2 blood and cardless didn't suck up your library. We suggested that Galaric's be strengthened to compete (eg be usable like a Life in the City for an Anarch you already control), but instead the cardless-Anarch method was weakened. :-) > Were there some 3-ways included in your playtesting list that were not > presented in the set? No. The printed 3-ways are all the 3-ways we saw, and the 3-ways we saw were all printed. > How drastically different were different versions of different 3-ways? > (like, how did improvised tactics ever pass!) That, we may never know. My group complained about Improvised Tactics being weak in our second and third reports (there were three reports, a month apart, for Anarchs playtest), but probably didn't complain strongly enough, early enough to get it improved enough. The 3-ways mostly didn't change all that much during playtest; some changed more *after* playtest (ie between our final report and the printing of the set). Smash and Grab, for example, never changed at all during testing, but got printed with +1 stealth and burn 2 life for the [ani], and +1 stealth for the [pot] versions. (It was originally at no stealth at all level, and only burned 1 life at [ani].) Diversion started out costing a blood (at all levels) but preventing 3 damage at [for]. It changed to what we have now in round 3 of playtest, which we said made it by far the most playable 3-way. I guess we were pretty much right about that. :-) Skullduggery was originally not usable against a Methuselah controlling a ready Anarch. In round 3 it changed to what it is now, except the Obfuscate was at 2 stealth instead of having the maneuver and 1 stealth. I don't know why it lost the second stealth, we didn't think it was too strong then (and mentioned that it was both not very interesting and lacking superiority to Computer Hacking at [pre]). Improvised Tactics never changed. I don't know why not. We were kind of impressed with the [pot] concept when we first saw it, but after trying to make decks with it, decided it wasn't very good after all. The [aus] and [pro] levels we mentioned how bad they were, but they never got better. After playtest, the [pro] level changed to burning a blood for a maneuver; it had been for a press in playtest. I can't say the maneuver seems much more useful. As always, the card would have been useful if you could get all *three* effects out of playing it once (and aus/pot/pro vampires actually existed), but its own text has always prohibited getting multiple effects even by playing multiple copies. The Mole was the same throughout. We thought it was decent if not spectacular. I think we still pretty much think that. > In general, though, I think this messge board needs more discussion of > people's playtesting experiences for previous VTES sets. I think the designers probably erred on the side of caution for Anarchs. Granted, it may be better to be too cautious than too foolhardy about making strong cards. :-) But I think they improved on that somewhat with Black Hand (certainly my group shouldn't get *all* the credit for BH being better, heh). I don't know why Anarchs specifically should have had that problem, though, since Sabbat War and Bloodlines didn't necessarily. (although I guess there are probably a lot of places Bloodlines cards could've been strengthened, too.) Josh i am an anti-christ! i am an anar-keist!

"Aramis" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9925496.0404...@posting.google.com... [Kevin wrote] > > Armor-piercing Rounds > > Combat > > Ammo. > > Only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. > > For the remainder of combat, this gun inflicts - > > 1 damage each strike and the damage from > > this gun's strikes cannot be prevented. This is > > an ammo card. No more than one ammo card > > can be used on a gun each combat. > > Another card I kinda wish hadn't been spoiled. The game needs more > Ammo choices, it would make Magazine much better IMO. Of course, > unpreventable damage should be hard to get (THA or QUI) so perhaps > this one is best left unprinted. Man, I'd like Magazine to get better as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure this would do it. The problem with Magazine isn't so much (IMO) that there aren't worthwhile ammo cards to use with it, it's that it requires a two-card combo just to get them in the Magazine, and that's never going to pay off very well because of the mechanics of VTES. Instead of a Magazine plus an ammo card, you could have two copies of the ammo card in your library. Then you wouldn't need a two-card combo, and it's only ever better to have gone the Magazine route if you end up using that Magazined ammo card *three* times or more. Not impossible, granted, but probably not worth the setup and library damage you do to yourself by putting Magazines in and then needing a two-card combo to get your Magazine working. I wouldn't think unpreventable 1R with .44 Magnums would be a problem, and unpreventable 2R with Submachine Guns is still pretty dang expensive poolwise. Probably the only thing that could possibly be very nasty here is unpreventable 3R from Assault Rifles, but you do need Obf to Disguise those out, and they do cost 5 pool... But then, I didn't playtest the card. :-) Josh never got to be lined with blood

Joshua Duffin wrote: >> Did GO ANARCH and GALARIC'S LEGACY change at all? > > Oh yes. In fact, the changes to the Anarch mechanic probably affected > the strength/weakness of Anarch cards as much as anything. First of > all, Anarchs were a Camarilla "sub-sect" throughout playtest. I don't > know why they were changed to Independent in the actual printing. > > Galaric's Legacy always worked just as it does now. So did Seattle > Committee, except that it started out doing its thing in the influence > phase rather than master. > > Go Anarch and the cardless Anarch option didn't exist in round 1. Go > Anarch was introduced in round 2 and worked just like it does now. We > thought it might be over-strong, at the time, with the untap, but I > don't know why we thought that, I guess we were young and naive. :-) > In round 3, it actually got *improved* to be usable if your vamp was > already an Anarch to gain 2 blood (with no untap). By round 3 reporting > time, we thought that was strong, but not overpowered. But then it got > printed without the alternate use. Yeah--I was kind of surprised by the loss of the alternate use--when you could use it to gain some blood as a cycle after you had gone Anarch, it wasn't bad that you had 10 in your deck, which you needed to reliably go Anarch. But I figure when they developed the cardless "Go Anarch" action, they figured that the action card was less neccessary, so it could get downgraded some. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

Howdy > Pater Szlachta > Reaction > Protean & Vicissitude > 2 blood > Only usable before this vampire's controller > announces any block attempts. > [vic]: For the remainder of this action, this > vampire gets +1 strength. This vampire cannot > use equipment for the remainder of the action. > [pro][vic]: As [vic] above, and this vampire gets > 1 optional maneuver each combat, and once > each round he or she can strike for strength > aggravated damage. > <PRO><VIC>: As [pro][vic] above, and this > vampire gets 1 optional additional strike each > round. So that's what Rex has been trying to dig up in the Necronomicon... Suddenly, he'd actually be useful for something, sort of. I mean, he has no intercept discipline, but, man, it'd be bad if he caught you - +1 strength, an optional maneuver, and he strikes agg! Of course, he'd also be empty (assuming hands for one in return) or in torpor, so it's hardly abusive, but it would be nice (for him). I imagine Imogen would be Babbling about it, and Horrock and Szechenyi Jolan might make good use of it too. But I expect it didn't see print mostly because there weren't that many vampires at the time who would be able to use it - and there still aren't. Thanks for sharing, Alex

>So discussing unprinted cards from previous set's playtesting files >will ruin its chances of ever seeing print then? Wouldn't you expect there to be some problem with talking about cards that still might see print?

>Another card I kinda wish hadn't been spoiled. The game needs more >Ammo choices, it would make Magazine much better IMO. Of course, >unpreventable damage should be hard to get (THA or QUI) so perhaps >this one is best left unprinted. I fail to see how more ammo is going to make the game better. If you are going to have cards that are *only* useful (and not even clearly good) in combination, they need to be powerful. Then, you might run into the balancing act problem where you can only make something worth playing when it's too powerful (at least situationally).

LSJ wrote: > > This one could've been held for later use (like Wind Dance was). > > That's slightly less likely now that it has been spoiled, though, > but not out of the question. > > Or it could've been in the playtest for other reasons. > > Or dropped for theme. > > Or ... Basically, I just looked the card and thought: wow it would have cool if pretty little daughters were able to do ranged aggravated damage. The DoC Fame-dunk deck would have been so nice (I never manage(d) to do anything useful with them). -Antero

In message <uBldc.1334$HN3.360@fed1read07>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: >Pater Szlachta >Reaction >Protean & Vicissitude >2 blood >Only usable before this vampire's controller >announces any block attempts. >[vic]: For the remainder of this action, this >vampire gets +1 strength. This vampire cannot >use equipment for the remainder of the action. >[pro][vic]: As [vic] above, and this vampire gets >1 optional maneuver each combat, and once >each round he or she can strike for strength >aggravated damage. ><PRO><VIC>: As [pro][vic] above, and this >vampire gets 1 optional additional strike each >round. Consider this: No vampire currently in the game can play the superior level of this card. At the time of its printing, only Rex and Imogen could play the inferior dual-discipline version. cf. Nightmare Curse: No vampire currently in the game can play the superior; however, at the time of its printing, five different vampires (3.5 of which are very good and see play regularly) could play the card at inferior. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

On 9 Apr 2004 08:33:16 -0700, vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i'd use that knowledge for evil. there are some cards playtested that i thought sucked so badly i'd not want to see them in print. Wind Dance was one of them, but i think it used to cost a blood (my memory's not perfect, and i don't want to go sifting through the box to find it). also, not happy with how basilisk's touch got toned down (although, to be honest, it _did_ need toning down....it's just it got it too much i think.) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On 9 Apr 2004 09:09:45 -0700, came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) scrawled: >> Pater Szlachta >> Reaction >> Protean & Vicissitude >> 2 blood >> Only usable before this vampire's controller >> announces any block attempts. >> [vic]: For the remainder of this action, this >> vampire gets +1 strength. This vampire cannot >> use equipment for the remainder of the action. >> [pro][vic]: As [vic] above, and this vampire gets >> 1 optional maneuver each combat, and once >> each round he or she can strike for strength >> aggravated damage. >> <PRO><VIC>: As [pro][vic] above, and this >> vampire gets 1 optional additional strike each >> round. > >I think Pater didn't get printed because at the time there was only >one or two vampires that could use it. It was a good card, but it >wasn't really worth bolting on PRO or VIC. I'm kinda sorry Kevin >posted this even though NDA is up, this is a card that could really >have been printed someday. agreed. It was going to make Rex the Necronomist playable. It's a reaction, not a combat card, so he doesn't pay extra for it, and he has pro/vic. and he's a 3 cap. >> Read the Winds >> Reaction >> Animalism & Auspex >> [ani][aus]: +1 intercept. If this vampire >> successfully blocks this action, he or she may >> pay one blood to untap after the action is >> complete. >> <ANI><AUS>: +1 intercept. Also usable by a >> tapped vampire, even if intercept is not yet >> needed, to untap and attempt to block with +1 >> intercept. > >This card was so good in playtest and I'm really glad it didn't get >changed. Granted it helps Tzi block decks more, but Omaya and I had >some good times playtesting this card. not changed? i do beleive every time i see someone play it i yell out 'don't replace!" as they reach for their library. and also it costs a blood now. >> Shadow Feint >> Combat >> Celerity & Obfuscate >> 2 blood >> Only usable before range is determined. >> [cel][obf]: This vampire gets First Strike this >> round. >> <CEL><OBF>: The opposing minion cannot >> use any strike during the initial strike step this >> round. The opposing minion gets an additional >> strike this round; this does not count against >> his or her additional strike effect limit for this >> round. > >*sigh* This was my favorite card in the Bloodlines playtest. It >finally gave the Assamites (and the City Gangrel, but whatever) >FIRSTEST STRIKE!!! It was so good!!! I guess that's why it didn't >get printed as you see here. While I still think SF is a great card, >I would have much preferred this version. yeah, but it was rather overboard. i mean, if it was obf/qui instead or something so that you really are only using it with assamites, it'd be ok, because they really need something. although what they probably need is a way to oust, rather than more ways to 0wnZ you in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

> salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >This card was so good in playtest and I'm really glad it didn't get > >changed. Granted it helps Tzi block decks more, but Omaya and I had > >some good times playtesting this card. > not changed? i do beleive every time i see someone play it i yell out > 'don't replace!" as they reach for their library. and also it costs a > blood now. I meant functionally changed. Yes, the DNR and blood cost are "changes", but at least the effect wasn't nerfed like Shadow Feint. > > Shadow Feint > > Combat > > Celerity & Obfuscate > > 2 blood > > Only usable before range is determined. > > [cel][obf]: This vampire gets First Strike this > > round. > > <CEL><OBF>: The opposing minion cannot > > use any strike during the initial strike step this > > round. The opposing minion gets an additional > > strike this round; this does not count against > > his or her additional strike effect limit for this > > round. > > > >*sigh* This was my favorite card in the Bloodlines playtest. It > >finally gave the Assamites (and the City Gangrel, but whatever) > >FIRSTEST STRIKE!!! It was so good!!! I guess that's why it didn't > >get printed as you see here. While I still think SF is a great card, > >I would have much preferred this version. > > yeah, but it was rather overboard. i mean, if it was obf/qui instead > or something so that you really are only using it with assamites, it'd > be ok, because they really need something. although what they probably > need is a way to oust, rather than more ways to 0wnZ you in combat. I don't know about that. Is this card really that much better than Immortal Grapple? SF as playtested costed 2 blood, required two superior disciplines to use, and didn't stop the strike, it just delayed it to the additional strike phase. IG is free, only requires [pot] for it's effect as opposed to CEL/OBF, and stops the strike for the round. For that matter, Thoughts Betrayed stops any strike card for 2 blood and superior DOM. Personally I think SF could have been printed as playtested, but apparently the effect was thought to be too strong. I retain hope however that this effect may see the light someday as an Assamite-only combat card or something. Aramis

On 11 Apr 2004 21:37:09 -0700, came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) scrawled: >> salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >This card was so good in playtest and I'm really glad it didn't get >> >changed. Granted it helps Tzi block decks more, but Omaya and I had >> >some good times playtesting this card. > >> not changed? i do beleive every time i see someone play it i yell out >> 'don't replace!" as they reach for their library. and also it costs a >> blood now. > >I meant functionally changed. Yes, the DNR and blood cost are >"changes", but at least the effect wasn't nerfed like Shadow Feint. ok then. >> > Shadow Feint >> > Combat >> > Celerity & Obfuscate >> > 2 blood >> > Only usable before range is determined. >> > [cel][obf]: This vampire gets First Strike this >> > round. >> > <CEL><OBF>: The opposing minion cannot >> > use any strike during the initial strike step this >> > round. The opposing minion gets an additional >> > strike this round; this does not count against >> > his or her additional strike effect limit for this >> > round. [snip] >> yeah, but it was rather overboard. i mean, if it was obf/qui instead >> or something so that you really are only using it with assamites, it'd >> be ok, because they really need something. although what they probably >> need is a way to oust, rather than more ways to 0wnZ you in combat. > >I don't know about that. Is this card really that much better than >Immortal Grapple? yes. > SF as playtested costed 2 blood, required two >superior disciplines to use, and didn't stop the strike, it just >delayed it to the additional strike phase. assuming the minion lasted until it got there. > IG is free, only requires >[pot] for it's effect as opposed to CEL/OBF, and stops the strike for >the round. it stops non-hand strikes for the current round. agg hands (pro, vic, etc.), strength increasers (pot, spi(ani), lucky blow, val, chi, etc) Fancy hand strikes (tha) are all still hitting under an IG, at the same time that your strike lands. >For that matter, Thoughts Betrayed stops any strike card >for 2 blood and superior DOM. but they still get to strike. weapons, agg hands again, pre-range fancy stuff all still work. > Personally I think SF could have been >printed as playtested, you'd need prevent, or whatever hit back you have is meaningless, and most of the standard viable defenses are too. Samantha, for example, SF then Drawing out the beast. that's awfully strong. >but apparently the effect was thought to be too >strong. I retain hope however that this effect may see the light >someday as an Assamite-only combat card or something. maybe something similar, but maybe not quite so limiting. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Wilson" <danceswithwolvesontopofabuildingareyoustillreadingthisemailyoushouldntbecom e...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:XTidc.3885$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] That was not me! Must be someone spoofed my Nick. yea. thats what happened. Raille The real.

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:53165b0bf841567d...@news.teranews.com... > > "David Wilson" > <danceswithwolvesontopofabuildingareyoustillreadingthisemailyoushouldntb ecom > e...@umich.edu> wrote in message > news:XTidc.3885$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu... > > Raille, > > > > If you were a playtester, the NDA prohibits you from discussing this > > question for at least 6 more months. I could be wrong about the NDA > > though... > > > > David Wilson > > > > That was not me! Must be someone spoofed my Nick. yea. thats what > happened. Actually, if your Anarchs NDA said what mine did, and you signed it any time close to when I signed mine (mid-August 2002), it expired in mid-February 2004, 18 months from the date of signing. David Wilson was thinking it expired 18 months from the *end* of playtesting; he just hadn't checked the actual NDA text, I think. Josh nine devilish apples

Choir Action Melpominee +1 stealth action. [mel]: Put this card into play. Burn this card at the end of the turn. <MEL>: (D) Burn X Choir cards you control (not counting this one) to burn 2X pool from your prey's pool. ********* How do you playtest something like this? Do you make the pull out 10 embraces and 9 sanguine instruction just to prove the card is wallpaper? "Yeah, man. We got served by paul and his san fransisco mens choir deck. He had like 8 choirs out with all his embraces and sanguine instructions. I thought jon was gonna wreck him when he blocked the money-shot final choir action, but paul looks at his hand all calmly and plays daring the dawn. This deck is unbeatable! We have to prevent this from happening." Did anybody do anything with this card? Probably not. I guess that explains why crap like this is printed.

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.04041...@posting.google.com>... > Choir > Action > Melpominee > +1 stealth action. > [mel]: Put this card into play. Burn this card at > the end of the turn. > <MEL>: (D) Burn X Choir cards you control > (not counting this one) to burn 2X pool from > your prey's pool. > > ********* > > How do you playtest something like this? Do you make the pull out 10 > embraces and 9 sanguine instruction just to prove the card is > wallpaper? You take the daughters that are given to you, SI, and (OLD) Embrace, and make a DoC Choir Deck (MEL/FOR version). And it works as any other bloodlines only deck (at that time, all hail Dia/Brink HoS Milling.) > "Yeah, man. We got served by paul and his san fransisco mens choir > deck. He had like 8 choirs out with all his embraces and sanguine > instructions. I thought jon was gonna wreck him when he blocked the > money-shot final choir action, but paul looks at his hand all calmly > and plays daring the dawn. This deck is unbeatable! We have to prevent > this from happening." As was discussed elsewhere in this thread (by Aramis) our group felt that the card was mildly underpowered... there wasn't enough umph for the card to reliably oust, but at the same time, any increase in power we tried gave it to much strength. Choir was thought about by all of us, played to great extent by one very good player, and tossed back and forth several times. Ultimately the 2x formula was kept, it wasn't unbalancing w/ Daring the Dawn. (Think about what 3X choirs would do, this is an action at 1 stealth by a clan with FOR, mild stealth and a block fails card.) > Did anybody do anything with this card? Probably not. I guess that > explains why crap like this is printed. <don asbestos> Fuck you, you acrimonious, goat fletching, imbecile. Your excuse for communication skills is why I don't like talking about playtesting experiances. All it does is allow you a few moments of ignorant pleasure as you spew forth vitriol that appears insightful in your crack induced haze. You have a problem with preserving balance? I'd tell you to eat dog shit, but I'm afraid my dog would someday findout. Cameron

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.04041...@posting.google.com>... > kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.04041...@posting.google.com>... > > As was discussed elsewhere in this thread (by Aramis) our group felt > that the card was mildly underpowered... there wasn't enough umph for > the card to reliably oust, but at the same time, any increase in power > we tried gave it to much strength. Choir was thought about by all of > us, played to great extent by one very good player, and tossed back > and forth several times. Ultimately the 2x formula was kept, it > wasn't unbalancing w/ Daring the Dawn. (Think about what 3X choirs > would do, this is an action at 1 stealth by a clan with FOR, mild > stealth and a block fails card.) > Mildy underpowered? 3x Choirs would ruin things? So lets say you have 4 minions with malpominee. You could do 9 damage with 4 sucsessful +1 stealth undirected actions. They ALL need to be sucsessful. On the same turn. If you can get this to all work you deserve to do 9 damage. > > <don asbestos> > > Fuck you, you acrimonious, goat fletching, imbecile. Your excuse for > communication skills is why I don't like talking about playtesting > experiances. All it does is allow you a few moments of ignorant > pleasure as you spew forth vitriol that appears insightful in your > crack induced haze. You have a problem with preserving balance? I'd > tell you to eat dog shit, but I'm afraid my dog would someday findout. I like this part the best. Preserving balance? What a insult. That is the only insult in here. I can no longer stomach the 'game balance' of vampire. I could try to explain to you what I was trying to say and that it relates to some of my problems with playtesting a set that I am legally disallowed to speak about. I could accept that you are a soley reactive individual (a bit like an amoeba) and that your response to my comment was perceived as a slight against you (like moving away from the light). I could list for you the things I have heard people say in seriousness about this game. I think I will: 1) Dominate makes everything better. 2) I have to add dominate to my decks so I can play with crappy cards. 3) If I have at least 4 minions with at least basic dominate I play with dominate. 4) I keep winning with this deck. All I did was put in 12 governs and 12 deflections. There is nothing else to the deck. There is more. But why bother. None of this made any sense to you.

"Jeff Haar" <kit3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6933e80c.0404...@posting.google.com... > orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.04041...@posting.google.com>... > > kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.04041...@posting.google.com>... > > > > As was discussed elsewhere in this thread (by Aramis) our group felt > > that the card was mildly underpowered... there wasn't enough umph for > > the card to reliably oust, but at the same time, any increase in power > > we tried gave it to much strength. Choir was thought about by all of > > us, played to great extent by one very good player, and tossed back > > and forth several times. Ultimately the 2x formula was kept, it > > wasn't unbalancing w/ Daring the Dawn. (Think about what 3X choirs > > would do, this is an action at 1 stealth by a clan with FOR, mild > > stealth and a block fails card.) > > Mildy underpowered? 3x Choirs would ruin things? So lets say you have > 4 minions with malpominee. You could do 9 damage with 4 sucsessful +1 > stealth undirected actions. They ALL need to be sucsessful. On the > same turn. If you can get this to all work you deserve to do 9 damage. Repeat after me: Conditioning would not be printed if it didn't already exist. :-) Nine damage with 4 actions and 4 cards is an *amazing* cost-to-effect ratio at 1 stealth. That's very close to as good as Kine Resources Contested would be if it didn't require passing a referendum. Or better than bleeding with Scouting Mission, if it had inherent +1 stealth (and it's not bounceable). At 3X, Choir would be, all by itself, a tier 1 archetype, I think. (And a boring one - how is playing a zillion copies of Choir any more interesting than "Govern plus Lost in Crowds"?) I think 2X+1 (1 action = 1, 2 actions = 3, 3 actions = 5, 4 actions = 7) would probably have been reasonable. But 3X might be a little over the top. > Preserving balance? What a insult. That is the only insult in here. I > can no longer stomach the 'game balance' of vampire. There is some serious conservatism (in the sense of "not messing too much with the way things have always been") in current VTES game design, yes. I also would like there to be less of that. I can understand why it's there, though: the designers don't want to push the game into a power-escalation spiral where everything new would obsolesce everything old very quickly. > I could list for you the things I have heard people say in seriousness > about this game. I think I will: > > 1) Dominate makes everything better. > 2) I have to add dominate to my decks so I can play with crappy cards. > 3) If I have at least 4 minions with at least basic dominate I play > with dominate. > 4) I keep winning with this deck. All I did was put in 12 governs and > 12 deflections. There is nothing else to the deck. > > There is more. But why bother. None of this made any sense to you. Look, shaking up the game makes sense to me too. But probably not by escalating everything else to the level of Dominate's strongest cards. Or if so, it probably has to be a pretty gradual process, because overshooting Dominate's strongest cards would be "a little bit" bad. Josh has lobbied for more than a couple of cards to not be so weak (didn't playtest bloodlines though)

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.0404...@posting.google.com>... > Mildy underpowered? 3x Choirs would ruin things? So lets say you have > 4 minions with malpominee. You could do 9 damage with 4 sucsessful +1 > stealth undirected actions. They ALL need to be sucsessful. On the > same turn. If you can get this to all work you deserve to do 9 damage. Okay. Now let's try this: As soon as your first DoC hits the table, start Embracing. If you don't have an Embrace, Sanguine Instruct it in basic MEL. Your Embraces can also Embrace. The goal is to get a whole _bunch_ of [mel] minions on the table.. and _then_ start playing Choirs. Remember that at the time of the playtest, Embraces got skill cards (in this case, it'd be fortitude). Daughters are cheap, so your master cards are pretty much going to be Fortitude masters and Storage Annexes (to hold Choirs early on.) So 2 or 3 Embraces start playing Choirs at inferior. If your prey generates intercept to block, they either Dare the Dawn to put it in play, or use DoC/Mel stealth (several options here). You now need a single [MEL/for] vampire to Choir/Dare the Dawn to do unpreventable pool loss unblockable by vampires. If you've seen them in action, weenie Embrace decks already routinely approach double-digit minions in mid-game - that's the main goal of such a deck. With this deck, simply determine to _never_ ever take a bleed action; let your prey's hand choke on bounce or animalism untaps or bleed reduction. Instead of bleeding, Embrace and/or Sanguine Instruct. Maybe add a sprinkling of Tribute to the Masters and hunt a little. And playtesting of this style of deck showed that a 3x return on your choirs was just devastating. You don't need to do 9 in a turn; you can settle for three or six _every_ turn. Compare it to the most similar existing type of deck: the old-rule Setite Obfuscate-weenie Night Moves/Enticement deck. 4 minions: 3 night moves, 1 entice = 6 pool loss. Each extra minion night moving is one more pool lost, assuming it doesn't get bounced or reduced. Oh, and you're trying to balance two cards for the combo. Mininum number of minions needed to damage your prey with the Entice: 2. 2x-effect Choir with 4 minions: 6 pool lost, each extra minion is another _2_ gone. Can't be bounced or reduced, and you still need a minimum of two minions to pull it off. Oh, and only one and a half cards, Choir. 3x-effect: 4 minions=9 pool lost. Yes, you need to Sanguine instruct the weenies, but you don't have to have that in hand on the turn you do the Choirs. And as the numbers of Embraces and/or minions increases, the effect magnifies hugely in favor of Choir. And, as Cameron noted, players determined that they could cream people with 3x-effect Choir decks during playtesting, by actually playing Choir decks and trying it out at different power levels. -John Flournoy

In message <c5hhb8$1sd93$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> mumbled something about: >I think 2X+1 (1 action = 1, 2 actions = 3, 3 actions = 5, 4 actions = 7) >would probably have been reasonable. But 3X might be a little over the >top. We tried it that way. It was violently over the top. Three cheap minions, smacking you for 6 unreducable, undeflectable, unvoteable, unpreventable each turn, spending 0 for Majesty inferior to defend themselves (why waste blood untapping?). Yes, that works JUST FINE for ousting people. We also found that a clan with access to unblockable AND stealth, Majesty, and Freak Drive should probably not be allowed to machine out multiple easy pool-damage actions per turn, because of scenarios like this: Minion #1: Mind Numb, Majesty, Legal, Change of Target, Choir inferior. Minion #2: Legal, Freak Drive, Choir inferior. Minion #3: Legal, Freak Drive, Choir superior. We were playing it at 2x+1 at the time; it worked out to 11 pool, five of which was unreducible, undeflectable, and unstoppable in ANY way other than blocking the action -- and plenty of Majesty and Change of Target let them yo-yo merrily along, burning their prey's Wakes as they showed up. That's something to keep in mind about Choir -- it added a mechanic for direct pool damage that required no more than X successful actions, all of which started at +1 stealth. Nothing else in the game does this. >yes. I also would like there to be less of that. I can understand why >it's there, though: the designers don't want to push the game into a >power-escalation spiral where everything new would obsolesce everything >old very quickly. Herein lies the rub, of course. 2x may be too weak. 3x is definitely too strong. 2x+1 is still maybe too weak, but you're out of ways to improve it. >Look, shaking up the game makes sense to me too. But probably not by >escalating everything else to the level of Dominate's strongest cards. >Or if so, it probably has to be a pretty gradual process, because >overshooting Dominate's strongest cards would be "a little bit" bad. Missing too high is worse for the game than missing too low. Miss too low, you create a wallpaper card. Oops. Rest of the set is still usable, though. Miss too high, you wallpaper a whole bunch of OTHER cards. Damn. Now you have to make errata, or continue escalation. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9lro70th2v9uecqfe...@4ax.com>... > Miss too low, you create a wallpaper card. Oops. Rest of the set is > still usable, though. > > Miss too high, you wallpaper a whole bunch of OTHER cards. Damn. Now > you have to make errata, or continue escalation. They wallpapered almost every card in the game when they printed Condition, GtUA and Deflection. Time to errata or continue the escallation. What has WW done? Neither. Congrats. ~SV

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.04041...@posting.google.com>... > They wallpapered almost every card in the game when they printed > Condition, GtUA and Deflection. I'll assume you're joking, instead of merely posting one of the dumber serious statements I've seen to the newsgroup in a while. :P > ~SV -John Flournoy

flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<57327a82.0404...@posting.google.com>... > kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.0404...@posting.google.com>... > 4 minions: 3 night moves, 1 entice = 6 pool loss. Each extra minion > night moving is one more pool lost, assuming it doesn't get bounced or > reduced. Oh, and you're trying to balance two cards for the combo. > Mininum number of minions needed to damage your prey with the Entice: > 2. > > 2x-effect Choir with 4 minions: 6 pool lost, each extra minion is > another _2_ gone. Can't be bounced or reduced, and you still need a > minimum of two minions to pull it off. Oh, and only one and a half > cards, Choir. 3x-effect: 4 minions=9 pool lost. Yes, you need to > Sanguine instruct the weenies, but you don't have to have that in hand > on the turn you do the Choirs. I love how many hoops you're jumping through just to get 6 pool damage. A govern and a condition can do that (two cards) with just one minion. Now try making the argument that Choir is good. Card games need to either print cards that are as good as previous power cards or make previous power cards less powerful. WW has done neither. Way to reinforce the Status Quo. Then again, they ARE an American Company. ~SV

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.04041...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Since the former is untenable (it leads to escalation), then how (specifically) do you propose making these three (Deflection, GtU, Conditioning) less powerful? DaveZ Atom Weaver

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.04041...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ya know, Dominate is strong, but it aint overwhelming... sure I've got a deck called "Dominate makes everything better." But it's a joke. Conditioning, GtU, and Deflection should have been Threats, GtU, and Redirection. They were not, and ever since the original set (back when they were printed) we've been having to deal with them. By Intercepting them, Killing DOM minions, bouncing DOM bleeds, and AIing the bastards. But Those three cards didn't wall paper anything. No other cards do exactly the same thing, with exactly the same requirements. They don't make my copies of .44 magnum unplayable, nor may Eagles Sights, even my ability to play Fear of the Void Below is not effected by the strength of Dominate Bleed. The decks that I play those cards in can be less or more able to deal with a Mark 1 Mod 0 Malk Sneak and Bleed, but the cards in them are not wall paper. As for Dominate v. Choir, making Choir a 1 Ton Gorilla wouldn't have made Dominate more patable, it simply would have made other strategies that much weaker. A DOM minion can bleed for 7 in one action, or 5 at one stealth. This action can be bounced, reduced, or AI'd in addition to being blocked. Choir can do 2(minion actions invested - 1) and the only way to block it is to have reliable, consistent intercept. Errata on Conditioning/Threats/Forshadowing (you'd have to change all of them) would make Dominate bleed slightly less offensive, but it would still be among the best strategies in the game. Making everything else better only serves to make the game nastier (and I already get complaints that it can be far to hard core), more brutish (and I play with far to much combat D as it is, but now I have to reliably defend against everything?) and shorter (possiably an advantage). Balance is always the best route to take. If the DoC/Choir really needed a boost, printing more DoC minions, or mel vamps of other clans would solve the problem. As bloodlines go, however, they're quite good. Choir's position on the realtive power curve not withstanding. cameron

flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<57327a82.0404...@posting.google.com>... > kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.0404...@posting.google.com>... > > > Mildy underpowered? 3x Choirs would ruin things? So lets say you have > > 4 minions with malpominee. You could do 9 damage with 4 sucsessful +1 > > stealth undirected actions. They ALL need to be sucsessful. On the > > same turn. If you can get this to all work you deserve to do 9 damage. > > Okay. Now let's try this: As soon as your first DoC hits the table, > start Embracing. If you don't have an Embrace, Sanguine Instruct it in > basic MEL. Your Embraces can also Embrace. The goal is to get a whole > _bunch_ of [mel] minions on the table.. and _then_ start playing > Choirs. Yep. That's how the deck worked. IIRC it also had some madrigals and Con Boons. It was an ugly, ugly time. <snip a bunch> > And as the numbers of Embraces and/or minions increases, the effect > magnifies hugely in favor of Choir. > > And, as Cameron noted, players determined that they could cream people > with 3x-effect Choir decks during playtesting, by actually playing > Choir decks and trying it out at different power levels. It was during this playtest that all my dekcs, including my weenie-pot deck began running 3 copies of Anarchist Uprising. It was simply that necessary in the meta-game. Cameron

Howdy, > > Miss too low, you create a wallpaper card. Oops. Rest of the set is > > still usable, though. > > > > Miss too high, you wallpaper a whole bunch of OTHER cards. Damn. Now > > you have to make errata, or continue escalation. > > They wallpapered almost every card in the game when they printed > Condition, GtUA and Deflection. In the original set, you mean? I.e. all cards but those three were, in effect, wallpaper at the time? I agree that Dominate should never have gotten both the best bleed and the best bounce, but a large part of the problem with it is not the individual cards, but rather their combination in a single discipline. Do you really believe your statement above? If so, why do you play? > Time to errata or continue the escallation. What has WW done? Neither. Since White Wolf took over the game, you mean? It was several years and numerous expansions before they even got a chance to do anything about it. And since then, it seems to me that they've more or less been doing precisely what the posters you snipped suggested: Carefully raising the power threshold of other disciplines to approach the bound set by Conditioning, Govern the Unaligned, and Deflection. Given that you apparently don't agree with that approach, what solution would you suggest? Power escalation? > Congrats. And congrats to you too, for taking what was an interesting, well-reasoned, and surprisingly non-flaming set of responses (to an incipient flame war) and reducing it to a trolling soundbite... You must be very proud. Not too proud to call it like I see it, (the other) Alex

Cameron wrote: > But Those three cards didn't wall paper anything. No other cards do > exactly the same thing, with exactly the same requirements. I think his point was that Govern, Conditioning, a Deflection are *soooo* very effective at winning the game (which they are), pretty much every other strategy in the game is less effective than one that uses these cards (which they are). I think it is a pretty common belief that if, from day one, the game would have only been better if Conditioning and Govern didn't exist (and instead there were only Scouting and Threats). [ quoted text not captured ]

Alex Broadhead wrote: > Do you really believe your statement above? If so, why do you play? I think that while the original statment (Govern/Conditioning/Deflection wall paper everything) was kind of hyperbolic, it isn't really that far off. That a single minion with an inferior discipline can, with 2 cards, bleed for 5 in one action, even if it costs 2 blood, has set every other possible action in the game that isn't that behind in the arms race. From day one of the game. If all other things being equal, Govern and Conditioning did not exist (and maybe Legal Manipulations for the same reasons), and it was difficult to get up past 3 or 4 bleed in a single action, I think the game as a whole would have been better for it. Just imagine if Govern and Conditioning didn't exist (but Scouting, Threats, Bonding, Forshadowing, whatever did). To get up past a bleed of 3 in one action, you'd need to have DOM (not an insignificant cost, especially if you want to have another delivery system, like Obf), meaning weenie dom decks would be much less effective (which is only a good thing, and they are effective enough with only bleeds of 3). This strikes me as a reasonable concept. [ quoted text not captured ]

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.04041...@posting.google.com>... > I love how many hoops you're jumping through just to get 6 pool > damage. A govern and a condition can do that (two cards) with just one > minion. Now try making the argument that Choir is good. Yes, a Govern and a Condition can do that.. assuming that your prey doesn't use a single minion to simply block your action. Which virtually any minion can do without needing any cards. There are also (at least) thirteen library cards, most of them commonly available, that prevent Govern/Conditioning from bleeding your prey for six, _without_ blocking your action. Five of these immediately prevent all six points of bleed from touching your prey. That said, as has been noted (repeatedly) elsewhere in this thread, Choir is definitely not a good card. Everbody involved in this discussion agrees that it's underpowered and thus not good. The relevant discussion is as to whether or not an up-gunned Choir would be _over_powered, which seems to have been the case based on actual playtesting. > Card games need to either print cards that are as good as previous > power cards or make previous power cards less powerful. > > WW has done neither. > > Way to reinforce the Status Quo. > > Then again, they ARE an American Company. > > ~SV Again, I'm going to ignore this particular part of commentary as being needlessly stupid and/or hopefully trolling for arguments. :P -John Flournoy

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCA32240.15885%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Cameron wrote: > > > But Those three cards didn't wall paper anything. No other cards do > > exactly the same thing, with exactly the same requirements. > > I think his point was that Govern, Conditioning, a Deflection are *soooo* > very effective at winning the game (which they are), pretty much every other > strategy in the game is less effective than one that uses these cards (which > they are). While I certianly understand his point re: the power curve of Dominate, I think that saying Bleed is overpowered is to simplistic a response to the game as a whole. Bleed is the only inherant action that can be taken to oust your prey. It stands to reason that it should be the most common action used to oust people, and that strategies relying on it be the most basic, simple, and reliable way to win the game. GtU/CommandB/Conditioning is a extremely potent threat, but one that it extremely fragile. Tack on OBF and you get little to no combat D, tack on OBT and you get few if any small vampires, tack on FOR and you get no stealth, tack on NEC and you've got combat D issues again, tack on PRO and you get huge freaking Gangrel, tack on POT/CEL and your restricted to a few specific vampires, etc, etc. Ultimately these are some of the cards that define how the game is played, and how metagames deal with them cause them to gain and lose popularity over time. Again, making everything as good as Dominate would only make the games shorter and less fun. Hosing Dominate would require a major change in the way the Game is progressing. So we get incrimental changes that chip away both at the dominance and effectivenss of Dominate. But we've had RtI in the game before so rash change and later erratta/banning we leave to M:tG. > I think it is a pretty common belief that if, from day one, the game would > have only been better if Conditioning and Govern didn't exist (and instead > there were only Scouting and Threats). I'd disagree about Govern, Deflection should likely have been redirection however. GtU ain't all that bad (even if it is the best card in the game). Keeping it also lets you keep all the other +2 bleed cards. Anyway, saying they wallpapered the rest of the game (immediatly upon printing) wasn't just a mild liberty with the truth, it was a WMD sized hole in reality. And Vermillion, enough with the USA==Status Quo==all that is wrong, it grates on the nerves in a non political forum. > "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. > Ask what you can do for your rest home." > -Elvis "The woman they pay to impersonate my niece took me to the library." - JFK Cameron

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:gugfc.259$s_3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > Since the former is untenable (it leads to escalation), then how > (specifically) do you propose making these three (Deflection, GtU, > Conditioning) less powerful? Here are some thoughts, mind you they are my thoughts and have little bearing on reality. ;) To make GtU/Conditioning less effective. Add errata GtU to read. No additional Bleed modifications can be played after this card is played. As for Deflection, add text to make it usable vs a younger vampire only (dom) and burn 1 blood to use this vs any vampire (DOM). Of course I'm sure there are even better solutions, if people would put their minds to it Raille

flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<57327a82.04041...@posting.google.com>... > vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.04041...@posting.google.com>... > That said, as has been noted (repeatedly) elsewhere in this thread, > Choir is definitely not a good card. Everbody involved in this > discussion agrees that it's underpowered and thus not good. The > relevant discussion is as to whether or not an up-gunned Choir would > be _over_powered, which seems to have been the case based on actual > playtesting. Ah, I see... Sorry, had trouble seeing the forest from the trees. How about you just pop them into play and they don't go away (unless D action to remove one) and they do 2X-1 damage. > > Card games need to either print cards that are as good as previous > > power cards or make previous power cards less powerful. > > > > WW has done neither. > > > > Way to reinforce the Status Quo. > > > > Then again, they ARE an American Company. > Again, I'm going to ignore this particular part of commentary as being > needlessly stupid and/or hopefully trolling for arguments. :P You don't have to consider everything I say trolling. I consider a satirical and comical side-note. But the first sentence DOES need some consideration. ~SV

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.04041...@posting.google.com>... > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCA32240.15885%pd...@lightlink.com>... > > Cameron wrote: > > > > > But Those three cards didn't wall paper anything. No other cards do > > > exactly the same thing, with exactly the same requirements. > > > > I think his point was that Govern, Conditioning, a Deflection are *soooo* > > very effective at winning the game (which they are), pretty much every other > > strategy in the game is less effective than one that uses these cards (which > > they are). > > While I certianly understand his point re: the power curve of > Dominate, I think that saying Bleed is overpowered is to simplistic a > response to the game as a whole. Bleed is the only inherant action > that can be taken to oust your prey. It stands to reason that it > should be the most common action used to oust people, and that > strategies relying on it be the most basic, simple, and reliable way > to win the game. Whoah!?! Who said Bleed is over powered (although i do see a lot fo people bleeing... is that evidence?)? > GtU/CommandB/Conditioning is a extremely potent threat, but one that > it extremely fragile. Tack on OBF and you get little to no combat D, Combat D is Dodge... or just go forward quicker, or just... ah whatever... > tack on OBT and you get few if any small vampires, tack on FOR and you > get no stealth, tack on NEC and you've got combat D issues again, tack > on PRO and you get huge freaking Gangrel, tack on POT/CEL and your > restricted to a few specific vampires, etc, etc. > > Ultimately these are some of the cards that define how the game is > played, and how metagames deal with them cause them to gain and lose > popularity over time. Again, making everything as good as Dominate > would only make the games shorter and less fun. Hosing Dominate would > require a major change in the way the Game is progressing. So we get > incrimental changes that chip away both at the dominance and > effectivenss of Dominate. Whaoh! What are these so called incrimental changes?!? I'd like to see that! > But we've had RtI in the game before so > rash change and later erratta/banning we leave to M:tG. I think we just Ban everything in the first set and see what happens. It would make for a new and intersting game (and maybe unban something everyonce in a while, as needed). > > I think it is a pretty common belief that if, from day one, the game would > > have only been better if Conditioning and Govern didn't exist (and instead > > there were only Scouting and Threats). > > I'd disagree about Govern, Deflection should likely have been > redirection however. GtU ain't all that bad (even if it is the best > card in the game). Keeping it also lets you keep all the other +2 > bleed cards. Axing it doesn't mean we axe other +2 bleed cards. Axing it means we have to axe things that can bleed for +2 OR gain you 3 pool... Nothing else does that. > Anyway, saying they wallpapered the rest of the game (immediatly upon > printing) wasn't just a mild liberty with the truth, it was a WMD > sized hole in reality. Oh come now. I'm sorry I over reacted and said it 'wallpapered' everything in the game at the current time. However, they were THE most game defining cards in the game, and have stayed as such. I find this boring and tedious. I'm tired of seeing DOM everywhere. I prefer dynamic games over static games (some people would change those last words to "chaotic over steady"... whatever. Somantics). I prefer not having to play a deck with DOM or a deck that can deal with DOM. > And Vermillion, VermilliAn man. With an A (for ALEX!). > enough with the USA==Status > Quo==all that is wrong, Would you say that that analogy is false? > it grates on the nerves in a non political > forum. ALright whatever. I consider it just a comical side note is all. If I start including it in my .sig, will that make it better? BTW Bubbu Hotep rawked. ~SV

Cameron wrote: > While I certianly understand his point re: the power curve of > Dominate, I think that saying Bleed is overpowered is to simplistic a > response to the game as a whole. Bleed is the only inherant action > that can be taken to oust your prey. It stands to reason that it > should be the most common action used to oust people, and that > strategies relying on it be the most basic, simple, and reliable way > to win the game. Sure. But it could have easily been that strategies relying on it were the most simple, reliable way to win the game even if it were hard to bleed for more than 3. I don't think that bleeding is overpowered. I think that being able to bleed for 5 with only 2 cards and a single inferior discipline is overpowered, and thegame probably would have been a better place if it was difficult to bleed for more than 3. If you look at vote cards, Voting someone for more than 3 damage is difficult. The basic, single card action (KRC) hits your prey for 3. Con Ag can hit for 4, but has a significant opportunity cost (if you draw it when you are in a 3 player situation, it isn't so good, to say nothing if you draw it when there are only 2 of you). Parity Shift can hit for 5, but only if you have a Prince and only if your prey has more pool than you. You can't stack other cards on votes to make them do more damage. And they are difficult to pull off due to the vote angle as well as the intercept angle. Yet still, the common, low opportunity cost vote does 3 damage to your prey. I think, overall, the ability to bleed for more than 3 *easily* is problematic in the grand scheme of things. I have don't think it would be problematic (in the dream world I'm discussing) if you could bleed for more than 3 with effort (Command the Beast at superior strikes me as a very reasonable way to get to a bleed greater than 3; same with Forshadowing). But that is simple to bleed for more than 3 just by playing 2 cards, 2 blood, and having a single, inferior discipline is probably what the original poster was reacting to. Which I also react to. I'm not saying they (Govern/Conditioning) need to be fixed *now*, but if they had been different from day one, the game probably would have been a better place. And not even those specific cards. I think the paradigm they should have been working with was that it was easy to get up to a bleed of 3, but that it was difficult to get a greater bleed than this--requiring superior disciplines and lengthier card chains (or huge vampires--IC members would be *really* scary in this sort of situation). Conditioning and Govern (and Legal Manipulations and whatever else) in and of themselves are fine--I think that a single minion with inferior discipline *can* bleed for 3 using one of these cards is reasonable (as I think bleeds of 3 are reasonable, espeically costing 1 blood). But when combined and resulting in a Bleed of 5 (even at 2 blood) is just too much damage too easily. > I'd disagree about Govern, Deflection should likely have been > redirection however. GtU ain't all that bad (even if it is the best > card in the game). Keeping it also lets you keep all the other +2 > bleed cards. If Govern only let you bleed for 3 total (i.e. no modifiers on top), it's be fine. Again, that it is soooo easy to bleed for more than 3 is kinda problematic in the grand scheme. It should have been harder to do that much damage--requiring DOM to be able to bleed for 4 or 5, for instance, strikes me as very reasonable, in a paradigm where bleeding for more than 3 was difficult, rather than stupidly easy. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > I don't think that bleeding is overpowered. I think that being able to bleed > for 5 with only 2 cards and a single inferior discipline is overpowered, and > thegame probably would have been a better place if it was difficult to bleed > for more than 3. <snip> I agree. Bleed reduction would be a lot more useful, for example. But given the current game state, I think what we really need is better bleed defense for disciplines other than Dominate. Many disciplines/strategies have adequate offensive power, yet none have the effectiveness of deflection against the most basic attack strategy in the game. Flux

>I think we just Ban everything in the first set and see what happens. >It would make for a new and intersting game (and maybe unban something >everyonce in a while, as needed). I've tried to encourage a Sabbat (set, not sect) only environment before. Gee, wonder why. While I think Sabbat's nature had a fair amount to do with contrasting the greater combat interest of the sect in the background with the Camarilla's interests, there does seem to be some attempt to show a more balanced game with Sabbat. Not just no Govern, Majesty, Freak, Conditioning, Earth Meld, Form of Mist, etc. but also no 2nd, 5th, Parity Shift, etc. Not clear whether certain things were good ideas, such as not having Telepathic Misdirection though relying on just Redirection for "true" bounce might have crippled bounce as an integral part of the game. And, with Con Ag still available is it that big of a deal to not have KRC? I could drift some more off the central point, but to get back on focus, as it has never been all that plausible to house rule away or wait (or possibly even want) WW to do something about cards like Govern and Conditioning, trying to push people to try restricted environments such as a "only printed in Sabbat" seems a much more reasonable way to have people check out the game without some of the "boring" cards whether to see if the environment is better or just for an occasional change of pace.

> > Fuck you, you acrimonious, goat fletching, imbecile. He makes arrows from goats? Chris.

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<gugfc.259$s_3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>... > Since the former is untenable (it leads to escalation), then how > (specifically) do you propose making these three (Deflection, GtU, > Conditioning) less powerful? Some escalation can be fun. NO escalation makes me wonder why I'm still buying cards (when I already have the most powerful stuff from 1994). ~SV

In article <f987c6cd.04041...@posting.google.com>, vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Some escalation can be fun. NO escalation makes me wonder why I'm >still buying cards (when I already have the most powerful stuff from >1994). Escalation is universally and always a bad idea. New cards are there to add new options that are at least equally strong to the existing set, not a marked improvement. Adding new, stronger-than-everything-else cards is a downward spiral that obsoletes the installed base and makes all your early adopters feel ripped off. This is not a long-term survival strategy for a game. There was escalation when 9 and 10 caps that don't suck were printed. And as a result nobody uses Appolonius any more (okay, nobody ever used him, but you see my point). If the new sets escalate, older sets get obsoleted -- and that's kind of a big 'screw you' to people who supported your game early on. gomi -- Tenser, said the Tensor; Tenser, said the Tensor; Tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun.

>Escalation is universally and always a bad idea. So, expansions are a bad idea? Because I'm not aware of any CCG that didn't have escalation as it expanded. Or, should all CCGs go the Magic route and have a rotating card pool? That keeps escalation under control long term. >New cards are there to >add new options that are at least equally strong to the existing set, >not a marked improvement. That doesn't work. Some new cards will work with the old archetypes that work best. Can try to keep the not make best better under control and focus on creating new possibilities - that's good, but it's impossible to have every new option not relate to any old option, so having new options that are strong (total ass new options probably don't make anything stronger) are going to up the power level. >Adding new, stronger-than-everything-else cards >is a downward spiral that obsoletes the installed base and makes all your >early adopters feel ripped off. This is not a long-term survival >strategy for a game. There's a difference between creating new cards that happen to make strong archetypes better and making new cards that clearly outclass old cards. Quicken Sight doesn't outclass Enhanced Senses and Spirit's Touch when you lack Celerity, but it does power up the decks that do. >There was escalation when 9 and 10 caps that don't suck were printed. And >as a result nobody uses Appolonius any more (okay, nobody ever used him, >but you see my point). If the new sets escalate, older sets get >obsoleted -- and that's kind of a big 'screw you' to people who supported >your >game early on. I don't see the problem with cards that never saw play not seeing future play. Actually, I do, but for a different reason. New sets should try to elevate old sucky archetypes/cards so that old doesn't always mean obsolete. Anyway, the nature of CCGs is to screw some of their customers in order to have other customers. Not entirely since most players like new options for decks but continuously, weeding out the players who don't like change. It's how they make money. Sure, V:TES survived years of no new cards. Player base before WW and after WW, however, seems to be of a significantly different magnitude and the hangers on would have eventually drifted away from the game as life got in the way.

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.04041...@posting.google.com>... > > > > Fuck you, you acrimonious, goat fletching, imbecile. > > He makes arrows from goats? > > Chris. No, um I think I'm using the verb correctly in a pornographic sense, but if I'm not, sure he makes arrows from goats. Jeff: glad this didn't turn into a flame war, ultimatly, what Derek said. Cameron

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040419132304...@mb-m10.aol.com... > >Escalation is universally and always a bad idea. > > So, expansions are a bad idea? You equate expansion with escalation. The two are seperable. > Because I'm not aware of any CCG that didn't > have escalation as it expanded. > You need to re-check the definition of escalation that Gomi was using; He was talking about increasing the power of newly released cards at a rate that obsoletes old ones. Does VTES have _some_ level of increased power to new cards? In some cases, yes. In areas where the games designers themselves didn't fully understand the balance of power (ie what was an appropriate power level for vamps >6 capacity), certainly, as you point out below. > Or, should all CCGs go the Magic route and have a rotating card pool? That > keeps escalation under control long term. > For certain, it doesn't. It just allows the manufacturer to let escalation occur quicker, to be reigned in or rolled back with later releases... From what I'm told by my Magic playing friends, the current level of escalation in Magic (with Mirrodin and Darksteel) is the worst ever. Fighting this model (and allowing a player use of all his cards) is what VTES is trying to accomplish. To do so demands that the rate of increase in power be kept relatively flat. > >New cards are there to > >add new options that are at least equally strong to the existing set, > >not a marked improvement. > > That doesn't work. Not perfectly, but it does work to a good extent... > Some new cards will work with the old archetypes that work > best. Can try to keep the not make best better under control and focus on > creating new possibilities - that's good, but it's impossible to have every new > option not relate to any old option, so having new options that are strong > (total ass new options probably don't make anything stronger) are going to up > the power level. > Again, I have to point out that the rate of change really matters... VTES demonstrates that escalation can be spread out over the span of many years, and still keep a healthy game. [ quoted text not captured ] VTES itself contradicts this 'nature of CCGs'. To a large extent, VTES is founded on the same player base that was playing it in 1995. We've added a lot of people since then, but with the exception of a few individuals who aren't willing to accept any change at all, the original players and groups are pretty much all still here and buying/playing. The fact that VTES has kept them, and added still more besides, is extremely rare in the CCG market, and is a testament to their efforts at minimizing escalation (among other worthy reasons for its persistence). DaveZ Atom Weaver

> We've added a lot of people since then, but with the exception of a few > individuals who aren't willing to accept any change at all, the original > players and groups are pretty much all still here and buying/playing. Slight correction: middle part should probably read "with the exception of a fe individuals who aren't willing to accept _this particular evolution_ VTES has undergone". I may be biased, but the layout change is perhaps something that scares old players. I've seen instances where an old timer revisited the club only to be disappointed "by a completely new game". They look at the cards and find that whatewer dwindling nostalgia they had that lured them back to the game, had suddenly dissipated somewhere between the green of the status bar and the dimness of the altered crypt card backgrounds. Well, okay, I *am* biased, but that does not mean I may not be right! ;) Bye, Daneel

On 19 Apr 2004 10:47:19 -0700, orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) scrawled: >chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.04041...@posting.google.com>... >> > >> > Fuck you, you acrimonious, goat fletching, imbecile. >> >> He makes arrows from goats? >> >> Chris. > >No, um I think I'm using the verb correctly in a pornographic sense, >but if I'm not, sure he makes arrows from goats. you might have meant 'felching' (or possibly 'feltching'. my spelling is not so hot for this word as i must admit i have rarely seen it printed, just heard it spoken in bouts of mock ire.) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)