Gwen Morse <gold...@remove.geocities.com> wrote:
<points stuff snipped>
: Anyone willing (and able) to post the system?
The most I've ever seen of it resides in Alexander Austin's Brujah newsletter
from April of '98. I'm sure there's a more complete take on it somewhere
else on the net. Have you tried deja news?
In the meantime, you can find the NL in question by following this link:
http://www2.crosswinds.net/~slacker666/bruj0498.html
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Ralya - Prince of Ann Arbor - sky...@umich.edu
Compleat V:EKN clan newsletters archive maintained at:
http://www2.crosswinds.net/~slacker666/vekn.html
------------------------------------------------------
Gwen wrote:
>>What are the point costs for disciplines/titles/extra abilities from the
original sets (Jyhad/AH/DS) based on capacity? That is, everything except
Sabbat, where they changed the numbers based on the RPG having more
disciplines?>>
I don't think anyone is completely sure that there ever was an actual formula
used to make the Jyhad set vampires, but as all of them were pretty balanced in
terms of abilities vs. capacity, we all came up with one to use as a judge for
the cost effectiveness of vampires. The original vampires tended to fit in the
following system:
Vampires of size 2-4: They got one less point in disciplines/abilities than
their age--i.e. a 2 point vampire got one point of skills, a 3 point vampire
got 2 points of skills, a 4 point vampire got 3 points of skills.
Vampires of size 5-8: They got points disciplines/abilities equal to their
age--i.e. a 6 point vampire got 6 points worth of disciplines and special
abilities.
Vampires of size 9-10: They got one or two points of extra abilities over and
above the amount equal to their age--i.e. a 10 point vampire usuaully had 11 or
12 points of skills and special abilities.
Caitif tended to have one discipline and a disadvantage, 2 disciplines and a
severe disadvantage, or no disciplines and an advantage (Smudge will be ignored
no longer!).
Costs:
A basic discipline cost 1 point.
A superior discipline cost 2 points.
+1 bleed or +1 hand damage cost 2 points.
A title costs 1 point (many folks adhere to the cost scheem of Primogen=.5
points, Prince=1 point, Justicar=1.5 points, with rounding, but the end result
is the same).
Most other special abilites cost 1 point.
Some special abilities end up costing 2 points to make the formula work.
Most clan specific special abilities (like Rake's) are free.
For example:
Emerson Bridges (8): He has 3 superior disciplines (6 points), one inferior
discipline (1 point), and is a Prince (1 point). 6+1+1=8...Emerson's capacity.
Agrippina (4): She has one superior discipline (2 points) and one inferior (1
point). 2+1=3...one less than Agrippina's capacity (because she is 4 or
younger).
Badger (6): 2 superiors (4 points) and 2 inferiors (2 points). 4+2=6.
Sebastian Marley (7): 1 superior (2 points), 3 inferiors (3 points), +1 hand
damage (2 points). 2+3+2=7.
Don Cruez (10): 3 superiors (6 points), 3 inferiors (3 points), Justicar (1
point), special ability (1 point). 6+3+1+1=11...one more than Don's capacity.
Anvil (6): 2 superiors (4 points), 3 inferiors (3 points), Primogen (1 point).
4+3+1=8 points! Anvil is the original "broken" vampire--far more effective for
his cost than he should to be.
Now, this formula was well adhered to in the original set--most vampires fit
very well, assuming you are willing to accept that some of the weird special
abilities of the huge vampires are worth 2 points to make everything fit well.
The expansion vampires (DS and AH) tended to follow this formula as well, but
the designers seemed more willing to ignore the formula when they felt like it.
For instance, Judah (6) only has 4 points of skills and is a Primogen, making
him a point overcosted--he should be a 5 or have one more point of abilities
(like inferior obf).
With the Sabbat, the designers decided that most special skills were only worth
1 point (even +1 hand damage and +1 bleed, which were worth 2 points in Jyhad,
resulting in fairly weak vampires like Zack North, Sebastian Marley, and
Adrianne), and out of clan disciplines only cost half. This design decision
resulted in the Sabbat vampires being wildly overpowered when compared to their
Jyhad counterparts. Compare Sheila Mezarin (6) to Adrianne (6). Sheila has 2 in
clan superiors, one in clan inferior, one out of clan inferior, and +1 bleed.
Adrianne (6) has 3 in clan inferiors, one out of clan inferior, and +1 bleed.
According to the original design system, Sheila has 2 points more in abilities
than she should--the result being that Adrianne is completely eclipsed by
Sheila.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Sigfreid?"
"Roy?"
"One of the tigers?"
-Willow
In article <19990530105629...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, in Sabbat it was like follows:
1 point for being a non-Pander
1 point for each normal in-clan discipline
0.5 point for each normal out-of-clan discipline
add. 1 point for each superior in-clan discipline,
but every 2nd is free!
add 0.5 point for each superior out-of-clan discipline
1 point for each vote (bishop 1, archbishop 2, cardinal+priscus 3)
1 point for +1 bleed, +1 intercept, +1 hand damage, +1 stealth, each
appropriate cost for each special ability, mostly 1 point
In Sabbat, all vamps applied strictly to this formula.
For VTES, DS and AH, I don't know for sure, but you can apply the
formula and it works well (I don't know if there are any exceptions).
Agrippina is ok: 1 for being a non-caitiff, 2 for sup OBF, 1 for
inf pot (1+2+1=4).
Anvil: 1 non-caitiff, 3 for standard disciplines norm, 2 in-clan sup (1
point, every second free!), 2 out-of-clan normal (1 point) and 1 vote
(1 point). (1+3+1+1+1=7) Still overpowered a bit.
Carl
(VEKN Prince of Vienna)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
carl.pi...@philips.com writes:
>Ok, in Sabbat it was like follows:
>1 point for being a non-Pander
>1 point for each normal in-clan discipline
>0.5 point for each normal out-of-clan discipline
>add. 1 point for each superior in-clan discipline,
>but every 2nd is free!
>add 0.5 point for each superior out-of-clan discipline
>1 point for each vote (bishop 1, archbishop 2, cardinal+priscus 3)
>1 point for +1 bleed, +1 intercept, +1 hand damage, +1 stealth, each
>appropriate cost for each special ability, mostly 1 point>In Sabbat, all vamps applied strictly to this formula.
Not All (if I understand your formula, and if the WotC spoiler is correct).
A brief look at the spoiler lists produced two out-of-line vamps: Caitlin
and Sela.
Caitlin (capacity: 5, PRO ANI dom aus, Bishop)
If she's a country Gangrel Antitribu (Ani, For, Pro):
1 Non-Pander
2 Protean (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
1 Animalism (1 for in-clan, +0 for 2nd superior)
0.5 Dominate (off-clan)
0.5 Auspex (off-clan)
1 Bishop (1 vote)
---
6.0
If she's city Gangrel Antitribu (Cel, Pro, Obf):
1 Non-Pander
2 Protean (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
1 Animalism (0.5 for off-clan, +0.5 for superior)
0.5 Dominate (off-clan)
0.5 Auspex (off-clan)
1 Bishop (1 vote)
---
6.0
Sela (capacity: 6, PRE POT cel obt, Bishop, +1 bleed)
Brujah Antitribu (Cel, Pot, Pre)
1 Non-Pander
2 Presence (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
1 Potence (1 for in-clan, +0 for 2nd superior)
1 Celerity (1 for in-clan)
0.5 Obtenebration (off-clan)
1 Bishop (1 vote)
1 +1 bleed
---
7.5
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | The early bird may get the
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | worm, but it's the second
Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | mouse that gets the cheese.
In article <7itvra$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> carl.pi...@philips.com writes:
> >Ok, in Sabbat it was like follows:
> >1 point for being a non-Pander
> >1 point for each normal in-clan discipline
> >0.5 point for each normal out-of-clan discipline
> >add. 1 point for each superior in-clan discipline,
> >but every 2nd is free!
> >add 0.5 point for each superior out-of-clan discipline
> >1 point for each vote (bishop 1, archbishop 2, cardinal+priscus 3)
> >1 point for +1 bleed, +1 intercept, +1 hand damage, +1 stealth, each
> >appropriate cost for each special ability, mostly 1 point
>
> >In Sabbat, all vamps applied strictly to this formula.
>> Not All (if I understand your formula, and if the WotC spoiler is
correct).
It is not my formula. It was given out to all playtesters of Sabbat.
It's WotC's formula. ;)
> A brief look at the spoiler lists produced two out-of-line vamps:
Caitlin
> and Sela.
>
> Caitlin (capacity: 5, PRO ANI dom aus, Bishop)
>
> If she's a country Gangrel Antitribu (Ani, For, Pro):
> 1 Non-Pander
> 2 Protean (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
> 1 Animalism (1 for in-clan, +0 for 2nd superior)
> 0.5 Dominate (off-clan)
> 0.5 Auspex (off-clan)
> 1 Bishop (1 vote)
> ---
> 6.0
>
> If she's city Gangrel Antitribu (Cel, Pro, Obf):
> 1 Non-Pander
> 2 Protean (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
> 1 Animalism (0.5 for off-clan, +0.5 for superior)
> 0.5 Dominate (off-clan)
> 0.5 Auspex (off-clan)
> 1 Bishop (1 vote)
> ---
> 6.0
I always said she's damn good. But overpowered? I think not.
>
> Sela (capacity: 6, PRE POT cel obt, Bishop, +1 bleed)
> Brujah Antitribu (Cel, Pot, Pre)
> 1 Non-Pander
> 2 Presence (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
> 1 Potence (1 for in-clan, +0 for 2nd superior)
> 1 Celerity (1 for in-clan)
> 0.5 Obtenebration (off-clan)
> 1 Bishop (1 vote)
> 1 +1 bleed
> ---
> 7.5
Odd. I never viewed her as overpowered. According to her points-to-cost
ratio she definitely looks like a killer. But I have never seen a deck
abusing her.
But yes, you are right, there are *some* (=at least 2) exceptions to
the formula. Whether they are intentionally or not I cannot say.
On the other hand, how many points would you give Ian Forestall`s
special ability? Having each discipline in the game seems to be a
powerful ability, "...but can you abuse it? Try and break this card."
This was the most common sentence the designers of the cards said to
the playtesters.
I think the main reason most vamps from Sabbat are stronger than the
vamps from Jyhad is that there were fewer, and they wanted to
compensate for that. They also wanted the Sabbat to be more bloody,
combat oriented...
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7j07kq$17i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7itvra$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>,
> sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> > carl.pi...@philips.com writes:> > >Ok, in Sabbat it was like follows:
> > >1 point for being a non-Pander
> > >1 point for each normal in-clan discipline
> > >0.5 point for each normal out-of-clan discipline
> > >add. 1 point for each superior in-clan discipline,
> > >but every 2nd is free!
> > >add 0.5 point for each superior out-of-clan discipline
> > >1 point for each vote (bishop 1, archbishop 2, cardinal+priscus 3)
> > >1 point for +1 bleed, +1 intercept, +1 hand damage, +1 stealth,
each
> > >appropriate cost for each special ability, mostly 1 point
> >
> > >In Sabbat, all vamps applied strictly to this formula.
> >> > Not All (if I understand your formula, and if the WotC spoiler is
> correct).
>
> It is not my formula. It was given out to all playtesters of Sabbat.
> It's WotC's formula. ;)
You mean they actually told you this was their
formula for vampire design? How disappointing. I'd
always hoped (foolishly I know) that if WotC had an
actual vampire-cost formula, it would be a sensible
one.
This formula is icky. Because 'the second
in-clan superior is free', it can say that
"Cool Anti-Toreador"
5-cap
PRE AUS cel
and
"Sucky Anti-Toreador"
5-cap
PRE aus cel
not to mention
"Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador"
5-cap
POT ANI DOM THA FOR
are acceptable vampires. Why would you want to
use a formula that does this? Wouldn't it make
more sense to have the second in-clan superior cost
the same as the first and third in-clan superior?
And to have out-of-clan skills cost the same as
in-clan ones?
> > Sela (capacity: 6, PRE POT cel obt, Bishop, +1 bleed)
> > Brujah Antitribu (Cel, Pot, Pre)
> > 1 Non-Pander
> > 2 Presence (1 for in-clan +1 for superior)
> > 1 Potence (1 for in-clan, +0 for 2nd superior)
> > 1 Celerity (1 for in-clan)
> > 0.5 Obtenebration (off-clan)
> > 1 Bishop (1 vote)
> > 1 +1 bleed
> > ---
> > 7.5
>
> Odd. I never viewed her as overpowered. According to her points-to-
cost
> ratio she definitely looks like a killer. But I have never seen a deck
> abusing her.
We always called her "Commander Broken Sela" in Ithaca.
She's all that and a bag of chips. Her only disad is
that pot/cel decks are more popular than pot/pre decks.
> But yes, you are right, there are *some* (=at least 2) exceptions to
> the formula. Whether they are intentionally or not I cannot say.
> On the other hand, how many points would you give Ian Forestall`s
> special ability? Having each discipline in the game seems to be a
> powerful ability, "...but can you abuse it? Try and break this card."
> This was the most common sentence the designers of the cards said to
> the playtesters.
> I think the main reason most vamps from Sabbat are stronger than the
> vamps from Jyhad is that there were fewer, and they wanted to
> compensate for that. They also wanted the Sabbat to be more bloody,
> combat oriented...
But they made some weaker vamps in Sabbat, too, maybe because
the formula didn't tell them not to.
Card Title: Monique
Capacity: 5
Disciplines: ani for pro aus
Clan: Gangrel Antitribu
Card Text: Sabbat
Artist: Max Shade Fellwalker
Rarity: Vampire
1 for non-pander, 1 each for in-clan ani, for,
pro, 0.5 for out-of-clan aus = 4.5.
Or look at Kurt Strauss: 5-cap, DOM aus tha.
He could have had DOM AUS tha or DOM aus THA
for the same point cost, but instead he doesn't.
Same thing with Guido Lucciano, 5-cap OBT dom
obf. Coulda had another superior. Coulda been
a contenda. Or Gerard. 5-cap for aus dom obt.
4.5 points. Poor guy. And Dodd. 5-cap, CEL
pre dom. 4.5 points. Coulda had PRE for free
and another out-of-clan. (For some reason, the
vamps I think they underpowered seem to be mostly
5-caps. And then, I also disagree with the possible
reduction in cost of +1 hand damage/bleed/etc. and
charging less for out-of-clan than in-clan skills,
but that's not the point...)
Josh
don't mean to yell at you, though, I'm sure you
didn't make up the formula...
[ quoted text not captured ]
(snipped)
> >
> > It is not my formula. It was given out to all playtesters of Sabbat.
> > It's WotC's formula. ;)
>
> You mean they actually told you this was their
> formula for vampire design? How disappointing. I'd
> always hoped (foolishly I know) that if WotC had an
> actual vampire-cost formula, it would be a sensible
> one.
Hm, I don't know if they are sensible. At the time, this formula seemed
acceptable. But in hindsight... I'd have made it anotherway.
>
> This formula is icky. Because 'the second
> in-clan superior is free', it can say that
>
> "Cool Anti-Toreador"
> 5-cap
> PRE AUS cel
it can
>
> and
>
> "Sucky Anti-Toreador"
> 5-cap
> PRE aus cel
it can
>
> not to mention
>
> "Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador"
> 5-cap
> POT ANI DOM THA FOR
it can't. This would be 6 points.
>
> are acceptable vampires. Why would you want to
> use a formula that does this? Wouldn't it make
> more sense to have the second in-clan superior cost
> the same as the first and third in-clan superior?
> And to have out-of-clan skills cost the same as
> in-clan ones?
IMO, out of clan disciplines should be cheaper. But the question is
how cheap compared to the others?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Playtesting Sabbat was very "rushed": we had few time to test the
whole set! And we had to do it as a stand-alone, and in conjunction
with the other sets. You can imagine the headaches it caused.
>
> Josh
>
> don't mean to yell at you, though, I'm sure you
> didn't make up the formula...
Hush, It's Ok, now rest. It will be soon over... :)
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7jfvsc$ie3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
>
>
[snip]
[I wrote]
> > You mean they actually told you this was their
> > formula for vampire design? How disappointing. I'd
> > always hoped (foolishly I know) that if WotC had an
> > actual vampire-cost formula, it would be a sensible
> > one.
>
> Hm, I don't know if they are sensible. At the time, this formula
seemed
> acceptable. But in hindsight... I'd have made it anotherway.
Me too. ;-)
> > not to mention
> >
> > "Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador"
> > 5-cap
> > POT ANI DOM THA FOR
>
> it can't. This would be 6 points.
Oops, you're right. This should be
"Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador"
5-cap
POT ANI DOM FOR
instead.
To me, this is still completely wrong. This vampire
would be amazingly good in a Pot/Dom, Pot/Ani, Pot/For,
or Ani/Dom deck - not to mention in a deck that used
*all* of its skills.
> IMO, out of clan disciplines should be cheaper. But the question is
> how cheap compared to the others?
Yes, that's the question. I think 'half price', as this
formula does it, is too cheap. Three-quarters price
might be acceptable. But as a matter of principle, it
seems to me that out-of-clan disciplines don't necessarily
deserve to be cheaper than in-clan disciplines, because
it's much more important to most decks that a vampire have
the right combination of disciplines than that it be a
member of the right clan. Jimmy Dunn goes into any
deck that uses two of Pot/Cel/For even though his clan is
only useful in a Pander deck.
(While we're at it, I also disagree with charging vampires
a point to belong to a non-Pander clan. Pander vamps
shouldn't get better disciplines just because they don't
have clan-requiring cards. They're good enough already.
They didn't seem to give Caitiff extra credit for not
having a clan...)
> Playtesting Sabbat was very "rushed": we had few time to test the
> whole set! And we had to do it as a stand-alone, and in conjunction
> with the other sets. You can imagine the headaches it caused.
I can, I can.
Josh
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7jgm0l$pa5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <7jfvsc$ie3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:>> IMO, out of clan disciplines should be cheaper. But the question is
>> how cheap compared to the others?>
>Yes, that's the question. I think 'half price', as this
>formula does it, is too cheap. Three-quarters price
>might be acceptable. But as a matter of principle, it
>seems to me that out-of-clan disciplines don't necessarily
>deserve to be cheaper than in-clan disciplines, because
>it's much more important to most decks that a vampire have
>the right combination of disciplines than that it be a
>member of the right clan. Jimmy Dunn goes into any
>deck that uses two of Pot/Cel/For even though his clan is
>only useful in a Pander deck.
The biggest problem I have with out of clan disciplines being cheaper
(well, aside from it going against the games theme -- in clan disciplines
are in clan because they're easier to get!) is that it makes the best
vampires for a given "clan" those that aren't actually part of the clan.
Silly.
--
/\ Jasper Phillips
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--.
* http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`
Jasper Phillips <phil...@sk.ENGR.ORST.EDU> wrote in message
news:7jhfd2$mg5$1...@news.NERO.NET...
> In article <7jgm0l$pa5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <7jfvsc$ie3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> >> IMO, out of clan disciplines should be cheaper. But the question is
> >> how cheap compared to the others?
> >
> >Yes, that's the question. I think 'half price', as this
> >formula does it, is too cheap. Three-quarters price
> >might be acceptable. But as a matter of principle, it
> >seems to me that out-of-clan disciplines don't necessarily
> >deserve to be cheaper than in-clan disciplines, because
> >it's much more important to most decks that a vampire have
> >the right combination of disciplines than that it be a
> >member of the right clan. Jimmy Dunn goes into any
> >deck that uses two of Pot/Cel/For even though his clan is
> >only useful in a Pander deck.
>
> The biggest problem I have with out of clan disciplines being cheaper
> (well, aside from it going against the games theme -- in clan disciplines
> are in clan because they're easier to get!) is that it makes the best
> vampires for a given "clan" those that aren't actually part of the clan.
>
> Silly.
>
I agree. It's silly, but when you consider this makes them more "common"
and more easier to create decks around becuase you can count on them more in
certain (aka clan) vamps, then they become more expensive. This is another
example of how the card game can differ from the table top game.
Vince
(snipped)
> The biggest problem I have with out of clan disciplines being cheaper
> (well, aside from it going against the games theme -- in clan
disciplines
> are in clan because they're easier to get!) is that it makes the best
> vampires for a given "clan" those that aren't actually part of the
clan.
>
> Silly.
I know what you mean. But according to the RPG they'd have to be
more expensive than in-clan disciplines. I think this would hose new
deck-concepts and enforce single-clan decks.
Perhaps the points cost formula is not applicable everywhere and
vamps have to be judged individually?
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7jifod$dbg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, carl.pi...@philips.com
writes
>Perhaps the points cost formula is not applicable everywhere and
>vamps have to be judged individually?
Probably best, though a rough points formula helps. I personally like
the 1 point for inferior, 2 for superior and judge other things on their
relative costs one. It works most of the time in Sabbat, too, though
some of the vampires pay a bit less than they should. This is not, in
general, a bad thing, but could be in specific cases.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.nethttp://www.obeah.demon.co.uk
In article <7ji62k$jkf$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Vince Johnson <Miste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Jasper Phillips <phil...@sk.ENGR.ORST.EDU> wrote in message>> The biggest problem I have with out of clan disciplines being cheaper
>> (well, aside from it going against the games theme -- in clan disciplines
>> are in clan because they're easier to get!) is that it makes the best
>> vampires for a given "clan" those that aren't actually part of the clan.
>>
>> Silly.>>I agree. It's silly, but when you consider this makes them more "common"
>and more easier to create decks around becuase you can count on them more in
>certain (aka clan) vamps, then they become more expensive. This is another
>example of how the card game can differ from the table top game.
I don't agree that the very minor cost of potentially contesting
a vampire at all offsets it being more powerfull. At least I think
that's what you're getting at...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7jifod$dbg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <carl.pi...@philips.com> wrote:
>> The biggest problem I have with out of clan disciplines being cheaper
>> (well, aside from it going against the games theme -- in clan>disciplines>> are in clan because they're easier to get!) is that it makes the best
>> vampires for a given "clan" those that aren't actually part of the>clan.>>
>> Silly.>>I know what you mean. But according to the RPG they'd have to be
>more expensive than in-clan disciplines. I think this would hose new
>deck-concepts and enforce single-clan decks.
I'm not really talking about the RPG here, just the theme in general.
If I'm building a vampire, and out of clan disciplines are cheaper, why
the hell would I even bother to include in clan disciplines? This
leads to the vampires with "in clan" disciplines being weaker -- which
is stupid.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that out of clan should cost more in this
game (hmmm, well perhaps superior out of clan should cost .5 more?),
as this does indeed make it hard to make decks. If the costs are the
same, at least the in clan vampires will be as good as those that
don't work with their clan, and the only benefit you get from
wacky discipline combinations is the ability to make wacky decks --
exactly as it should be.
>Perhaps the points cost formula is not applicable everywhere and
>vamps have to be judged individually?
Perhaps. I still think the guidelines should be more solid, as it
would lead to better balance.
[ quoted text not captured ]
carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> (snipped)> Hm, I don't know if they are sensible. At the time, this formula seemed
> acceptable. But in hindsight... I'd have made it anotherway.
me too
>
> >
> > This formula is icky. Because 'the second
> > in-clan superior is free', it can say that
of course the formula is icky. somebody did not use his brains. but i see
the reason behind it. it is sound to assign higher capacity vampires extra
capabilities. for instance, a cap 4 vampire can be brought out 1 turn before
a cap 5 vampire. there is much more difference than, say, between a 3 and 4
cap vampire. the same goes for the cap 9+ vamps. furthermore, high capacity
vampires usually have already far more disciplines than a usual play deck
fields cards for, so the extra points don't make it a broken vampire. in
jyhad, a scheme like this can be made out, but is not followed generally:
1 for just being
1 for each discipline (+1 for superior)
2 for +1 hand damage, +1 bleed and some special abilities
1 for each other special advantage
1 for each vote
-1 for each disadvantage
-1 for cap 5+
-2 for cap 7+
-3 for cap 9+
the sabbat formula is much worse and i can't figure out why they completely
corrupted it
>
> >
> > not to mention
> >
> > "Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador"
> > 5-cap
> > POT ANI DOM THA FOR
>
> it can't. This would be 6 points.
>
i think what he means is like:
"Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador MK. II"
5-cap
POT PRO FOR OBF
what a cool vamp! the formula is prone to abuse in many ways.
Jens Niemann
(V:EKN Prince of Stuttgart)
@}---}----- close your eyes, you can find all you need in your mind
-----{---{@
(Dream Theater)
In article <3760AEF5...@ike.uni-stuttgart.de>,
Jens Niemann <nie...@ike.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
>
> carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
>
> > (snipped)
> > Hm, I don't know if they are sensible. At the time, this formula
seemed
> > acceptable. But in hindsight... I'd have made it anotherway.
>
> me too
Did you happen to be also one of the Sabbat playtesters? Just curious,
as the communication at that time was not really good. :(
> > > This formula is icky. Because 'the second
> > > in-clan superior is free', it can say that
>
> of course the formula is icky. somebody did not use his brains. but i
see
> the reason behind it. it is sound to assign higher capacity vampires
extra
> capabilities. for instance, a cap 4 vampire can be brought out 1 turn
before
> a cap 5 vampire. there is much more difference than, say, between a 3
and 4
> cap vampire. the same goes for the cap 9+ vamps.
Agreed, even in the Jyhad-Set the 5's have more points. Just look at
Roman Alexander and Camille Devereux from Clan Gangrel.
> furthermore, high capacity
> vampires usually have already far more disciplines than a usual play
deck
> fields cards for, so the extra points don't make it a broken vampire.
Yes, I think this is right. More often than not, you cannot use all
the disciplines the high cap vamps have.
> in jyhad, a scheme like this can be made out, but is not followed
> generally:
> 1 for just being
> 1 for each discipline (+1 for superior)
> 2 for +1 hand damage, +1 bleed and some special abilities
> 1 for each other special advantage
> 1 for each vote
> -1 for each disadvantage
> -1 for cap 5+
> -2 for cap 7+
> -3 for cap 9+
I don't know if that's correct. But I'd say that each vote has to cost
1 point, that's OK with me.
> the sabbat formula is much worse and i can't figure out why they
completely
> corrupted it
They did a poor job with the Sabbat formula, but playtesters had no
say with it. :(
> > > not to mention
> > >
> > > "Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador"
> > > 5-cap
> > > POT ANI DOM THA FOR
> >
> > it can't. This would be 6 points.
> >
>
> i think what he means is like:
>
> "Weird-Ass Anti-Toreador MK. II"
> 5-cap
> POT PRO FOR OBF
>
> what a cool vamp! the formula is prone to abuse in many ways.
IMO every formula has it's strengths and weaknesses. You will end up
either with power-vamps or wall-paper vamps (like Sigrid Bekker, DS).
>
> Jens Niemann
> (V:EKN Prince of Stuttgart)
Carl Pilhatsch
(Fellow V:EKN Prince of Vienna)
:)
[ quoted text not captured ]
carl.pi...@philips.com writes:
>Agreed, even in the Jyhad-Set the 5's have more points. Just look at
>Roman Alexander and Camille Devereux from Clan Gangrel.
These fit the genrally accepted "formula" for Jyhad (I think only Anvil
violates the formula):
1 point per basic skill, 2 points per superior.
Capacity 1-4 costs 1 point (cost of the ability to come out in one turn).
Capacity 5-8 is "normal" (no adjustment).
Capacity 9+ gains 1 extra point (a "rebate" for 3-turn influence).
Roman, at four, has the prescribed three points of skills.
Camille (and Raven) at five, has the prescribed five points of skills.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | The fact that no one
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | understands you doesn't
Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | mean you're an artist.
In article <7jqvqf$o...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson
<sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes
>These fit the genrally accepted "formula" for Jyhad (I think only Anvil
>violates the formula)
Well, I suppose it depends, in other instances, exactly what you think
the special abilities are worth. But generally, Anvil is the only non-
formula following vampire.
[ quoted text not captured ]