New Rules that Fix Everything

We should play this game with 50 pool Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up Base Strength is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up Unlimited Transfers, but only 1 minion per turn can be put into play. Okay this is a crazy, wacky idea of a game that is not really VTES, but it would be fun to try. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> We should play this game with 50 pool > > Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > Base Strength is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > Unlimited Transfers, but only 1 minion per turn can be put into play. > > Okay this is a crazy, wacky idea of a game that is not really VTES, > but it would be fun to try. If you can get enough like minded crazy people... JoL --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

at first sight, this kinda liked me... but allow me to make a short analisys On Dec 17, 6:48 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > We should play this game with 50 pool i cant see the reason of this > Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up this should have existed from the beggining. An older vampire has more capacity to undermine your influence > Base Strength is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up mmm...almost same as above > Unlimited Transfers, but only 1 minion per turn can be put into play. anti- weenies, fixes that problem (i hate weenies xD), but the current mechanic is good (if it is not broken, do not fix it) im gonna propose some of this rules in my play group and i'll let you know the results. Cheers! Miguel Cortes R. Prince of Santiago de Chile

> > We should play this game with 50 pool > > i cant see the reason of this I can't begin to truly fathom what goes through Norm's head, but I guess it has to do with this: > > > Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up There are 485 vampires that would remain with a default bleed of 1 There are 794 vampires that would get a base bleed of 2 There are 17 vampires that would get a base bleed of 3 So, with base bleeds increasing dramatically for about 63% of the vampires, staying at a base pool of 30 would be silly. You'd need more. With these rules, IC's have a bleed of 5.... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:54:29 -0800 (PST), J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Also, with the effectiveness of higher cap vampires, and the higher attrition rates (a 10 cap can only block a 10 cap five times before being empty), the need for more than one big vamp and a couple of auxillaries goes up. Though as J points out, Inner Circles are gonna love the investigations of Archons. Of course, base strength 5 Enkidu is gonna tear things up too. S:CE and 'prevent all' are going to be important. Morgan Vening

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:17c2b739-3469-4824...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com... > We should play this game with 50 pool > > Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > Base Strength is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > Unlimited Transfers, but only 1 minion per turn can be put into play. > > Okay this is a crazy, wacky idea of a game that is not really VTES, > but it would be fun to try. These rules fix _everything_, Norm?!? Really?!? Can they make a rock they can't lift? ;-) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] nuh. A rock they can't lift would be broken. Why would these rules make that!?!? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] my guess is that with this rule, every +x bleed or +x strenght skill goes void.

Miguel Cortes wrote: >>>> Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > my guess is that with this rule, every +x bleed or +x strenght skill > goes void. From the 1995 rulebook, Appendix A: Variant Rules (p. 52): > Increased Bleed > A vampire's bleed equals the number of blood counters on her divided by 2 > (rounded up). > Treat any cards that refer to a base bleed as added bleed damage. This also > applies to cards from the original Jyhad set. One would imagine Norm's version (based on capacity rather than current blood) would also allow "special ability" +1 bleed (no reason not to, and avoids the question of vampires that can burn blood for increased bleed). Similarly for strength (again from the 1995 variant): > Increased Damage > [Base strength] equals a vampire's blood capacity the number of blood counters > on her divided by 2 (rounded up). > Treat any cards that refer to a base [strength] as added [strength]. This > includes cards from the original Jyhad set.

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 47677cd8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... [ quoted text not captured ] If you break a rock you can't lift, does that make two lighter rocks that you can eventually lift ? You do you need to break each one several more times to do that ? Just asking... -- Orpheus ------------------- "- You got married ? - Yes. - Why ? - Why do people get married ? - Passive aggressive neurosis." Matt Murdock and Natasha Romanovna

On Dec 18, 9:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Miguel Cortes wrote: > >>>> Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > my guess is that with this rule, every +x bleed or +x strenght skill > > goes void. > > From the 1995 rulebook, Appendix A: Variant Rules (p. 52): > > > Increased Bleed > > A vampire's bleed equals the number of blood counters on her divided by 2 > > (rounded up). > > Treat any cards that refer to a base bleed as added bleed damage. This also > > applies to cards from the original Jyhad set. The current blood version sounds appealing to me. Adds strategy to how much do I Minion Tap for/Blood Doll back. Minion cards that are free start to look much more appealing to those that cost blood. If Arika goes to torpor empty, Blood Doll 1 blood on, gets rescued, she can still bleed for a sizable amount, but its not the same as full Arika bleeding. Base bleed equal to blood counters divided by 2 (round down) would be interesting. 1 caps would have a base bleed of zero. :) > > One would imagine Norm's version (based on capacity rather than current blood) > would also allow "special ability" +1 bleed (no reason not to, and avoids the > question of vampires that can burn blood for increased bleed). > > Similarly for strength (again from the 1995 variant): > > > > > Increased Damage > > [Base strength] equals a vampire's blood capacity the number of blood counters > > on her divided by 2 (rounded up). > > Treat any cards that refer to a base [strength] as added [strength]. This > > includes cards from the original Jyhad set. I think base strength should scale slower. I see where having them the same is easy to remember, but I would think vampires would torporize each other too fast. I don't know if I like current blood or capacity better for this one. Divide by three (round up) would have 1-3 caps/ blood -> 1 str, 4-6 -> 2 str, 7-9 ->3 str and 10-11 -> 4 str sounds better to me. Later, ~Rehlow

following on the brainstorm... bleed seems fine, but strenght seems a little excesive... counting that 6 x 11 cap and 33 x 10 cap have CEL, i think that is a "little" overpowered. but, OTOH, gwendolyn all will be the killer machine that deserve to be ;) and our favorite: Thetmes with base 4 strenght agravated [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 18, 2:11 pm, "Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex)" <shaitan.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I love how players are fine with high impact against primary resources (pool), but are not fine with high impact against secondary resources (vampires). Does anyone care to explain?

[ quoted text not captured ] > Does anyone care to explain?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I feel that the effect of losing pool is less than the effect of losing vampires. As long as I haven't lost my last pool, I can still play the game almost as well as I could have before that loss. If I am now really low or down to my last pool, I may have to play (more) conservatively than I did before that loss. I also lose access to cards that have a pool equal to or greater than my current pool. With each vampire that I lose, my ability to play the game is lessened. I can take less actions each turn. It is easier for my opponents to block all my actions in a given turn (I lose the ability to push through actions with weight of numbers). It is harder to lunge. There are few things that can be done in this game with zero vampires (minions). Maybe using your rule of unlimited transfers and only influencing 1 vampire into play a turn, high impact to secondary resources would be fine. With those rules I can quickly replace a secondary resource that is torporized or burned. The only real loss is the pool invested. I wish I had more time to try alternate rules. Right now, I'd be happy with more time to play regular Vampire. Later, ~Rehlow

On Dec 17, 4:48 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Unlimited Transfers, but only 1 minion per turn can be put into play. > > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp This would make it seriously disadvantageous to play a vampire below 6 cap. Why wait two turns to get two 5 caps when I get two 6 caps that have base 2 bleed and strength? to save 2 pool? That will be gone when the 6 cap bleeds me! I'd try perhaps allowing 5 transfers instead of 4, which would allow the base-1 vamps to come out in 1 turn, the base 2 vamps in two turns, and the base 3 vamps in 3 turns. To mitigate the weenie effect, transfers can only be made to one minion, or perhaps allow for the spending of 1 pool for each additional crypt card to which transfers are made (move up to five blood to one uncontrolled, or pay a pool to split them between two, or pay 2 pool to split them among three, etc). But an interesting idea for an alternate game, for sure!

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll play blood brothers. The 6caps. I'll bring my big crypt and a few copies of unwholesome bond. All problems fixed? :P Cheers, B

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, do that. Your unwholesome bonds are foiled by a point of intercept. I think you are trying to illuminate a point that unlimited transfers means that you could move your entire crypt of 8 to your uncontrolled region for 8 pool. That is a good point, so perhaps you could forgo all your transfers to pay a pool to move the top vampire of your crypt to your uncontrolled region.

On 19 dec, 03:53, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Dec 18, 7:34 pm, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 dec, 22:48, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > We should play this game with 50 pool > > > > Base Bleed is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > > > Base Strength is your capacity divided by 5 round any fractions up > > > > Unlimited Transfers, but only 1 minion per turn can be put into play. > > > > Okay this is a crazy, wacky idea of a game that is not really VTES, > > > but it would be fun to try. > > > > Comments Welcome, > > > Norman S. Brown, Jr > > > XZealot > > > Archon of the Swamp > > > I'll play blood brothers. The 6caps. I'll bring my big crypt and a few > > copies of unwholesome bond. > > All problems fixed? :P > > Okay, do that. Your unwholesome bonds are foiled by a point of > intercept. I'm playing fortitude and wont care at all if my vampire burns. ;) > I think you are trying to illuminate a point that unlimited transfers > means that you could move your entire crypt of 8 to your uncontrolled > region for 8 pool. > > That is a good point, so perhaps you could forgo all your transfers to > pay a pool to move the top vampire of your crypt to your uncontrolled > region. The point im making is that with cards like little mountain cemetary/ unwholesome bond/recruiting party unlimited transfers is bad. both in crypt draw and transfer-back ability. A better solution would probably be something along the lines of: 6 transfers standard, and bringing a vampire into play costs 2 transfers. Cheers, B