There is much fuss about high-cap vamps being too weak (cept the Inner
Circle and ones that can perform multiple-actions). Idea of new card
concept: "Super-superior". Add an extra "level" to cards, much like
with the multi-disciple-card, which is playable if the vamp is above
cap 8 (or even above 9?).
Card name: "Stupid example card just to make you get the idea"
Combat card
1 Blood
cel: Press
CEL: Manuever or Press
Super-CEL: Dodge
(This card is just an EXAMPLE to make you get the idea.)
How to make the IC and the Freak Drive/Rutors vamps unable to play
these cards are another thing. Maybe not make any super-superior cards
for FOR and THA? I don´t know.
Another (maybe stupid, possibly broken) idea: Ever wondered about why
Freak Drive is for, not cel?
Card name: Fast as hell
Combat card / Action modifier
2 Blood
cel: Manuvear
CEL: Additional strike
Super-CEL: Only usable at the end of a action. Usable even if the
action is blocked (after resolving the action). Untap this vampire.
as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> There is much fuss about high-cap vamps being too weak (cept the Inner
> Circle and ones that can perform multiple-actions). Idea of new card
> concept: "Super-superior". Add an extra "level" to cards, much like
> with the multi-disciple-card, which is playable if the vamp is above
> cap 8 (or even above 9?).
I like this idea. I'd restrict the "Super Superior" to 9+ capacity
vampires. I'd rationalize 9-cap since under normal conditions, those
vampires take minimum 3 turns to influence out.
How about this:
Conditioning
Action Modifier
1 blood
After playing this card, no further modifiers may be played to change
the bleed amount.
dom: +1 bleed
DOM: +2 bleed
DOM9: +3 bleed
I wouldn't argue if a 9-cap were bleeding me for massive amounts. It's
just when the 4-caps do it that it's annoying.
> I like this idea. I'd restrict the "Super Superior" to 9+ capacity
> vampires. I'd rationalize 9-cap since under normal conditions, those
> vampires take minimum 3 turns to influence out.
>
> How about this:
> Conditioning
> Action Modifier
> 1 blood
> After playing this card, no further modifiers may be played to change
> the bleed amount.
> dom: +1 bleed
> DOM: +2 bleed
> DOM9: +3 bleed
>
> I wouldn't argue if a 9-cap were bleeding me for massive amounts. It's
> just when the 4-caps do it that it's annoying.
Generally I consider this to be a good idea.
How about this:
Threats
After playing this card you cannot further increase the bleed for this
action.
dom: +1 Bleed
DOM: +2 Bleed
DOM9: as DOM above, and once each action if the current bleed is for 3
or less, this vampire may burn a Blood to get +1 Bleed.
or this:
Blur
1 Blood
cel: Additional Strike
CEL: Two Additional Strikes
CEL9: This vampire burns an additional Blood to gain 3 Additional
Strikes
or:
Telepathic Misdirection
1 Blood
aus: +1 Intercept
AUS: Only usable when you are being bled. Tap this reacting vampire.
Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting
minion. The acting minion is now attempting to block that Methuselah.
AUS9: As AUS above, and once this action this reacting vampire may
burn a blood to cancel a minion card that would cause the acting
minion to bleed you. Any cost for the cancelled minion card is not
paid.
...or so. ;)
Anyway, I like the idea, but I'm afraid the omnipotent ICs will get
the most benefit from them. If it can be avoided, or the focus are
areas which are not typical IC-uses (like Bleed at Stealth and
Voting), then the game can benefit from these.
Note1: I wouldn't like existing cards be rewrought. My examples were
solely for the purpose of demonstration.
Note2: I'm not sure cards like this would be typical Gehenna-ish or
post-Gehenna-ish choices... ;)
Best Regards,
Daneel
jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message:
> I like this idea. I'd restrict the "Super Superior" to 9+ capacity
> vampires. I'd rationalize 9-cap since under normal conditions, those
> vampires take minimum 3 turns to influence out.
>
> How about this:
> Conditioning
> Action Modifier
> 1 blood
> After playing this card, no further modifiers may be played to change
> the bleed amount.
> dom: +1 bleed
> DOM: +2 bleed
> DOM9: +3 bleed
>
> I wouldn't argue if a 9-cap were bleeding me for massive amounts. It's
> just when the 4-caps do it that it's annoying.
You're proposing a errata on a common card that nowadays you have many
ways to lead with that. In your example, what would be Threats
destiny?
But that's not the point here.
I don't like the idea of having hi-cap vampires (that usually have
access to the best cards and effects) doing annoying things. If this
isn't the "super superior" idea, there isn't much point of having it.
The alternative is what was done with Black Hand-type vampires; they
have access to good cards that most vampires don't. Anyway, i was
expecting Black Hand mechanism to be somehow different and more
restricted. I don't like the idea that every Sabbat vampire can be a
Black Hand and by their own action.
Or i'm missing the Black Hand RPG-background or something should have
been done quite differently. I'd prefer to see a good and larger base
of Black Hand hi-cap vampires with superior clan disciplines, and
Blooding to be called only by a Black Hand vampire. Maybe it could be
interesting to have a "no card" action to do the same, much like the
Anarchs mechanism. This supports the theory of having new members by
invitation only and selected by existing BH.
.- Luis Duarte (Portugal)
luis....@netcabo.pt (Luis Duarte) wrote in message news:<e0b52d78.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message:
> > I like this idea. I'd restrict the "Super Superior" to 9+ capacity
> > vampires. I'd rationalize 9-cap since under normal conditions, those
> > vampires take minimum 3 turns to influence out.
> >
> > How about this:
> > Conditioning
> > Action Modifier
> > 1 blood
> > After playing this card, no further modifiers may be played to change
> > the bleed amount.
> > dom: +1 bleed
> > DOM: +2 bleed
> > DOM9: +3 bleed
> >
> > I wouldn't argue if a 9-cap were bleeding me for massive amounts. It's
> > just when the 4-caps do it that it's annoying.
>
> You're proposing a errata on a common card that nowadays you have many
> ways to lead with that.
Deal with that? Personally, I think Conditioning is overpowered and
I'm sure many others would agree with me. The "surprise" factor of
action modifiers is worth a blood IMO since you can play them after
you're sure there are no block attempts made by your target (barring
Eagle's Sight, Anneke, etc). A Govern bleed at (dom) is inferior to a
Conditioned bleed at (dom) for this precise reason, forget about the
superior.
> In your example, what would be Threats destiny?
> But that's not the point here.
In my world, all inferior action modifiers to bleeds would cost 1
blood or have conditions on them. Threats and Conditioning wouldn't
co-exist. For example:
Foreshadowing Destruction
Action Modifier
Only usable if the methuselah you're bleeding has less than 10 pool.
After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action.
dom: +1 bleed
DOM: +2 bleed
DOM9: +3 bleed
> I don't like the idea of having hi-cap vampires (that usually have> access to the best cards and effects) doing annoying things. If this
> isn't the "super superior" idea, there isn't much point of having it.
Well this is the point. There are very few reasons to play with most
vampires 9+ capacity aside from special abilities or titles. You might
as well be playing with efficient 5-8 caps with superior disciplines
you want. Granted, you might not have as much variety available to you
since out of clan superior disciplines usually kick in at 8+ cap, but
you would still have a viable crypt selection for most things you want
to do.
With a "super superior" your large caps can do certain things even
better. In the RPG, don't all these skills and powers keep increasing
as your generation decreases? There aren't just two levels and there
is certainly more than one tier of difference between what a 1-cap
with an inferior can do versus an 11-cap with a superior.
Torn Signpost
Combat
Potence
Only usable before range is determined
pot: This vampire burns 1 blood to have a strength of 2 for the rest
of combat.
POT: This vampire has a strength of 2 for the rest of combat.
POT9: This vampire has a strength of 3 for the rest of combat.
Yeah, this would hurt Potence combat a bit, but you get the idea.
It should be obvious that you can't just add a "super superior" onto
old cards and decrease their power without redoing the entire game. Or
can you? Are there ways to work around some of the initial design
problems going forward?
I am still intrigued by some of curevei's suggestions regarding combat
and bleeding (to paraphrase):
* A vampire may not deal more damage in a round with hand strikes than
it's capacity.
* A vampire may not bleed for more pool in an action than it's
capacity.
* A vampire may not cast votes in a referendum for more than it's
capacity.
IMO this could solve a whole bunch of problems with weenie decks but
still leave them viable. If 4-5 caps can still bleed for 4-5 per
action, it's very strong. It is a problem for 1-cap vampires, but they
can always use skill cards to get larger (and it's easy to cycle
weenie decks).
<snip>
>
> In my world, all inferior action modifiers to bleeds would cost 1
> blood or have conditions on them. Threats and Conditioning wouldn't
> co-exist.
Shouldn't there be FOUR power levels of these cards, two of them
equal?
For example:
>
> Foreshadowing Destruction
> Action Modifier
> Only usable if the methuselah you're bleeding has less than 10 pool.
> After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
> further increase the bleed for this action.
> dom: +1 bleed> DOM or dom9: +2 bleed> DOM9: +3 bleed
>
> > I don't like the idea of having hi-cap vampires (that usually have
> > access to the best cards and effects) doing annoying things. If this
> > isn't the "super superior" idea, there isn't much point of having it.
>
> Well this is the point. There are very few reasons to play with most
> vampires 9+ capacity aside from special abilities or titles. You might
> as well be playing with efficient 5-8 caps with superior disciplines
> you want. Granted, you might not have as much variety available to you
> since out of clan superior disciplines usually kick in at 8+ cap, but
> you would still have a viable crypt selection for most things you want
> to do.
>
> With a "super superior" your large caps can do certain things even
> better. In the RPG, don't all these skills and powers keep increasing
> as your generation decreases? There aren't just two levels and there
> is certainly more than one tier of difference between what a 1-cap
> with an inferior can do versus an 11-cap with a superior.
>
> Torn Signpost
> Combat
> Potence
> Only usable before range is determined
> pot: This vampire burns 1 blood to have a strength of 2 for the rest
> of combat.> POT or pot9: This vampire has a strength of 2 for the rest of combat.> POT9: This vampire has a strength of 3 for the rest of combat.
>
> Yeah, this would hurt Potence combat a bit, but you get the idea.
>
> It should be obvious that you can't just add a "super superior" onto
> old cards and decrease their power without redoing the entire game. Or
> can you? Are there ways to work around some of the initial design
> problems going forward?
>
> I am still intrigued by some of curevei's suggestions regarding combat
> and bleeding (to paraphrase):
>
> * A vampire may not deal more damage in a round with hand strikes than
> it's capacity.
>
> * A vampire may not bleed for more pool in an action than it's
> capacity.
>
> * A vampire may not cast votes in a referendum for more than it's
> capacity.
i think these are really good practical ideas, because they are rules
changes and not changes to card text. Henrik's ideas are also good but
they would involve MAJOR card-text changes if implemented
retrospectively.
>
> IMO this could solve a whole bunch of problems with weenie decks but
> still leave them viable. If 4-5 caps can still bleed for 4-5 per
> action, it's very strong. It is a problem for 1-cap vampires, but they
> can always use skill cards to get larger (and it's easy to cycle
> weenie decks).
I agree.
> Intimidation
> [inf] (D) bleed +1
> [sup] (D) bleed +2
> [MAS] (D) bleed +3
> [GRANDMA] (D) bleed +5
> [Cali] (D) -2 stealth oust your prey
I like the fact that Grandma bleeds for a base of 6.
Rubia
as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> There is much fuss about high-cap vamps being too weak (cept the Inner
> Circle and ones that can perform multiple-actions). Idea of new card
> concept: "Super-superior". Add an extra "level" to cards, much like
> with the multi-disciple-card, which is playable if the vamp is above
> cap 8 (or even above 9?).
>
Could the same effect be achieved solely by an extra rule, i wonder?
Extra rule: any vampire with a capacity of 9 or greater may burn a
blood one time any card is legally played by it to add one to the
votes,
additional strikes,
bleed modifiers,
stealth,
intercept,
damage prevention
or strength
normally granted by the card.
Note that this doesn't mean you can burn a blood to give yourself
stealth on a 0-stealth action, or intercept on a Forced Awakening,
etc. The card must already say "+1 [or more] to [something on the
above list]", or "[something on the above list], for, eg, additional
strikes".
Hmmm, maybe additional strikes should come off the list.
i really like Henrik's basic idea but am not too keen on big old text
revisions or even new card concepts, mainly because they annoy new
players. New rules are better, i think. The one above would create
essentially three tiers of vampires;
1-4 cap weenies
5-8 cap increasingly useful middies
9+ cap really quite useful fatties.
legbiter expounded:
> 1-4 cap weenies
> 5-8 cap increasingly useful middies
> 9+ cap really quite useful fatties.
I like the ideas but I think that it's too late for this game. ONe of
those "would havebeen nice" ideas. Since there is a new RPG replacing
VtM we might see all these new ideas bear fruit in a corresponding
CCG...
Not sure how I feel about that idea.
Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8107acb...@news.freeserve.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Never say never... This is an easily feasible concept and it is not
alien to VTES to begin with (many cards require vampires being of a
certain age or being older or as old as the target).
Also, this thing is mostly unique to vampires (as age has far less
bearing on a mortal's abilities than those of a vampire).
Bye,
Daneel
Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8107acb...@news.freeserve.com>...
> legbiter expounded:
>
> > 1-4 cap weenies
> > 5-8 cap increasingly useful middies
> > 9+ cap really quite useful fatties.
>
> I like the ideas but I think that it's too late for this game.
Why is it too late? We have had extra rules before. No vote-pushing is
the most obvious, though arguably that was only a clarification.
legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.04012...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I like the idea of higher capacity vamps getting something extra, but
why not have the card text provide it for them without a new
"super-superior" category? Writing cards allows for this already
without introducing a new mechanic. This eliminates the need for a
new discipline level and a new rule, and gives big'uns a boost:
Disciple concept card
Cost:
Basic: Minor effect
Superior: Major effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added
bonus.
Ani
atomweaver wrote:
> I like the idea of higher capacity vamps getting something extra, but
> why not have the card text provide it for them without a new
> "super-superior" category? Writing cards allows for this already
> without introducing a new mechanic. This eliminates the need for a
> new discipline level and a new rule, and gives big'uns a boost:
>
> Disciple concept card
> Cost:
> Basic: Minor effect
> Superior: Major effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added
> bonus.
Which is a variation on
Clan concept card
Cost:
Effect: Main effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added bonus.
See also Nosferatu Performance Art.
--
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/
atomweaver wrote...
> legbiter wrote...
> > Henrik wrote..> > >
> > > There is much fuss about high-cap vamps being too weak (cept the Inner
> > > Circle and ones that can perform multiple-actions). Idea of new card
> > > concept: "Super-superior". Add an extra "level" to cards, much like
> > > with the multi-disciple-card, which is playable if the vamp is above
> > > cap 8 (or even above 9?).
The general idea of super-superior would work well on new cards.
However, there is no need to make up a new discipline level. Simply
add a line after the normal inferior and superior levels that gives
another option to a specific groups of vampires (older vamps, princes,
cardinals, a certain clan, etc.) That should work well and be fairly
easy to do.
> > Could the same effect be achieved solely by an extra rule, i wonder?
> >
> > Extra rule: any vampire with a capacity of 9 or greater may burn a> > blood one time any card is legally played by it to add +1 to the
> >
> > vote,
> > bleed modifier,
> > stealth,
> > intercept,
> > damage prevention
> > strength
> >
> > as normally granted by the card.
This is a great idea to play around with ...AND we can easily
"pre-test" it by running local events with these additional rules.
After a few groups have tried it out a bit, we can revist the idea.
Let us know how it goes...
> > Note that this doesn't mean you can burn a blood to give yourself
> > stealth on a 0-stealth action, or intercept on a Forced Awakening,
> > etc. The card must already say "+1 [or more] to [something on the
> > above list]", or "[something on the above list], for, eg, additional
> > strikes".
Right. That's a fairly important qualifier. Well done. :o)
> > i really like Henrik's basic idea but am not too keen on big old text
> > revisions
I don't think that people were actually recommending card revisions.
I got the feeling that most of those cards were just easy examples to
use in order to get the basic idea across.
> > or even new card concepts, mainly because they annoy new players.
Why would new card concepts annoy new players? If the concept is
incorporated smoothly and effectively, then it should appear to be a
completely naturaly development for the storyline and the game.
On the other hand, someone is going to get annoyed no matter what is
done... and those people simply have to be ignored at some point.
> New rules are better, i think.
I'm sure that someone someplace "out there" would disagree vehemently.
New rules can be great, but it can also upset people quite a bit.
Again, maybe such people should just be ignored when there is a really
good idea that is worth implementing. We'll leave that up to the
folks at White Wolf, eh? :o)
> > The one above would create essentially three tiers of vampires;
> >
> > 1-4 cap weenies
> > 5-8 cap increasingly useful middies
> > 9+ cap really quite useful fatties.
>
> I like the idea of higher capacity vamps getting something extra, but
> why not have the card text provide it for them without a new
> "super-superior" category? Writing cards allows for this already
> without introducing a new mechanic. This eliminates the need for a
> new discipline level and a new rule, and gives big'uns a boost:
This sounds like the best idea so far (IMHO). No new rules. No
rewritting old cards. Simply make a few of the cards in the next few
expansion that takes this idea into account. That way we can get a
small taste of how it would work without much fuss.
> Disciple concept card
> Cost:
> Basic: Minor effect
> Superior: Major effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added
> bonus.
>
> Ani
Instead of "if this vampire is above capacity X", the card could also
read "if this vampire is a prince" or "if this vampire is Sabbat" or
"if this vampire is infernal" or "if this vampire is Kyasid" ...and
so on.
Cheers,
Howard
guenh...@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote in message news:<4c6f3f3e.04012...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
As i say, NO objection to this in principle, but it DOES mean printing
new cards, creating a new card concept, and/or maybe rewriting old
cards. These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
cards don't work the way the text says they work. Right from the start
i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
crusty old fogey mode ;-).
OT for this thread, is any other playgroup experiencing a, like,
doubling of average size? Thanks to John Keech, we have! 9 players
tonight, could easily have been 11. And a new guy took one table,
whilst a new girl took the other. MUCH enthusiasm about the Prophecies
league also evident!
legbiter wrote...
> atomweaver wrote...
> > legbiter wrote...
> > > Henrik wrote...> > > >
> > > > There is much fuss about high-cap vamps being too weak (cept the Inner
> > > > Circle and ones that can perform multiple-actions). Idea of new card
> > > > concept: "Super-superior". Add an extra "level" to cards, much like
> > > > with the multi-disciple-card, which is playable if the vamp is above
> > > > cap 8 (or even above 9?).
> > > >
> > > Could the same effect be achieved solely by an extra rule, i wonder?
> > >
> > > Extra rule: any vampire with a capacity of 9 or greater may burn a
> > > blood one time any card is legally played by it to add one to the
> > >
> > > votes,
> > > additional strikes,
> > > bleed modifiers,
> > > stealth,
> > > intercept,
> > > damage prevention
> > > or strength
> > >
> > > normally granted by the card.
(snip)
> > > i really like Henrik's basic idea but am not too keen on big old text
> > > revisions or even new card concepts, mainly because they annoy new
> > > players. New rules are better, i think. The one above would create
> > > essentially three tiers of vampires;
> > >
> > > 1-4 cap weenies
> > > 5-8 cap increasingly useful middies
> > > 9+ cap really quite useful fatties.
> >
> > I like the idea of higher capacity vamps getting something extra, but
> > why not have the card text provide it for them without a new
> > "super-superior" category? Writing cards allows for this already
> > without introducing a new mechanic. This eliminates the need for a
> > new discipline level and a new rule, and gives big'uns a boost:
> >
> > Disciple concept card
> > Cost:
> > Basic: Minor effect
> > Superior: Major effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added
> > bonus.
> > Ani
>
> As i say, NO objection to this in principle, but it DOES mean printing
> new cards, creating a new card concept, and/or maybe rewriting old
> cards.
There is no need to rewrite old cards, and this really isn't a totally
"new" concept... it shouldn't be that hard for anyone to understand
if the qualifier (older vamps, clan, title) is printed on the card
with the "extra" ability/option. As long as this concept is
introduced in a new expansion with new cards, then it shouldn't be
that big of deal.
> These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
> mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
> cards don't work the way the text says they work.
That's not a problem if this is only implemented on new cards, right?
> Right from the start
> i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
> in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
> crusty old fogey mode ;-).
Yeah, explaining all the changes to the card text is kinda lame. But
at least most of the changes made sense. That makes it easier...
> OT for this thread, is any other playgroup experiencing a, like,
> doubling of average size? Thanks to John Keech, we have! 9 players
> tonight, could easily have been 11. And a new guy took one table,
> whilst a new girl took the other. MUCH enthusiasm about the Prophecies
> league also evident!
The Prophecies league sounds pretty cool. I'm definitely looking
forward to it. But our group is still fairly small and we haven't
experienced your rapid growth at all. ...any suggestions?
Cheers,
Howard
> > Disciple concept card
> > Cost:
> > Basic: Minor effect
> > Superior: Major effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added
> > bonus.
>> As i say, NO objection to this in principle, but it DOES mean printing
> new cards, creating a new card concept, and/or maybe rewriting old
> cards. These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
> mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
> cards don't work the way the text says they work. Right from the start
> i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
> in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
> crusty old fogey mode ;-).
Hi Legbiter. I don´t get it, why should this mean you have to REWRITE
old cards? The card-type described above does not suggest any kind of
rewriting of older cards at all! Written this way, the
"super-superior"-concept doesn´t even realy call for a new "concept"
(ie, no new terminology, no new symbols).
As LSJ noted, there are already this type of cards (or kind of) - I
only suggest to make this "Basic: Minor effect, Superior: Major
effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added bonus"-cards to
strenghten play of bigcap-vamps. One or two cards for each original
discipline in a future set maybe? (make cards for tha, for and dom a
little weaker, because those disciplines are way to strong already.)
Developers must OF COURSE be careful not to make new cards like these
better than already existing cards, ie render the old cards useless. I
don´t think a card like "Threats version 2 Dom Act mod Basic: +1
bleed, Superior: +2 bleed, and if this vampire is above capacity X, an
additional +1 bleed" is good. EVEN IF RARE! This card should obviously
cost 1 blood, or have another drawback, thereby be weaker than
Conditioning.
hdma...@hotmail.com (HD) wrote in message news:<c0922a66.04012...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
OK, we will start work on that this weekend, and <shameless plug>
probably put a preliminary report in the February !Gangrel NL
</shameless plug>
>
>
> > > Note that this doesn't mean you can burn a blood to give yourself
> > > stealth on a 0-stealth action, or intercept on a Forced Awakening,
> > > etc. The card must already say "+1 [or more] to [something on the
> > > above list]", or "[something on the above list], for, eg, additional
> > > strikes".
>
>
> Right. That's a fairly important qualifier. Well done. :o)
>
>
> > > i really like Henrik's basic idea but am not too keen on big old text
> > > revisions
>
>
> I don't think that people were actually recommending card revisions.
> I got the feeling that most of those cards were just easy examples to
> use in order to get the basic idea across.
i see that, but feel the discussion could easily veer in that
direction, which would i think be a mistake.
>
>
> > > or even new card concepts, mainly because they annoy new players.
>
>
> Why would new card concepts annoy new players? If the concept is
> incorporated smoothly and effectively, then it should appear to be a
> completely naturaly development for the storyline and the game.
Indeed, but i'm thinking of new/occasional/returning players who
suddenly find themselves up against card types they haven't seen
before. Even if they are balanced, this will not necessarily be
immediately apparent to these players. By contrast, the new rule
approach "sexes up" ALL decks, even the old ones built in blissful
ignorance of its existence. i think the n/o/r players would find that
more acceptable.
>
> On the other hand, someone is going to get annoyed no matter what is
> done... and those people simply have to be ignored at some point.
Quite right, down with Democracy! [at least in the field of CCG
design]. But free speech and rational argument have to be kept, and i
really think it ought to be a MAJOR consideration in VTES game design
to think how changes to the game will sit with the new players. Ought
to be, and actually is, i believe, with the current design team.
>
>
> > New rules are better, i think.
>
>
> I'm sure that someone someplace "out there" would disagree vehemently.
> New rules can be great, but it can also upset people quite a bit.
> Again, maybe such people should just be ignored when there is a really
> good idea that is worth implementing. We'll leave that up to the
> folks at White Wolf, eh? :o)
Agreed on all points!
<snip material for atomweaver>
<snip>
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually i agree with that, but the point i'm making is that i don't
even think we need wait for an expansion to try this out.
>
>
> > These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
> > mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
> > cards don't work the way the text says they work.
>
>
> That's not a problem if this is only implemented on new cards, right?
No, i think new card concepts DO upset such players.
>
>
> > Right from the start
> > i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
> > in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
> > crusty old fogey mode ;-).
>
>
> Yeah, explaining all the changes to the card text is kinda lame. But
> at least most of the changes made sense. That makes it easier...
>
>
> > OT for this thread, is any other playgroup experiencing a, like,
> > doubling of average size? Thanks to John Keech, we have! 9 players
> > tonight, could easily have been 11. And a new guy took one table,
> > whilst a new girl took the other. MUCH enthusiasm about the Prophecies
> > league also evident!
>
>
> The Prophecies league sounds pretty cool. I'm definitely looking
> forward to it. But our group is still fairly small and we haven't
> experienced your rapid growth at all. ...any suggestions?
>
> Cheers,
> Howard
John got his/ours from the local LARPers, of which he's a member.
legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> As i say, NO objection to this in principle, but it DOES mean printing> new cards, creating a new card concept, and/or maybe rewriting old
> cards. These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
> mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
> cards don't work the way the text says they work. Right from the start
> i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
> in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
> crusty old fogey mode ;-).
>
Agreed. New cards, only, please. I passed the threshold myself for
tolerating card text changes a long time ago. I understand them as
necessary for the purpose of rules clarifications going into the
'modern VTES' era of LSJ and WW, and in rare instances for the
mitigation of overpowered (Thoughts Betrayed) or severely
misunderstood (Rotschrek) cards. All other instances are superfluous,
IMNSHO.
> OT for this thread, is any other playgroup experiencing a, like,
> doubling of average size? Thanks to John Keech, we have! 9 players
> tonight, could easily have been 11. And a new guy took one table,
> whilst a new girl took the other. MUCH enthusiasm about the Prophecies
> league also evident!
Yes! I moved to the boonies of Torrington, CT, and then my 4 month
old son moved up shortly thereafter, thus experiencing a doubling of
the local playgroup! :-\
Actually, if its possible (meaning if family duties allow), I might
use the league as motivation for taking my third Princehood, and see
if I cannot teach VTES to a few locals.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
legbiter wrote...
> HD wrote...[ quoted text not captured ]
Cool. I'm looking forward to reading it. :o)
(snip)
> > > > i really like Henrik's basic idea but am not too keen on big old text
> > > > revisions
> >
> >
> > I don't think that people were actually recommending card revisions.
> > I got the feeling that most of those cards were just easy examples to
> > use in order to get the basic idea across.
>
> i see that, but feel the discussion could easily veer in that
> direction, which would i think be a mistake.
I agree. No need to go that route once again...
> > > > or even new card concepts, mainly because they annoy new players.
> >
> >
> > Why would new card concepts annoy new players? If the concept is
> > incorporated smoothly and effectively, then it should appear to be a
> > completely naturaly development for the storyline and the game.
>
> Indeed, but i'm thinking of new/occasional/returning players who
> suddenly find themselves up against card types they haven't seen
> before. Even if they are balanced, this will not necessarily be
> immediately apparent to these players. By contrast, the new rule
> approach "sexes up" ALL decks, even the old ones built in blissful
> ignorance of its existence. i think the n/o/r players would find that
> more acceptable.
Maybe you're right. I like the idea of simple rules that make all our
decks a little better. However, each additional rule
adjustment/change usually causes a ripple of dissatisfation in the
VTES community. This sort of thing needs to be done carefully. How
about making it an alternate rule/theme that we develop further in our
local playgroups (like you mentioned)... then we'll know how well it
actually works.
> > On the other hand, someone is going to get annoyed no matter what is
> > done... and those people simply have to be ignored at some point.
>
> Quite right, down with Democracy!
Beautiful! My thoughts exactly... "IF" I was in charge of course.
:o)
> [at least in the field of CCG
> design]. But free speech and rational argument have to be kept,
Are you sure?? Damn. And there I thought we were on to something...
> and i really think it ought to be a
> MAJOR consideration in VTES game design
> to think how changes to the game will sit with the new players. Ought
> to be, and actually is, i believe, with the current design team.
The current design team seem to be really listening to the players.
That's pretty cool ...AND is more likely to lead to better
sales/profits.
> >
> > > New rules are better, i think.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure that someone someplace "out there" would disagree vehemently.
> > New rules can be great, but it can also upset people quite a bit.
> > Again, maybe such people should just be ignored when there is a really
> > good idea that is worth implementing. We'll leave that up to the
> > folks at White Wolf, eh? :o)
>
> Agreed on all points!
Wow. Imagine that!! I don't think I've ever seen that statement on
this newsgroup before. Hmmmm... Maybe we should stop right here.
HITLER. :o)
Cheers,
Howard
> <snip material for atomweaver>
as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.0401...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Disciple concept card
> > > Cost:
> > > Basic: Minor effect
> > > Superior: Major effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added
> > > bonus.
> >
> > As i say, NO objection to this in principle, but it DOES mean printing
> > new cards, creating a new card concept, and/or maybe rewriting old
> > cards. These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
> > mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
> > cards don't work the way the text says they work. Right from the start
> > i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
> > in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
> > crusty old fogey mode ;-).
>
> Hi Legbiter. I don´t get it, why should this mean you have to REWRITE
> old cards?
It doesn't, hence the "maybe" in the above sentence.
The card-type described above does not suggest any kind of
> rewriting of older cards at all!
Well, i think it would, or could, break a number of old cards. Why
would you play a conditioning EVER if you could get the same effect,
plus a bonus for a big vampire, from an SS card? [a point you address
below].
Written this way, the
> "super-superior"-concept doesn´t even realy call for a new "concept"
> (ie, no new terminology, no new symbols).
>
> As LSJ noted, there are already this type of cards (or kind of) - I
> only suggest to make this "Basic: Minor effect, Superior: Major
> effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added bonus"-cards to
> strenghten play of bigcap-vamps. One or two cards for each original
> discipline in a future set maybe? (make cards for tha, for and dom a
> little weaker, because those disciplines are way to strong already.)
i think the relative strength of disciplines thing is a separate
issue.
>
> Developers must OF COURSE be careful not to make new cards like these
> better than already existing cards, ie render the old cards useless. I
> don´t think a card like "Threats version 2 Dom Act mod Basic: +1
> bleed, Superior: +2 bleed, and if this vampire is above capacity X, an
> additional +1 bleed" is good. EVEN IF RARE! This card should obviously
> cost 1 blood, or have another drawback, thereby be weaker than
> Conditioning.
Alright, you understand my concern. i think you could do things the
way you suggest, with the provisos you make. But i think you could get
the same effect wihout having to make any new cards at all, and
without worrying about the effect on old cards, just by bringing in a
new rule. Same effect for less work must be good, mustn't it?
Anyway, kudos to you for coming up with what i think is the best basic
idea about how to boost big vamps i've yet seen. i agree with daneel
and howard that this is one that deserves thorough testing.
On 28 Jan 2004 14:28:01 -0800, legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter)
scrawled:
>OT for this thread, is any other playgroup experiencing a, like,
>doubling of average size? Thanks to John Keech, we have! 9 players
>tonight, could easily have been 11. And a new guy took one table,
>whilst a new girl took the other. MUCH enthusiasm about the Prophecies
>league also evident!
last week we had 4. this week we had 8, even though a few people i
expected to turn up didn't!
so, yes.
i guess it's something to do with the xmas period finally winding to a
close or something?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
> Hi Legbiter. I don´t get it, why should this mean you have to REWRITE
> old cards? The card-type described above does not suggest any kind of
> rewriting of older cards at all! Written this way, the
> "super-superior"-concept doesn´t even realy call for a new "concept"
> (ie, no new terminology, no new symbols).
>
> As LSJ noted, there are already this type of cards (or kind of) - I
> only suggest to make this "Basic: Minor effect, Superior: Major
> effect, and if this vampire is above capacity X, added bonus"-cards to
> strenghten play of bigcap-vamps. One or two cards for each original
> discipline in a future set maybe?
Okay, the basic cards will remain the same. The basic bleed
enhancement will still be Threats (with no cost, and +1/+2 bleed),
etc. Similar cards are Undead Strength, Skin of Rock, etc.
However, there are many available approaches to introduce new cards
without trumping the old ones. Like:
Name: "Balanced Rewrought Threats 1"
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Dominate
After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action. You may only play one
"Balanced Rewrought Threats 1" each round.
[dom]: +1 bleed
[DOM]: +2 bleed
[DOM9]: +3 bleed
Name: "Balanced Rewrought Threats 2"
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Dominate
After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action.
[dom]: +1 bleed
[DOM]: +1 bleed, and once this action, this vampire may burn a blood
to get +1 bleed
[DOM9]: +2 bleed, and once this action, this vampire may burn a blood
to get +1 bleed
Name: "Balanced Rewrought Threats 3"
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Dominate
After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action. Older vampires attempting
to block this bleed action get +1 intercept.
[dom]: +1 bleed
[DOM]: +2 bleed
[DOM9]: +3 bleed
...three good reasons you wouldn't consider "Balanced Rewrought
Threats" to be generally better than Threats. I think that card should
remain the bleeding etalon (and be on or near the top of the power
curve, with an easily accessable and solid effect).
By the way, there is a further tweaking possibility by wording, like:
[DOM]: +2 Bleed. If this vampire is of Capacity 9 or higher, he or she
may play this effect to get +3 Bleed instead.
... is very different from...
[DOM]: +2 Bleed if this vampire is of Capacity 8 or lower; +3 Bleed if
this vampire is of Capacity 9 or higher.
Bye,
Daneel
legbiter wrote...
> <snip>
> >
> > > > > i really like Henrik's basic idea but am not too keen on big old text
> > > > > revisions or even new card concepts, mainly because they annoy new
> > > > > players. New rules are better, i think. The one above would create
> > > > > essentially three tiers of vampires;
> > > > >
> > > > > 1-4 cap weenies
> > > > > 5-8 cap increasingly useful middies
> > > > > 9+ cap really quite useful fatties.
> > > >
(snip)
> > There is no need to rewrite old cards, and this really isn't a totally
> > "new" concept... it shouldn't be that hard for anyone to understand
> > if the qualifier (older vamps, clan, title) is printed on the card
> > with the "extra" ability/option. As long as this concept is
> > introduced in a new expansion with new cards, then it shouldn't be
> > that big of deal.
>
> Actually i agree with that, but the point i'm making is that i don't
> even think we need wait for an expansion to try this out.
That's true. No need to wait, eh? Let's get to it! :o)
> > > These are fences i hesitate in front of, because they often
> > > mean having to explain to new/occasional/returning players that their
> > > cards don't work the way the text says they work.
> >
> >
> > That's not a problem if this is only implemented on new cards, right?
>
> No, i think new card concepts DO upset such players.
Why do you think that is? (beyond what you wrote above)
How would a situation develop where "cards don't work the way the text
says they work (from above)" if the cards are new? I don't get it.
Are you talking about revisions to old cards? If that's what you
mean, then I totally agree. There's no need to creat a bunch of
confusion by reprinting old cards with a new "super-superior" option.
That would probably lead to a LOT of complaints and problems. On the
other hand, if this mechanic is slowly introduced on new cards, then
the cards would work the way the text reads... right?? (I'm still
wondering if I understand you correctly)
> > > Right from the start
> > > i have HATED this, [as part of my general dislike of self-appointed,
> > > in this case newsgroup-reading, elites] and i still do. Now exiting
> > > crusty old fogey mode ;-).
> >
> >
> > Yeah, explaining all the changes to the card text is kinda lame. But
> > at least most of the changes made sense. That makes it easier...
> >
> >
> > > OT for this thread, is any other playgroup experiencing a, like,
> > > doubling of average size? Thanks to John Keech, we have! 9 players
> > > tonight, could easily have been 11. And a new guy took one table,
> > > whilst a new girl took the other. MUCH enthusiasm about the Prophecies
> > > league also evident!
> >
> >
> > The Prophecies league sounds pretty cool. I'm definitely looking
> > forward to it. But our group is still fairly small and we haven't
> > experienced your rapid growth at all. ...any suggestions?
> >
>> John got his/ours from the local LARPers, of which he's a member.
Oh. I'm not into the LARP scene, so that wouldn't work for me.
Thanks anyway. :o)
Cheers,
Howard
Daneel wrote...
(snip)
> Okay, the basic cards will remain the same. The basic bleed
> enhancement will still be Threats (with no cost, and +1/+2 bleed),
> etc. Similar cards are Undead Strength, Skin of Rock, etc.
>
> However, there are many available approaches to introduce new cards
> without trumping the old ones. Like:
Personally, I would prefer totally new concepts/options for any new
cards rather than simply rehashing the old cards with a slight twist
here and there.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not a bad idea generally, but I think creating a new discipline level
may lead to a situation where there are too many words on a card, AND
each additional option could create even more confusion than the
current 2 discipline levels.
Think about teaching new players. A third line might be a bit much,
eh? Just because many of us are used to most of the cards and ready
for more options doesn't mean that it will be easy for people just
starting out. I would actually like to find more ways to simplify the
game so people will learn it a little more quickly and get to the "fun
stuff" faster.
Now consider some of the older players/occassional players that
Legbitter mentioned. Would they be a bit anoyed and confused by "yet
another change!" to a game they are familiar with. Some might not
mind it, but other might start a revolt and burn down their local game
store. ...or something like that. ;o)
Sometime less really is more... :o)
> ...three good reasons you wouldn't consider "Balanced Rewrought
> Threats" to be generally better than Threats. I think that card should
> remain the bleeding etalon (and be on or near the top of the power
> curve, with an easily accessable and solid effect).
>
> By the way, there is a further tweaking possibility by wording, like:
> [DOM]: +2 Bleed. If this vampire is of Capacity 9 or higher, he or she
> may play this effect to get +3 Bleed instead.
> ... is very different from...
> [DOM]: +2 Bleed if this vampire is of Capacity 8 or lower; +3 Bleed if
> this vampire is of Capacity 9 or higher.
>
> Bye,
>
> Daneel
Overall, you have some good ideas. It will be interesting to see if
the folks at White Wolf ever create anything like this. Maybe even in
the next few expasions...
Cheers,
Howard
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> Okay, the basic cards will remain the same. The basic bleed
> enhancement will still be Threats (with no cost, and +1/+2 bleed),
> etc. Similar cards are Undead Strength, Skin of Rock, etc.
>
> However, there are many available approaches to introduce new cards
> without trumping the old ones. Like:
>
> Name: "Balanced Rewrought Threats 1"
> Type: Action Modifier
> Requires: Dominate
> After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
> further increase the bleed for this action. You may only play one
> "Balanced Rewrought Threats 1" each round.
> [dom]: +1 bleed
> [DOM]: +2 bleed
> [DOM9]: +3 bleed
As noted before, this [DOM9]-thingy (symbol or?) isn´t realy needed.
Just make the wording on superior "+2 bleed, and if the vampire is of
cap 8 or higher he gets an additional +1 bleed". Simple! And, of
course, make it cost 1 blood, or have some other drawback, or else the
normal Threats are rendered useless.
as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> Umeå, Sweden. Tournaments before last tournament: 10-12 participants.
>
> Umeå, Sweden. Last tournament (Bloodwork Umeå): 21 participants!
And I'm still meeting people down at the local store that say "hey, I
wanna try this v:tes thingy".
I'm estimating we've doubled (from about 12 to about 25) our local
comunity in the past months.
Seems alot for a town of 100k inhabitants.
On 30 Jan 2004 09:08:50 -0800, as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m)
scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
if you made it cost 1, conditioning would always be better.
his minor drawback on the card is you may only play 1 per round, where
i assume he meant 'you' to be the methuselah, rather than the minion,
and 'round' to mean 'turn'. thus making it different to threats, not
absolutely better.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rg4p101ei1mskf3rt...@4ax.com>...
> if you made it cost 1, conditioning would always be better.
> his minor drawback on the card is you may only play 1 per round, where
> i assume he meant 'you' to be the methuselah, rather than the minion,
> and 'round' to mean 'turn'. thus making it different to threats, not
> absolutely better.
Yes. I know. I know all of this. I wrote started this topic to discuss
a mechanic, not a card. The cards mentioned are EXAMPLES to illustrate
a mechanic, not suggestions of new cards. I´m really impressed to note
that so few get this, and instead go ranting about the example-cards.
On 1 Feb 2004 10:55:54 -0800, as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m)
scrawled:
>salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rg4p101ei1mskf3rt...@4ax.com>...[ quoted text not captured ]
yeah i know. the concept is cool. i was just pointing out that you
said "And, of course, make it cost 1 blood, or have some other
drawback, or else the normal Threats are rendered useless." when the
idea from daneel that you quoted already had a drawback (only one per
round) to make it so that normal threats wasn't rendered useless.
from daneel's post:
"Name: "Balanced Rewrought Threats 1"
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Dominate
After playing this card, you may not play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action. You may only play one
"Balanced Rewrought Threats 1" each round.
[dom]: +1 bleed
[DOM]: +2 bleed
[DOM9]: +3 bleed"
Daneel obviously already figured you'd need something to make regular
threats not obsolete, showing that when designing NEW cards using some
variation of the 9+ concept, you need to keep old cards in mind so as
not to wallpaper them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> There is much fuss about high-cap vamps being too weak (cept the Inner
> Circle and ones that can perform multiple-actions). Idea of new card
> concept: "Super-superior". Add an extra "level" to cards, much like
> with the multi-disciple-card, which is playable if the vamp is above
> cap 8 (or even above 9?).
>> Card name: "Stupid example card just to make you get the idea"
> Combat card
> 1 Blood
> cel: Press
> CEL: Manuever or Press
> Super-CEL: Dodge
>
> (This card is just an EXAMPLE to make you get the idea.)
>
> How to make the IC and the Freak Drive/Rutors vamps unable to play
> these cards are another thing. Maybe not make any super-superior cards
> for FOR and THA? I don´t know.
>
> Another (maybe stupid, possibly broken) idea: Ever wondered about why
> Freak Drive is for, not cel?
>
> Card name: Fast as hell
> Combat card / Action modifier
> 2 Blood
> cel: Manuvear
> CEL: Additional strike
> Super-CEL: Only usable at the end of a action. Usable even if the
> action is blocked (after resolving the action). Untap this vampire.
All well and good, but looks like an easily twinkable concept.
However, here's how you balance it all very simply...
Inner Focus
Master: Trifle
Requires a vampire with a capacity above 8
Choose a discipline this vampire has at superior. This vampire may
elect to burn a blood to play a card requiring this discipline with
one additional bleed, vote, stealth, intercept, point of damage or
additional strike, depending on card type. This ability can only be
used once per combat or action.
Already thinking of the problems of Auspex with this...
Dave
dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04012...@posting.google.com>...> Inner Focus
> Master: Trifle
> Requires a vampire with a capacity above 8
> Choose a discipline this vampire has at superior. This vampire may
> elect to burn a blood to play a card requiring this discipline with
> one additional bleed, vote, stealth, intercept, point of damage or
> additional strike, depending on card type. This ability can only be
> used once per combat or action.
>
> Already thinking of the problems of Auspex with this...
I do not think a card like "Inner Focus" is a very good idea. Too
weird, too hard for newbies to understand, and simply not needed. And
I have a feeling it might easly be abused is some way.
as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04020...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not only that... It is a single-card solution to a phenomenon which
could warrant a lot of balanced new cards without flooding too many
powercards.
I say that if you can do something with one card or 10, go about the
10 card method. It keeps the game alive that much longer.
Bye,
Daneel
legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> Could the same effect be achieved solely by an extra rule, i wonder?
>
> Extra rule: any vampire with a capacity of 9 or greater may burn a> blood one time any card is legally played by it to add one to the
>
> votes,
> additional strikes,
> bleed modifiers,
> stealth,
> intercept,
> damage prevention
> or strength
>> normally granted by the card.
>> Note that this doesn't mean you can burn a blood to give yourself
> stealth on a 0-stealth action, or intercept on a Forced Awakening,
> etc. The card must already say "+1 [or more] to [something on the
> above list]", or "[something on the above list], for, eg, additional
> strikes".
>> Hmmm, maybe additional strikes should come off the list.
I like legbiter's concept, but I would probably limit the
functionality only to superior level discipline-based cards. For
example, I wouldn't let a 9-cap play Computer Hacking and burn 1 blood
for 3 total bleed. I wouldn't let a 9-cap play Enchant Kindred at
inferior and burn 1 blood for total 3-bleed. I would let a 9-cap play
Social Charm at superior and burn 1 blood for total 3-bleed though,
netting the Meth +1 pool.
I would also not let a 9-cap P/J take +3 intercept off Second
Tradition. I kind of think the title-based cards are indicative of the
vampire's status in kindred society as opposed to their innate vitae
strength.
As much as I like combat, I think that Additional Strikes should
probably be nixed from the list. Perhaps it's worth including just for
the time being until we see how abusable it is, since combat still
generally needs a bit of help, especially for the big guys.
Jeff
> I like legbiter's concept, but I would probably limit the
> functionality only to superior level discipline-based cards. For
> example, I wouldn't let a 9-cap play Computer Hacking and burn 1 blood
> for 3 total bleed. I wouldn't let a 9-cap play Enchant Kindred at
> inferior and burn 1 blood for total 3-bleed. I would let a 9-cap play
> Social Charm at superior and burn 1 blood for total 3-bleed though,
> netting the Meth +1 pool.
Well, one could argue that while ancient vampires have extreme
disciplinary powers, they also have extreme physical and mental
powers. Their web of contacts (primarily through lesser minions) far
surpasses that of younger vampires.
Of course, you could also argue from that standpoint that such ancient
vampires should be able to burn blood to attain the depicted effects
even without using any cards. ;)
> I would also not let a 9-cap P/J take +3 intercept off Second
> Tradition. I kind of think the title-based cards are indicative of the
> vampire's status in kindred society as opposed to their innate vitae
> strength.
Ancient vampires may have extreme "stats", and not just with regard to
pure vampiric powers. This is especially important in the mental and
social attributes section (as physicals could be boosted with blood
anyway). Abilities can also count. True thoug the biggest difference
seems to be in the disciplines section, as higher level disciplines
usually have greater effect.
> As much as I like combat, I think that Additional Strikes should
> probably be nixed from the list. Perhaps it's worth including just for
> the time being until we see how abusable it is, since combat still
> generally needs a bit of help, especially for the big guys.
>
> Jeff
Well... I'm still in favor of new cards instead. That way you have
strict control over what you will get into the VTES game environment.
I'm generally against new rules (especially when the game needs new
cards to keep rolling).
Best Regards,
Daneel
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Inner Focus
> > > Master: Trifle
> > > Requires a vampire with a capacity above 8
> > > Choose a discipline this vampire has at superior. This vampire may
> > > elect to burn a blood to play a card requiring this discipline with
> > > one additional bleed, vote, stealth, intercept, point of damage or
> > > additional strike, depending on card type. This ability can only be
> > > used once per combat or action.
> > >
> > > Already thinking of the problems of Auspex with this...
> >
> > I do not think a card like "Inner Focus" is a very good idea. Too
> > weird, too hard for newbies to understand, and simply not needed. And
> > I have a feeling it might easly be abused is some way.
>
> Not only that... It is a single-card solution to a phenomenon which
> could warrant a lot of balanced new cards without flooding too many
> powercards.
>
> I say that if you can do something with one card or 10, go about the
> 10 card method. It keeps the game alive that much longer.
I agree 100%.
jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.04020...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thank-you for the comments! Having tried the 1.0 version of the rule i
agree that disciplineless cards should not be boostable but i'm not
yet convinced that the effect should be restricted to the superior
version of the discipline - part of the idea is to give life and
meaning to all those inferior disciplines on the big vampires.
>
> I would also not let a 9-cap P/J take +3 intercept off Second
> Tradition. I kind of think the title-based cards are indicative of the
> vampire's status in kindred society as opposed to their innate vitae
> strength.
Yes, which would be covered if we restrict the
burn-blood-for-extra-stuff option to cards requiring disciplines.
>
> As much as I like combat, I think that Additional Strikes should
> probably be nixed from the list. Perhaps it's worth including just for
> the time being until we see how abusable it is, since combat still
> generally needs a bit of help, especially for the big guys.
Again, having tried the 1.0 version whilst playing Assamites, i'm
hardening up my feeling that additional strikes should come off the
list.
>
> Jeff
Extra rule 2.0: any vampire with a capacity of 9 or greater may burn a
blood one time any discipline-requiring card is legally played by it
to add one to the
votes,
bleed modifiers,
stealth,
intercept,
damage prevention
or strength
normally granted by the card, until the end of the action or round of
combat*.
Note that this doesn't mean you can burn a blood to give yourself
stealth on a 0-stealth action, or intercept on a Forced Awakening,
etc.
*So as to stop obvious Pulse of the Canaille abuse.
Will try this out this weekend.
> Daneel obviously already figured you'd need something to make regular
> threats not obsolete, showing that when designing NEW cards using some
> variation of the 9+ concept, you need to keep old cards in mind so as
> not to wallpaper them.
By the way, there are other ways to make a card fattie-friendly aside
of making specific requirements.
Like...
Elder Claim
Dominate
Action Modifier
After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action.
[dom]: +2 Bleed. Any older vampire who could legally block the action
may now burn a Blood to untap and attempt to block at +2 Intercept,
even if his or her controller already failed or declined to block this
action.
[DOM]: As above, but at +3 bleed.
A condition-type card that does not cost a blood, but has an extreme
drawback unless played by a real old vampire, probably making it iffy
in any deck using 8- caps.
Bye,
Daneel