We have the new Fee Stakes, with three new cities (Corte, Los Angeles and
Perth), but in the previews we have no Crusades or Praxis Seizures to allow Cam
or Sabbat vampires that contest control.
Why is that?
-------------------------
Cambridge by Night.
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html
>We have the new Fee Stakes, with three new cities (Corte, Los Angeles and
>Perth), but in the previews we have no Crusades or Praxis Seizures to allow
>Cam
>or Sabbat vampires that contest control.
>Why is that?
Well, clearly they thought that the Camarilla or Sabbat shouldn't be able to
gain control of some cities (whether for balance reasons or RPG reasons I don't
know).
I'm sort of ambivalent on the matter.
In the current scheme, pre-AN, there are a whole slew of cities that don't have
Crusades (pretty much all of the DS and AH praxis'). On the flip side, there
are no Praxis Seizures or Princes for Mexico City, Toronto, Pittsburgh, and
Philadelphia. And there is no Praxis Seizure for New York. (We're ignoring
Blood Siege right now too).
On the one hand, you don't want to have a Praxis Seizure, Crusade, and Fee
Stake for every city in the game - it would be just too ridiculous. On the
flipside, you do risk some imbalance if some vampires have to contest their
titles while others don't.
So no, Corte, L.A., and Perth currently do not have any P.S./Crusades, which
does seem to give them a distinct advantage over Boston and Seattle. At the
very least however, Boston and Seattle are currently only controlled by Jyhad
and CE vampires (no Sabbat). If the Fee Stakes were for Chicago and Atlanta for
example, I'd be getting really concerned.
My only concern however is that another Advanced vampire who becomes Baron of
say Boston/Seattle might be at a disadvantage compared to Jeremy since he
doesn't have any competition. You might also want to note that there is no
PS/Crusade/F.S. for Aragon, even though it's introduced with Lucita. Lucita,
along with Marconius will then have an uncontestable title. (This is another
reason why I don't want to see Advanced Tegyrius become Assamite Justicar. At
this point, he'd never have to contest the title).
Just my observations.
Halcyan 2
In message <20030513183926...@mb-m21.aol.com>, Halcyan 2
<halc...@aol.com> writes:
>And there is no Praxis Seizure for New York. (We're ignoring
>Blood Siege right now too).
And Calebros' in-built "praxis seizure".
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> In the current scheme, pre-AN, there are a whole slew of cities that don't have
> Crusades (pretty much all of the DS and AH praxis'). On the flip side, there
> are no Praxis Seizures or Princes for Mexico City, Toronto, Pittsburgh, and
> Philadelphia. And there is no Praxis Seizure for New York. (We're ignoring
> Blood Siege right now too).
>
And no Prince of Venice, but you can Praxis it.
chris
--
chris shorb
<www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site)
prince of torrance, california
***
Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus
Into the eyes of the night - watching me go
Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple
Enter the risen Osiris - risen again
- Dickinson
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>>We have the new Fee Stakes, with three new cities (Corte, Los Angeles and
>>Perth), but in the previews we have no Crusades or Praxis Seizures to allow
>>Cam
>>or Sabbat vampires that contest control.
>>Why is that?>
> Well, clearly they thought that the Camarilla or Sabbat shouldn't be able to
> gain control of some cities (whether for balance reasons or RPG reasons I don't
> know).
>
> I'm sort of ambivalent on the matter.
>
> In the current scheme, pre-AN, there are a whole slew of cities that don't have
> Crusades (pretty much all of the DS and AH praxis'). On the flip side, there
> are no Praxis Seizures or Princes for Mexico City, Toronto, Pittsburgh, and
> Philadelphia. And there is no Praxis Seizure for New York. (We're ignoring
> Blood Siege right now too).
>
> On the one hand, you don't want to have a Praxis Seizure, Crusade, and Fee
> Stake for every city in the game - it would be just too ridiculous. On the
> flipside, you do risk some imbalance if some vampires have to contest their
> titles while others don't.
You mean like Primogen, Inner Circle, Bishops, Prisci, and Cardinals?
You risk the same imbalance if some equipment/locations/retainers can be
contested while others cannot, if I understand you correctly.
> So no, Corte, L.A., and Perth currently do not have any P.S./Crusades, which
> does seem to give them a distinct advantage over Boston and Seattle. At the
> very least however, Boston and Seattle are currently only controlled by Jyhad
> and CE vampires (no Sabbat). If the Fee Stakes were for Chicago and Atlanta for
> example, I'd be getting really concerned.
?
> My only concern however is that another Advanced vampire who becomes Baron of
> say Boston/Seattle might be at a disadvantage compared to Jeremy since he
> doesn't have any competition. You might also want to note that there is no
> PS/Crusade/F.S. for Aragon, even though it's introduced with Lucita. Lucita,
> along with Marconius will then have an uncontestable title. (This is another
> reason why I don't want to see Advanced Tegyrius become Assamite Justicar. At
> this point, he'd never have to contest the title).
... like Cardinals never have to contest their titles, right?
--
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/
>> On the one hand, you don't want to have a Praxis Seizure, Crusade, and Fee
>> Stake for every city in the game - it would be just too ridiculous. On the
>> flipside, you do risk some imbalance if some vampires have to contest their
>> titles while others don't.>
>You mean like Primogen, Inner Circle, Bishops, Prisci, and Cardinals?
What I meant is that some vampires with the same type of title have to contest
their titles while others don't. Comparing a Prince to a Primogen or an
Archbishop to a Priscus is different because the titles are different and the
different titles give you access to different cards. I'm talking about the
situation where some Archbishops (and Justicars) have to worry about contesting
their titles while others don't. Its like having some Primogen titles be unique
while others aren't.
>You risk the same imbalance if some equipment/locations/retainers can be
>contested while others cannot, if I understand you correctly.
But my problem is that costing formulas do not take into account the advantage
of having a non-contestable title. With the current cost scheme,
Prince/Archbishop is worth a point and Justicar is worth 1.5 points, regardless
of whether or not the title is contestable (which *is* a significant factor).
>> So no, Corte, L.A., and Perth currently do not have any P.S./Crusades,>which>> does seem to give them a distinct advantage over Boston and Seattle. At the
>> very least however, Boston and Seattle are currently only controlled by>Jyhad>> and CE vampires (no Sabbat). If the Fee Stakes were for Chicago and Atlanta>for>> example, I'd be getting really concerned.>
>?
The more congested a city gets, the less desirable it is. When designing a
vampire, making it the Archbishop of Tucson is going to be more powerful than
making it Archbishop of Atlanta since in the first case you would never worry
about having to contest your position whereas in the latter case, if you're
relying on using cards that require an Archbishop, you're screwed if Rake,
Antonio, or Victorine is in play.
Thus why earlier I mentioned that Boston and Seattle are better choices for Fee
Stakes than Chicago and Atlanta. Only Cardano and Quentin have Boston and Anson
and Casino have Seattle. While Walter, Lachlan, Horatio, and Maxwell all have
Chicago (the latter two not as much) and Rake, Victorine, and Antonio all share
Atlanta. If the Fee Stakes had been Chicago and Atlanta instead, it would have
unfairly punished certain cities (and Princes & Archbishops). Some inequality
is necessary but when the gap widens unnecessarily, it isn't good IMO.
>> reason why I don't want to see Advanced Tegyrius become Assamite Justicar.>At>> this point, he'd never have to contest the title).>
>... like Cardinals never have to contest their titles, right?
But all Cardinals generally pay the same amount for their titles (of course
some earlier vamps did have skewed schemes) and all the Cardinal titles provide
the same effect. For all intensive purposes then, no one Cardinal title is
better than the other.
In the case of Assamite Justicar and Prince of Unique City, we have vampires
who pay the same amount as other vampires paid for their Princedoms (or other).
And all the Princeships or Justicarships provide the same benefits. But one is
clearly better than the other since one is contestable and one is not. Lucinde
has to worry about contesting with Democritus and anyone who is named Ventrue
Justicar. Tegyrius would not have to worry about any of that. Thus the Assamite
Justicar position would have an unfair advantage over the Ventrue Justicar
position.
An example that might illustrate this situation is if you have one piece of
equipment that gives +1 bleed and that is unique, and one piece of equipment
that gives +1 bleed but that isn't (but card text only lets you ever control
one of the latter). The second piece is clearly better than the first one since
it lets you do the same things, has the same cost, and is more reliable (since
you never have to worry about contesting it). Same thing with Ventrue vs.
Assamite Justicar.
It is true that some degree of this type of imbalance has existed ever since
the Sabbat when Walter had to share a city while Cardano didn't. And when
Imogen had to share a city while Salinger didn't. But the problem has only
gotten worse in time. In Bloodlines Marconius came out with the first
completely uncontestable city and I was okay with that, since it seemed to be
the exception as opposed to the rule. But with Lucita and Tegyrius, I'm just
getting worried about the trend. Which is that two vampires with the exact
capacity, clan, disciplines, and specials might not be equal if one is Prince
of X and the other is Prince of Y...
(Sidenotes: I am aware that you can still contest the actual vampire (contest
Lucita with Lucita and Tegyrius with Tegyrius), but you can do the same for any
of the other vampires as well (contest Sir Walter with Sir Walter). And there
are also some cornercases where you might want to contest or where having a
weaker card might turn out to be an advantage, but this is generally a weak
argument, like saying that it's good to have weaker than average vampires and
cards in case someone steals control of them.)
Just my two cents. Flame away! =P
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> But my problem is that costing formulas do not take into account the advantage
> of having a non-contestable title. With the current cost scheme,
Yes, they do. Given the frequency of contesting a title, a contestable title
is worth about 0.001 points less than a non-contestable one.
> Prince/Archbishop is worth a point and Justicar is worth 1.5 points, regardless
> of whether or not the title is contestable (which *is* a significant factor).
Basis for the assertion that it *is* a significant factor?
> But all Cardinals generally pay the same amount for their titles (of course
> some earlier vamps did have skewed schemes) and all the Cardinal titles provide
> the same effect. For all intensive purposes then, no one Cardinal title is
> better than the other.
And it "costs" the same as a contestable Justicar title.
[ quoted text not captured ]