Circle of Death

The Clan Elders variant looks interesting but its outright ban on vampires of 5 or less capacity is not to my taste. It has sparked an idea for another variant and I'm jotting the details down here before I forget. This is an untested draft - caveat emptor. Circle of Death --------------- 1. The general rules level is as per Sabbat Wars except as noted below. 2. Each player starts with a single active Inner Circle vampire at full capacity. These are chosen in sequence and no two players may have the same choice. They also start with 30 pool and 4 inactive vampires as usual. 3. This Inner Circle vampire represents the player themselves - this time, it's personal. Player are not ousted if they lose all their pool. Instead, they are ousted if their Inner Circle member is burnt. 4. There are two ways to win. a) By being the last survivor. b) By accumulating 60 pool. If time expires, the player with the most pool is the winner. 5. You may still only bleed to the left. Any pool which is bled goes to the successful bleeder's pool - it does not go to the bank. 6. The Inner Circle members may not transfer their own blood to their pool (e.g. no Minion Tap in this case). Instead, they may choose to use their own blood to pay any pool costs incurred by Master cards and the like. 7. Players may not take control of another player's Inner Circle member, e.g. no Hostile Takeover in this case. 8. There is no rule 8. 9. No poofters. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The objectives of this variant include: i) To increase the role-playing affinity between the player and his oldest vampire. You can still play weenies but they should only be cannon fodder, not the heart of your strategy. ii) To make voting locks more difficult. iii) To provide a positive victory condition which does not require you to eliminate every other player. iv) To give the players a running start which will enable the playing of a wide variety of discipline cards, so encouraging a more varied library. v) to provide a better arena for vampire vs vampire combat - defending the inner circle member will be a sine qua non. So, would this work mechanically? I think there's enough there to stop obvious abuses like immediate Minion Tap/5th Trad but am not sure if I've missed some other broken combos. Andrew

> 2. Each player starts with a single active Inner Circle vampire at > full capacity. These are chosen in sequence and no two players may > have the same choice. They also start with 30 pool and 4 inactive > vampires as usual. Surely this will suck, because of their special Abilities, or lack of. The Leandro player will be able to stuff everyone else up by getting free transfers while everyone else pays, the Arika player gets to sneer at any attempt of her prey to bring out locations, and the Gwedolyn player just gets really sulky coz she's got nothing as handy going for her. This means that the special abilities will have to be ignored for "fairness" reasons, or Justicars are used instead. But I do like the "can't take control of the vampire" idea. Bloody ToGP. DH Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:47:06 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: [variant snipped] >So, would this work mechanically? I think there's enough there to >stop obvious abuses like immediate Minion Tap/5th Trad but am not sure >if I've missed some other broken combos. Inner Circle members can't play 5th Tradition, so you would have to bring out a Prince. No worries there. What you DO have to worry about, though, is: Turn #1: I make 1 transfer to Olivia (POT OBF vic). Turn #2: I make 4 transfers and bring out Olivia. Turn #3: Olivia plays Bum's Rush and Forgotten Labyrinth, targeting your IC Member. Now she plays Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Disarm, and Amaranth. Your IC member is burned, and you are ousted. Olivia goes away in the Blood Hunt, but it was worth it. I make 1 transfer to the second, third, and fourth copies of Olivia in my crypt. Turn #4: I make 4 transfers and bring out Olivia... Anyway, I'm sure you see how this plays out. Stealth-Rush becomes the order of the day, and it's very difficult to stop someone who's willing to suicidally nuke themselves. The IC members without Fortitude begin to suffer the worst, as they haven't even got the option to prevent. There was a variant much like this posted somewhere previously; perhaps on Mark Langsdorf's page? Or maybe LSJ would know. I've seen something like this before, and that was the big problem with it then, too. There was an elaborate setup to get around it, but I'm not sure what it was. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:57:55 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >Anyway, I'm sure you see how this plays out. Stealth-Rush becomes the >order of the day, and it's very difficult to stop someone who's >willing to suicidally nuke themselves. The IC members without >Fortitude begin to suffer the worst, as they haven't even got the >option to prevent. I see the problem. My thinking was that all players would be taking extreme measures to protect themselves and I supposed that, with an appropriate library, there'd be enough stoppers. Isn't Obedience a good counter - your IC member should usually have the advantage of seniority. The other issue would be whether you'd leave yourself too open if you put a lot of resources into a suicide rush. I was hoping for a opening period of maneuvering for advantage as happens in L5R and Shadowfist. Anyway, if this has been done before, I'm all ears. Is there a repository of such variants to save me from reinventing the wheel? Andrew

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:45:08 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:57:55 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Anyway, I'm sure you see how this plays out. Stealth-Rush becomes the >>order of the day, and it's very difficult to stop someone who's >>willing to suicidally nuke themselves. The IC members without >>Fortitude begin to suffer the worst, as they haven't even got the >>option to prevent. > >I see the problem. My thinking was that all players would be taking >extreme measures to protect themselves and I supposed that, with an >appropriate library, there'd be enough stoppers. Isn't Obedience a >good counter - your IC member should usually have the advantage of >seniority. Harrod and Gwendolyn don't have Dominate, so they'd be at a disadvantage there. The other half is that I might well just send Harrod over on the first turn, since he has POT/CEL, and play Torn Signpost/Increased Strength/IG/Blur. This hits you for 6 on the first 2 strikes, and then a Burning Wrath on the 3rd for 7 agg will toast your vampire. And you can't Obedience Harrod. If he happens to be lucky and have a Taste in hand, he even gets to reload and be at full capacity again. And no pesky Amaranth. IC members without Fortitude: Leandro, Harrod, Etrius, and Alexandra. Not so good; i didn't realize that it was actually a MAJORITY of them that didn't have it. That could be very messy. I believe the original post of this variant also stated "you may not take (D) actions against your opponent's IC member/Justicar if your opponent has any other ready vampires." This would help the Olivia case and the Rush problem in general, but wouldn't do much for when Harrod came over on turn 1. You could bar your IC member from taking any actions, of course, and that would neatly fix the opening-turn rush; but does that remove much of the flavor of the variant? >The other issue would be whether you'd leave yourself too open if you >put a lot of resources into a suicide rush. I was hoping for a >opening period of maneuvering for advantage as happens in L5R and >Shadowfist. At 30 pool, 5 pool for Olivia is pretty insignificant, especially if you gain 6 for ousting someone. This is one of the strengths of weenie hordes; they rarely spend more than 10 pool on their first 4-5 vampires, so even though they usually lack defense, 20+ pool takes a long time to bleed or vote through. >Anyway, if this has been done before, I'm all ears. Is there a >repository of such variants to save me from reinventing the wheel? White Wolf's website, maybe. LSJ might know. Or Judith and Mark's page, although I'm not familiar with the actual link. The Lasombra probably knows, as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <99423t8akiv3sqq8k...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] Derek is right...combat would be huge. You probably don't want it to be this big. > There was a variant much like this posted somewhere previously; > perhaps on Mark Langsdorf's page? Or maybe LSJ would know. I've seen > something like this before, and that was the big problem with it then, > too. There was an elaborate setup to get around it, but I'm not sure > what it was. http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Variants/Clanwars.html The Justicar need not be alive to win. However, you are royally screwed if your justicar gets messed up. Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

> I believe the original post of this variant also stated "you may not > take (D) actions against your opponent's IC member/Justicar if your > opponent has any other ready vampires." This would help the Olivia > case and the Rush problem in general, but wouldn't do much for when > Harrod came over on turn 1. You could bar your IC member from taking > any actions, of course, and that would neatly fix the opening-turn > rush; but does that remove much of the flavor of the variant? I one I rememeber seeing (the Methuselah Myth) had a rule that you couldn't take (D) actions against other Master Vampires when they had any other minions out, and if you did, such actions were at -2 stealth and cost additional pool, (or maybe it was: you could take (D) actions *with* your Master Vampire against other Master Vampires, and *those* were a -2 stealth and cost a pool?) Took 2 extra pool to play master cards on Master Vamps, too. (though, Fear of Mekhet would be tossed left and right) >> Anyway, if this has been done before, I'm all ears. Is there a >> repository of such variants to save me from reinventing the wheel? > > White Wolf's website, maybe. LSJ might know. Or Judith and Mark's > page, although I'm not familiar with the actual link. The Lasombra > probably knows, as well. The old WotC site had a "variants" section with all of 2 variant; The Draft and The Methuselah Myth. Always wanted to try out the latter, actually, but the ground rules needed a lot of work, as certain cards were so powerful as to obviate all other strategies, as written. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

<hamd...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: 90r2uc$noc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > > 2. Each player starts with a single active Inner Circle vampire at > > full capacity. These are chosen in sequence and no two players may > > have the same choice. They also start with 30 pool and 4 inactive > > vampires as usual. > > Surely this will suck, because of their special Abilities, or lack of. > The Leandro player will be able to stuff everyone else up by getting > free transfers while everyone else pays, the Arika player gets to sneer > at any attempt of her prey to bring out locations, and the Gwedolyn > player just gets really sulky coz she's got nothing as handy going for > her. > > This means that the special abilities will have to be ignored > for "fairness" reasons, or Justicars are used instead. Alexandra and Leandro's power seems too powerful in this special game. But if you cancel their power, you'll see they lacks combat discipline -Gwendolyn can beat any vampire down with FOR/POT/CEL combination. So, for or against the IC's powers ? reyda

Andrew wrote: > > 4. There are two ways to win. > > a) By being the last survivor. > > b) By accumulating 60 pool. If time expires, the player > with the most pool is the winner. > > 5. You may still only bleed to the left. Any pool which is bled goes > to the successful bleeder's pool - it does not go to the bank. > Rule #5 makes #4b broken. IC members can stealth bleed for tons. I can't quite figure out how to win in a single turn, but it is close. Something like: Round 1: Minion Tap for about 7 GtU +2 bleed Command of the Beast (sup) +1 Conditioning +3 IC bleed bonus +2 stealth to taste. Pool total after round 1: 30+7+9 = 46 Have wake and bounce (like redirection) Round 2: Master:Discipline Card (or nothing or something productive) GtU +2 bleed Command of the Beast (sup) +1 Conditioning +3 IC bleed bonus +2 stealth to taste. Pool total after round 2: 46+9 = 55 Have wake and bounce (like a reindeer) Round 3: Golconda for 11 or 12 pool. Total pool 55+11or12 = 66 or 67 - 7 pool margin of error. Sure you win and get ousted at the same time, but you should be able to order your victory phase effects :) --- Sure combat exists, but with only two rounds to survive, I think survival should be expected. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: > > 3. This Inner Circle vampire represents the player themselves - this > time, it's personal. Player are not ousted if they lose all their > pool. Instead, they are ousted if their Inner Circle member is burnt. > I should have posted this with my other post sorry. Rule #3 would have to be clarified. Scenario: Pull up another vampire. Call a vote in everyone's favor (Ancient Influence?) Cryptic Rider Call Banishment. Stealth to taste. If this is the "burn" you refer to, instantly oust someone. If not, target yourself, and now you can pretty much not be ousted. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: > > 3. This Inner Circle vampire represents the player themselves - this > time, it's personal. Player are not ousted if they lose all their > pool. Instead, they are ousted if their Inner Circle member is burnt. > [ quoted text not captured ]

>> 3. This Inner Circle vampire represents the player themselves - this >> time, it's personal. Player are not ousted if they lose all their >> pool. Instead, they are ousted if their Inner Circle member is burnt. >> > I should have posted this with my other post sorry. Rule #3 would have > to be clarified. > > Scenario: Pull up another vampire. > Call a vote in everyone's favor (Ancient Influence?) > Cryptic Rider > Call Banishment. > Stealth to taste. How about this? Call Justicar Retribution with DayOp with any IC with PRE/for Play Awe, pushing 10 blood, giving you 26 votes in favor. Everyone burns, game over. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4E2F6C8949DDE51B.D6516ED2...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > The Clan Elders variant looks interesting but its outright ban on > vampires of 5 or less capacity is not to my taste. It has sparked an > idea for another variant and I'm jotting the details down here before > I forget. This is an untested draft - caveat emptor. > > Circle of Death > --------------- Very similar to the "Methusaleh Myth" by L. Scott Johnson. It is archived here: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Meth_Myth.asp Scott also did another variant, "The Draft" and it is archived here: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Draft.asp You can get to both of these from: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://lasombra.tripod.com http://legbiter.tripod.com http://vekn_clans.tripod.com [ quoted text not captured ]

has anybody thought about fear of mekhet? some of those in combination with a parthenon or anson can really ruin this game. -- pallando v:ekn prince of vienna snip game variant

Derek Ray wrote: > > Harrod and Gwendolyn don't have Dominate, so they'd be at a > disadvantage there. The other half is that I might well just send > Harrod over on the first turn, since he has POT/CEL, and play Torn > Signpost/Increased Strength/IG/Blur. This hits you for 6 on the first > 2 strikes, and then a Burning Wrath on the 3rd for 7 agg will toast > your vampire. And you can't Obedience Harrod. If he happens to be > lucky and have a Taste in hand, he even gets to reload and be at full > capacity again. And no pesky Amaranth. Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used under Immortal Grapple. Sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings... James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:05:40 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used under >Immortal Grapple. Sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings... > >James Are you sure? (I dont have the card handy, and the monger site is unavailable ATM) What makes it not a hand strike?

On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:05:40 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used under >Immortal Grapple. Sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings... > >James Addendum.... Got on Monger, here is the wording. Card Text: Strike: Strength +1 damage, aggravated. SUP: Strike: Strength +2 damage, aggravated And here is the rulings/clarification/eratta. All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text). [RTR 19980623] If the vampire striking with Burning Wrath has negative hand damage, the negative amount reduces the damage done by burning wrath. [LSJ 19970930] So it appears it is NOT a hand strike.

In article <68F2F4B124F47B79.88324AEE...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > Is there a repository of such variants to save me from > reinventing the wheel? Now there is, yes. You may find it at: http://lasombra.tripod.com/variants.htm [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:05:40 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used under >Immortal Grapple. Sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings... How remarkable. I don't think I'd ever checked out the new online text, and the DS text on the card reads "Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated." The original Undead Strength, Growing Fury, Mighty Grapple, and Pushing the Limit texts read: "Strike: Use your hand or melee weapon", so I can easily see where the Rules Team made the differentiation between one and the other. An excellent case for altering the wording to "strength" to avoid messy bits like this, especially since Dark Sovereigns contained no other Potence strike cards to directly compare the wording to. I am curious as to WHY the Rules Team chose to make that particular differentiation, although I expect the reasons are either obvious ("interpreted as printed") or lost in history now. It doesn't seem to make sense for Potence to have a close-range strike based directly on strength ("hand damage") that isn't actually a hand strike; its only other close-range strikes are Fractured Armament and Shattering Blow, neither of which are based on strength. Its other strikes (Gate, Lid, Car, Carnage) are all ranged and therefore unconfusable. A shame, though. Burning Wrath seemed borderline even WITH the ability to Grab someone; 3 blood is far too much now, IMO, for a strike that really needs to be paired with Celerity and a 2nd or 3rd strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D4syOjgwnC=c4Kj8vgg...@4ax.com>, Dorian <bond...@home.com> writes ><ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >>Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used under >>Immortal Grapple. Sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings... > >Addendum.... Got on Monger, here is the wording. > >Card Text: >Strike: Strength +1 damage, aggravated. >SUP: Strike: Strength +2 damage, aggravated "Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's hand damage, or any minion's non-ranged damage-dealing innate strike. [LSJ 19970224] " I'm not certain how this doesn't qualify. Strength is the striking minion's base hand damage. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Dorian <bond...@home.com> writes > > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >>Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used > >>under Immortal Grapple. > >Card Text: > >Strike: Strength +1 damage, aggravated. > >SUP: Strike: Strength +2 damage, aggravated > > "Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage > based on the striking minion's hand damage, or any minion's > non-ranged damage-dealing innate strike. [LSJ 19970224] " > > I'm not certain how this doesn't qualify. Strength is the striking > minion's base hand damage. Correct. Burning Wrath is a hand strike (as is Scorpion Sting, for that matter). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:21:13 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Dorian <bond...@home.com> writes >> > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >>Sadly, Burning Wrath is not a hand strike, and thus cannot be used >> >>under Immortal Grapple. >> >Card Text: >> >Strike: Strength +1 damage, aggravated. >> >SUP: Strike: Strength +2 damage, aggravated >> >> "Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage >> based on the striking minion's hand damage, or any minion's >> non-ranged damage-dealing innate strike. [LSJ 19970224] " >> >> I'm not certain how this doesn't qualify. Strength is the striking >> minion's base hand damage. > >Correct. Burning Wrath is a hand strike (as is Scorpion Sting, for >that matter). Good, we HAVENT been playing it wrong

LSJ wrote: > > Correct. Burning Wrath is a hand strike (as is Scorpion Sting, for > that matter). Wow, I must be on crack. Was this card (before the Age of LSJ) originally not considered a hand strike? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > > Correct. Burning Wrath is a hand strike (as is Scorpion Sting, for > > that matter). > > Wow, I must be on crack. Was this card (before the Age of LSJ) > originally not considered a hand strike? Yes. At one time, neither Scorpion Sting nor Burning Wrath were hand strikes, since neither said "use your hand...". Eventually Tom said that the desin intent of Scorpion Sting was that it should be a hand strike, and later still Jon Wilkie clarified that Burning Wrath was a hand strike (since it didn't "involve weapons"). When the definition of hand strikes was formalized, they remained hand strikes, by the definition. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:53:35 GMT, The Lasombra wrote: >> Is there a repository of such variants to save me from >> reinventing the wheel? > >Now there is, yes. Thanks. Your enthusiasm and positive attitude are most commendable. regards, Andrew