VtES rules changes

yes, i know it's bad form to reply to your own message, but i wanted to put my commentary in a separate context. I think the most significant change is how aggravated damage is dealt. My interpretation is that if a vampire has one blood and it takes two aggravated damage then it is burnt; and a zero blood vampire is burnt by 1 point of agro. It is now much, much easier to burn a vampire in combat since, previously, it was impossible to burn a vampire with inferior walk of flame, burst of sunlight or unboosted wolf claws, etc... It used to be that a card that only did one point of aggravated damage was rather dissapointing compared to the burning-in-combat pottential of two or three agro. Now things have changed quite a bit. For the better? I don't know. I wonder if it will speed games up or just make people even more defensive. -- -chad -- who wonders if his rowan rings are going to be more valuable since they removed paralize from the new game.

In article <44eg94$d...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> ch...@unhinged.engr.sgi.com (Chad Ray McDaniel) writes: > [summery from V:teS rules] >Section 20.1 Retainers and Combat > Ranged damage can only be applied to retainers if the round is at long >range. I doubt if this is a good change. Retainers are in general cheaper/ more versatile than equipment (compare Tasha Morgan with Laptops, and Ravens with Sport Bikes). Therefore they have to be more fragile in order to maintain game balance, IMO. >Section 21 > If aggravated damage is successfully dealt to a vampire, that vampire >loses blood equal to the total amount of aggravated damage. Another change which I don't look at favorably. Most aggravated damage cards in the game are IMO underpriced (Walk of Flame, Ivory Bow and Pulled Fangs). Increasing their power certainly doesn't help balancing the game. Claws are an exception, but if one feels that Claws aren't worth it, they should fix the supspectedly-beta wording (i.e. add "as above, with ..." in superior section), rather than beefing generic aggravated damage. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <44ehn1$d...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>, Chad Ray McDaniel <ch...@sgi.com> wrote: > >I think the most significant change is how aggravated damage is dealt. >My interpretation is that if a vampire has one blood and it takes two >aggravated damage then it is burnt; and a zero blood vampire is burnt by >1 point of agro. It is now much, much easier to burn a vampire in combat >since, previously, it was impossible to burn a vampire with inferior >walk of flame, burst of sunlight or unboosted wolf claws, etc... > Anvil hits you twice with Undead Strength, pulls your fangs and... oops, you are gone forever, sorry about that. At least Basilia will be happy when fighting someone with Undead Persistence :) -steve kertes ker...@netcom.com ker...@geoworks.com

Hi Methuselahs, Hey, did I miss something reading the rules, or do methuselahs no longer get a vote after Diablerie? Seems like this is a major change and should be on the list. Algustas *****What God was it then set them togather in bitter collision?***** Homer, the Iliad

Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: >Hi Methuselahs, > Hey, did I miss something reading the rules, or do methuselahs no >longer get a vote after Diablerie? Seems like this is a major change and >should be on the list. section 20.2. Voting and Diablerie: The Blood Hunt it's still there -- -chad -- -chad

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>Section 20.1 Retainers and Combat >> Ranged damage can only be applied to retainers if the round is at long >>range. >I doubt if this is a good change. Retainers are in general cheaper/ >more versatile than equipment (compare Tasha Morgan with Laptops, >and Ravens with Sport Bikes). Therefore they have to be more fragile >in order to maintain game balance, IMO. Tasha is cheaper than a Laptop, but Tasha is unique, whereas any number of minions can have one laptop each. Raven Spy is cheaper to get out than Sport Bike, but it requires a discipline to use. While retainers are cheaper than equipment, in general, this is because they are *less* versatile in terms of being able to get them into play in the first place, and in the fact that you can't choose to ignore continuous effects like Tasha's bleed bonus when it's convenient. It seems to me that they're actually reasonably close to the equivalent equipment in power, but that if anything, they could use the slight boost in power. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

itl...@chip.ucdavis.edu (Eric Wohlstadtler) writes: >Making aggravated damage more powerful does not make the game unbalanced. >Strike: Combat Ends puts most combat decks to shame. Non-combat decks >already have a major advantage over combat decks. Many players ignore >combat all together by stealthing or combat ends. Well, stealth doesn't help with being rushed. >Making aggravated >damage more powerful thereby making combat more powerful is only evening >things out. If the Ivory Bow cost 0 blood it still wouldn't matter, I >would just majesty you till the cows came home. The only good card combat >has going for it right now is Immortal Grapple everything else you can >ignore. You're quite right that the S:CE/untap card are really nasty. However, cranking up a combat deck's ability to hurt everbody *else* is the worst of all possible worlds. The broken S:CE decks are just as powerful, but all the other combat defenses become significantly less playable. So everybody gets driven towards S:CE only as combat defense, and the game becomes less varied, and less balanced. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Hi Methuselahs, [ quoted text not captured ] Well, yes, the rules allowing you to call a bloodhunt are still there, but I didn't see anything that gives each Methuselah a vote. Section 20.2 states that the bloodhunt vote will be the same as political action votes with 2 exceptions, a) The Methuselah calling the vote does not get one free vote, b) The vote can not be blocked. Nowhere did I see anything about automatic votes for Methuselahs as in Jyhad Bloodhunt votes. Algustas *****I am now here in Congress...I am at liberty to vote as my conscience and judgment dictates to be right, without the yoke of any party on me, or the driver at my heels, with his whip in hand, commanding me to ge-wo-haw, just at his pleasure.***** David Crocket

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950929101806.25540A-100000-100000@gladstone>, Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: >On 29 Sep 1995, Chad Ray McDaniel wrote: >> Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: >> > Hey, did I miss something reading the rules, or do methuselahs no >> >longer get a vote after Diablerie? Seems like this is a major change and >> >should be on the list. >> section 20.2. Voting and Diablerie: The Blood Hunt > Well, yes, the rules allowing you to call a bloodhunt are still >there, but I didn't see anything that gives each Methuselah a vote. >Section 20.2 states that the bloodhunt vote will be the same as political >action votes with 2 exceptions, a) The Methuselah calling the vote does >not get one free vote, b) The vote can not be blocked. > Nowhere did I see anything about automatic votes for Methuselahs >as in Jyhad Bloodhunt votes. Methuselahs have never been given automatic votes during Bloodhunts in Jyhad, nor will they in V:tES. (Methuselahs never get any votes simply for being methuselahs - you have to call the vote with an action, control Titles vamps, burn the edge, or something). -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Making aggravated damage more powerful does not make the game unbalanced. Strike: Combat Ends puts most combat decks to shame. Non-combat decks already have a major advantage over combat decks. Many players ignore combat all together by stealthing or combat ends. Making aggravated damage more powerful thereby making combat more powerful is only evening things out. If the Ivory Bow cost 0 blood it still wouldn't matter, I would just majesty you till the cows came home. The only good card combat has going for it right now is Immortal Grapple everything else you can ignore. Eric Wohlstadter

Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: > Hey, did I miss something reading the rules, or do methuselahs no >longer get a vote after Diablerie? Seems like this is a major change and >should be on the list. Apparently you missed something in the rules. Diablerie still allows players to call a Blood Hunt. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <44heiq$q...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950929101806.25540A-100000-100000@gladstone>, > Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: > >On 29 Sep 1995, Chad Ray McDaniel wrote: > >> Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: > >> > Hey, did I miss something reading the rules, or do methuselahs no > >> >longer get a vote after Diablerie? Seems like this is a major change and > >> >should be on the list. > >> section 20.2. Voting and Diablerie: The Blood Hunt > > Well, yes, the rules allowing you to call a bloodhunt are still > >there, but I didn't see anything that gives each Methuselah a vote. > >Section 20.2 states that the bloodhunt vote will be the same as political > >action votes with 2 exceptions, a) The Methuselah calling the vote does > >not get one free vote, b) The vote can not be blocked. > > Nowhere did I see anything about automatic votes for Methuselahs > >as in Jyhad Bloodhunt votes. > > Methuselahs have never been given automatic votes during Bloodhunts in > Jyhad, nor will they in V:tES. > > (Methuselahs never get any votes simply for being methuselahs - you > have to call the vote with an action, control Titles vamps, burn the edge, > or something). The tricky point here is that when you call any vote OTHER than a bloodhunt, you do get one vote to start--the one from the vote card that starts it. They probably thought this was characteristic of all votes. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

In <44eg94$d...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> ch...@unhinged.engr.sgi.com (Chad Ray McDaniel) writes: > > > >Section 3.2.2 Minion Cards > Action modifier cards can only be played when it is your turn. > wait a sec...doesn't that mean that you can't use intercept cards? Those are action modifiers right...or maybe not...damn it..sorry if I'm wrong but I'm too damn lazy to get up and look at my cards...

Before I could do anything to stop it, Luke Magnan wrote: > wait a sec...doesn't that mean that you can't use intercept cards? > Those are action modifiers right...or maybe not...damn it..sorry if I'm > wrong but I'm too damn lazy to get up and look at my cards... Intercept cards are generally reaction cards. -- Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a | a-Henh! fully charged icing annointment utensil, he poots forth | a tiny green rosette near the summit of a dense but | Brian radiant muffin of his own design. | Wilson | We miss you, Frank! |