rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Some Thoughts on the Preview

2 messages from 2 participants · 15 October 2001
original thread on Google Groups

Nystulc

I like the look of the Nagaraja clan symbol. I can't help wondering what, if anything, they will come up with for many of the other bloodlines, some of whom do not seem to have a symbol of their own by White Wolf as yet. The Nagaraja, and presumably other bloodlines, are definitely considred a "clan" in game terms (despite the statement in the earlier publicity announcement that they are "not clans unto themselves", which was apparently just a way of saying that they are not desiged to be played in all-one-clan crypts). The quality of "scarce" seems, on its face, to be a significant disadvantage. It will probably be used as a cost offset for vampires that are otherwise extra-powerful. Such cost can, however, to some small extent be vitiated by having, say, a Nagaraja vampire play "clan impersonation" before bringing the next Nagaraja vampire into play. This seems very thematically fitting for certain of the bloodlines, who must hide their identity to survive. It also suggests that, thematically, "scarce" does not refer to absolute numbers, but might be more indicative of the reluctance of members to reveal themselves. In game terms, the quality of "scarce" is apparently applicable to vampires rather than clans. Thematically, however, the concept seems designed to work with all vampires of a designated clan being labelled as "scarce", or otherwise none so labelled. Printing a single Nosferatu with the "scarce" designation would probably not be a good idea. Will all the new bloodlines groups be labelled as "scarce"? That is certainly not clear. Take the Harbingers, for example. They are not numerous, but their numbers are presumably growing. It also seems reasonable to expect from them tight cooperation in a common cause. Also, unlike, say, the True Brujah or the Baali, they have little motivation to disguise their clan - their current identity *is* a disguise (they're actually the Cappodocians). Having a penalty for bringing multiples into play does not therefore seem quite as appropriate for them as it would for the Nagaraja. I wonder how the concept of scarcity will work with the Blood Brothers (assuming they are so designated). The nature of their special powers is such as would seem to require cooperation. But perhaps the simplest solution is to have a single vampire card represent a band of multiple blood brothers. It is, after all, hard to imagine a band of Blood Brothers acting as anything but a single unit. I'm a bit iffy about the prospects for use of "Stranger among Us" in competitive play. It seems well balanced compared to "Recruitment", but that is not saying too much. If you have a single vampire in your crypt that you really want to bring into play, then having only one of these in your library will by no means guarantee that you get him, and having multiples takes up library space with a lot of cards, only one of which you will be able to use. Thus, in an attempt to avoid "clogging" your crypt, you end up clogging your library instead. With "Recruitment" extra copies can be used as expensive versions of Effective Management after your initial play gets you the vampire you truly want (paying a pool and a master phase to save 4 transfers), but this cannot be done with "Stranger" unless you have multiple "scarce" vampires. I guess a lot will depend on how "overpowered" these scarce vampires are, and how desperate you truly are to bring them into play. Likewise, there may be other support cards that deal with the scarcity concept. So far, no new disciplines or new-discipline symbols in evidence. But that corresponds to the (updated) WoD background material in the case of the Nagaraja, so they are not much of a test case. I suppose we might be seeing vampires who are both scarce AND non-unique (?) So. What happens when a second unique scarce vampire comes into play? Which effect kicks in first -- the contesting, or the cost paid for the scarce vampire. If the contesting resulted first, then the other copy would no longer be "in play", and the three pool cost would thereby be avoided. But I suspect the pool cost should come first. In the latter case, scarcity is evidently an advantage as well as a disadvantage, for it serves as a protection against contestation. Anyway. I guess the preview is serving its purpose. I'm certainly intrigued. -- John Whelan

LSJ

Nystulc wrote: > So. What happens when a second unique scarce vampire comes into play? Which > effect kicks in first -- the contesting, or the cost paid for the scarce > vampire. The latter. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/