In the two + years that I've been lurking I know that this topic has come
up at least once, but cannot recall any specifics.
Can any of you remember the rationale which allows people to bring out a
new copy of a vampire that was burned (by any means) earlier in the game?
It has always been a small bone of contention for me and other members of
my playing circle. Although we play this way, some part of me just doesn't
like the fact that a vampire that was burned can somehow mysteriously
reassemble itself from the pile of ashes and/or goo. It seems fundamently
wrong. In all other aspects, Vampires are unique. Only one can be in play
without causing problems (i.e. Contesting), but when that unique vampire is
destroyed. Suddenly another can appear??? It just doesn't seem right.
My preference would be something closer to the way Characters deaths are
handled in MEtW. Once a unique character is dead, they are dead, period.
I personally don't see adapting this as terribly unreasonable. True, it
will make life a little more difficult for players who use some of the more
popular vampires (i.e.: Gideon Fontaine, Anvil, Rake, Anson, Ian Forestal,
Spiridonas, Etc.) on a regular basis. Since if you burn someone else's Ian,
you wouldn't be able to play yours. But it would have the fortuitous side
effect of completely nullifying some degenerate decks (most notably the
Etrius monstrosity that has been discussed recently), and weakening some
questionable strategies.
Some of the things that I see adapting this type of rule would do:
Possibly swing the focus of power a little more towards assassination style
decks.
Potentially force deckbuilders to spend more time building decks that would
work well with any vampire that they get from their crypt.
Add a previously unheard of disadvantage to burning.
Give more power to cards that "Burn" vampires (i.e.: votes, master cards,
equipment, and unfortunately pulled fangs)
Comments, ideas, resons why this is a "bad thing"
--
R. Brian Smith
tam...@nurk.com
"To date, your phone tips have led to the capture
of 400 dangerous fugitives ‹ not one alien, not
one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . .
GET WITH IT PEOPLE!"
-Gillian Anderson
Our coven of players also had a discussion on this topic early in
our playing. The card- Soul Gem of Etrius was a deciding factor.
If the then unknown Etrius (now I.C. member) could resurrect a
vampire it was surely within the power of a Methusela to do the
same.
[ quoted text not captured ]
But the soul gem says nothing about "ressurecting" the destroyed vampire.
It merely replaces it with the vampire on top of your crypt if it is
younger than the one possesing the Gem. More of a vampiric shell game than
a "ressurection."
It is only when we encounter the Etrius deck (and others of similar ilk)
when we see attempted "ressurections."
[ quoted text not captured ]
Shane House (Set...@gnn.com) wrote:
: Our coven of players also had a discussion on this topic early in
: our playing. The card- Soul Gem of Etrius was a deciding factor.
: If the then unknown Etrius (now I.C. member) could resurrect a
: vampire it was surely within the power of a Methusela to do the
: same.
To further flesh out this reasoning, consider that in order for a Meth. to
bring the vampire back, either a special power must be used or the Meth.'s
personal resources must be spent to accomplish the deed. In other words,
this "resurrection" does happen for "free". A highly powered vampire (Meth.)
must extend their sphere of influence and weaken themselves by investing
their resources to bring someone "back".
If you STILL have trouble with it, I have the following line reasoning which
worked just fine before DS:
When a vampire (or minion) is "burned", they are not truly DEAD, they are
just chased out of the sphere of influence of the controlling party. In
order to bring them back into the fold, a reinvestment of resources must
be made.
When a vampire is heavily wounded, they go to torpor to recuperate. In
this state, they are still within the sphere of influence of the controlling
Meth.
When a vampire is wounded to the point of near death (diablerie, aggravated
damage, etc.) they are wounded so much that their self-preservation causes
them to flee to the point that they can no longer be controlled. In order
for a Meth. to re-employ their services, resources need to be spent to
influence them to return.
Consider: You control Anson. In combat, he is nailed for 11 aggravated
damage, and is "killed". In essence, he is so sorely wounded that your
influence is lost. When he recupperates, he sure as heck isn't going to
listen to you unless you spend the time to reinfluence 'im.
This reasoning can be extended to ANY unique resource in the game.
If you think of the presence of a unique resource in the game as merely being
there because a given party was able to invest the resources to bring it
under their control, you can see how contestation might occur, and why
something might "come back".
That's my take, anyway.
Of course, why a "burned" vampire would lose the skills that you invested in
them is another story...
;)
(Nothing's perfect...)
-spongy
P.S. Of course, none of it really has bearing with regards to the game
source, but oh well.
Set...@gnn.com (Shane House) writes:
>Our coven of players also had a discussion on this topic early in
>our playing. The card- Soul Gem of Etrius was a deciding factor.
>If the then unknown Etrius (now I.C. member) could resurrect a
>vampire it was surely within the power of a Methusela to do the
>same.
True. Plus with the Necromancy card that returns a burned vampire
to play, the chimerstry card that simulates a vampire (and then burns
him), the location that returns a burned vampire into play (pere
Lachaise), etc. - plus the old "burn when yielding" rule - all of
these make "real-world" rules regarding uniqueness a nightmare.
Plus, what about other unique cards? Ventrue HQ burned by arson?
Surely you can build/establish a new HQ. But destroy the Tomb of
Ramses- much harder to justify rebuilding.
In short - it's too difficult to make this a realistic effect. Better
to say "It's just a card game" and use the literal rules (which have
almost no history built in).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | One single fact can ruin a
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | perfectly good argument.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
On Sat, 5 Oct 1996, R. Brian Smith wrote:
> In article <534l73$o...@news-e2b.gnn.com>, Set...@gnn.com (Shane House) wrote:
>> > Our coven of players also had a discussion on this topic early in
> > our playing. The card- Soul Gem of Etrius was a deciding factor.
> > If the then unknown Etrius (now I.C. member) could resurrect a
> > vampire it was surely within the power of a Methusela to do the
> > same.
> >
>> But the soul gem says nothing about "ressurecting" the destroyed vampire.
> It merely replaces it with the vampire on top of your crypt if it is
> younger than the one possesing the Gem. More of a vampiric shell game than
> a "ressurection."
>
You missed the point. The point isn't if the Gem resurrects or
not said vampire, it's the resurrection itself.
IMHO, since the rule is quite simple, and there is already an
"out of play pile", this would be truly interesting. Imagine the
consequences, and if you can come up with a bad one (for the game point
of view, not the user of a degenerate decks') please post it here. I
would just love this to be discussed by the high authorities and not be
looked at as just another "fix".
Something like "When an unique card is burned you remove it from play
and no other equal cards can be brought into play."
> It is only when we encounter the Etrius deck (and others of similar ilk)
> when we see attempted "ressurections."
>
You didn't answer the question either :)
Please elaborate on this matter. I'm very sure you can arrange
this.
David Pontes
8[
I like to think of "resurrection" of vampires this way:
If Camille gets burned (damn those bloodhunts!), and then I bring out
Camille again, someone might say "Camille Devereux! I thought you were
dead!", but it's not Camille. It's the same card, but it represents a
different someone with the same abilities as Camille.
With the use of necromancy cards, the response would probably be "the
rumors of my death were greatly exaggerated..."
Bottom line: have fun. Don't worry about it.
James
--
| James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." |
| je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |
In article <32595E...@cornell.edu>, James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I like to think of "resurrection" of vampires this way:
>
> If Camille gets burned (damn those bloodhunts!), and then I bring out
> Camille again, someone might say "Camille Devereux! I thought you were
> dead!", but it's not Camille. It's the same card, but it represents a
> different someone with the same abilities as Camille.
>
> With the use of necromancy cards, the response would probably be "the
> rumors of my death were greatly exaggerated..."
>
> Bottom line: have fun. Don't worry about it.
I really don't care what the end result is, I am quite comfortable with it
as is. I was merely raising a question that I couldn't remember the answer
to. As a motivation to answer I was also suggesting that reviewing this
particular rule would make decks like the Etrius Deck that everyone is
overreacting to virtually useless.
Side note:
It does really amaze me the way this group reacts to things. Spending hours
and hours arguing over troublesome cards, broken decks, and numbers. But
when someone brings up a question involving a grey area of the rules (that
could solve some things that a lot of people have been complaining about)
it is quite casually swept under the carpet with comments like "it's too
difficult. . ."
Very discouraging.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 6 Oct 1996, James Puzzo wrote:
>
> To further flesh out this reasoning, consider that in order for a Meth. to
> bring the vampire back, either a special power must be used or the Meth.'s
> personal resources must be spent to accomplish the deed. In other words,
> this "resurrection" does happen for "free". A highly powered vampire (Meth.)
> must extend their sphere of influence and weaken themselves by investing
> their resources to bring someone "back".
>
If you say "back from the living dead", it must be a hell of a
power...
> If you STILL have trouble with it, I have the following line reasoning which
> worked just fine before DS:
>
> When a vampire (or minion) is "burned", they are not truly DEAD, they are
> just chased out of the sphere of influence of the controlling party. In
> order to bring them back into the fold, a reinvestment of resources must
> be made.
>
This is plain silly. How do you explain diablerie then? How can
you say that said vampire has amaranthed this other one and he has just
fled like hell? Vampires don't play tag...
> When a vampire is wounded to the point of near death (diablerie, aggravated
> damage, etc.) they are wounded so much that their self-preservation causes
> them to flee to the point that they can no longer be controlled. In order
> for a Meth. to re-employ their services, resources need to be spent to
> influence them to return.
>
> Consider: You control Anson. In combat, he is nailed for 11 aggravated
> damage, and is "killed". In essence, he is so sorely wounded that your
> influence is lost. When he recupperates, he sure as heck isn't going to
> listen to you unless you spend the time to reinfluence 'im.
>
That's not a bad idea, but has a lot of "fatal flaws" -- the
stuff you (and others) have placed in him, etc. and the fact that there
are actions in the game that actually destroy a vampire (Xth tradition
destruction, diablerie, etc.) bring this theory down, IMHO.
> If you think of the presence of a unique resource in the game as merely being
> there because a given party was able to invest the resources to bring it
> under their control, you can see how contestation might occur, and why
> something might "come back".
Yeah... I Arson the Louvre and it just comes back...
>
> That's my take, anyway.
>
And this is mine: Put them out of play. It would eliminate a lot
of problems (like the Tomb of Rameses thing, for one).
> Of course, why a "burned" vampire would lose the skills that you invested in
> them is another story...
>
Well, skill are given, and can be taken away or forgotten. Meths
are Meths...
David Pontes
8[
David Pontes (l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt) wrote:
: This is plain silly. How do you explain diablerie then? How can: you say that said vampire has amaranthed this other one and he has just
: fled like hell? Vampires don't play tag...
I dunno... I know a couple Malks that would *love* the game...
--
Kevin Donnelly-----------------------------------------------------
Protector of Damsels in Distress, Lover of Ladies Fair, Tech Student
"Never tell me the odds!" -- Han Solo
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu vap...@prism.gatech.edu
On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, R. Brian Smith wrote:
> James Hamblin wrote:
[Re: "Resurrection", Burned Uniques coming back to play]
> > Bottom line: have fun. Don't worry about it.> I really don't care what the end result is, I am quite comfortable with it
> as is. I was merely raising a question that I couldn't remember the answer
> to.
There hasn't ever been an answer to "remember".
> As a motivation to answer I was also suggesting that reviewing this
> particular rule would make decks like the Etrius Deck that everyone is
> overreacting to virtually useless.
Somewhat true. The deck could still work, albeit in a much more limited
form. [Note: This is regarding another thread where the _first_ degenerate
NL deck was made. This degeneracy was made possible by the WotC VTES
Design Team. Thank you (this has been a public service announcement
brought to you by the Corrupter ;)]
> Side note:
> It does really amaze me the way this group reacts to things. Spending hours
> and hours arguing over troublesome cards, broken decks, and numbers. But
> when someone brings up a question involving a grey area of the rules
This isn't really a rules issue, but a narrative issue.
> (that
> could solve some things that a lot of people have been complaining about)
> it is quite casually swept under the carpet with comments like "it's too
> difficult. . ."
To look at the issue as a narrative one, the answers are legion.
- Rumors of Death greatly exaggerated
- Tzimisce Doppleganger (but for all practical purposes, thought
to be the old vamp)
- Resurrection by Giovanni (not too World of Darkness accurate)
- "Death" is actually just grievous wounding (extensive torpor)
- "Death" is actually just loss of Methuselah's influence
- Anything else you can come up with
Occasionally, I play "storytelling" Jyhad, when with the right people (it
takes creative minds). In this variant, you can't play any cards or bring
any permanent into play without adding a little to the story being told
that explains the event.
Example:
Sterling's Ravnos Illusion Deck vs. Baiting the Enemy
SRI, Haven Uncovered on BtE's Roland Bishop
SRI's Constantin attacks Roland (Tusk - Talebearer blocks).
Drawing out the Beast, Trap, Apparation, Final Round pulled fangs
Roland Fast Reaction, Disguised Weapons Flamethrower, burns.
Narrative (though terse and relatively unimaginative):
The latest prank of Roland Bishop goes awry, and the slighted Ravnos clan
spreads knowledge far and wide of Roland's Haven in retribution.
Constantin, decides to be more aggressive in his "repayment" to the loss
of face Roland's prank had upon him, trekking of alone to the Wax Museum
that Roland sleeps during the day. Lying in wait for Roland to return for
the coming dawn, he is attacked by Tusk, a long-time friend of Roland, who
had learned of Constantin's plans (made aware to him by the mechanizations
of an ancient Methuselah, for unknowable reaons). Constantin enrages Tusk
to frenzy and boxes him into a sub-basement of the museum, doing light
damage for some time as Tusk growls and strikes at shadows. Finally, as
Tusk weakens, Constantin moves in wrenching the fangs out of Tusk's mouth,
and Tusk falls to the ground. Turning to finish his task, his last sight
is the maniacal face of Roland pulling a lever on the subbasement wall.
Flames gush in from all sides from the gas pipes, frying Constantin to a
crisp.
> Very discouraging.
The rules themselves have less to do with this issue than meta-issues such
as narrative games. I'm not sure that repeated uniques need to addressed,
but that is another issue...
[Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu]
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)>
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, theCorrupter wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, R. Brian Smith wrote:
>
> > James Hamblin wrote:
>
> [Re: "Resurrection", Burned Uniques coming back to play]
>
> > > Bottom line: have fun. Don't worry about it.
I haven't received the original post in my server, but I take
this as a summary, and the answer is that I *can* have fun with cards and
rules being unrealistic, but I have a lot more fun and am a lot happier
with the game if it has good realism -- and I'm not talking about
narrative games...
>
> > I really don't care what the end result is, I am quite comfortable with it
> > as is. I was merely raising a question that I couldn't remember the answer
> > to.
>
> There hasn't ever been an answer to "remember".
>
Unfortunately...
> > As a motivation to answer I was also suggesting that reviewing this
> > particular rule would make decks like the Etrius Deck that everyone is
> > overreacting to virtually useless.
>
> Somewhat true. The deck could still work, albeit in a much more limited
> form.
Somewhat? If you couldn't bring back another unique vampire or
phisical object how can you make the deck work?
> [Note: This is regarding another thread where the _first_ degenerate
> NL deck was made. This degeneracy was made possible by the WotC VTES
> Design Team. Thank you (this has been a public service announcement
> brought to you by the Corrupter ;)]
>
IMHO the only thing that makes the deck work is the single most
degenerate card in all the sets: Horrific Countenance. This is the real
"no nothing" card, worse than TBetr. and ToRIII.
But that is another issue that I'd like to discuss in another
thread. Please don't take this opportunity and change the topic. Not
again :)
> > Side note:
> > It does really amaze me the way this group reacts to things. Spending hours
> > and hours arguing over troublesome cards, broken decks, and numbers. But
> > when someone brings up a question involving a grey area of the rules
>
> This isn't really a rules issue, but a narrative issue.
>
I disagree. A lot. :)
It's not narrative, it realism. It's like sidesliping a rutor's
hand or having claws on the torn signpost (yeah, I'm still not convinced
(: ). It's having the Louvre Arsoned and brought back again. It's like
Muaziz reaching Golconda and seeing her rise up immediately because of her
soul gem...
> > (that
> > could solve some things that a lot of people have been complaining about)
> > it is quite casually swept under the carpet with comments like "it's too
> > difficult. . ."
>
Or no comments at all...
> To look at the issue as a narrative one, the answers are legion.
>
> - Rumors of Death greatly exaggerated
Diablerie
> - Tzimisce Doppleganger (but for all practical purposes, thought
> to be the old vamp)
And the disciplines? And the age? And the blood? And the... (this
is a little far-fetched, don't you think? (: )
> - Resurrection by Giovanni (not too World of Darkness accurate)
Wasn't you supposed to have to control a Giovanni to do just
that?
> - "Death" is actually just grievous wounding (extensive torpor)
Again, diablerie, or a bloodhunt, or Xth trad. destruction.
> - "Death" is actually just loss of Methuselah's influence
Idem
> - Anything else you can come up with
This seems to be the only plausible answer... :)
>
> Occasionally, I play "storytelling" Jyhad, when with the right people (it
> takes creative minds). In this variant, you can't play any cards or bring
> any permanent into play without adding a little to the story being told
> that explains the event.
>
[example snipped]
Very good, and very amusing, but as we all know (?) quite
impossible to do in big games. It is even not necessary to make the game
realistic, right?
>
> > Very discouraging.
>
> The rules themselves have less to do with this issue than meta-issues such
> as narrative games. I'm not sure that repeated uniques need to addressed,
> but that is another issue...
>
I'm not sure that I understand your comment, but it's clear that
you have no solid opinion about keeping unique things burnt. We can all
say "ok, let's make a house rule that no unique locations, items or
minions can be put in play normally" and all be very happy and ignoring
wether the rest of the people agree or not, but I'm really not interested
in that. I'd like to hear from you if you *really* think this is so
impractical that this measure can't be somehow officially adopted. (yes,
I know how little "official" means nowadays...) If everyone agreed then
it would be only a step away to being official (when the official
entities looked this way again).
Just my 2 escudos... :)
David Pontes
8[