Hi,
We're on the verge of our second Create-A-Clan event in Brazil (the
first edition happened at Vitoria) and I've just received the first
clan entries for revision/inscription. Along with the entries, more
than one player has asked me about some extra possibilities for card
creation.
Some thought about printing some sort of proxies for their decks just
to match their clans' background, much like the regular cards available
for the DIVAS clan at www.warghoul.com. But the question was: can't I
just change the name of the card to make them relate even more to my
clan? Say, a version of Bastard Sword called Lightsaber with the very
same text and a new illustration for a Star-Wars-based clan?
At first, I thought that changing names could open an avenue for
all-too-smart players to avoid contesting, Unique rules and so on; say,
one could create four different versions of Form of Corruption with
different names so they could stack at the table, or five different
versions of Ivory Bow to increase the number of agg-damage-dealing
ranged weapons for his or her vampires.
At the same time, barring such a funny and harmless idea as the
Lightsaber above made me feel like I was ruining the fun. Of course, me
and any further organizer for a Create-a-Clan tourney could just
receive submissions for such cards and judge them on an individual
basis, but since me and other players are already busy building the
cards for players not skilled with the proper software to do it, I
think it can amount to more trouble than it's worth.
Since we'll certainly have new editions of CaC in our city, Sao Paulo,
and probably in most brazilian cities as soon as the format spreads, I
thought it would be better try to add fixed rules for the creation and
use of such cards. So far I've come with the ideas below. I'd like to
know what you think - if there are any holes in it that could lead to
abuse, if it's worth to make them official or if they're too
restrictive to even matter.
First, in the Library Cards section, we'd include two new types of
card: the Proxy card and the Version card. It could read as something
like this (of course text consistency and proper grammar needs to be
checked, too):
########################################
- Making theme-based proxy cards
You can include in your deck proxy cards with different art to fit them
to the background of your clan. If you want to, you can mimick a
regular library card following the steps below:
1. Choose any card that does not require a clan.
2. Change the original art for a illustration, drawing or picture of
your choosing. You can also change its flavour text (or add one if the
original card doesn't have such text).
3. Keep all the other features identical to the original card: regular
text; any sect, title, trait or discipline requirement; blood or pool
costs, etc.
You can include as many theme-based proxies as you like in your deck.
Keep in mind that they suffer the same playability restrictions as the
original cards, though.
- Making card versions with a different name
If you feel that a given card woul better relate better to your clan's
background if you change its name, you can do so. Follow the 3 steps
provided above for theme-based proxy cards and then do the following:
4. Change the card's name to the name of your choosing.
5. If the card's regular text has any reference to one or more clans,
you can change any reference to a particular clan to the clan (or
bloodline) you've just created. If you do so, raise the cost of the
card by 1 pool. If it costs blood, raise the cost by 1 blood.
Example: You want to create a version of Baltimore Purge called Alien
Invasion for your War of the Worlds clan deck. You can change card text
to give +1 stealth if played by a vampire of your clan instead of a
Ravnos vampire, but you'd still have to control a Lasombra to be able
to choose which vampires will be targeted. Armaggedon would then cost 1
pool to be played.
You can include as many card versions as you like in your deck,
provided that you do not create more than one version of the same card
and do not include any copy of the original cards your versions were
based on. In the above example, you would not be able to create another
card version for Baltimore Purge or include it in your War of the
Worlds deck.
########################################
So, what do you people think? Is it too much work for the organizers to
track? If left to players' discretion, could it lead to many text
mismatches being discovered during play, which would slow down the game
too much? Is it still open to abuses? If so, of what kind? Or is it OK
since CaC is just a fun, relaxed event?
Other than that, I've just noticed that the Bloodline section does not
mention any extra quirk for bloodlines with Daimoinon - i.e., one could
easily create a Bloodline and give [dai] to all its vampires and avoid
infernalism. I know that some [dai] cards do require an infernal
vampire and would turn to be unusable, but still, I found that a bit
odd since all vampires with [dai] release up to this date are indeed
infernal (barring Valerious Mayor merged text, and even then, he
suffers a capacity decrease as a result).
I think It could be addressed with a simple extra sentence just below
the Obeah and Temporis paragraphs:
- If your chosen in-clan bloodline discipline is Daimoinon, all of your
bloodline vampires must have at least [dai] (inferior) and the Infernal
attribute (see below).
But that's just a guess - maybe the designer's intention was to leave
Daimoinon open for non-infernal vampires after all, since the player
would have to forfeit the use of Contagion and Concordance. But this
simple addition would pave the way for future Daimoinon cards without
restricting created bloodlines any more than the Baali.
Again, what do you guys and girls think? I'm curious.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
> But the question was: can't I
> just change the name of the card to make them relate even more to my
> clan? Say, a version of Bastard Sword called Lightsaber with the very
> same text and a new illustration for a Star-Wars-based clan?
John Flournoy's Create-a-Clan deck at GenCon used something he called
"Carlton Van Wyk (Mailman)", and there were no problems. So, I'd say
you can change the names already.
Also, LSJ was running that, so either he allowed it, or wasn't aware of
it.
> At first, I thought that changing names could open an avenue for
> all-too-smart players to avoid contesting, Unique rules and so on; say,
> one could create four different versions of Form of Corruption with
> different names so they could stack at the table, or five different
> versions of Ivory Bow to increase the number of agg-damage-dealing
> ranged weapons for his or her vampires.
Informed players are already going to know that if it costs 1, does 1R
aggravated damage each strike, it's an Ivory Bow, and contests as such.
I figure just treat them as if they have the actual card's name for
rules questions, and you can change the names to anything you want.
(snip suggested rules)
Why not just say,
"Players can use any art or title they like for their fake cards.
Players may use any fake cards in place of actual cards. Any cards
with a new name are treated as though they have the same name for
purposes of game play (uniqueness etc.)."
After all, that's what John Flournoy did, and it clearly added to the
fun-level of the whole event.
> Other than that, I've just noticed that the Bloodline section does not
> mention any extra quirk for bloodlines with Daimoinon - i.e., one could
> easily create a Bloodline and give [dai] to all its vampires and avoid
> infernalism. I know that some [dai] cards do require an infernal
> vampire and would turn to be unusable, but still, I found that a bit
> odd since all vampires with [dai] release up to this date are indeed
> infernal (barring Valerious Mayor merged text, and even then, he
> suffers a capacity decrease as a result).
> I think It could be addressed with a simple extra sentence just below
> the Obeah and Temporis paragraphs:
I noticed it too, and it seemed weird like it could have been a
mistake. But, I don't think it's too powerful. Also note that Ian
Forestal plays Daimoinon cards, and Saulot has basic daimoinon but is
not infernal.
> - If your chosen in-clan bloodline discipline is Daimoinon, all of your
> bloodline vampires must have at least [dai] (inferior) and the Infernal
> attribute (see below).
No, I like the 2 points they get for it better.
-- Brian
What I'm mostly concerned about the CaC rules is the addition
done by the Legacies of Blood. Mainly the sect Laibon, discipline
Abombwe and titles of Magaji and Kholo. Here are some suggestions
for those.
Abombwe can be taken as a clan discipline only if the clan is
either of Laibon sect or has Protean as another clan discipline.
Abombwe can be taken as an out-of-clan discipline only by Laibon
or vampires with Protean.
Magaji is a Laibon title that costs 1 point and requires a
capacity of 8.
If your main clan is Laibon you may make an additional spoof
card of Your Clan Kholo, which is in all other ways identical
to the printed Kholo cards.
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> John Flournoy's Create-a-Clan deck at GenCon used something he called
> "Carlton Van Wyk (Mailman)", and there were no problems. So, I'd say
> you can change the names already.
> Also, LSJ was running that, so either he allowed it, or wasn't aware of
> it.
Yeah. As said, there is no problem for any CaC organizer to take the
matter into his own hands. What I'm concerned about, mostly, is the
amount of times it can happen before or during the tournament, which
could generate more extra calls for the judge than it is necessary. But
that's just a guess.
> Informed players are already going to know that if it costs 1, does
1R
> aggravated damage each strike, it's an Ivory Bow, and contests as such.
> I figure just treat them as if they have the actual card's name for
> rules questions, and you can change the names to anything you want.
I'm not really sure. Yeah, it could work just fine for the Lightsaber
example and Carlton the Mailman. But not all playgroups have an
abundance of "informed players", and once someone uses a non-staple
card as a basis, it would require some time for the other players or
even organizers to figure out if the card was properly created. Say, if
someone comes to the event with a version of Fata Amria, I would now
it, but I'd need to check a cardlist database tool to see if the
wording is correct.
Maybe it's not worth to care about that since a faux Fata Amria with,
say, no burning clause would not shake a game as if it were utterly
unbalanced. But still, I'd prefer to avoid this kind of thing.
> (snip suggested rules)
>
> Why not just say,
>
> "Players can use any art or title they like for their fake cards.
> Players may use any fake cards in place of actual cards. Any cards
> with a new name are treated as though they have the same name for
> purposes of game play (uniqueness etc.)."
This is another, trimmed way to deal with things, yeah.
But it does not address the fact that some cards, like Baltimore Purge
or Siphon, would be unusable/useless as a basis even if they don't
*require* anything. Just a minor issue, but I like the proposition made
for cards that do not require a clan but offer benefits if you're from
clan X or Y.
One fringe example: I could create a clan based on African gods.
Wouldn't it be cool to have a Mozambique Allure card version that could
allow me to untap? (of course, being african, probably the clan's
default sect is Laibon already, but you get the point).
> After all, that's what John Flournoy did, and it clearly added to the
> fun-level of the whole event.
Sure. As stated, what worries me is the amount of submissions we would
have to deal with on site. Of course, it can be avoided - just require
all players to submit their fake cards before the event.
> I noticed it too, and it seemed weird like it could have been a
> mistake. But, I don't think it's too powerful. Also note that Ian
> Forestal plays Daimoinon cards, and Saulot has basic daimoinon but is
> not infernal.
I must update ARDB as soon as possible :)
> > - If your chosen in-clan bloodline discipline is Daimoinon, all of your
> > bloodline vampires must have at least [dai] (inferior) and the Infernal
> > attribute (see below).
>
> No, I like the 2 points they get for it better.
> -- Brian
?
The proposal was not to remove the extra points from being infernal at
all. It just says that [dai] bloodlines must be infernal. The rest of
the infernal CaC rules (infernal vampires gain 2 or 3 points to use
according to capacity etc.) would remain unchanged.
But then again, if the original intention was to leave [dai] untied to
the infernal trait, more power to us players.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
>>But the question was: can't I
>>just change the name of the card to make them relate even more to my
>>clan? Say, a version of Bastard Sword called Lightsaber with the very
>>same text and a new illustration for a Star-Wars-based clan?>
> John Flournoy's Create-a-Clan deck at GenCon used something he called
> "Carlton Van Wyk (Mailman)", and there were no problems. So, I'd say
> you can change the names already.
>
> Also, LSJ was running that, so either he allowed it, or wasn't aware of
> it.
Yes, it is allowed under the rules I use.
So long as the name and text is intact, it doesn't matter what the art is.
The extra word are simply treated (purposefully) as art. Flavor text may
be freely changed or added, too, of course.
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
What about adding some more specials to the specials list?
Something as
"Can move blod to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region"
"Have an optional maneuver/press in the first round of combat"
"May prevent 1 damage per combat"
You know, these kind of every-clan-has-at-least-one-vampire-with
special :P
And, the thing I missed the most when I was building my vamps, SOME
DRAWBACKS!! Yeah, I wanted to do a vampire with -1 intercept agains
un(D) actons, another that could lose his title... this kind of stuff
could add a little more flexibility to clan creation.
Have fun,
Fabio Ciccone
http://storylinesp.vai.la
LSJ wrote:
> firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> >>But the question was: can't I
> >>just change the name of the card to make them relate even more to my
> >>clan? Say, a version of Bastard Sword called Lightsaber with the very
> >>same text and a new illustration for a Star-Wars-based clan?
> >
> > John Flournoy's Create-a-Clan deck at GenCon used something he called
> > "Carlton Van Wyk (Mailman)", and there were no problems. So, I'd say
> > you can change the names already.
> >
> > Also, LSJ was running that, so either he allowed it, or wasn't aware of
> > it.
>
> Yes, it is allowed under the rules I use.
> So long as the name and text is intact, it doesn't matter what the art is.
> The extra word are simply treated (purposefully) as art. Flavor text may
> be freely changed or added, too, of course.
But what about the Lightsaber case above?
Or, more to the point, what about three hypothetical versions of any
Unique card with different names so they could stack with each other?
I believe you wouldn't allow them personally, but giving your
experience with the format, what do you think about adapting these
cases to any given (and preferrably small) set of rules?
Please keep in mind that these suggestions were made from a
non-experienced point of view. The issues were raised after a few (four
or five) clan submissions. Maybe there'll be 20 players in the event
but only one or two would have been able to create such cards, so I
could very well just accept or deny them on an individual basis. I'm
just afraid that most players will ask me to do that, and I don't want
to waste time checking each card before the event. Fixed rules would
allow players to point out inconsistencies in their opponents' cards...
Of course, we can just make some house rules altogether. But I'd rather
drawn on the experience of others before creating those rules.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Fabio Ciccone wrote:
> And, the thing I missed the most when I was building my vamps, SOME
> DRAWBACKS!! Yeah, I wanted to do a vampire with -1 intercept agains
> un(D) actons, another that could lose his title... this kind of stuff
> could add a little more flexibility to clan creation.
It would certainly add *lots* of potential for abuse and min/maxing.
--
Francois Gombault
THIS PUNISHMENT IS NOT BORING AND POINTLESS -- Bart Simpson on chalkboard
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>>firstco...@aol.com wrote:>>>>But the question was: can't I
>>>>just change the name of the card to make them relate even more to my
>>>>clan? Say, a version of Bastard Sword called Lightsaber with the very
>>>>same text and a new illustration for a Star-Wars-based clan?>>>
>>>John Flournoy's Create-a-Clan deck at GenCon used something he called
>>>"Carlton Van Wyk (Mailman)", and there were no problems. So, I'd say
>>>you can change the names already.
>>>
>>>Also, LSJ was running that, so either he allowed it, or wasn't aware of
>>>it.>>
>>Yes, it is allowed under the rules I use.
>>So long as the name and text is intact, it doesn't matter what the art is.
>>The extra word are simply treated (purposefully) as art. Flavor text may
>>be freely changed or added, too, of course.>
> But what about the Lightsaber case above?
Bastard Sword case.
A Bastard Sword with alternate art (to include an alternate name under or
beside the true name -- "Bastard Sword" still appearing as the card name)
is fine.
> Or, more to the point, what about three hypothetical versions of any
> Unique card with different names so they could stack with each other?
Changing names is not allowed, as I said: "so long as the name is intact..."
> I believe you wouldn't allow them personally, but giving your
> experience with the format, what do you think about adapting these
> cases to any given (and preferrably small) set of rules?
More trouble than it would be worth, since the current arrangement
allows sufficient "customization" of the cards.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> But what about the Lightsaber case above?
> Or, more to the point, what about three hypothetical versions of any
> Unique card with different names so they could stack with each other?
>
Add the following first sentence to its card text:
(This card should be treated as a copy of Card Foo.)
This way, not only does everyone know that MegaWedgie has the same text as
Immortal Grapple, but they know that if someone plays Run Away! to cancel
the MegaWedgie, I can't play another one or an Immortal Grapple.
As a matter of fact, on the off chance someone is playing with Holds or an
Equipment/Ally Deck, all cards with modified titles should contain that
sentence.
Equip Bastard Sword -> Freak Drive -> Equip Lightsaber should be illegal
if Lightsaber is just a Bastard Sword.
Though Equip Jedi Lightsaber -> Freak Drive -> Equip Sith Lightsaber would
be legal if
Jedi Lightsaber <=> Bastard Sword
and
Sith Lightsaber <=> Meat Cleaver.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
LSJ escreveu:
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> > But what about the Lightsaber case above?
>
> Bastard Sword case.
> A Bastard Sword with alternate art (to include an alternate name under or
> beside the true name -- "Bastard Sword" still appearing as the card name)
> is fine.
Oh, I see. Something like "Bastard Sword (Lightsaber)". OK.
> > I believe you wouldn't allow them personally, but giving your
> > experience with the format, what do you think about adapting these
> > cases to any given (and preferrably small) set of rules?
>
> More trouble than it would be worth, since the current arrangement
> allows sufficient "customization" of the cards.
Hope so. I'll pass that along to players. Anyway, maybe someone could
try the proposed additional rules just for the sake of experimentation.
If anyone does so, I'll report how it went. It adds another level of
customization after all, and maybe it's worth to check if someone could
abuse it somehow.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Francois Gombault escreveu:
> Fabio Ciccone wrote:
> > And, the thing I missed the most when I was building my vamps, SOME
> > DRAWBACKS!! Yeah, I wanted to do a vampire with -1 intercept agains
> > un(D) actons, another that could lose his title... this kind of stuff
> > could add a little more flexibility to clan creation.
>
> It would certainly add *lots* of potential for abuse and min/maxing.> Francois Gombault
Sure. But it could also be addressed by
- maintaning the 'bonus' points for drawbacks as low as possible
(preferrably adding only +0,5 drawbacks)
- limiting the number of drawbacks a vampire can have, and the number
of vampires in the whole crypt who can have them. Say, only two vamps
can have drawbacks (much like a la carte specials); these two vamps can
have only 1 drawback and no more than 1 special hability; and vamps
with a la carte specials can't have any drawbacks at all.
Again, more trouble than it's worth? Maybe. But I'd love to add a
restriction/drawback to one or two vampires on whom it would fit
background-wise. Say, Stevie Wonder the vampire with -1 intercept :-D
(I know, that was a cruel joke - just couldn't find a better example at
the moment).
> THIS PUNISHMENT IS NOT BORING AND POINTLESS -- Bart Simpson on chalkboard
Please never stop to use these quotes! ;)
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:29:18 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:
>> But what about the Lightsaber case above?>
> Bastard Sword case.
> A Bastard Sword with alternate art (to include an alternate name under or
> beside the true name -- "Bastard Sword" still appearing as the card name)
> is fine.
What about, adding a descriptor like "Parent Object = Bastard Sword" in the
first line of the Light Saber card text? It could be defined as a variant
of another card this way, counting as that card for all purposes.
Not sure its worth the trouble, though.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> Francois Gombault escreveu:
>
> > Fabio Ciccone wrote:
> > > And, the thing I missed the most when I was building my vamps, SOME
> > > DRAWBACKS!! Yeah, I wanted to do a vampire with -1 intercept agains
> > > un(D) actons, another that could lose his title... this kind of stuff
> > > could add a little more flexibility to clan creation.
> >
> > It would certainly add *lots* of potential for abuse and min/maxing.
> > Francois Gombault
>
> Sure. But it could also be addressed by
> - maintaning the 'bonus' points for drawbacks as low as possible
> (preferrably adding only +0,5 drawbacks)
> - limiting the number of drawbacks a vampire can have, and the number
> of vampires in the whole crypt who can have them. Say, only two vamps
> can have drawbacks (much like a la carte specials); these two vamps can
> have only 1 drawback and no more than 1 special hability; and vamps
> with a la carte specials can't have any drawbacks at all.
>
> Again, more trouble than it's worth? Maybe. But I'd love to add a
> restriction/drawback to one or two vampires on whom it would fit
> background-wise. Say, Stevie Wonder the vampire with -1 intercept :-D
> (I know, that was a cruel joke - just couldn't find a better example at
> the moment).
Couldn't say better :)
Have Fun,
Fabio Ciccone
http://storylinesp.vai.la
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> LSJ escreveu:
> > Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> > > But what about the Lightsaber case above?
> >
> > Bastard Sword case.
> > A Bastard Sword with alternate art (to include an alternate name under or
> > beside the true name -- "Bastard Sword" still appearing as the card name)
> > is fine.
>
> Oh, I see. Something like "Bastard Sword (Lightsaber)". OK.
It's worth noting that I had three renamed cards in my create-a-clan
deck, not just Carlton - the other two were titled with the fake title
followed by the real title in slightly smaller-font parentheses as
follows:
Game of Addams (Game of Malkav)
Feeding the Vine (Bleeding the Vine)
(People wanting to look at how these card titles looked can examine
them at http://www.monocleofclarity.com/carneggy/Library/index.html)
Carlton did not have the reminder text because 1) I'd have had to put
it in 3-point type to fit 2) I'd have had multiple parenthetical
clauses and 3) it was _exceedingly_ apparent what "Carlton Van Wyk
(Mailman)" was actually representing.
And beyond that, I made a point to inform people as played that yeah,
it contested with anybody else's Carlton, and both other players,
observers and the Judge had looked at the card prior to the tournament
and appreciated the humor without concern about someone being a total
power-gaming dick about it and trying to insist that it didn't violate
uniqueness and/or wasn't sufficiently clear as to which card it really
was.
It also had a real copy of Carlton Van Wyk in the sleeve so that if
needed, I could nudge the card up enough in the sleeve to make visible
the real card text.
If you're going through the trouble of redoing the entire card
(title/art/flavor text/etc) as I did, it's just not a big deal to have
it titled with 'Custom name (real name)', IMO.
> Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
-John Flournoy
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> Carlton did not have the reminder text because 1) I'd have had to put
> it in 3-point type to fit 2) I'd have had multiple parenthetical
> clauses and 3) it was _exceedingly_ apparent what "Carlton Van Wyk
> (Mailman)" was actually representing.
I should have called you on that when you blocked me bringing out the *real*
Carlton :)
Seriously though, I don't think anyone really cared about this. I'm all for
following the rules, but c-a-c is all about fun. Not having the name right
would have been a silly reason to DQ your deck. So long as it's obvious to
everyone else, good enough.
If I have any regrets about that tournament, it's that I didn't get to see
that many different decks. Even with only eight players, I think there were
two players whose decks I did not get to look at.
Always a fun format, though.
Cheers,
WES