Just some random thoughts I've had. Feel free to add to, agree with, or
tear apart my argument.
Let me begin by stating that I believe the best benchmark for master
card pricing is 1 pool for a master phase action. Ascendance is the
starting point for this argument.
Ascendance - 1 Master Phase Action resulting in a first turn profit
of +1 Pool
The next step would be Short Term Investment.
STI - 4 Master Phase Actions results in +2 Pool
There is an original outlay of 1 pool (and 1 MP action) and then after
taking 3 more MP actions, you realize a gain of 2 pool. The reason you
don't profit 4 pool for your 4 MP actions is that the master card slot
has a value. To profit 2 pool from an Ascendance you need to use 2
master card slots whereas with STI you only need 1 master card slot for
the net 2 pool gain. It could be said that the savings of 1 master card
slot with STI costs you 1 pool and the one turn delay until you break
even costs you 1 more. These two cards are perfectly balanced.
ASC 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL GAIN, PROFIT FIRST MP ACTION
STI 4 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 2 POOL GAIN, PROFIT THIRD MP ACTION
Let's now look at Info Hwy. Costs 1 MP Action, and 1 Master Slot. So
whatever effect it produces should be the equivalent to 1 Pool Gain and
instant profit like Ascendance. IH, in fact, lets you do 2 extra
transfers per turn. So, while IH seems free, it actually has an
opportunity cost. If you weren't playing an IH you could be playing an
Ascendance which would result in a 1 pool profit. Therefore, the
initial cost of the speed of 2 extra transfers is 1 pool. (This gets
much more complex because the card is unique, and is a location so is
therefore vulnerable to burning or stealing--how do you put a cost on
that? I'll ignore the long-term cost/benefit for simplicity sake)
Let's look at the three cards next to each other now.
IH 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL LOSS, 2 EXTRA TSFRS 1ST TURN
ASC 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL GAIN, PROFIT FIRST MP ACTION
STI 4 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 2 POOL GAIN, PROFIT THIRD MP ACTION
Now onto the pre-7/7 Tomb.
It costs 3 pool, 1 MP Action, and 1 Master Slot. Examining its use with
an 11 capacity vampire, you would receive the equivalent of four pool
from the blood bank to put on your vampire in the first turn. You
realize a profit of 1 blood (balanced with Ascendance) *and* a speed
bonus of 4 transfers. If IH gives you 2 transfers for -1 pool, then how
much should the speed of 4 transfers cost? -2 Pool. I believe the Tomb
allows the equivalent of a 3 pool gain on the turn it is played.
What if the Tomb cost 5 pool? You'd pay 5, do 4 transfers and receive
the equivalent of 4 pool from the blood bank. You'd receive the benefit
of the speed and be at -1 pool profit at the end of the first turn. On
that same 11 capacity vampire you'd pay 5 pool and get the equivalent of
5 pool on the vampire. That is a break-even proposition--except that
you got an IC member out in 2 turns instead of three.
--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<35AC321E...@earthlink.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
A very interesting take on the TOR situation. Certainly much better than
the lame errata that was made. A couple more points to consider though:
1) Everyone is assuming the Tomb to always be played with 4 transfers for
maximum effect. Often it gets played early before the player has 4
transfers. This means the player won't be receiving a extra pool (maybe
won't even break even) or that many extra transfers. This becomes a issue
when raising the cost. Of course you can always wait to play it...
4) Increasing the cost to 5 would make it detremental on any vamp smaller
then 10. 5 points for TOR + 5 pool = 10 for a 10. 5 points for TOR +5 pool
= 10 for 9 blood vamp. 5 for TOR + 4 pool = 9 for 8 blood vamp. It would
cost 9 for a 7 blood vamp. I don't know if we want to make it only useful
on 10 and 11 blood vamps.
I think it may be best to increase the cost of TOR to 4 and only match
transfer on the vamp with the tomb. That seems to be a easy and effective
fix.
Steve Bucy
Robert Goudie (rrgo...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Just some random thoughts I've had. Feel free to add to, agree with, or
: tear apart my argument.
It's an interesting analysis, and I'm very happy to see it here, if
only because it's in the vein of analytic Jyhad articles of days gone
by, which I liked a lot. (Not that I don't like this one, too. ;-)
: IH 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL LOSS, 2 EXTRA TSFRS 1ST TURN: ASC 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL GAIN, PROFIT FIRST MP ACTION
: STI 4 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 2 POOL GAIN, PROFIT THIRD MP ACTION
Your arguments are sound, including the desire to take account of the
opportunity cost of non-pool-producing masters. However, your table
doesn't reflect that properly in my opinion. If you count Ascendance
as producing a 1 pool gain, then Info Highway does not produce a 1
pool loss. It merely fails to produce the 1 pool gain. So it should
be 0 pool gain in the 'pool cost' column. (To account for IH as
producing a 1 pool loss, you'd have to list Ascendance as producing
a net gain of 0 pool, because it merely matches the assumed opportunity
cost of using a master-phase action and a card slot.)
: Now onto the pre-7/7 Tomb.: It costs 3 pool, 1 MP Action, and 1 Master Slot. Examining its use with
: an 11 capacity vampire, you would receive the equivalent of four pool
: from the blood bank to put on your vampire in the first turn. You
: realize a profit of 1 blood (balanced with Ascendance) *and* a speed
: bonus of 4 transfers. If IH gives you 2 transfers for -1 pool, then how
: much should the speed of 4 transfers cost? -2 Pool. I believe the Tomb
: allows the equivalent of a 3 pool gain on the turn it is played.
Tomb doesn't *exactly* give you a pool profit in the same way that
Ascendance and STI do. It does net you pool relative to buying the
vampire 'the hard way', but it doesn't do so by actually increasing
the number of blood counters in your pool. It definitely gives you
a speed increase, and saves you pool on buying vampires, so the net
effect is as if there were a profit.
Also, given what I said about IH above, if 2 extra transfers have an
opportunity cost of 1 pool (net cost 0), then 4 extra transfers
presumably ought to have an opportunity cost of 2 pool (net cost -1).
So, Tomb costs 3 more than the Info Highway, produces 2 more transfers
(worth 1) and (potentially) 4 more pool (blood on the vamp from the
blood bank) on the first turn you use it. In other words, for the
MP action and card slot, you pay 3 and get something worth 5, which
is one better than Ascendance - pay 0, get 1. (This, of course,
ignores the multiple-turn-usability of Tomb, which may make it more
than twice as good as Ascendance.)
Josh
just my interpretations
Steve Bucy wrote in message <01bdaffb$19ef30c0$aa166bc7@Tom>...
>
>
>Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
><35AC321E...@earthlink.net>...>> Just some random thoughts I've had. Feel free to add to, agree with, or
>> tear apart my argument.
>>>> Let me begin by stating that I believe the best benchmark for master
>> card pricing is 1 pool for a master phase action. Ascendance is the
>> starting point for this argument.>> Now onto the pre-7/7 Tomb.>>
>> It costs 3 pool, 1 MP Action, and 1 Master Slot. Examining its use with
>> an 11 capacity vampire, you would receive the equivalent of four pool
>> from the blood bank to put on your vampire in the first turn. You
>> realize a profit of 1 blood (balanced with Ascendance) *and* a speed
>> bonus of 4 transfers. If IH gives you 2 transfers for -1 pool, then how
>> much should the speed of 4 transfers cost? -2 Pool. I believe the Tomb
>> allows the equivalent of a 3 pool gain on the turn it is played.
>>>> What if the Tomb cost 5 pool? You'd pay 5, do 4 transfers and receive
>> the equivalent of 4 pool from the blood bank. You'd receive the benefit
>> of the speed and be at -1 pool profit at the end of the first turn. On
>> that same 11 capacity vampire you'd pay 5 pool and get the equivalent of
>> 5 pool on the vampire. That is a break-even proposition--except that
>> you got an IC member out in 2 turns instead of three.>
>A very interesting take on the TOR situation. Certainly much better than
>the lame errata that was made. A couple more points to consider though:
>
>1) Everyone is assuming the Tomb to always be played with 4 transfers for
>maximum effect. Often it gets played early before the player has 4
>transfers. This means the player won't be receiving a extra pool (maybe
>won't even break even) or that many extra transfers. This becomes a issue
>when raising the cost. Of course you can always wait to play it...
Oh, please. ToR is always going to break even or better unless
a) you are stupid and put it on a Caitiff
b) you are the 1st or 2nd player, you play it on the first turn, and another
player
contests it on the first turn
In every other case, you will at least break even. No one is going to
burn
or steal ToR without a vampire, no one will get out a vampire before the
cost of
a 1st turn ToR is recouped. (Well, I suppose if you're the second player,
with a
weenie vote deck predator, who gets out Smudge and a Bewitching Orated
Disputed Territory, you could be out a pool. *I* wouldn't factor that
instance
into my view of the card).
ToR is a card without risk. If you play it, you gain a benefit - free
blood on
a large vampire.
>4) Increasing the cost to 5 would make it detremental on any vamp smaller
>then 10. 5 points for TOR + 5 pool = 10 for a 10. 5 points for TOR +5 pool
>= 10 for 9 blood vamp. 5 for TOR + 4 pool = 9 for 8 blood vamp. It would
>cost 9 for a 7 blood vamp. I don't know if we want to make it only useful
>on 10 and 11 blood vamps.
>
>I think it may be best to increase the cost of TOR to 4 and only match
>transfer on the vamp with the tomb. That seems to be a easy and effective
>fix.
I think a 5 pool cost and only matching transfer to the Tomb'd vampire
is
appropriate. It still lets you get out 8 point vampires in 1 turn, or 9
point
vampires in 2 turns, at a *very* slight increase in pool. I'd say its more
balanced
that way.
I may even suggest this to the playgroup. We're currently bringing it
into
play tapped, but this might work better...
-Mark Langdorf
Jyhad Archivist
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/
> >
> > What if the Tomb cost 5 pool? You'd pay 5, do 4 transfers and receive
> > the equivalent of 4 pool from the blood bank. You'd receive the benefit
> > of the speed and be at -1 pool profit at the end of the first turn. On
> > that same 11 capacity vampire you'd pay 5 pool and get the equivalent of
> > 5 pool on the vampire. That is a break-even proposition--except that
> > you got an IC member out in 2 turns instead of three.
>
> A very interesting take on the TOR situation. Certainly much better than
> the lame errata that was made. A couple more points to consider though:
>
> 1) Everyone is assuming the Tomb to always be played with 4 transfers for
> maximum effect. Often it gets played early before the player has 4
> transfers. This means the player won't be receiving a extra pool (maybe
> won't even break even) or that many extra transfers. This becomes a issue
> when raising the cost. Of course you can always wait to play it...
>> 4) Increasing the cost to 5 would make it detremental on any vamp smaller
> then 10. 5 points for TOR + 5 pool = 10 for a 10. 5 points for TOR +5 pool
> = 10 for 9 blood vamp. 5 for TOR + 4 pool = 9 for 8 blood vamp. It would
> cost 9 for a 7 blood vamp. I don't know if we want to make it only useful
> on 10 and 11 blood vamps.
>
> I think it may be best to increase the cost of TOR to 4 and only match
> transfer on the vamp with the tomb. That seems to be a easy and effective
> fix.
>
Even increasing the Tomb to a cost of 5 still makes it too good, IMNSHO.
Neither of these fixes goes anywhere near far enough. It still gives you a
huge profit with no drawback and can still be used as a pool machine. I'd
much prefer the Tomb as wallpaper or a relatively weak card (like the new RTR
on it). The only other fix I've seen that goes nearly far enough in
addressing the Tomb is the following: Instead of adding 1 blood to the
vampire with the Tomb, its capacity is instead reduced by 1, permanently.
Thus, if you put the card on an 8 cap vampire, you can still get it out 1st
turn. However, its capacity will only be 4. Paying 7 pool and a master
phase action for a 4 capacity vampire, even if it has the special abilites of
an 8 cap, is much more balanced than the original (and it no longer works as
a pool machine since ToRIII is no longer adding blood, but -1 cap tokens). I
am, however, willing to accept the current RTR in lieu of that.
-Chris
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote in article <6oj698$7m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
You last line shows your obvious bias. You simply want to get rid of the
card altogether. That being the case why don't you just vote for banning
it.
> The only other fix I've seen that goes nearly far enough in
> addressing the Tomb is the following: Instead of adding 1 blood to the
> vampire with the Tomb, its capacity is instead reduced by 1, permanently.> Thus, if you put the card on an 8 cap vampire, you can still get it out
1st
> turn. However, its capacity will only be 4. Paying 7 pool and a master
> phase action for a 4 capacity vampire, even if it has the special
abilites of
> an 8 cap.
A very interesting solution, but would require massive errata ala the
current RTR errata. It would also cause a great deal of confusion about the
capacity of the vamp once it's in play. Although it would at least keep TOR
interesting to play.
> is much more balanced than the original (and it no longer works as
> a pool machine since ToRIII is no longer adding blood, but -1 cap
tokens). I
> am, however, willing to accept the current RTR in lieu of that.
This makes little sense. Your concerned about the tomb being used for
gaining pool, but your in favor of errata that makes it useful for nothing
but gaining pool. Huh???
If you don't want the tomb used for pool gain it would be much easier and
require little errata to simply say you can't transfer off the vamp with
the tomb.
--
Steve Bucy
I'd be better off undead...
"Hmmm. I notice the number of conditional phrases in there... _seems_ to
indicate a weakness, _may_ be vulnerable in theory." - G'Kar
Mark Langsdorf <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote in article
<6oj065$b66$1...@amdint.amd.com>...
>
> Steve Bucy wrote in message <01bdaffb$19ef30c0$aa166bc7@Tom>...> >A very interesting take on the TOR situation. Certainly much better than
> >the lame errata that was made. A couple more points to consider though:
> >
> >1) Everyone is assuming the Tomb to always be played with 4 transfers
for
> >maximum effect. Often it gets played early before the player has 4
> >transfers. This means the player won't be receiving a extra pool (maybe
> >won't even break even) or that many extra transfers. This becomes a
issue
> >when raising the cost. Of course you can always wait to play it...
>
>> Oh, please. ToR is always going to break even or better unless
> a) you are stupid and put it on a Caitiff
> b) you are the 1st or 2nd player, you play it on the first turn, and
another
> player
> contests it on the first turn
Not true. Like every thing in Jyhad, it all comes down to the meta game.
When people play with TOR, those without TOR find ways of dealing with it.
They either steal it, burn it, or reverse it.
Since about half the people in my play group have the tomb, it's often
important to get it out quick. This insures you will have a chance of using
it and offers the most benefit from the Tomb. However it can be
disasterous. I don't know about your group, but mine has lots of weenies
running around. Almost every game there will be at least one out on turn
one. With the possiblity someone will play a tomb many have prepared for
it. Arson, Disputed Territory, Kine Dominace are all threats.
Contesting can also cost you.
> In every other case, you will at least break even. No one is going
to
> burn
> or steal ToR without a vampire, no one will get out a vampire before the
> cost of
> a 1st turn ToR is recouped. (Well, I suppose if you're the second
player,
> with a
> weenie vote deck predator, who gets out Smudge and a Bewitching Orated
> Disputed Territory, you could be out a pool. *I* wouldn't factor that
> instance
> into my view of the card).
It's happened enough around here. I've also seen them arsoned by weenies.
> ToR is a card without risk. If you play it, you gain a benefit -
free
> blood on
> a large vampire.
>> >4) Increasing the cost to 5 would make it detremental on any vamp
smaller
> >then 10. 5 points for TOR + 5 pool = 10 for a 10. 5 points for TOR +5
pool
> >= 10 for 9 blood vamp. 5 for TOR + 4 pool = 9 for 8 blood vamp. It would
> >cost 9 for a 7 blood vamp. I don't know if we want to make it only
useful
> >on 10 and 11 blood vamps.
> >
> >I think it may be best to increase the cost of TOR to 4 and only match
> >transfer on the vamp with the tomb. That seems to be a easy and
effective
> >fix.
>
>> I think a 5 pool cost and only matching transfer to the Tomb'd
vampire
> is
> appropriate. It still lets you get out 8 point vampires in 1 turn, or 9
> point
> vampires in 2 turns, at a *very* slight increase in pool. I'd say its
more
> balanced
> that way.
> I may even suggest this to the playgroup. We're currently bringing
it
> into
> play tapped, but this might work better...
I certainly think that the 5 pool cost is infinitely better than what the
RTR came up with. At least TOR would still be worth using.
Steve Bucy
In article <01bdb039$5a02cf80$a2166bc7@Tom>, Steve Bucy
<tb...@lainet.com> writes
>> is much more balanced than the original (and it no longer works as
>> a pool machine since ToRIII is no longer adding blood, but -1 cap>tokens). I>> am, however, willing to accept the current RTR in lieu of that.>
>This makes little sense. Your concerned about the tomb being used for
>gaining pool, but your in favor of errata that makes it useful for nothing
>but gaining pool. Huh???
The errata allows SLOW pool gain. The original card allows large
amounts of blood to be generated very quickly.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
In article <01bdb03b$c1b89360$a2166bc7@Tom>, Steve Bucy
<tb...@lainet.com> writes
>Not true. Like every thing in Jyhad, it all comes down to the meta game.
>When people play with TOR, those without TOR find ways of dealing with it.
>They either steal it, burn it, or reverse it.
You miss the point. Barring out of turn actions with Madness Network,
you have one free turn to use TOR. You transfer four out and get four
free blood for you to pull back whenever. Thus you have already got the
three back that you paid for it (just on a vampire) and made one profit.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<7nktxEAM...@obeah.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bdb03b$c1b89360$a2166bc7@Tom>, Steve Bucy
> <tb...@lainet.com> writes
> >Not true. Like every thing in Jyhad, it all comes down to the meta game.
> >When people play with TOR, those without TOR find ways of dealing with
it.
> >They either steal it, burn it, or reverse it.
>
> You miss the point. Barring out of turn actions with Madness Network,
> you have one free turn to use TOR. You transfer four out and get four
> free blood for you to pull back whenever. Thus you have already got the
> three back that you paid for it (just on a vampire) and made one profit.
No, you missed the point. That's not always true. If you play it when you
have 3 transfers you may only break even. If you play it with 2 transfers
you can actually lose a pool. I didn't even consider that Madness Network
could also screw it...
I myself have often lost a tomb before getting my extra pool. As shocking
as it may seem I've seen it happen to others too.
Steve Bucy
Steve Bucy wrote:
> James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote> > Steve Bucy <tb...@lainet.com> writes
> > >Not true. Like every thing in Jyhad, it all comes down to the meta game.
> > >When people play with TOR, those without TOR find ways of dealing with
> it.
> > >They either steal it, burn it, or reverse it.
> >
> > You miss the point. Barring out of turn actions with Madness Network,
> > you have one free turn to use TOR. You transfer four out and get four
> > free blood for you to pull back whenever. Thus you have already got the
> > three back that you paid for it (just on a vampire) and made one profit.
>
> No, you missed the point. That's not always true. If you play it when you
> have 3 transfers you may only break even. If you play it with 2 transfers
> you can actually lose a pool. I didn't even consider that Madness Network
> could also screw it...
[Re: un-errata'ed Tomb]
If you have only two, then you are going second.
For you to lose the Tomb before you recoup the cost,
that must mean that your predator brought out a very
small vampire, and that you did not bring out a vampire
with which to block that weenie's action.
If you're not blocking that weenie's action, he could just
as easily bleed you (for 2 with computer hacking) as he could
burn your Tomb with Arson.
If he Arson's the Tomb, you're out one pool.
If he Computer Hacks you, you're out two pool.
If he bleeds you with no card, you're out a pool.
Either way, the Tomb hasn't cost you anything.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote in article <35AE36...@wizards.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Maybe pool wise it hasn't, but there are costly effects.
1) You have wasted a Master phase that you could have gotten some gain
from.
2) It really fouls up your transfer strategy when you expect to have the
tomb on a vamp and suddenly disappears.
3) The most common practice is not Arson, but rather a Disputed Territory
called by the weenie. If nobody that wants to, or even has a vote to stop
it, your predator ends up with a free tomb. Ouch.
Now maybe I'm just a hard luck type of guy (no comments Bob.) but I have
lost the tomb to Disputed Territory at least 6 times before making a
profit. Twice in tournaments. I have also had it arsoned once. Of course I
have played the tomb early in a game dozens of times, but I have gotten
screwed (especially by #2) by it.
Obviously this isn't the most common occurrence, but it does happen.
Steve Bucy
Steve Bucy wrote:
> Maybe pool wise it hasn't, but there are costly effects.
>
> 1) You have wasted a Master phase that you could have gotten some gain
> from.
> 2) It really fouls up your transfer strategy when you expect to have the
> tomb on a vamp and suddenly disappears.
> 3) The most common practice is not Arson, but rather a Disputed Territory
> called by the weenie. If nobody that wants to, or even has a vote to stop
> it, your predator ends up with a free tomb. Ouch.
>
> Now maybe I'm just a hard luck type of guy (no comments Bob.) but I have
> lost the tomb to Disputed Territory at least 6 times before making a
> profit. Twice in tournaments. I have also had it arsoned once. Of course I
> have played the tomb early in a game dozens of times, but I have gotten
> screwed (especially by #2) by it.
>
> Obviously this isn't the most common occurrence, but it does happen.
>
> Steve Bucy
Boy, TOR sucks. I'd stop playing with it, if I were you.
The Mighty Davethulhu
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> Robert Goudie (rrgo...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Just some random thoughts I've had. Feel free to add to, agree with, or
> : tear apart my argument.
>> It's an interesting analysis, and I'm very happy to see it here, if
> only because it's in the vein of analytic Jyhad articles of days gone
> by, which I liked a lot. (Not that I don't like this one, too. ;-)
>
> : IH 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL LOSS, 2 EXTRA TSFRS 1ST TURN
> : ASC 1 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 1 POOL GAIN, PROFIT FIRST MP ACTION
> : STI 4 MP Action, 1 MASTER SLOT, 2 POOL GAIN, PROFIT THIRD MP ACTION
>
> Your arguments are sound, including the desire to take account of the
> opportunity cost of non-pool-producing masters. However, your table
> doesn't reflect that properly in my opinion. If you count Ascendance
> as producing a 1 pool gain, then Info Highway does not produce a 1
> pool loss. It merely fails to produce the 1 pool gain. So it should
> be 0 pool gain in the 'pool cost' column. (To account for IH as
> producing a 1 pool loss, you'd have to list Ascendance as producing
> a net gain of 0 pool, because it merely matches the assumed opportunity
> cost of using a master-phase action and a card slot.)
>
Yes, correct. I don't want to say that Ascendance is a net gain of zero
so IH is rightly stated as a zero pool gain.
> : Now onto the pre-7/7 Tomb.>
> : It costs 3 pool, 1 MP Action, and 1 Master Slot. Examining its use with
> : an 11 capacity vampire, you would receive the equivalent of four pool
> : from the blood bank to put on your vampire in the first turn. You
> : realize a profit of 1 blood (balanced with Ascendance) *and* a speed
> : bonus of 4 transfers. If IH gives you 2 transfers for -1 pool, then how
> : much should the speed of 4 transfers cost? -2 Pool. I believe the Tomb
> : allows the equivalent of a 3 pool gain on the turn it is played.
>> Tomb doesn't *exactly* give you a pool profit in the same way that
> Ascendance and STI do. It does net you pool relative to buying the
> vampire 'the hard way', but it doesn't do so by actually increasing
> the number of blood counters in your pool. It definitely gives you
> a speed increase, and saves you pool on buying vampires, so the net
> effect is as if there were a profit.
>
> Also, given what I said about IH above, if 2 extra transfers have an
> opportunity cost of 1 pool (net cost 0), then 4 extra transfers
> presumably ought to have an opportunity cost of 2 pool (net cost -1).
> So, Tomb costs 3 more than the Info Highway, produces 2 more transfers
> (worth 1) and (potentially) 4 more pool (blood on the vamp from the
> blood bank) on the first turn you use it. In other words, for the
> MP action and card slot, you pay 3 and get something worth 5, which
> is one better than Ascendance - pay 0, get 1. (This, of course,
> ignores the multiple-turn-usability of Tomb, which may make it more
> than twice as good as Ascendance.)
Thanks. That was a nice addition.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 15 Jul 1998, Steve Bucy wrote:
> Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <35AC321E...@earthlink.net>...> > Just some random thoughts I've had. Feel free to add to, agree with, or
[Excellent analysis of Master Phase Pricing, with proposal that Tomb cost 5]
> A very interesting take on the TOR situation. Certainly much better than
> the lame errata that was made. A couple more points to consider though:> 1) Everyone is assuming the Tomb to always be played with 4 transfers for
> maximum effect. Often it gets played early before the player has 4
> transfers. This means the player won't be receiving a extra pool (maybe
> won't even break even) or that many extra transfers. This becomes a issue
> when raising the cost. Of course you can always wait to play it...
Exactly. Waiting to play the card until it is useful seems like a good
idea to me.
> 4) Increasing the cost to 5 would make it detremental on any vamp smaller
> then 10. 5 points for TOR + 5 pool = 10 for a 10. 5 points for TOR +5 pool
> = 10 for 9 blood vamp. 5 for TOR + 4 pool = 9 for 8 blood vamp. It would
> cost 9 for a 7 blood vamp. I don't know if we want to make it only useful
> on 10 and 11 blood vamps.
This is a good point.
> I think it may be best to increase the cost of TOR to 4 and only match
> transfer on the vamp with the tomb. That seems to be a easy and effective
> fix.
In order to keep things in line with the underlying principle of Jyhad, I
think you have only two options: change the cost to the acceptable 5 pool
or rewrite the card.
Of the rewrites, the one I am most impressed with is the -1 Capacity
counters from the Tomb instead of Pool. This change follows the intent
of ToRIII without being a _huge_ shift away from the initial card text.
@#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Eccentric $#@
@#$ The Corrupter $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Hedonist MHSTHSTS $#@
@#$ Cabal Rogue $#@ GAT/CS/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@ R+++* r+ z++**? $#@
...watching the lake turn the sky / into blue-green smoke...