Memories of Mortality

There are snippets of conversation about this card in various threads. I think it deserves one of its own. I believe this card is currently in quite serious need of revisioning or banning. It is: - non-unique - master and therefore unblockable - has a very low pool cost and no real opportunity cost, as it can be put on any vampire on the table - provides an enormously strong effect for any ally based deck - has a horrible cost to remove, especially since the vampire goes to torpor in your influence phase, meaning the entire table gets a chance to diablerise the vampire (and theoretically rescue, but your prey gets the first chance to act, and is much more likely to diablerise than to rescue). - was designed for an environment where allies could be a small or medium component of a deck, not the only source of minions in the deck (i.e. Imbued). There is another problem I have with this card, mainly that by the name and general effect it is perfectly clear the card is meant to only work on *mortal* allies, but that keyword seems to have been left out of the card text, leading to the ridiculous situation where a vampire cannot block a War Ghoul because he has "memories of mortality". But that is not a particularly serious flaw. The serious problem is an Imbued deck can simply and cheaply throw down a few on their prey's vampires and just punch through their prey like a paper bag, considering they cannot block your actions, cannot damage your minions, and can bleed for decent amounts (and that's before they lock down or destroy your minions with debilitating events like Recalled to the Founder, Thirst, Wormwood, etc.) I am proposing that this card was (possibly poorly) designed when initially released in a low-ally environment, and now that there is a fairly strong deck archetype (well, a number of very similar archetypes) that is 100% ally based, the card is even more broken and needs to be redesigned (made unique, cost increased, change requirements, etc.) or banned. Comparisons with Pentex Subversion are inevitable. I believe the fact that Pentex Subversion costs two pool and is unique balances its enormous power. Memories needs some kind of fix to bring it in line with PS. Is there any consensus on this? Is the design team investigating this card?

On Jul 16, 6:59?am, Dasein <dasein2...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I am proposing that this card was (possibly poorly) designed when > initially released in a low-ally environment, and now that there is a > fairly strong deck archetype (well, a number of very similar > archetypes) that is 100% ally based, the card is even more broken and > needs to be redesigned (made unique, cost increased, change > requirements, etc.) or banned. Comparisons with Pentex Subversion are > inevitable. I believe the fact that Pentex Subversion costs two pool > and is unique balances its enormous power. Memories needs some kind of > fix to bring it in line with PS. Is there any consensus on this? Is > the design team investigating this card? OK, I think we all agree that errata are generally a bad idea, however, for the sake of argument, I'll give you my point of view. First, ally decks are certainly my favourite archetype so you would expect a certain bias on my part. However, I am in broad agreement with your point by point analysis. So what ought one to do? The thematic point about only working with regard to mortal allies is fair, although one could also argue that the "memories" aspect could relate to fear, rather than simple guilt/shame, so afflicted vamps could simply be too scared to hit warghouls and garou. However, thematic arguments aside, adding the words 'mortal allies only' would mean that Imbued could still play the card and they are perhaps the main beneficiaries and abusers of the card at the moment. My recommendation for the simplest fix possible, which wouldn't confuse newbies too much, wouldn't require massive re-writes and would remove the devastating mass use effects, would simply be to make the card unique. This would bring the card more in line with effects like Pentex Subversion, still has a useful power (neutralizing a single vampire, and super star decks should always be a risky strategy) and still justifies the inclusion of several copies in a deck. As someone who plays a lot of allies, I'm relying on and using it a lot less and could certainly live with it being made unique. More later ...

In article <1184565565.6...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I believe this card is currently in quite serious need of revisioning > or banning. It is: > - non-unique > - master and therefore unblockable > - has a very low pool cost and no real opportunity cost > - provides an enormously strong effect for any ally based deck > - has a horrible cost to remove, > - was designed for an environment where allies could be a small or > medium component of a deck, not the only source of minions in the deck > (i.e. Imbued). This is all totally valid. Although on the last point, while Memories was designed for an environment where allies were minimal and janky, and the Imbued were 10 years in the future, the Imbued themselves were designed for an environment that had Memories of Mortality--i.e. yeah, the guy who came up with Memories only had, like, Arms Dealers and Bane Mummies to work with, the people who designed and tested the Imbued had Memories to work with. And it is possible that the Imbued work the way they do simply *because* Memories is as powerful as it is (although I suspect that the Imbued were envisioned as being less effective overall than they turned out to be in the wild, so even if originally the thought linking Memories and the Imbued was "it is the only thing that will make them playable...", which may or may not have been the case, as it turns out, the Imbued are really powerful, and could probably use a kick in the junk anyway, and tweaking down Memories could certainly be a nice, easy, small kick in the junk). That being said, yeah, I totally agree with you, and support tweaking Memories. What to do? Clearly the easiest and most obvious tweak is just to make it unique. Not difficult to remember. Doesn't actually change the way the card works. Has minimal impact on decks that were only planning on playing one of them in the first place. Make it unique. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija wrote: > That being said, yeah, I totally agree with you, and support tweaking > Memories. What to do? Clearly the easiest and most obvious tweak is just > to make it unique. Not difficult to remember. Doesn't actually change > the way the card works. Has minimal impact on decks that were only > planning on playing one of them in the first place. > > Make it unique. Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on a Camarilla vampire".

In article <RYJmi.1599$Dx2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card > on > a Camarilla vampire". That also might work well--a bit more complicated (in that it requires adding, like, 7 words to the card instead of 1, but ya know, not a huge issue :-), but good none the less. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <RYJmi.1599$Dx2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card >> on >> a Camarilla vampire". > > That also might work well--a bit more complicated (in that it requires > adding, like, 7 words to the card instead of 1, but ya know, not a huge > issue :-), but good none the less. It adds one word, not seven.

On Jul 16, 2:27?pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > In article <RYJmi.1599$Dx2....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card > >> on > >> a Camarilla vampire". I wasn't under the impression that thematically appropriate was a primary guiding principle of game design (or rather card balance/ modification). Thematically visualizing the contestation of a unique Memories may be a little odd, but not much stranger than contesting Fame. Camarilla only is certainly as elegant and simple as changing the card to unique, the cards utility and viability would probably be reduced more if it was 'Camarilla' only, though. This seems to be too big a change, telling a player that a card now effects only one sect seems to be more sweeping than only one vampire (at any one time), but the categories are rather different and require some reflection.

LSJ a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Actually it would be the worst errata ever.

Temporis wrote: > On Jul 16, 2:27?pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> In article <RYJmi.1599$Dx2....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, >>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card >>>> on >>>> a Camarilla vampire". > > I wasn't under the impression that thematically appropriate was a > primary guiding principle of game design (or rather card balance/ > modification). Thematically visualizing the contestation of a unique > Memories may be a little odd, but not much stranger than contesting > Fame. ? It isn't. Nor is it stated or suggested that it is above. > Camarilla only is certainly as elegant and simple as changing the card > to unique, the cards utility and viability would probably be reduced > more if it was 'Camarilla' only, though. If the premise is that the card is overpowered, then "fix" involves reduction in utility, yes. > This seems to be too big a change, telling a player that a card now > effects only one sect seems to be more sweeping than only one vampire > (at any one time), but the categories are rather different and require > some reflection. Reflection is appreciated, yes (not directed at you, just agreeing).

[ quoted text not captured ] What is currently the worst? How would the above be worse than that, specifically?

On Jul 16, 3:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on > a Camarilla vampire". Or, "Put this card on a vampire with capacity less than X" (I would suggest 9 for the sake of fatties). -Antero

[ quoted text not captured ] True, very similar, theme-wsie. But the non-Cams tend to be the ones on paths other than humanity. And that change also involves remembering what X is.

In article <1184597487.1...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, antero <nom...@jippii.fi> wrote: > Or, "Put this card on a vampire with capacity less than X" (I would > suggest 9 for the sake of fatties). While not a horrible idea, I think any errata that is being proposed, at the base line, needs to be as simple as possible, in the name of not scaring folks with excessive errata--the simpler it is, the easier it is to remember, and the easier it is to explain to folks playing with un-updated cards who don't know the card has been errataed. Making it unique is incredibly simple to implement. Requiring the target to be Camarilla is almost as simple, and has a nice thematic element to it. Requiring the target to be younger that X (whatever X is) isn't bad, in and of itself, but is certainly more complicated than the other two (it is easy to misremember X as 8 or 9 or 7...) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <469b7a08$0$16740$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Actually it would be the worst errata ever. Why? It is: -Fairly simple. It only requires adding a single card to the card text: "Put this card on a [Camarilla] vampire," -Powers the card down considerably (most of the vampires in the game *are not* Camarilla). -Makes it less likely to show up in general (higher opportunity cost = less incentive to play in multiples). -Thematically appropriate. -Kind of sticks it to the Camarilla, who always need a sticking it to anyway (what with the 2nd Tradition/Parity Shift/PTO that everyone else is jealous of still...) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <rnKmi.1603$Dx2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It adds one word, not seven. Completely correct. Objection based on words: withdrawn! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 16, 7:59 am, Dasein <dasein2...@hotmail.com> wrote: > There are snippets of conversation about this card in various threads. > I think it deserves one of its own. > > I believe this card is currently in quite serious need of revisioning > or banning. ... Actually I do not see this serious need. Granted this is a strong card, but there are other strong cards in this game as well. War Ghoul, Parity Shift, DI, you name them. There are 15 Imbued decks in the Lasombra's TWD (at least 15 of them are playing Edge Explosion, this what I checked). The count of Memories in those decks were 2,5,4,5,5,2,4,0,6,2,0,3,2,2,6 = 48 in total. So the average Imbued deck is playing 3.2 MoM. There is Sudden Reversal, there is Wash. If the table is not able to handle this, so be it. Imbued need time to build up and the are by no means invulnerable. If, on the other hand, you let the Imbued player play his game undisturbed, then this is the mistake, not the MoM. Regards, Ralf

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <469b7a08$0$16740$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, > reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Actually it would be the worst errata ever. > > Why? > > It is: > > -Fairly simple. It only requires adding a single card to the card > text: "Put this card on a [Camarilla] vampire," > > -Powers the card down considerably (most of the vampires in the game > *are not* Camarilla). > In fact, why to disavantage cammies ? By the WoD canon, cammies (especially old ones) can be wicked as much as sabbat or setites (see Elysium, the elder wars for example), they jusy hide their losing humanity behind the masquerade. The card in itself, if an errata has for it to be made at all, could be just made unique or, better, changing the burning clause to somewhat less terrible (like, "this vampire can burn this card during his/her discard by burning two blood"). Emiliano

In message <C7Omi.179$BM...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >In fact, why to disavantage cammies ? Thematically, the Camarilla are largely on the Path of Humanity. Many non-Camarilla clans / sects follow other paths. Certainly, there are exceptions all over the place but, by and large, that's how it goes. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 16, 11:50 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > In article <469b7a08$0$16740$79c14...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, > > reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Actually it would be the worst errata ever. > > > Why? > > > It is: > > > -Fairly simple. It only requires adding a single card to the card > > text: "Put this card on a [Camarilla] vampire," > > > -Powers the card down considerably (most of the vampires in the game > > *are not* Camarilla). > > In fact, why to disavantage cammies ? > By the WoD canon, cammies (especially old ones) can be wicked as much as > sabbat > or setites (see Elysium, the elder wars for example), they jusy hide > their losing humanity behind the masquerade. > > The card in itself, if an errata has for it to be made at all, could > be just made unique or, better, changing the burning clause to > somewhat less terrible (like, "this vampire can burn this card during > his/her discard by burning two blood"). ..or if similar costs are observed such as the 1 point of aggravated damage that Rutor's Hand inflicts, then 3 blood is the more appropriate cost. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp ...but then again I think that 128 is the number of angels will fit on the head of a pin.

In message <pdb6-F2F46B.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >-Makes it less likely to show up in general (higher opportunity cost = >less incentive to play in multiples). This one would be the problem, for me. Of course, any downpowering would make it slightly less likely to show up. But this one would make it much more random as to whether the card could be used or not. Grand-predator playing the Cammie deck? Sucks to be you. When it's a random hoser-ish effect, you can't easily use it to empower a forward-going strategy. I don't think that, in small numbers, it should be that much to entirely overwhelm a deck - such as one vampire, say. Changing it to Camarilla would rob it of general applicability. And yes, downgrade it in the process. However, I'd rather see it be something like "One per (target) Methuselah" or "Unique" or similar. It can still be used in an offensive fashion with some reliability, but without being able to stack it up lots. Screwing the Camarilla slightly wouldn't be a bad thing, and it would be thematically appropriate. But I fear it would just mean the card didn't get played much at all - much like superior Thoughts Betrayed almost never makes an appearance these days. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <C7Omi.179$BM...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > In fact, why to disavantage cammies ? 'Cause thematically, they are the ones who (at least as far as I understand) are most likely to remember Mortality. And game balance wise, well, they are still the most powerful sect. If Memories could only target Camarilla, nothing would change for them (they'd still be in the exact same place) and all the non Camarilla clans would get a bit of an upgrade. [ quoted text not captured ]

But I fear it would just mean the card didn't > get played much at all - much like superior Thoughts Betrayed almost > never makes an appearance these days. You so crazy! Thoughts betrayed actually makes press combat viable. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1184607688....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, extrala <ralf.l...@gmx.de> wrote: > If the table is not able to handle this, so be it. Imbued need time to > build up and the are by no means invulnerable. If, on the other hand, > you let the Imbued player play his game undisturbed, then this is the > mistake, not the MoM. This is the same faulty logic that props up *all* overpowered cards ("Return to Innocence isn't overpowered! You can deflect it! Or the table can gang up on them!"). And the end result is that, still, some cards are overpowered. Memories is, certainly now with the Imbued, pretty darn powerful, and arguably overpowerful. Even with Sudden Reversal/Wash and, ya know, letting the Imbued player not play his game undisturbed. Is the game going to explode if Memories isn't tweaked? Not at all. But still, many folks embrace the idea that the Imbued are more powerful than they probably should be. And tweaking Memories is a nice, not excessive, downtweaking for them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <M5wsk4QR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > This one would be the problem, for me. > > Of course, any downpowering would make it slightly less likely to show > up. But this one would make it much more random as to whether the card > could be used or not. Grand-predator playing the Cammie deck? Sucks to > be you. Well, sure. But if the intention is to make the card less generally effective, making it more random certainly does that. I mean, yeah, I'm kind of more in favor of making it unique, but making it more random is certainly just as much of a hamstring. > Screwing the Camarilla slightly wouldn't be a bad thing, and it would be > thematically appropriate. But I fear it would just mean the card didn't > get played much at all - much like superior Thoughts Betrayed almost > never makes an appearance these days. Maybe, maybe not. I mean, like, the Camarilla shows up enough that including a Memories or two in most Imbued decks would still usually pay off. (I suspect that Thoughts Betrayed doesn't show up much not 'cause of the errata, but because of the cost, especially when Telepathic Tracking does more or less the same thing for less cost for the clan most likely to use TB). [ quoted text not captured ]

> Actually I do not see this serious need. Granted this is a strong > card, but there are other strong cards in this game as well. War > Ghoul, Parity Shift, DI, you name them. Sure. Parity Shift is next on my hitlist :) DI is kinda too, not because it's too powerful, but because it's too disruptive. In a way it is "anti-powerful", in that it stops people getting their decks to do what they are supposed to do. And can ruin people's strategies cross-table in the middle of a combat between two unrelated players. But that's another debate for another time We're talking about Memories here. > are playing Edge Explosion, this what I checked). The count of > Memories in those decks were 2,5,4,5,5,2,4,0,6,2,0,3,2,2,6 = 48 in > total. So the average Imbued deck is playing 3.2 MoM. There is Sudden > Reversal, there is Wash. That is a weak argument against a powerful master card. So if there was a master card that said "You gain 10 pool. Your prey loses 10 pool.", you would say "oh that card's not overpowered, it can be Suddened"? Of course there are answers to things, but - sometimes you don't have the answers - it is unfair to force people to significantly re-engineer their decks to deal with an overpowered card. But I don't want to go far down that road right now. > If the table is not able to handle this, so be it. Imbued need time to > build up and the are by no means invulnerable. If, on the other hand, > you let the Imbued player play his game undisturbed, then this is the > mistake, not the MoM. I haven't had a huge amount of experience with Imbued on a table, but from what I've seen, most players don't "let" them play undisturbed, they're just not particularly able to do much about it, since Imbued can throw down a large number of powers on the table in one turn, can continually recycle cards that give "monsters" (i.e. everything else in the game besides Imbued) -1 intercept, can recycle +bleed or +damage to strike cards, are immune to a large number of staple VTES cards (Rotschreck, DotB, Taste, Disarm{????}, etc.), and so on. But I don't want to go too far down that road in this thread. This thread is just about Memories. I think it is too strong and should be made unique.

On Jul 16, 2:10 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > Screwing the Camarilla slightly wouldn't be a bad thing, and it would be > thematically appropriate. But I fear it would just mean the card didn't > get played much at all - much like superior Thoughts Betrayed almost > never makes an appearance these days. My fear would be that it would get played cross-table because "I have to cycle it" and it ends up screwing up the other end of the table for no real reason. I don't play cammies much, and agree with the thematic application of that restriction. If there's a consensus being taken, put me in the "Unique" column. **My fix idea would never be implemented due to it being wordy and totally changing the card, but: "Burn this card if this vampire goes to torpor".

> > Make it unique. > > Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on > a Camarilla vampire". Mmm, not so sure about that. One could argue that because Camarilla vampires actively strive to retain their humanity, they'd have an easier time of dealing with a memory of their mortal past. A typical Camarilla Elder is already tormented by the thoughts of what he can never be again. Whereas, say an Elder Sabbat vampire who's spent centuries living the life of a monster is suddenly reminded of his childhood sweetheart or whatever, he's going to have a much harder time dealing with that influx of totally new and unfamiliar regret, sadness, etc. Camarilla vamps are full of angst about not being mortal anymore anyways. It's the non-humanity vamps who'd really get a kick in the bollocks from an unwanted and unbidden human memory. But aside from that, Clan/Sect hosers haven't really been a feature of the game for some time now. I think it'd be a bad move to return to those days. I think making MoM unique is a much better option.

In article <1184633523.4...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > My fear would be that it would get played cross-table because "I have > to cycle it" and it ends up screwing up the other end of the table > for no real reason. What is playing Memories of Mortality cross table going to do that will screw up the other end of the table? If I'm the Imbued, and my grand prey is the only guy with a Camarilla vampire, and I play memories on him just to cycle it, how is that going to hinder or hurt him in any way? While I'm not sitting next to him, it doesn't do anything (well, likely--yeah, maybe it keeps him from, uh, killing a Neighborhood Watch Commander?). When I am sitting next to him and the memories starts paying off, it is no longer cross table shenanagins, but instead just good play. Yeah, if my grand predator is *also* playing an Allies deck and I cross table Memories someone, that is just being dumb. But most of the time, cross table Memories play is going to be mostly totally irrelevant. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on > a Camarilla vampire". Mmm, dunno about that. Camarilla vampires have to deal with the angst of their lost Humanity every night. The struggle to retain some sense of that Humanity under the weight of the Beast is kinda what defines the morality of the Camarilla. One could argue that a vampire on a path of Enlightenment [sabbat, indies] would be less used to dealing with the thoughts of lost Mortality, and thus, the impact of suddenly coming across a victim who looks exactly like a centuries dead childhood sweetheart [or whatever] would be much more severe. They're suddenly confronted with all these emotions - regret, sorrow, blah blah, that a vampire on Humanity has already had some experience in dealing with. Besides, clan/sect hosers are a thing of the past. No need to start resurrecting the concept. Much better just to make it unique if you want to stop the imbued getting a free ride imo.

In message <pdb6-AE57EC.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >What is playing Memories of Mortality cross table going to do that will >screw up the other end of the table? If I'm the Imbued, and my grand >prey is the only guy with a Camarilla vampire, and I play memories on >him just to cycle it, how is that going to hinder or hurt him in any way? One example: bounce. Me: "Okay Peter, I'm going to bleed you... I'm just not sure how. Okay, Beatrice Tremblay comes across to bleed you with a Strike with Conviction and her built in bleed, for 3." You: "Bounce you to Wookie." Wookie: "I block with Oliver Thrace. Oh shit, he's got Memories on him, damn you." (Note that this example is provided as an example of how it could hinder or hurt, without being intended as a compelling argument one way or the other. Take apart as you see fit.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Screw thematics. The whole sidetrack is annoying. Arika still dies to Koko. Got thematics? Unique. Screw thematics.

In message <pdb6-F58072.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <M5wsk4QR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> This one would be the problem, for me. >> >> Of course, any downpowering would make it slightly less likely to show >> up. But this one would make it much more random as to whether the card >> could be used or not. Grand-predator playing the Cammie deck? Sucks to >> be you. > >Well, sure. But if the intention is to make the card less generally >effective, making it more random certainly does that. I mean, yeah, I'm >kind of more in favor of making it unique, but making it more random is >certainly just as much of a hamstring. It is, but it shoots the card in the foot. You can't any longer rely on it being useful to you, which is a shame. There are ways of making cards less useful or less powerful *without* making them more random. Also, if the randomness were something like "Against Cammies you get <effect X>, against non-Cammies you get <some other effect>" that would also not be too bad. But you just wouldn't be able to use it at all. For example, Pentex Subversion is a strong card - though with drawbacks - which can be used positively by most decks and they can usually plan to use it. It will hit the vast majority of decks (some freakish master only decks that never do anything except bring out Anson would be the exception). You can plan to make good use of it. If it were cheaper but only said "Sabbat vampire", it would be a generally worse card. You can't plan to use it. It might be a throwaway include, metagame depending. I don't think we want to take cards that can empower strategies and make them prayer cards. Preferably, they should empower the strategy less, or more expensively, or whatever. They can still be used in a thoughtful, constructive way which you can plan for, but they don't become a coin-toss as to whether they're even playable not. >Maybe, maybe not. I mean, like, the Camarilla shows up enough that >including a Memories or two in most Imbued decks would still usually pay >off. (I suspect that Thoughts Betrayed doesn't show up much not 'cause >of the errata, but because of the cost, especially when Telepathic >Tracking does more or less the same thing for less cost for the clan >most likely to use TB). The errata could, of course, have either changed the cost or made a more powerful card (than the current version) with that cost. But you can't really rely on it to do, well, most things these days. Yes, it was overly powerful, but keeping it a card that you could plan to use for a positive effect without it being such a powerful effect overall would have been nicer. Same here. Whether a Camarilla vampire will be bothering you may well be as random as whether strike cards will concern you at all. Other sources of stealth or combat defence might just be simpler and more reliable, so Memories gets moved into the prayer card pile. Also, if - as seems to be the suggestion - it's only really the Imbued + Memories that's causing serious problems, it would be a shame to screw the card for, say, War Ghouls, Shamblers, or whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe schrieb: > Also, if - as seems to be the suggestion - it's only really the Imbued + > Memories that's causing serious problems, it would be a shame to screw > the card for, say, War Ghouls, Shamblers, or whatever. Of course. Because War Ghouls, as powerful as the may be, can愒 bleed you for 2-3 each turn. The problematic situation is not using Memories as a combat enabler for allies but using it as a way to make your Imbued愀 bleed generally unblockable for your prey while also preventing your prey from backrushing them, practically leaving him massive bloat or backoust as the only option to survive. So another possible tweak could be to exclude the Imbued from the effect. Damn Imbued should never have been printed in the first place :( Johannes

Oko schrieb: > Screw thematics. The whole sidetrack is annoying. > > Arika still dies to Koko. Got thematics? > > Unique. Screw thematics. > Arika still dies to Jake Washington Concealing a Saturday Night Special and using DBR *and* gets graverobbed by Ohanna. Just the turn after you brought her out and didn´t draw one of your Obediences. But then again she deserves it ;-) Johannes

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, Obedience is so useful against allies.

Wookie813 wrote: > My fear would be that it would get played cross-table because "I have > to cycle it" and it ends up screwing up the other end of the table > for no real reason. Likely not to screw that section, since your the one playing allies. > I don't play cammies much, and agree with the thematic application of > that restriction. > > If there's a consensus being taken, put me in the "Unique" column. That would be a poll, not a consensus. And, no, neither is being taken. Just looking for some constructive input (as in your first two paragraphs, thanks).

nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote: >>> Make it unique. >> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on >> a Camarilla vampire". > > Mmm, not so sure about that. One could argue that because Camarilla > vampires actively strive to retain their humanity, they'd have an > easier time of dealing with a memory of their mortal past. Yes, one could argue anything. But the fact remains that it is the Camarilla who have closer ties to their conflicted memories of mortality (remaining, in general, on the path of humanity rather than either being on one of the alternate paths or simply not having a conflict with their mortal past in the case of Laibon).

James Coupe wrote: > Also, if - as seems to be the suggestion - it's only really the Imbued + > Memories that's causing serious problems, it would be a shame to screw > the card for, say, War Ghouls, Shamblers, or whatever. It is not only the Imbued + Memories. It's memories.

LSJ wrote: > Wookie813 wrote: >> My fear would be that it would get played cross-table because "I have >> to cycle it" and it ends up screwing up the other end of the table >> for no real reason. > > Likely not to screw that section, since your the one playing allies. "you're" geh [ quoted text not captured ]

Klai...@gmail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] s/Obediences/Majesties/

In article <eCSYKMwd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > It is, but it shoots the card in the foot. You can't any longer rely on > it being useful to you, which is a shame. There are ways of making > cards less useful or less powerful *without* making them more random. Well, yes. I'm more pro the nice, simple, "unique" adjustment, myself, more so than the "only Camarilla" adjustment, but I'd be ok with the "only Camarilla" adjustment too--more damaging to the use of the card, yes, but has a certain cleverness to it that I like. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6VQhvsuU...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > (Note that this example is provided as an example of how it could hinder > or hurt, without being intended as a compelling argument one way or the > other. Take apart as you see fit.) Well, yes, bounce is a possibility as to how this sort of thing can, in fact, 'cause some damage cross table. But it is going to be pretty minimal damage cross table (are you going to Memories *every* vampire your cross table ally has available?) I think the "I was just cleaning my Memories and it accidentally went off" and landed on someone cross table, just to cycle it, is a pretty minimal problem with changing the card to "Camarilla only". Again, I prefer "Unique". But not so much over the "Only Camarilla" that I can't see that it would be a possibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok, my 2-cents about the subject : - making Memories Unique would suck ; it tunes the card down too much to make it playable - making it Camarilla-only fits the theme, and anything anti-cammies *should* be good ; but in effect it just makes the playing of the card totally random : still great against cammies, useless otherwise... nah, not good - the real problem with Memories is the "go to torpor" part. Making it just "pay 2 blood" to remove, and maybe even add a "and do not untap the vampire as normal at your next untap phase" would tune it down considerably, as the main problem is the "non-removeness", and still it would be playable - the "only 1 per methuselah" is another solution. I like it less, but it works to tune it down and the card still stays useful. - and a new suggestion : if thematically the younger vampires are closer to their humanity, maybe a "only playable on a vampire under X" (seven ?) would be a nice clause. Or the cost could be augmented on bigger vampires (either a fixed cost or somthing like :"if the target vampire is above 6, this card costs +X, where X is the capacity of the vampire -6"). As for Imbued, the 2 problems that I can identify with them are : - all the cards that should thematically and for balance purposes affect them, but don't : Taste of Vitae, Fame, Banishment... Changing the card text of those cards would help a great deal. - the conditions for killing Imbued are too drastic, or maybe the rejuvenation of Imbued is too easy. They should stay in the hospital longer, and then maybe hurting them would we a little more useful. Of course this helps mainly combat strategies against them, but it can make the difference. Deadly Yours, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > - and a new suggestion : if thematically the younger vampires are closer to > their humanity, maybe a "only playable on a vampire under X" (seven ?) would > be a nice clause. That's already on the table. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4411b12ce625b61f > Or the cost could be augmented on bigger vampires (either > a fixed cost or somthing like :"if the target vampire is above 6, this card > costs +X, where X is the capacity of the vampire -6"). Or you could mix-n-match sect and capacity, as in Antithesis (which has the same sort of conflict-with-morality concept in the backstory). > As for Imbued, the 2 problems that I can identify with them are : > > - all the cards that should thematically and for balance purposes affect > them, but don't : Taste of Vitae, Fame, Banishment... Changing the card text > of those cards would help a great deal. Taste shouldn't thematically affect mortals. Neither Banishment. Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should".

LSJ schrieb: > Orpheus wrote: >> - all the cards that should thematically and for balance purposes >> affect them, but don't : Taste of Vitae, Fame, Banishment... Changing >> the card text of those cards would help a great deal. > > Taste shouldn't thematically affect mortals. > Neither Banishment. > Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should". Only if you emphasize the thematical "correctness". On the other hand sucking up the blood from a Sniper Rifle strike is pretty stupid (in regards to the "theme") as well. Balance-wise I think all of the 3 should affect Imbued. Johannes "Themebuster421" Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] I would personally prefer that the card remain generally playable, rather than narrowing it to a single sect. Even somewhat broad limitations, like Antithesis' "non-sabbat vampire" clause, have been enough to prevent me from seriously considering the card as anything more than corner-case. While I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to see the card disappear entirely, that's probably not the design goal. Uniqueness would make the card play more strategic; players may cycle the card by playing it on some unimportant nerd immediately or bide their time until a more potent threat appears. Uniqueness also gives the opponent a chance to play a copy defensively, to contest (as several "squishy" decks already do with Fame). witness1

On Jul 17, 7:49 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It is not only the Imbued + Memories. It's memories. That's what I think too. For whatever it's worth, I've objected to the card strongly since before the imbued were printed. The imbued are merely bringing the problematic effect into the foreground. -- David Cherryholmes

Johannes Walch wrote: > LSJ schrieb: >> Orpheus wrote: >>> - all the cards that should thematically and for balance purposes >>> affect them, but don't : Taste of Vitae, Fame, Banishment... Changing >>> the card text of those cards would help a great deal. >> >> Taste shouldn't thematically affect mortals. >> Neither Banishment. >> Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should". > > Only if you emphasize the thematical "correctness". If the context is what thematically "should be", you talk about theme. QED See Orpheus's quote above, which sets the context. (and was quoted for context).

> Johannes Walch wrote: >> LSJ schrieb: >>> Orpheus wrote: >>>> - all the cards that should thematically and for balance purposes >>>> affect them, but don't : Taste of Vitae, Fame, Banishment... Changing >>>> the card text of those cards would help a great deal. >>> >>> Taste shouldn't thematically affect mortals. Why, because Vitae is so much stronger ? We're talking about Imbued here, I know in the RPG the Werewolves, Mages etc's blood is more nourishing than simple mortal's, how are Imbued to that reguard ? Anyway, human's blood is nourishing too, just less so than vampire's. >>> Neither Banishment. Why is that ? It all depends on how you interpret Banishment : is it from the vampiric society (in which case you're right) or from current existence in the settings of the game, in which I am ? >>> Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should". Well, the "logic" behind Fame applies no matter what's your race, I'd say... >> Only if you emphasize the thematical "correctness". > > If the context is what thematically "should be", you talk about theme. > QED > > See Orpheus's quote above, which sets the context. > (and was quoted for context). Yes, I was talking about both but you specified what you referred to, no problem. Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: >> Johannes Walch wrote: >>> LSJ schrieb: >>>> Orpheus wrote: >>>>> - all the cards that should thematically and for balance purposes >>>>> affect them, but don't : Taste of Vitae, Fame, Banishment... Changing >>>>> the card text of those cards would help a great deal. >>>> Taste shouldn't thematically affect mortals. > > Why, because Vitae is so much stronger ? We're talking about Imbued here, I > know in the RPG the Werewolves, Mages etc's blood is more nourishing than > simple mortal's, how are Imbued to that reguard ? The same as other mortals: thin. > Anyway, human's blood is nourishing too, just less so than vampire's. And less so than the threshold for Taste of Vitae, just like Garou blood is less than than threshold. (Vampiric-level-potency being the threshold) >>>> Neither Banishment. > > Why is that ? It all depends on how you interpret Banishment : is it from > the vampiric society (in which case you're right) or from current existence > in the settings of the game, in which I am ? Vampiric Society. >>>> Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should". > > Well, the "logic" behind Fame applies no matter what's your race, I'd say... The imbued isn't seen dying, just being severely wounded. The vampire is seen dying (in the context of Fame). Miraculous recovery is a phrase bandied about in hospitals. Miraculous resurrection after weeks of being dead, well, not so much. That sort of thing makes the front page.

>> Why, because Vitae is so much stronger ? We're talking about Imbued here, >> I know in the RPG the Werewolves, Mages etc's blood is more nourishing >> than simple mortal's, how are Imbued to that reguard ? > > The same as other mortals: thin. Ok then. >> Anyway, human's blood is nourishing too, just less so than vampire's. > > And less so than the threshold for Taste of Vitae, just like Garou blood > is less than than threshold. (Vampiric-level-potency being the threshold) Ok. >>>>> Neither Banishment. >> >> Why is that ? It all depends on how you interpret Banishment : is it from >> the vampiric society (in which case you're right) or from current >> existence in the settings of the game, in which I am ? > > Vampiric Society. Then you're right. ;-) >>>>> Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should". >> >> Well, the "logic" behind Fame applies no matter what's your race, I'd >> say... > > The imbued isn't seen dying, just being severely wounded. The vampire is > seen dying (in the context of Fame). > > Miraculous recovery is a phrase bandied about in hospitals. Sure. Still, they recover "miraculously" too easily for my taste (in VTES). > Miraculous resurrection after weeks of being dead, well, not so much. That > sort of thing makes the front page. I see. Interesting thinking behind the cards... ---- Orpheus

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, LSJ wrote: > The imbued isn't seen dying, just being severely wounded. The vampire is seen > dying (in the context of Fame). > > Miraculous recovery is a phrase bandied about in hospitals. > Miraculous resurrection after weeks of being dead, well, not so much. That > sort of thing makes the front page. Then shouldn't the pool be lost when the Famous vampire is rescued from torpor and then continue as long as that guy isn't in torpor? Anyway, just a general comment here. My only concern with some of these MoM suggestions is that it could move some Imbued decks into the "feast or famine" column. I think the best fix for the card would be to make it easier to get rid of it. It could be free, but burn during the controller's (the Methuselah who played it) untap phase. Or maybe "tap and burn 1 blood to burn it" avoiding the trip to torpor. This way Imbued decks could still have a better shot at tooling up, by removing a potential blocker for a turn, but they wouldn't get to permanently memoriesize each minion controlled by their prey. Making MoM unique doesn't seem to make a lot of thematic sense. Only one vampire at a time can have angsty guilt? Do they take numbers and wait in line or something? Restricting MoM to Camarilla vampires is a bit more thematic, but kind of makes the card a random shot in the dark to include in a deck. It could lead to Feast or Famine. A capacity restriction is a nice idea, but that pretty much just invites Wormwood abuse, doesn't it? Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, LSJ wrote: > >> The imbued isn't seen dying, just being severely wounded. The vampire >> is seen dying (in the context of Fame). >> >> Miraculous recovery is a phrase bandied about in hospitals. >> Miraculous resurrection after weeks of being dead, well, not so much. >> That sort of thing makes the front page. > > Then shouldn't the pool be lost when the Famous vampire is rescued from > torpor and then continue as long as that guy isn't in torpor? The former, sure. Or you could take it as the influence spent covering up the "death" -- hush money and so forth. The latter would be paid the same (1-per-untap-that-he-was-away), as part of the ongoing effort of the entire community to cover-up the events until the vampire could make his face seen again. > Anyway, just a general comment here. My only concern with some of these > MoM suggestions is that it could move some Imbued decks into the "feast > or famine" column. I think the best fix for the card would be to make > it easier to get rid of it. It could be free, but burn during the > controller's (the Methuselah who played it) untap phase. Or maybe "tap > and burn 1 blood to burn it" avoiding the trip to torpor. This way > Imbued decks could still have a better shot at tooling up, by removing a > potential blocker for a turn, but they wouldn't get to permanently > memoriesize each minion controlled by their prey. > > Making MoM unique doesn't seem to make a lot of thematic sense. Only > one vampire at a time can have angsty guilt? Do they take numbers and Well, Fame is also unthematically unique. As is depravity, tellingly. > wait in line or something? Restricting MoM to Camarilla vampires is a > bit more thematic, but kind of makes the card a random shot in the dark > to include in a deck. It could lead to Feast or Famine. A capacity > restriction is a nice idea, but that pretty much just invites Wormwood > abuse, doesn't it? Yes.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <C7Omi.179$BM...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> In fact, why to disavantage cammies ? > > 'Cause thematically, they are the ones who (at least as far as I > understand) are most likely to remember Mortality. And game balance > wise, well, they are still the most powerful sect. If Memories could > only target Camarilla, nothing would change for them (they'd still be > in the exact same place) and all the non Camarilla clans would get a > bit of an upgrade. "Theme" has never been, to my understanding, the criteria for rewording cards for balance, however. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] It still isn't. That's already been covered.

LSJ wrote: > antero wrote: >> On Jul 16, 3:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> >>> >>> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put >>> this card on a Camarilla vampire". >> >> Or, "Put this card on a vampire with capacity less than X" (I would >> suggest 9 for the sake of fatties). > > True, very similar, theme-wsie. > But the non-Cams tend to be the ones on paths other than humanity. > A vampire with with 3-4 humanity it's already between unfeeling and cold, likely to not be interested at all in human affairs or even to look like human (at 2 on path of humanity you're just bestial). Lots of cammies can be on that range actually - as vampires age they lose their humanity, and cammies tend to be older that vampires of other sects (above all sabbat) usually. Anyway, i really hope no change/errata will be based on "theme" considerations best Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Anyway, i really hope no change/errata will be based on "theme" > considerations Change or errata, once warranted by balance criteria, can often be implemented in a variety of ways that are more or less equal from a balance perspective (cf. this thread). There's no reason to ignore theme when choosing from among the implementations. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Make Memories of Mortality Scarce. DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns99709DA6D2...@207.115.33.102: > > > Make Memories of Mortality Scarce. > Oh, and re-write the Scarce rule, so you can apply it to any permanent fielded. Maybe even add a scale to it; Scarce(1) +1 pool per scarce card, by card name, or by clan for vampires Scarce(2) +2 pool per... Scarce(3) +3 pool per... this would give you three different scales of scarcity costs to use 1, 2, 3... 2, 4, 6... 3, 6, 9... A card without a numerical scarcity rating would default to Scarce(3), to cover existing Scarce Vampires (or, you could say that Scarce Crypt cards default to Scarce (3), whatever). DaveZ Atom Weaver

In article <ih8ni.1664$BM....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > "Theme" has never been, to my understanding, the criteria for > rewording cards for balance, however. That is completely true. But given the choice between, say, 2 equally effective nerfs to a card (say, between, making it Unique and making it only playable on a Camarilla vampire--it is arguably that the latter is much more of a hamstring, but maybe not), going with the thematically appropriate one is not unreasonable. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. His qouted text say "thematically" and for "balance purposes". You commented on the thematic part and my response was basically that this shouldn´t be a concern (with according comparison). Also I added that in terms of balance I thought they should all affect the imbued which didn´t relate to your comment on "thematical correctness" but as a confirmation on his statement. Well, nitpicking anyway ;-) Johannes "Nitpicker666" Walch

With regards to a possible change to Memories of Mortality, I agree with others who have said that making the card unique is an effective and simple change. Another possibility that might be worth considering would be to change the phase in which the burning of MoM happens, perhaps to the master phase. This would likewise only change 1 word, though it would still be a bit harder to remember than uniqueness. Regarding the idea of having MoM target Camarilla vampires only, I agree with James Coupe's point that it would effectively increase the amount of randomness in terms of whom your cards do and do not work on. I would point out the irony of bringing up such a point in a thread largely concerned with the Imbued, who have a tendency to make a wide swath of general utility cards (mostly having to do with combat) completely unplayable.

On Jul 17, 1:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > >>> Make it unique. > >> Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on > >> a Camarilla vampire". > > > Mmm, not so sure about that. One could argue that because Camarilla > > vampires actively strive to retain their humanity, they'd have an > > easier time of dealing with a memory of their mortal past. > > Yes, one could argue anything. > > But the fact remains that it is the Camarilla who have closer ties to their > conflicted memories of mortality (remaining, in general, on the path of humanity > rather than either being on one of the alternate paths or simply not having a > conflict with their mortal past in the case of Laibon). I would actually prefer memories being restricted to vampires of capacity 7 and below, than to camarilla. That's more thematically appropriate imo as well (as to who gets conflicted memories, I think nicholas chang is more likely to than jaroslav pascek.) I think it should be restricted or changed in some way, at least. There's no 'sit on your hands and watch the game played' card like MoM. Just renaming influence phase to master phase on the card would be enough as well. Cheers, Bram

In message <pdb6-DD6565.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <6VQhvsuU...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> (Note that this example is provided as an example of how it could hinder >> or hurt, without being intended as a compelling argument one way or the >> other. Take apart as you see fit.) > >Well, yes, bounce is a possibility as to how this sort of thing can, in >fact, 'cause some damage cross table. But it is going to be pretty >minimal damage cross table (are you going to Memories *every* vampire >your cross table ally has available?) No. Are you assuming that that happens the turn after I played it? If you have some bounce in your deck and know I'll be trying to bleed you a bit, will you: - try to leave Wookie (your prey) with vampires who won't be able to block me OR - try to leave Wookie (your prey) with vampires who will be able to block me? So you try to thump one or two vampires using, say, Constanza Vinti and Anvil but pick the ones that haven't been Memories-ed first. So you've just pounded one vampire into torpor, another is about to come out (but isn't yet), and Oliver has Memories on him. I didn't play Memories of Mortality on every available blocker. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <%12ni.10926$rL1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Also, if - as seems to be the suggestion - it's only really the Imbued + >> Memories that's causing serious problems, it would be a shame to screw >> the card for, say, War Ghouls, Shamblers, or whatever. > >It is not only the Imbued + Memories. It's memories. I'm not sure I follow this. Memories may be the right place to address the fix, but it seems to be the combination of Memories + Imbued that aggravates people in ways that Memories + other allies don't. (Which was my point.) Other people have been implying that the problem for them comes when Memories is used with the Imbued, but not when Memories is used with, say, Shambling Hordes. What significant problems are you seeing with those deck types that other players aren't (so far) reporting? People have put together solid ally decks, using War Ghouls or whatever, combined with Memories of Mortality for years and years. They've torn up tables. They've won tables. They've got into the finals of tournaments. (So have a lot of other deck styles.) Why wasn't Memories a problem when this sort of thing was being done 4, 5, 6 years ago? I don't think there's been a massive step forward in rabid War Ghoul tech (it's still very good, of course), and people have done it with those. And with Garous. And with Hordes. And with... Imbued work differently to other ally decks. Save for a few corner case things like Brainwash, you can't stop Imbued coming out. So you get the Imbued out, and then your only place to take apart the combo before it happens is an SR/Wash/whatever on the Memories. Not so with other allies - first, you bring a vampire out. That vampire has to recruit an ally. This costs blood (which you can remove via votes, combat or whatever). The action is blockable, or you can try to stop the vampire taking the action in the first place (by punching them hard). Certainly when bringing out later allies, I've had time to come and do *something* to you, or build up my intercept, or other options. Normal allies are much more fragile than Imbued. Once you get through with one vampire, they may well be... upset. You also stand a much better chance of being able to steal non-Imbued allies, or you can Kindred Segregation them, or similar. The Imbued don't die easily and can keep coming back, so even if it's mutual annihilation (you go to torpor, and I go to torpor), I may well be able to bounce out of the Incapacitated region in a turn or two and use Strike with Conviction to take advantage of the situation. The Imbued are good in combat, but also potentially good bleeders. Strike with Conviction, a free, easily-found, recyclable card (which can be got from the deck for free) means that first they can punch you in combat or they can bleed you, both of which fit neatly into Memories of Mortality. This isn't really the case with other allies. Typically, those with a decent bleed are a bit vulnerable in combat, or crap in other ways (e.g. Eccentric Billionaire, Political Ally) or the other way around (e.g. try bleeding with a War Ghoul or Renegade Garou). There are a few "in between" allies (some of the Mummies, say, have a chunk of life, strength and bleed) who aren't generally that fearsome. Of course, the non-Imbued allies can have vampire masters to do the bleeding for them - but the vampires don't benefit from Memories of Mortality directly, whereas the Imbued do. Non-Imbued allies don't generally easily multi-act. (There are ways, of course - Rayzeel's Song springs to mind, but that requires an action from someone else.) Vigilance means it's not that difficult for Imbued to multi-act on occasion, so they can fight someone and bleed, or whatever. Most allies don't have the capability of getting two or three neat Power-like abilities, or Conviction abilities. (A few allies have pretty significant abilities to start with.) These can mean that Imbued can take more effective actions, or be more effective in combat, thus getting potentially greater benefits from Memories than your usual non- Imbued ally would. Bottom line: Imbued can benefit in much greater ways from Memories of Mortality than non-allies. This shouldn't be surprising, because most library allies aren't set up to be the only protagonists for a deck, whereas crypt allies are clearly intended to have that as an option. Therefore, if tinkering with Memories, it would be nice to make the Imbued somewhat less effective with it but there doesn't seem to be as great a reason to screw it for library allies, unless that's unavoidable collateral damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-52ECC8.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <eCSYKMwd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> It is, but it shoots the card in the foot. You can't any longer rely on >> it being useful to you, which is a shame. There are ways of making >> cards less useful or less powerful *without* making them more random. > >Well, yes. I'm more pro the nice, simple, "unique" adjustment, myself, >more so than the "only Camarilla" adjustment, but I'd be ok with the >"only Camarilla" adjustment too--more damaging to the use of the card, >yes, but has a certain cleverness to it that I like. At work yesterday, I started toying with variations on: "During your next untap phase, if the vampire with this card is non- Camarilla, burn this card." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns9970A04268...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in >news:Xns99709DA6D2...@207.115.33.102: >> Make Memories of Mortality Scarce. > >Oh, and re-write the Scarce rule, so you can apply it to any permanent >fielded. I did start toying around with this sort of idea. Perhaps just making it cost X pool, where X = the number in play, or in play + ash heaps, or something. I quite like the borrowing of the Scarce rule, though. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1184744352.6...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> writes: >Just renaming influence phase to master phase on the card would be >enough as well. So long as people were still happy with a turn of stamping from the Imbued (which they might well be, I don't know), this would be a neat fix. Not vastly more debilitating than Pentex. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <n6NW0PGj...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >Bottom line: Imbued can benefit in much greater ways from Memories of >Mortality than non-allies. than non-Imbued allies. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <rKLVYyG4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >At work yesterday, I started toying with variations on: > >"During your next untap phase, if the vampire with this card is non- >Camarilla, burn this card." Urgh, two brain failures in one day. One point here being that a vampire could take the Go Anarch action. This might be a feature (i.e. to be kept) or a bug (in which case you could make it non-Camarilla and non-Anarch), depending on your point of view. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <%12ni.10926$rL1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> Also, if - as seems to be the suggestion - it's only really the Imbued + >>> Memories that's causing serious problems, it would be a shame to screw >>> the card for, say, War Ghouls, Shamblers, or whatever. >> It is not only the Imbued + Memories. It's memories. > > I'm not sure I follow this. Memories may be the right place to address > the fix, but it seems to be the combination of Memories + Imbued that > aggravates people in ways that Memories + other allies don't. (Which > was my point.) Perhaps. Indeed an overpowered card paired with a strong strategy is more aggravating when you play against it than the overpowered card would be when paired with weak strategies. That doesn't mean the overpowered card is only overpowered when paired with a given strong strategy.

>>> James Coupe wrote: >>>> Also, if - as seems to be the suggestion - it's only really the Imbued >>>> + >>>> Memories that's causing serious problems, it would be a shame to screw >>>> the card for, say, War Ghouls, Shamblers, or whatever. >>> It is not only the Imbued + Memories. It's memories. >> >> I'm not sure I follow this. Memories may be the right place to address >> the fix, but it seems to be the combination of Memories + Imbued that >> aggravates people in ways that Memories + other allies don't. (Which >> was my point.) > > Perhaps. > > Indeed an overpowered card paired with a strong strategy is more > aggravating when you play against it than the overpowered card would be > when paired with weak strategies. > > That doesn't mean the overpowered card is only overpowered when paired > with a given strong strategy. Of course this is, err... correct. But the Shamblings or War Ghouls never have been "weak strategies". ------- Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. Exactly the point.

My two cents, even though this isn't a poll: go for the "target Camarilla only"-option. As has been said, it's thematically appropriate (you could see the MoM as part of the Cammies' struggle against the beast, not necessarily something that suddenly happens), it takes the over-powerdness out of a weapon of the imbued, and the strongest of the sects gets a (small) kick in the nuts. ..and while we're at it, make Return to Innocence only playable once per game and/or requiring capacity of less than 7, so we can un-ban it. :-) Teeka who will take errata over banning any day

On Jul 16, 8:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Another, more thematically appropriate, tweak would be make it "Put this card on > a Camarilla vampire". I think both the proposed fixes are attractive, but I'm really against errata. If it's errata or nothing I guess I'd vote for errata (leaning towards "unique" even though the Cams could take a shot to the nuts without unbalancing anything). Banning and printing a new card seems best to me, though. Which makes me wonder.... I doubt it's tightly quantified even if it exists, but I wonder if there is one threshold for "qualifies for errata" and another for "worthy of banning", or if there's just one threshold for "fiddle" with either outcome equal possibilities? -- David Cherryholmes

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:WJXqYhJI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns9970A04268...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >>atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in >>news:Xns99709DA6D2...@207.115.33.102: >>> Make Memories of Mortality Scarce. >> >>Oh, and re-write the Scarce rule, so you can apply it to any permanent >>fielded. > > I did start toying around with this sort of idea. Perhaps just making > it cost X pool, where X = the number in play, or in play + ash heaps, or > something. > > I quite like the borrowing of the Scarce rule, though. :-) > Thanks. I think its a fairly tight idea, as a general cost mechanism... even if it isn't determined to be appropriate for this particular card's fix. DZ AW

This card is strong, but not to much. I think the best way to better balance it is to teach player to get it off. Usually Imbued can't do anything to vampires in torpor. So if you go to torpor and have somone taking you out it's OK. but usually player's stay with ther memories on the vampire... If this card had to be changed I think a capacity limite would be better than a sect limit. old vampire can't remmember mortality so easely.

I love the card we are talking about. I use imbued decks, and have been prey and predator of a lot of imbued decks, so I've an adequate knowledge of "memories" uses and abuses. Nobody from the start of the thread has pointed out that this card costs 1 pool. It *has* a cost, for someone is low in regards to the benefit it has, but it isn't a card impossible to remove! And if someone decides to remove it, nobody can stop him. From that point there are a lot of possibilities (someone else could rescue the vamp for example, no?). If the majority of the players and game designers finds that it's overpowered (now? after how many years from its first print and reprint, giving the fact that LSJ stated that the problem isn't the conjunction between imbued and memo, but just the memo itself), please don't make it useless. It's a good card, that finds place in a lot of decks, some of them are worth playing just because this card exists. My opinions in regard to the proposed tweaks: target a camarilla vampire - for me the worst option, and supported mainly by BG motivations. It makes the card too much cornercase. uniqueness - fairly acceptable, but only if the cost will be reduced to zero 3 blood to burn it - for me the best option, a strong card that is easy enough to remove and has a pool cost My tweak proposal: -change of pool cost, from 1 to 2 pool (makes it harder to use it, but keeps all the card text unchanged and its an easy reprint option) Arigatò!

In article <1184764417.7...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Vragozakas <vrago...@2die4.com> wrote: > Nobody from the start of the thread has pointed out that this card > costs 1 pool. It *has* a cost, Yes. It has a cost. But the cost is wildly inadequate for what it does. The best comparison to Memories, really, is Pentex Subversion (assuming the Memories is being played by an Imbued deck)--Pentex costs 2 pool, is unique, and is amazingly easy to get rid of. Yeah, Pentex keeps you from taking actions and blocking, but kind of a wash with the can't take actions and can't do damage of Memories. Pentex is *still* an amazingly good card at 2 pool and being Unique. Which makes Memories a rediculously amazingly good card in the context of the Imbued (as it is, for most purposes, a Pentex Subversion that only costs 1 pool, isn't unique, and is really hard to get rid of). So the reason folks aren't discussing the cost it has currently is because it is an inadequate cost. > And if > someone decides to remove it, nobody can stop him. From that point > there are a lot of possibilities (someone else could rescue the vamp > for example, no?). Yes, someone could rescue the vamp. Or your predator or prey could diablerize the vamp, as they both go before you get to pull yourself out of torpor. Or the Imbued could Vulnerability the torped vamp. Or Gregory Winter could burn him (which none of your other vampires can block, as they are all Memories of Mortality-ed too...) Going to torpor during your Influence phase is a horrible cost to pay to get rid of this card. Given a perfect world, I'd just make it easier to get rid of Memories (burn some blood or take an action, although that is of dubious utility if the card isn't unique). But as that sort of errata is much more difficult to remember than a nice simple one, I'll side with the simple one. > If the majority of the players and game designers finds that it's > overpowered (now? after how many years from its first print and > reprint, giving the fact that LSJ stated that the problem isn't the > conjunction between imbued and memo, but just the memo itself) The Imbued are what made folks notice it was overpowered. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1184763763.3...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Usually Imbued can't do anything to vampires in torpor. So if you go > to torpor and have somone taking you out it's OK. Well, except for Vulnerability. Or Gregory Winter. Or an obfuscate spud in the deck just for such an occasion. Or convincing their cross-you buddy (i.e. your predator or prey) to eat the torped vampire... [ quoted text not captured ]

Bram Vink a écrit : > There's no 'sit on your hands and watch the game played' card like > MoM. Just renaming influence phase to master phase on the card would > be enough as well. > > Cheers, > Bram Bright idea. thank you.

LSJ wrote: > Taste shouldn't thematically affect mortals. Vampires don't drink human blood? > Neither Banishment. Why not? They come from the uncontrolled region; they could go back there, as could any ally. Is there something that Banishment represents that makes it only apply to Kindred in theme? > Fame is arguable, but not a clear "should". Sure. How about Tension in the Ranks, which doesn't trigger when you incapicitate the Imbued OR when you pillowface them. The pool gain on Frontal Assault has the same problem, compounded with the fact that ready Imbued still cause you to lose pool. It's ironic that people are fretting over how hard it would be to use Memories of Mortality against Camarilla only in the context of a discussion that involves the Imbued. They pretty much win the prize for "most likely to make half their predator or prey's deck unplayable."

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Indeed an overpowered card paired with a strong strategy is more > aggravating when you play against it than the overpowered card > would be when paired with weak strategies. > > That doesn't mean the overpowered card is only > overpowered when paired with a given strong strategy. Is this an (perhaps subtle) indication that Freak Drive will *finally* be acknowledged as an issue, due to Una bringing it to the fore? Perhaps we will see a future Freak Drive that can only be used once per turn per minion? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Jul 17, 7:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The former, sure. Or you could take it as the influence spent covering up the > "death" -- hush money and so forth. I've always taken the 3 to be to cover up the "death". The 1 per turn represents the general interest into vampiric society while this celebrity is missing "who was she hanging around with before she vanished?" etc. In the original jyhad text it was a concept of "here's my famous minion, waltzing onto your turf and turning themselves into a lump of sun; cover that one up, mate", or "i'm famous; can't touch me", of course force of will and day operation just plain broke that version :) In the new version its a case of "i shall make your favoured minion famous, thus forcing you to be more circumspect with them..." conceptually, which of course actually works more like Bounty should... I'd be interested to know whether a few cards "should" not affect/work with imbued or if its a happenstance of the combination of preceding card text and the imbued bolt on rules... This first pair I can foresee a decent "you've not quite got the background concept straight" reply explaining that they should be as is: Camarilla Exemplary (if this is a "is masquerady" effect not a mystic generation effect, or a vampire society only "fame" effect) The name forgotten (less of a solid "why not" but i'm not confident of a reason why not - due to the nature of being a thaumaturgy ritual?) The rest I'm less convinced there's a really decent reason for being like this, to me conceptually these should ALL affect imbued (and other allies): Decapitate (should surely burn a becoming-incapacitated imbued? i mean; pulling their head off!, obviously normal allies would be burned before this card could be played anyway!) Disarm (similar to decapitate) Mind Numb (Imbued more resilient to presence then?) Mind Rape (and dominate?) Obedience (yeah, the imbued really are immune to dominate) Personal Scourge (only the no damage from weapon clause is vampires only?!?) Phobia (not that its a playable card, but only vampires get scared?) Reality (illusions don't work on imbued either) Coma (allies can't be put into comas?) Seduction (and imbued are asexual...) Notably Riddle Phantastique and Sensory Deprivation work just fine, as does Entombment. I can see that if ALL of these affected allies, then allies would just be punching bags, but for NONE of them to do so seems incongruent to the effects being portrayed by the cards. All of the last block are effects that to my mind imbued and certainly mortal allies should be MORE susceptible to. (I kind of like the concept of mortal allies being dragged around between methuselahs willy-nilly and mentally abused at the drop of a hat; but then the game being VAMPIRE the eternal struggle is pretty fundamental to my view of, and interest in, the game - which also powers my dislike of the imbued as a special class of largely immune minions...) I'm of the mind that maybe a couple of cards are needed too: "Take a nap, buddy" 2 blood, requires a ready vampire (D) Target imbued becomes incapacitated "The old kidnap-embrace trick" 4 blood, requires non-sterile vampire with capacity above 4 (D) Target mortal ally becomes a 1 capacity vampire and loses all abilities, powers, convictions, whatever.

On Jul 17, 8:15 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Anyway, i really hope no change/errata will be based on "theme" > considerations I think the impression LSJ has tried to convey is that card change is based on game balance requirements, but if the new version "fits" thematically, thats a nice bonus after the fact.

> And less so than the threshold for Taste of Vitae, just like Garou blood is less > than than threshold. (Vampiric-level-potency being the threshold) Vampiric Blood has differing levels of potency. The blood of a 13th gen caitiff is much weaker and provides much less sustenance than the blood of a Mehtuselah. Speaking about blood in terms of "vampiric level potency" here is misdirection. The blood of a Mage/Abomination like Sam Haight would be much more potent than blood from Smudge the Ignored, for example. Yet i can Taste of Vitae off Smudge and not off Sam. Thematically, this makes no sense. > The imbued isn't seen dying, just being severely wounded. The vampire is seen > dying (in the context of Fame). This is presuming the death/severe wounding happens in public. If Famous Blythe gets rushed at stealth in her haven and torpored, none of her fans knows whether she's dead or alive - they just know she's missing. Her minders, controllers could issue any story to the press they felt like, including one that used the word "miraculous recovery". Yet her Methuselah still loses 3 pool just because she's a vampire. Makes no sense to me at all.

atomweaver wrote: > atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:Xns99709DA6D2...@207.115.33.102: > >> >> Make Memories of Mortality Scarce. >> > > Oh, and re-write the Scarce rule, so you can apply it to any permanent > fielded. Maybe even add a scale to it; > > Scarce(1) +1 pool per scarce card, by card name, or by clan for vampires > > Scarce(2) +2 pool per... > > Scarce(3) +3 pool per... > > this would give you three different scales of scarcity costs to use > > 1, 2, 3... > 2, 4, 6... > 3, 6, 9... > > A card without a numerical scarcity rating would default to Scarce(3), to > cover existing Scarce Vampires (or, you could say that Scarce Crypt cards > default to Scarce (3), whatever). > > DaveZ > Atom Weaver I assume you are saying this tongue in cheek - I remember you being a card-text-and-rules-change conservative, like me. Ban Memories, make a new card that's the right card. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Okay, here's my take on it that seems to include most of what people are saying. Suggested Errata: Make MoM work on capacity below 8 (or in that range, dependent on playtest). Reason 1: Playability - Big vampire decks tend to only have 1 big guy. 1 MoM can ruin your theme. If you don't have 1 big guy that means you have several smaller guys - which makes it harder to MoM all of them. [One can argue that you can, but it is still harder and you may not have enough to get your second VP. Reason 2: Theme: From what I read in the canon, it is not Sect that determines how "mortal" you are... but your age. [Which translates to capacity in the card game]. The older you are the harder it is to remember what it is like to be human. Reason 3: (More of a comment actually) Non-imbued Allies. Other ally (war ghoul, werewolves etc) decks with MoM have been around before the Imbued. They were good decks but I never read about the complaining about it before them. Reason 4: Imbued. MoM makes their (imbued) bleeds unblockable IF the have them on all your guys. That can be hard with the suggested errata above. Also, I have found when I play my MoM decks, people (as in crosstable) don't seem to understand, that they need to help in the rescue otherwise their ally will just be steam rolled. That seems to a failure of people not understanding the table dynamic as opposed to the actual card. [I should note that I take advantage of this misunderstanding as well, hence my MoM decks do quite well.] Similar example: Cross-table "buddies" need to work together to "handle" a Inner Circle PTO and/or Bleed deck. Reason 5: Combat: Combat is rough when you have MoM on you, but it has been determined that enviromental damage works around that. Carrion Crows still seems pretty common to me.... Also, if you are playing big vamp combat, suggested errata above stops that. Okay, starting to get a little wordy so I'll stop now but I figure you guys get the idea. Adam

nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote: >> And less so than the threshold for Taste of Vitae, just like Garou blood is less >> than than threshold. (Vampiric-level-potency being the threshold) > > Vampiric Blood has differing levels of potency. The blood of a 13th > gen caitiff is much weaker and provides much less sustenance than the > blood of a Mehtuselah. Speaking about blood in terms of "vampiric > level potency" here is misdirection. No. 13th gen vampiric blood is greater than mortal blood in terms of potency. > The blood of a Mage/Abomination like Sam Haight would be much more > potent than blood from Smudge the Ignored, for example. Yet i can > Taste of Vitae off Smudge and not off Sam. The version of Sam in the card game is not an abomination (card text). Abomination's blood is Tasteable from walls. Werewolf blood is not. > Thematically, this makes no sense. If you ignore card text and pretend Sam is an Abomination, sure. >> The imbued isn't seen dying, just being severely wounded. The vampire is seen >> dying (in the context of Fame). > > This is presuming the death/severe wounding happens in public. If Yes. That is what "In the context of Fame" means.

librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in news:f8Dni.631$fK1...@newsfe12.phx: [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, it's true that I don't like the burden that card text migrations add to a new player's learning curve. Mostly, I had the idea of scalable Scarcity applied to any fielded permanent in my head as a nifty means of putting another flexible costing system into VTES, and a thread about changing the cost/scope of a card seemed a good place to chuck it out there. Bbut in my reply to James, I recognize that its probably not the right fix for Memories. DZ AW

On Jul 18, 4:53 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Other people have been implying that the problem for them comes when > Memories is used with the Imbued, but not when Memories is used with, > say, Shambling Hordes. What significant problems are you seeing with > those deck types that other players aren't (so far) reporting? I, at least, reported to Scott in 2003 or so that, were I given a choice between banning PTO and banning MoM, I would reluctantly have to choose MoM. If anybody remembers my take on PTO, that should put it in perspective. -- David Cherryholmes

On Jul 18, 7:53 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <%12ni.10926$rL1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > -snip some good points- > The Imbued are good in combat, but also potentially good bleeders. > Strike with Conviction, a free, easily-found, recyclable card (which can > be got from the deck for free) means that first they can punch you in > combat or they can bleed you, both of which fit neatly into Memories of > Mortality. This isn't really the case with other allies. Typically, > those with a decent bleed are a bit vulnerable in combat, or crap in > other ways (e.g. Eccentric Billionaire, Political Ally) or the other way > around (e.g. try bleeding with a War Ghoul or Renegade Garou). There > are a few "in between" allies (some of the Mummies, say, have a chunk of > life, strength and bleed) who aren't generally that fearsome. Of > course, the non-Imbued allies can have vampire masters to do the > bleeding for them - but the vampires don't benefit from Memories of > Mortality directly, whereas the Imbued do. This here is the real problem IMO and James makes the point well. Its not the combat threats plus MoM that are the real problem, It's the bleed ability of the imbued that makes MoM cracked. Previously, if an ally style deck played with MoM, you could still get rid of the ghoul/ shambling/ whatever, by using environmental damage, steal ally tech and so on. With the imbued, your steal tech gets neutered down to conditional (have to wait till they have no react with conviction or enough convictions to burn for Champion), and few decks pack enough environmental damage to keep the imbued down for long (which is not as much of a problem with your normal allies) Making memories unique, whilst relatively "easy" to do would be an obvious fix, but as others have noted, not really, IMHO, in keeping with the card intent. Personally, I'd lean towards a fix such as " This vampire may not attempt to block non D actions performed by allies". With this fix, vamps can now block the bleeds (or rushes for that matter) The fact that you still cannot directly harm the ally in question still makes the card useful (and thematically appropriate, you still don't want to hurt non vamps.) It still allows imbued decks to tool up as such actions are undirected, so not totally nerfing the card, yet reins in their massive potential for forward momentum. Just a thought anyway Sutekh_23

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:02:46 -0700, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >Ban Memories, make a new card that's the right card. Amen.

On Jul 18, 8:33 pm, rdcot...@gmail.com wrote: > I'd be interested to know whether a few cards "should" not affect/work > with imbued or if its a happenstance of the combination of preceding > card text and the imbued bolt on rules... > > This first pair I can foresee a decent "you've not quite got the > background concept straight" reply explaining that they should be as > is: > > Camarilla Exemplary (if this is a "is masquerady" effect not a mystic > generation effect, or a vampire society only "fame" effect) > > The name forgotten (less of a solid "why not" but i'm not confident of > a reason why not - due to the nature of being a thaumaturgy ritual?) > > The rest I'm less convinced there's a really decent reason for being > like this, to me conceptually these should ALL affect imbued (and > other allies): > > Decapitate (should surely burn a becoming-incapacitated imbued? i > mean; pulling their head off!, obviously normal allies would be burned > before this card could be played anyway!) Reasonable. > Disarm (similar to decapitate) Strong cards are not generally given errata to make them stronger. > Mind Numb (Imbued more resilient to presence then?) > Mind Rape (and dominate?) > Personal Scourge (only the no damage from weapon clause is vampires > only?!?) > Reality (illusions don't work on imbued either) > Coma (allies can't be put into comas?) > Phobia (not that its a playable card, but only vampires get scared?) Even if these cards were usable on the imbued, they would be cancelable with React With Conviction. Yes, the imbued are resistant to supernatural mental influence, including illusions. Also, there's no reason to complain about imbued being immune without also bringing up the fact that all other allies are immune. > Obedience (yeah, the imbued really are immune to dominate) > Seduction (and imbued are asexual...) Again, all other allies are and have been immune to these cards since they were printed. Why is it a problem that the imbued also get past them, when War Ghouls and Rom Gypsies have been doing it forever? > Notably Riddle Phantastique and Sensory Deprivation work just fine, as > does Entombment. Riddle Phantastique does. Sense Dep gets React-canceled when you play it on an imbued, but shuts down a War Ghoul or Shambler just fine. > I can see that if ALL of these affected allies, then allies would just > be punching bags, but for NONE of them to do so seems incongruent to > the effects being portrayed by the cards. All of the last block are > effects that to my mind imbued and certainly mortal allies should be > MORE susceptible to. (I kind of like the concept of mortal allies > being dragged around between methuselahs willy-nilly and mentally > abused at the drop of a hat; but then the game being VAMPIRE the > eternal struggle is pretty fundamental to my view of, and interest in, > the game - which also powers my dislike of the imbued as a special > class of largely immune minions...) Of the ones you listed, only Decapitate, Disarm, Seduction, and Obedience would typically get past React-cancel (at least, when it matters in play). Meanwhile, all of them would work fine against non- imbued ally decks. Disarm, Seduction and Obedience are already plenty powerful and probably don't need upgrading. Decapitate's not bad, but if the TWDA is any indication (there's all of 1-2 copy in most of the decks that sport it), it's not nearly on the same level and could reasonably be upgraded at next opportunity (it still likely won't, just because errata is generally avoided when possible). > I'm of the mind that maybe a couple of cards are needed too: > > "Take a nap, buddy" > 2 blood, requires a ready vampire > (D) Target imbued becomes incapacitated > > "The old kidnap-embrace trick" > 4 blood, requires non-sterile vampire with capacity above 4 > (D) Target mortal ally becomes a 1 capacity vampire and loses all > abilities, powers, convictions, whatever. In the RPG, imbued are mystically prevented from becoming vampires (or wraiths, etc). While it's fine for cards to not follow the RPG on occasion, making a card that specifically spites it seems out of line. And there are already plenty of "(D) burn an ally" actions in the game, so both of these cards look pretty much like wallpaper to me. witness1

On Jul 19, 8:51 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote innews:f8Dni.631$fK1...@newsfe12.phx: > > > > > > > atomweaver wrote: > >> atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote in [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I think it's a very nice mechanic for thematically representing things like Fame or Vast Wealth (as opposed to uniqueness). It makes little sense that there can be only one famous or wealthy vampire, but a whole lot of sense to put a soft limit how many there can be at one time. It even makes reasonable thematic sense for Memories, but leaves even less incentive to remove the Memories. Similar ideas have already been tinkered with (see Sybil's Tongue). witness1

On 18/07/2007 Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Anyway, just a general comment here. My only concern with some of > these MoM suggestions is that it could move some Imbued decks into > the "feast or famine" column. I think the best fix for the card > would be to make it easier to get rid of it. It could be free, but > burn during the controller's (the Methuselah who played it) untap > phase. Or maybe "tap and burn 1 blood to burn it" avoiding the trip > to torpor. This way Imbued decks could still have a better shot at > tooling up, by removing a potential blocker for a turn, but they > wouldn't get to permanently memoriesize each minion controlled by > their prey. My suggestion might be to switch the word 'influence' on Memories of Mortality to 'untap'. Fairly simple, and is a gentle tap to it's power-level instead of a swift kick in the nuts. Just thought i'd throw it out there as an option to think about. Most of the issues I have heard about getting rid of it tend to revolve around the "my vampire is sitting in torpor for a turn around the table before i even get a chance to do anything". This would undo that, giving the memory'd player first dibs at rescuing his own vampire. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1184744352.6...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Bram > Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> writes: >>Just renaming influence phase to master phase on the card would be >>enough as well. > > So long as people were still happy with a turn of stamping from the > Imbued (which they might well be, I don't know), this would be a neat > fix. > > Not vastly more debilitating than Pentex. > ah. i guess i should read the whole thread before posting. this is pretty much the same as making it untap phase. except if there are some effects you'd want to do to the vamp during the master phase that would require it to be ready that you want to do.... so yeah, master phase would be better than untap. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] DISCLAIMER: I do not think Memories of Mortality needs changing. But: if MoM's burn clause was changed to Master Phase, then the ol' Derange+Dementia deck would have a new trick, even in an ally-less deck. 1) Play Memories of Mortality on some dude. 2) Derange that dude (if he's not already a Malk). Next turn: 1) Play Malkavian Dementia. 2) Send stolen vampire to torpor *and* burn a blood off him. I'm just saying......

[ quoted text not captured ] 3) during his turn, he burns the MoM during his paster phase, and rescues his dude during his minion phase. and/or moves derange. > Next turn: > 1) Play Malkavian Dementia. > 2) Send stolen vampire to torpor *and* burn a blood off him. 3) then doesn't get to actually act with the stolen vampire. maybe he can get off an undirected +1 stealth diablerie, though. good on him. > I'm just saying...... well i guess thinking of these scenarios is better than _not_ thinking of anything, even if i am not entirely convinced the scenario is any scarier than other derange/malk dementia possibilities. but then i have noticed i tend to defend ideas i come up with way beyond the point where i think i am being reasonable anymore. lucky this one was Bram's idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > witness1- Piilota siteerattu teksti - > > - Näytä siteerattu teksti - Vast Wealth isn't unique...

On 20 heinä, 13:16, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > In message <1184744352.613055.119...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Bram > > > Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> writes: > > >>Just renaming influence phase to master phase on the card would be > > >>enough as well. > > > > So long as people were still happy with a turn of stamping from the > > > Imbued (which they might well be, I don't know), this would be a neat > > > fix. > > > > Not vastly more debilitating than Pentex. > > > ah. i guess i should read the whole thread before posting. this is > > pretty much the same as making it untap phase. except if there are some > > effects you'd want to do to the vamp during the master phase that would > > require it to be ready that you want to do.... > > so yeah, master phase would be better than untap. :) > > DISCLAIMER: I do not think Memories of Mortality needs changing. > > But: if MoM's burn clause was changed to Master Phase, then the ol' > Derange+Dementia deck would have a new trick, even in an ally-less deck. > > 1) Play Memories of Mortality on some dude. > 2) Derange that dude (if he's not already a Malk). > > Next turn: > 1) Play Malkavian Dementia. > 2) Send stolen vampire to torpor *and* burn a blood off him. > > I'm just saying......- Piilota siteerattu teksti - > > - Näytä siteerattu teksti - And how is that better than the current malkavian dementia + golconda routine?

> Or you could mix-n-match sect and capacity, as in Antithesis (which has the same > sort of conflict-with-morality concept in the backstory). > "Put this card on a Camarilla vampire or a vampire with capacity below 6." (quasi-)thematically appropriate, and there seems to be some concensus that Cam and weenies most deserve reigning in (or conversely, that high-cap non-Cam could use one less hose) keeps MoM playable not a complex or hard-to-remember change ('if you can play Atonement, you can remember mortality')

On Jul 20, 10:17 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > (quasi-)thematically appropriate, and there seems to be some concensus > that Cam and weenies most deserve reigning in (or conversely, that > high-cap non-Cam could use one less hose) A 6 cap is hardly a weenie. Playing MoM on a true weenie isn't much of a hindrance, since you can just block with another member of your horde, nor is getting one nerd dunked much of a bone. > not a complex or hard-to-remember change ('if you can play Atonement, > you can remembermortality') It's more wordy than either unique or Camarilla individually, and there's no sect limitation on Atonement. -- David Cherryholmes

On Jul 22, 6:46 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:17 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > (quasi-)thematically appropriate, and there seems to be some concensus > > that Cam and weenies most deserve reigning in (or conversely, that > > high-cap non-Cam could use one less hose) > > A 6 cap is hardly a weenie. Playing MoM on a true weenie isn't much > of a hindrance, since you can just block with another member of your > horde, nor is getting one nerd dunked much of a bone. You're splitting hairs. And a 6 cap is not a vampire with capacity below 6. If "weenies ... deserve reigning in" bothers you, then look more at "high-cap nonCam could use one less hose." > > not a complex or hard-to-remember change ('if you can play Atonement, > > you can remembermortality') > > It's more wordy than either unique or Camarilla individually, and > there's no sect limitation on Atonement. > > -- > > David Cherryholmes Surely, 'number of additional words' is not a criterion per se. Remembering Camarilla should require no assistance; remembering the X in "below X" is the only potential difficulty (other than someone being entirely unaware of the errata, which is a problem no matter how simple the change) and connecting it to Atonement is a simple mnemonic device.

In message <1185112439.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> writes: >Surely, 'number of additional words' is not a criterion per se. It's not. But, like theme, it's a good tie-breaker when you have several, roughly-equivalent changes. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 22, 10:12 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1185112439.311745.162...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> writes: > >Surely, 'number of additional words' is not a criterion per se. > > It's not. But, like theme, it's a good tie-breaker when you have > several, roughly-equivalent changes. Really? I mean, sure, one word added is preferable to fifty-seven words added, on the grounds that adding fifty-seven words makes the text slow to read and requires a smaller font to fit on the card. But do you think one word is preferable to two, two is preferable to three, three preferable to four, and so on? Why? Would adding the word Unique be preferable to adding the word Camarilla because Unique has fewer letters?

In message <1185114702.7...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> writes: >On Jul 22, 10:12 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In message <1185112439.311745.162...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> writes: >> >Surely, 'number of additional words' is not a criterion per se. >> >> It's not. But, like theme, it's a good tie-breaker when you have >> several, roughly-equivalent changes. > > >Really? Yes. >I mean, sure, one word added is preferable to fifty-seven >words added, Exactly the point. I'm glad you understand. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I mean, sure, one word added is preferable to fifty-seven > >words added, > > Exactly the point. I'm glad you understand. If that was exactly the point, then your point was entirely irrelevant. No one-word vs fifty-seven-word contrast existed.

In message <1185121927.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] And your example was stuffed with hyperbole and therefore entirely irrelevant. Here it is in very simple words: Small changes are easier to explain than larger changes. Small changes are easier to remember than large changes. Adding the word "Camarilla" or "Unique" is simpler than "Capacity under 6." Or was that "6 or under"? Was it actually 6? I thought it was 7? No, it was definitely 6, that's what Atonement says. Are you sure that's what Atonement says? Does someone have a copy I can look at? Of course, if you want to continue to play dumb, that's fine too. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 22, 1:04 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1185121927.298924.138...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> writes: > > >> >I mean, sure, one word added is preferable to fifty-seven > >> >words added, > > >> Exactly the point. I'm glad you understand. > > >If that was exactly the point, then your point was entirely > >irrelevant. No one-word vs fifty-seven-word contrast existed. > > And your example was stuffed with hyperbole and therefore entirely > irrelevant. > > Here it is in very simple words: Small changes are easier to explain > than larger changes. Small changes are easier to remember than large > changes. > > Adding the word "Camarilla" or "Unique" is simpler than "Capacity under > 6." Or was that "6 or under"? Was it actually 6? I thought it was 7? > No, it was definitely 6, that's what Atonement says. Are you sure > that's what Atonement says? Does someone have a copy I can look at? > > Of course, if you want to continue to play dumb, that's fine too. Maybe you shouldn't say that something is "exactly the point" when in fact it wasn't your point at all. If adding the word "Camarilla" or "unique" is simpler than "capacity under six," it's not because of the distinction between one word and three words. "Giovanni" is not a simpler text addition than "Follower of Set". *Exactly* what was being discussed was whether the number of words involved is a reasonable criterion for preferring one text insertion to another. Who's playing dumb?

On Jul 22, 9:53 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > You're splitting hairs. And a 6 cap is not a vampire with capacity > below 6. If "weenies ... deserve reigning in" bothers you, then look > more at "high-cap nonCam could use one less hose." My mistake with understanding the cutoff line to be 6 and not 5 (posting pre-coffee). However, I don't think it's splitting hairs, since I still don't consider 5 caps (or really even 4 caps) to be "weenies." The comment about weenies being reigned in bothering me was.... hilarious. I don't post much anymore, but I used to post a lot, and advocating the position that weenie decks were essentially broken used to occupy a fair chunk of my newsgroup time. There's no reason to expect you to know any of that, but it did give me a chuckle. > Surely, 'number of additional words' is not a criterion per se. > Remembering Camarilla should require no assistance; remembering the X > in "below X" is the only potential difficulty (other than someone > being entirely unaware of the errata, which is a problem no matter how > simple the change) and connecting it to Atonement is a simple mnemonic > device. I don't think it's useful to horn in on number of words, or number of letters, so much as "number of moving parts." Camarilla is one thing, uniqueness is another, and capacity is a third. One moving part is better. Not generating another card with errata is better still. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. However for all intent and purposes, untap phase is as good as the master phase for this proposed change. So there is the untap phase, which pretty much handles temporary minion theft shenanigans, and master phase which allows you to use master cards on that minion yourself. I think it's pretty much balanced either way. Cheers, Bram PS. Oh no! this would totally imbalance faithful servant.

On 18 heinä, 16:02, Olivier_PEREZ <olivier.eni...@gmail.com> wrote: > This card is strong, but not to much. I think the best way to better > balance it is to teach player to get it off. > > Usually Imbued can't do anything to vampires in torpor. So if you go > to torpor and have somone taking you out it's OK. Agree. Based on my limited Imbued experience, they don't necessarily need the MoM to win games. It is usually one turn pentex and then removed by rescue-deals. Players who think they have lost the game after getting hit by one or two MoM just needs advices how the card can be removed. And if the card encourages deal making, it must be good for the game :) It is true that MoM sometimes stops one vampire star decks as a predator for ally deck, but similar effect can be caused with PTO, Pentex, Sensory deprivation etc.. I hate erratas, especially ones that make the cards wallpaper. If the MoM is going to be errated (idea which I don't like), make the change easy to remember like "unique". Would be still playable but not in large quantities. PTO & Parity sift are still much worse than MoM and winning with stealth beed is easier & faster than trying to win with ally deck. - Guzmo

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:25:41 -0000, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 7:49 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> It is not only the Imbued + Memories. It's memories. > > That's what I think too. For whatever it's worth, I've objected to > the card strongly since before the imbued were printed. The imbued > are merely bringing the problematic effect into the foreground. I feel kinda silly revisiting month-old threads but I had some close encounter with a number of ally decks in Göteborg and am somewhat missing the point on Memories. The worst encounter was Matt's Imbued on the LCQ. Not having DI in my deck (the last competitive game I make this mistake, by the way) I watched him helplessly as he got his Champions. After that it was over for me - whenever I pushed a bleed above 2 or 3, he Championed. Unless, of course, he felt like Determining my action card. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see Champion or Determine (or Imbued in general) banned/nerfed anytime before Memories. Because... I've played about, oh, 5 games against War Ghouls, and about 2 against Shamblers. Arguably two of the three Tier 1 non-Imbued fighting ally decks (3rd would be Garou). When Memories was played, it was usually just dealed (sure I'll get your vamp out, your predator is pretty strong) or ignored (ok, so I don't do any damage with my S:CE... what else is new?), or even more ignored (Entombment/Carrion Crows/block with another minion were all excessively useful). I'm not counting the ally-steal cards, because those are a knee-jerk reaction to the abundance of the Imbued; they do have other uses, though. I never managed to use any splashed-in Allies in any deck I played at the EC, because as soon as I recruited one, someone was happy to finally put the Entrancement/Far Mastery sitting in their hands to good use. But this is a completely different story, I won't use it as an argument against Memories' brokenness - if at all, I'd use it as an argument for the Imbued's brokenness. Just like how mostly every deck had a Break the Code. Speaking of nerfing, I did see a Parthenon + Anthelios combo that was swapping back DI every turn (yes it was Olivier's Imbued deck in the finals). Which was kinda anticlimactic, to see the same DI played every turn. I'm probably not fully alone in feeling that this isn't the very beautiful V:tES I loved so much to play... I mean, it's great play, but still it kinda feels akin the the above-mentioned Champion experience. I guess I'm not a very big fan of general denial tech, especially recurring ones. Ok, I realize this turned into rant, sorry for that (and thanks if you read it nevertheless). -- Regards, Daneel

On Aug 12, 8:12 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: <SNIP> I've not visited threads for a long time but reading the LCQ report and also my own experiences playing the Imbued, I tend to agree that Memories of Mortality is indeed a most potent card. Its Pentex Subversion -like behaviour for 1 pool cost is pretty harsh. Some mention has been made that is should be modified by making it Camarilla only (reducing its effectiveness). However I think this would be a little in the wrong direction. The problems with the card as I've seen are: 1. The Cost For Effect 2. Its Non-Uniqueness 3. It's Neutering of Vampires (and Removal Clause) How about the following options? 1. Make the Cost X+1 where X is the number of MoM in play. This will at least restrict the play of a lot of them on the table. Not ideal since the removal is a big advantage of the card. 2. Make the Cost per turn. Similar to Unbrudening the Bestial Soul, but 1 pool per turn to keep a MoM active. I would keep the initial cost. This would create a situation where others can help you remove the card (by hitting the MoM player hard). 3. Leave the card as printed but add that any Ally taking advantage of the card must play 1 life to "activate" it. This might be 1 for all MoM on the table. I wouldn't make it 1 life per MoM since that is just complete neutering of the card. Well I'm sure this thread is pretty dead anyways but those are just thoughts. Q

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:29:23 -0700, quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> wrote: > Well I'm sure this thread is pretty dead anyways but those are just > thoughts. Ok, not to be bitching or anything, but your post is like totally unrelated to mine. I'm curious, why did you post it in response to my post, when in reality it probably should've been posted in response to the original post? Not that I mind or anything, I just don't get the point... -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Daneel, I hit the reply button which should reply to the original topic. If this is not the case then something is wrong with Google Groups' method of reply. Q

In message <1186965758.6...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> writes: >I hit the reply button which should reply to the original topic. If >this is not the case then something is wrong with Google Groups' >method of reply. That's not how Usenet works and, for once, Google Groups has it right. Usenet is a threaded medium. People reply to individual posts, not topics in general. If you hit reply on a particular post, your response is treated as a follow-up to that specific response, and threaded that way, like a child on a family tree for the parent article. If you want to respond to the original article, you're supposed to read that article and hit reply there. That means you can then quote appropriately from that post, and respond to it as necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]