rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

New Rule

13 messages from 7 participants · 15 August 2009 – 19 August 2009
original thread on Google Groups

XZealot

What if you were able to pay pool costs by paying twice as much in blood from one or more of your vampires instead of paying from your pool (i.e. Sheldon pays 4 blood for the Slum Hunting Ground? Would that encourage larger vampires to see play?

Jozxyqk

[ quoted text not captured ] Isn't Ravnos Carnival already strong enough?

XZealot

On Aug 15, 3:16 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So you would pay 2 blood instead of 1 pool?

Jozxyqk

[ quoted text not captured ] I would sure use 4 counters off the Carnival to get a free .44 magnum...

Pullen

[ quoted text not captured ] That wouldn't work. Ravnos Carnival Type: Master Requires: Ravnos Cost: 1 pool Master: unique location. Put X currency counters on this card when you play it, where X is the number of Ravnos you control. When a Ravnos you control performs an action, you may use these currency counters toward the cost in blood (but not pool) of the action card. Burn this card when the last counter is removed.

Jozxyqk

Pullen <matt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 15, 5:32�pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > On Aug 15, 3:16 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > > > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > What if you were able to pay pool costs by paying twice as much in > > > > > blood from one or more of your vampires instead of paying from your > > > > > pool (i.e. Sheldon pays 4 blood for the Slum Hunting Ground? Would > > > > > that encourage larger vampires to see play? > > > > > > Isn't Ravnos Carnival already strong enough? > > > So you would pay 2 blood instead of 1 pool? > > > > I would sure use 4 counters off the Carnival to get a free .44 magnum... > That wouldn't work. It would work with what Norm was proposing.. he's saying you could turn a pool cost into a 2X blood cost (that can already be split over any of your vampires). I'm just diving straight for the loopholes. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot

On Aug 15, 5:20 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It seems that the card specifically excludes this any way at least the way I read it. you may use these currency counters toward the cost in blood ***(but not pool) *** of the action card

Jozxyqk

[ quoted text not captured ] Then I misunderstood your proposed rule. I thought you were saying that you could convert the pool cost of a card to a blood cost at a rate of 2 to 1. But that's not what you were saying, I guess. I think your rule would encourage people to use more pool-expensive cards (since you could, for example, use Assault Rifles without having to lean so hard on Parity Shift), but since it allows the cost to come from multiple vampires I don't know that it helps fatties much more than anyone else...

XZealot

[ quoted text not captured ] That's exactly what I am saying, but the specific card you mentioned wouldn't allow you to spend the counters instead of the blood. > I think your rule would encourage people to use more pool-expensive cards (since > you could, for example, use Assault Rifles without having to lean so hard on > Parity Shift), but since it allows the cost to come from multiple vampires I > don't know that it helps fatties much more than anyone else... The multiple vampire part could easily be switched to a single vampire.

Satrapa

[ quoted text not captured ] Better is good's enemy so stop trying to mess with rules that are already good because the only thing that you can achive with it is worsening them.

LSJ

[ quoted text not captured ] "Better is the enemy of good" suggests the opposite: stop being stuck with good when better is possible.

Jeff Kuta

[ quoted text not captured ] I like the proposal though I think that if the blood came from a single source that would be preferable. Using multiple vampires would seem to encourage weenies or breeders since they can hunt at stealth or better to replenish. Sheldon paying 4 blood for a Slum HG is good. Huitzipochtli paying 6 blood for Talbot's Chainsaw is better. But if you had both Sheldon and Dani (Nosferatu antitribu) in play, would you allow Sheldon to pay 4 blood for Nosferatu Kingdom? I'd say if there were a clan, sect, or discipline restriction on the card that the vampire paying would have to meet the criteria. Tool up some Tremere with the Ankara Citadel and have a blast. Jeff

Juggernaut1981

[ quoted text not captured ] > Jeff- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - To avoid that Ankara Citadel issue (which would potentially be WAAY too close to brokwn)... replace the "vampire pays cost in blood" with "a vampire you control BURNS blood equal to twice the cost in pool". Blood management is incredible easy for Tremere in general, so I don't see letting them halve the cost through a commonly played Loquipment as a good thing.