Nights of Reckoning

At this point is only wild especulation, but I just read about the thread of the new set, and the "teaser" page on the VTES site from WW. However discussing yesterday with a friend about this new set and what it means for the future of VTES we thought of a theory. A lot of people (as usual with any new set) do not like what they are reading, and think this will disrupt the current status quo of the game. Others, (myself included) are excited by this new set. I can safely say that the phrase in the teaser "hunter crypt cards" bring the biggest change on the game since the introduction of Events,(ok we had a reflex, but really we already had cards with the same effect). The theory we were thinking was that this is a really small set, however big enough to support hunters completely, and maybe self supported. Self supported in the sense that you'll have everything you need to play the hunters as a hunter only deck or support with vampires. Now, how to please both type of players? those who hate the idea and those who love it?. If you hate the idea, then you don't have to buy this small set, as there will not be anything of use to you. No new master for your usual decks, no new ally you'd love to have, no vampire to complete your crypt, as this is a "hunter set". And you'll have your usual new set in the promised 9 months after the last normal set (in this case Legacies of Blood). And as this set could be self contained, you won't have to worry that the rare slot in you booster in next expansions will have a hunter card. If you love the idea, then you can buy the set, it is small enough that it don't hit your pocket as hard as if it was a 150 cards set. It is between the scheduled big expansions, and it will contain everything you'll need. So the players or playgroups can ignore having hunters with vampires or include, based on a playgroup by playgroup basis. Of course if this works it opens a whole new universe in VTES, why only hunters? maybe next we'll have a 60 cards self cotnained Mummy set, or demon (how would I wet my pants having the Hasmed crypt card), and the same, you like it, you buy the specific set, you don't you just ignore it as if it never existed. Of course all of this is just especulation, but I don't think it is a bad idea. Any thoughts?

xex...@hotmail.com schrieb: > Of course all of this is just especulation, but I don't think it is a > bad idea. Any thoughts? I am totally happy with any kind of new cards as long as they stop messing around with the old ones in terms of useless errata, banning and the like. -- johannes walch

I am happy with new cards, and even more happy when they update old ones. A lot of them need clarification, and rewording the text to do so is great. Personally, I would prefer it if the generic disciplines were more balanced. I do still feel dominate is overpowered, there is a reason people try to add dominate to all sorts of vampires that don't start with it. However I also favor achieving that goal more by incremental card addition. Only in extreme cases do I favor nerfing. I like the idea of adding Hunters to VTES, as long as we maintain the "Dark and Gritty" feel. (Which is also why I didn't like the cutesy anime art we've seen before). -Mercuriel [ quoted text not captured ]

xex...@hotmail.com escreveu: Others, (myself included) are excited by this new set. I can > safely say that the phrase in the teaser "hunter crypt cards" bring the > biggest change on the game since the introduction of Events,(ok we had > a reflex, but really we already had cards with the same effect). > The theory we were thinking was that this is a really small set, > however big enough to support hunters completely, and maybe self > supported. Self supported in the sense that you'll have everything you > need to play the hunters as a hunter only deck or support with > vampires. I've been thinking about the idea of the Hunter crypt cards turning into allies once they're in play. If this is to be to true, I wonder how existing cards that affect allies will relate to these hunters. A bunch of new cards referring to "mortal allies" have been released, and having the chance to actually influence mortal allies into the game instead of recruiting them in first place would help a lot to see these new cards that affect allies more useful. I can see a deck with some Salubri and Hunters on the crypt and a lot of Panacea finally being used, or Samedis and Hunters and Putrescent Servitude or Infection (if for some reason any Hunter crypt card is also a ghoul). This can be done currently, of course, specially with the Samedi who have Obfuscate to recruit the allies and Fortitude to Freak Drive and do something else. But being able to influence the allies instead of recruiting them would leave plenty of room for these decks to specialize in other things, such as Hunter combat with the mentioned cards as a sidekick to maintain the Hunter alive for a little while. Purification, Emergency Rations, True Faith (how cool will it be if we can put this one in a Hunter crypt card?)... There are a lot of cards that would see play a little more. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Johannes Walch wrote: > I am totally happy with any kind of new cards as long as they stop > messing around with the old ones in terms of useless errata, banning and > the like. Which errata and bannings were useless?

xex...@hotmail.com wrote: > A lot of people (as usual with any new set) do not like what they are > reading, and think this will disrupt the current status quo of the > game. Others, (myself included) are excited by this new set. Like, I see that some folks are upset about mortal/ally crypt cards. I suppose if you are really tied up in the backstory or whatever, you might find it weird to have mortals in the crypt. Or something. I can't for the life of me understand that, personally. I love this game. I have loved this game since it came out. I'm totally happy with expansions of any type, as long as they are good and continue to keep the game interesting. Yeah, sometimes missteps are made in individual cards here and there, but overall, I'm yet to be disapointed by a new design or concept introduced into this game. Years ago, I was discussing VTES with my pal Steve "I Accidentally Forgot to Archon Investigation Nergal, So He Won" Wampler, and we were like "What is good about VTES is the design--if it was called Muppets: The Feltening, we'd still play it as much" (Imagine our surprise when somone made a really cool Muppets deck for a create-a-clan tournament...). And that is how the game remains. If mortal/ally crypt cards make the game more interesting, bring them on. -Petert

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > xex...@hotmail.com wrote: > > A lot of people (as usual with any new set) do not like what they are > > reading, and think this will disrupt the current status quo of the > > game. Others, (myself included) are excited by this new set. > > Like, I see that some folks are upset about mortal/ally crypt cards. I > suppose if you are really tied up in the backstory or whatever, you > might find it weird to have mortals in the crypt. Or something. > > I can't for the life of me understand that, personally. Look at the back of your crypt cards. They say 'vampire' don't they? I wonder if thats for a reason? Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. G

[ quoted text not captured ] So does the back of your library cards. There are lots of non-vampire cards there. It says vampire, because that is the name of the game Mr Smarty-pants. > Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. > Do you have a reason why? Unless you playtested the set, you have no idea how it will be actually implemented. > G Later, ~Rehlow --Maybe I can stop trying to get Jake Washington now that he is no longer needed to make an all ally deck. :) (Actually I want him for other reasons)

talonz wrote: > Look at the back of your crypt cards. They say 'vampire' don't they? > I wonder if thats for a reason? > > Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. > > G I absolutely agree. The game definitely started going bad when they decided to put ally cards in the library. Don't those have vampire written across the back of them, too? John

talonz wrote: > Look at the back of your crypt cards. They say 'vampire' don't they? > I wonder if thats for a reason? So there shouldn't be allies in the game? We've already got werewolves and ghosts and hunters and zombies and werecats and werespiders and vampire/werewolf/frankensteins. They are already cards that already say "vampire" on the back. > Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. Why? On what grounds? Assuming that they aren't overpowered (i.e. don't screw up the game), how is it a bad idea? History has shown us that crazy new ideas getting thrown into the game tend to be underpowered from the inset (see: Anarchs; Bloodlines), so it seems likely that these are unlikely to be overpowered. So where is the issue? -Peter

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1137532835....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Could there possibly be any more "non" in your sequitur? The card backs also say The _Eternal_ Struggle, don't they? Well, since its supposed to be 'Eternal', then by your "logic" that means you still haven't finished your first game then, have you? :P > Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. > Interesting that a few people claim that. Equally interesting is the lack of explanations of that opinion which don't beg for compliance with canon for a years-dead RPG (not that I'm asking for such an explanation, yet. Anything formulated today would be similarly nonsensical, owing to a lack of foundation in facts/reality/informaiton about the hunter crypt cards). Influence is a mechanism for the acquisition of resources, with which to win a game of VTES. In the past, the only game resources you could acquire through influence were vampires, and pool (indirectly, through drawing off an Arcane Library, or somesuch). Soon, we have a new resource type which we can field using the influence mechanic. In so much as these new resources add an interesting twist to the game's dynamic, and preserves game play balance (easily done with proper playtesting, IMO) I'm in favor of it. DaveZ Atom Weaver DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] I thought you would only still play the game if it was called Dog Poo: the Eternal Struggle. :P When are you going to make a create-a-clan for that? German Shepard Poo, Poodle Poo, Colie Poo, etc. Obfuscate would be good for them (you never see it until you step in it), Fortitude (its persistant, you can never get rid of all of it), and of coarse Dominate, because all winning create-a-clan decks use dominate. :) Later, ~Rehlow

> When are you going to make a create-a-clan for that? German Shepard Poo, > Poodle Poo, Colie Poo, etc. Obfuscate would be good for them (you never > see it until you step in it), Fortitude (its persistant, you can never > get rid of all of it), and of coarse Dominate, because all winning > create-a-clan decks use dominate. :) "May the poo be with you." There, that's a reason to play with dominate. Ankur

Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > I am totally happy with any kind of new cards as long as they stop > messing around with the old ones in terms of useless errata, banning > and the like. Please define "...in terms of useless errata". 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

xex...@hotmail.com wrote: ... > If you hate the idea, then you don't have to buy this small set, as > there will not be anything of use to you. No new master for your usual > decks, no new ally you'd love to have, no vampire to complete your > crypt, as this is a "hunter set". And you'll have your usual new set in > the promised 9 months after the last normal set (in this case Legacies > of Blood). And as this set could be self contained, you won't have to > worry that the rare slot in you booster in next expansions will have a > hunter card. and what if i hate the set, but the guy across the table loves it, and is playing a hunter deck? how am i supposed to be able to stop _him_ from playing it? Personally, i'm fine with the idea. But if people hate it, just telling them "you don't have to buy any" isn't going to make them suddenly all happy about it. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

I`m still hoping (and beliving) that we´ll have a new type of minion (or allies that have some protection from D-actions and/or vampiric disciplines). There are a ton of cards that can steal or burn allies, and another couple of cards that brings them back from the dead. Not funny, if you have allocated significant rescources to put them into play. /Mathias

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > talonz wrote: > > Look at the back of your crypt cards. They say 'vampire' don't they? > > I wonder if thats for a reason? > > So there shouldn't be allies in the game? No, i'm saying that a game about vampires should be predominantly about vampires. All ally crypts make no sense given the influence mechanic, source background, and stated premises of the game in the rulebook. > They are already cards that already say > "vampire" on the back. > Not crypt cards. > > Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. > > Why? On what grounds? Because the game becomes less about vampires, and breaks a fundamental aspect of the game, ie: vampires come from your crypt, all other minions come about via the actions of those vampires (barring the odd master exception). Where does it end Peter? If this aspect is cast aside, we're not playing vampire anymore but some bastardized WW ccg that can have any of its various creatures brought out via the crypt. Thats a watered down game I have no interest in thank you. "Object of the Game Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs." "7. Influence Phase Methuselahs vehemently strive to dominate vampire society, but most younger vampires are reluctant to defer to the whims of the ancients. Methuselahs must apply their resources skillfully to entice their younger brethren to do their bidding (often with the younger vampires not even realizing that they are being manipulated). Your influence phase allows you to devote some of your influence (measured by your pool) to controlling the vampires in your uncontrolled region. This phase can also be used to move new vampires from your crypt to your uncontrolled region."

jnew...@difsol.com ha escrito: [ quoted text not captured ] But didn't you know that VAMPIRE is the acronym for Various Amusing Minions Prepared to be Influenced, Ruled and Enslaved? ;-) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

talonz wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > Look at the back of your crypt cards. They say 'vampire' don't they? > > > I wonder if thats for a reason? > > > > So there shouldn't be allies in the game? > > No, i'm saying that a game about vampires should be predominantly about > vampires. A game with 912 vampire crypt cards and 20 hunter crypt cards still strikes me as "predominantly" about vampires. Unless you feel more than 97% of the crypt cards being vampires doesn't mean the game is "predominantly" about vampires... ;) That said, the rest does not need comment since based on such failing grounds. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > xex...@hotmail.com wrote: > > A lot of people (as usual with any new set) do not like what they are > > reading, and think this will disrupt the current status quo of the > > game. Others, (myself included) are excited by this new set. > > Like, I see that some folks are upset about mortal/ally crypt cards. I > suppose if you are really tied up in the backstory or whatever, you > might find it weird to have mortals in the crypt. Or something. In fact, anyone who's really tied to *whole* backstory should've know better - the Reckoning hunters (as opposed to their "old version" presented on the Hunters Hunted supplement) turned out to be a constant feature in various Vampire Revised Edition books. Nights of Prophecy, the Giovanni Chronicles IV, Time of Thin Blood, the Giovanni novel... Having a small amount of Imbued hunters (the Reckoning ones) showing up is 200% in keeping with the backstory, provided that they appear in small numbers. The game uses Vampire Revised material also, after all. Unfortunately, many tabletop gamers stuck with 1st or 2nd edition, and they aren't aware of that fact. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > xex...@hotmail.com wrote: > > A lot of people (as usual with any new set) do not like what they are > > reading, and think this will disrupt the current status quo of the > > game. Others, (myself included) are excited by this new set. > > Like, I see that some folks are upset about mortal/ally crypt cards. I > suppose if you are really tied up in the backstory or whatever, you > might find it weird to have mortals in the crypt. Or something. In fact, anyone who's really tied to *whole* backstory should've know [ quoted text not captured ]

talonz wrote: > No, i'm saying that a game about vampires should be predominantly about > vampires. All ally crypts make no sense given the influence mechanic, > source background, and stated premises of the game in the rulebook. The game is predominantly about vampires. There are 900+ vampires. And 20 hunters. That is pretty predominant. All the other stuff you mention is certainly valid to some extent, but only really if you are particularly wrapped up in the backstory of the game. Which I realize that a lot of people are, but I'm not so much. The influence mechanic is a way to buy resources just like any other built into the game. Assuming that the game continues to work, I can't see a problem with using the influence mechanic to get allies into the game. The game already has changed the things that given mechanics have been traditionally used for (discard actions used to put cards into play; master cards making allies), and while this takes a bit of suspension of backstory to work, that strikes me as not a problem. > Because the game becomes less about vampires, and breaks a fundamental > aspect of the game, ie: vampires come from your crypt, all other > minions come about via the actions of those vampires (barring the odd > master exception). You already can make all ally decks. They aren't real good, no. But there is nothing saying that these all ally decks will be any good either. Yes, previously, you could only get allies from actions to get them. Previously, you could also not put cards into play by using a discard action. Things change. As long as this expansion isn't breaking the game, I'm unconvinced it is a problem. > Where does it end Peter? If this aspect is cast aside, we're not > playing vampire anymore but some bastardized WW ccg that can have any > of its various creatures brought out via the crypt. Thats a watered > down game I have no interest in thank you. I don't know where it ends. But assuming the game continues to be a good game, I'm not worried about it. If, say, crypt based allies are so powerful that they start to predominantly eclipse regular crypts, then that would be a problem, as it is compromising game play. But that is unlikely to happen. -Peter

MathiasTCK wrote: > I am happy with new cards, and even more happy when ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

[ quoted text not captured ] To my personal taste : AR,KR,DU (among others) There has been much discussion about this and I didn´t want to stir up things better left alone therefore I didn´t mention anything specific. I just wanted to express my feeling that I really don´t care about the direction of new cards and I am fine with almost anything but don´t like that old cards are changed unless absolutely necessary. -- johannes walch

Kevin M. wrote: > Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > >>I am totally happy with any kind of new cards as long as they stop >>messing around with the old ones in terms of useless errata, banning >>and the like. > > > Please define "...in terms of useless errata". > I was not referring to errata for clarification of rules but rather where game mechs are changed, e.g Anarch Revolt. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > To my personal taste : AR,KR,DU (among others) There has been much > discussion about this and I didn´t want to stir up things better left > alone therefore I didn´t mention anything specific. I just wanted to > express my feeling that I really don´t care about the direction of new > cards and I am fine with almost anything but don´t like that old cards > are changed unless absolutely necessary. I know this has come up before, and has been beaten to death, but those changes *were* absolutely necessary. Anarch Revolt was changed from a game ruining, absurd card to one that has interesting and balanced aplications; Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheaval were some of the most disruptive and wildly inappropriate cards in the game, in relation to the basic core mechanic of the game (Oust You Prey). This errata/banning *was* absolutely necessary and imporved the game environment dramatically. I mean, yeah, I could see that someone might disagree with that assessment, but not everyone agrees on everything, and someone has to make decisions. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >>To my personal taste : AR,KR,DU (among others) There has been much >>discussion about this and I didn´t want to stir up things better left >>alone therefore I didn´t mention anything specific. I just wanted to >>express my feeling that I really don´t care about the direction of new >>cards and I am fine with almost anything but don´t like that old cards >>are changed unless absolutely necessary. > > > I know this has come up before, and has been beaten to death, but those > changes *were* absolutely necessary. Anarch Revolt was changed from a > game ruining, absurd card to one that has interesting and balanced > aplications; Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheaval were some of the > most disruptive and wildly inappropriate cards in the game, in relation > to the basic core mechanic of the game (Oust You Prey). This > errata/banning *was* absolutely necessary and imporved the game > environment dramatically. Well anyone interested can go back and follow the arguments from both sides, I don´t want to repeat it all over but I guess it´s clear to most of us that the changes might be reasonable but they weren´t absolutely necessary. The game has worked for years w/o them. > I mean, yeah, I could see that someone might disagree with that > assessment, but not everyone agrees on everything, and someone has to > make decisions. I absolutely agree with you here, there I wrote "to my personal taste". -- johannes walch

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:dqlid6$e62$1...@news01.versatel.de... > LSJ wrote: >> Johannes Walch wrote: >> >>>I am totally happy with any kind of new cards as long as they stop >>>messing around with the old ones in terms of useless errata, banning and >>>the like. >> >> >> Which errata and bannings were useless? >> > > To my personal taste : AR,KR,DU (among others) There has been much > discussion about this and I didn´t want to stir up things better left > alone therefore I didn´t mention anything specific. As you know, vague, non-specific comments have just the opposite effect on usenet. If you don't want to "stir things up", best not to comment on the topic at all (rather than commenting vaguely)... DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah. "not absolutely necessary" rather than "useless". OK. The change to AR and the bannings of KR and DU (and all the other changes and bannings) have their uses (have some utility), whether that utility is to a given person's liking or not. But, point of fact, there are no errata that are "absolutely" necessary. Not even Return to Innocence's erratum can meet that lofty target. Similarly, no omission of change is "absolutely" necessary, either. By nature, these things are subjective and not subject to any absolute measure.

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe true but in harsh contrast to my usual preference on verbose commenting of everything that seems interesting to me ;-) I didn´t make my point clear enough, though. All I wanted to state is that I don´t really care for new cards because they seem to be well balanced over the last extensions but rather have a close eye on the changes because I wan´t overly happy with those :-/ -- johannes walch

>There are a ton of cards that can steal or burn allies, >and another couple of cards that brings them back from the dead. Not >funny, if you have allocated significant rescources to put them into >play. The same is true of vampires - plenty of cards that steal or burn them, and can bring them back from your ash heap. Hasn't stopped players from using vampires in their crypts.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > talonz wrote: > > No, i'm saying that a game about vampires should be predominantly about > > vampires. All ally crypts make no sense given the influence mechanic, > > source background, and stated premises of the game in the rulebook. > > The game is predominantly about vampires. There are 900+ vampires. And > 20 hunters. That is pretty predominant. All the other stuff you mention > is certainly valid to some extent, but only really if you are > particularly wrapped up in the backstory of the game. > Actually, that's not entirely true. If you're wrapped up enough in the backstory of the game, you will realize that Hunters are an intimate part of V:TM, and were so well before they received their own sourcebook. They were one of the first "villains" used in the game, and are one of the primary reasons for the masquerade. The RPG (at least, as it was originally released without reams of expansions that I haven't fully followed) is first and foremost about a struggle between the various vampire sects and clans, secondarily about the struggle between vampires and mortals (and the only mortals which are more than food to vampires are Hunters), and tertiarily about the struggle between vampires and other supernatural creatures. > > Where does it end Peter? If this aspect is cast aside, we're not > > playing vampire anymore but some bastardized WW ccg that can have any > > of its various creatures brought out via the crypt. Thats a watered > > down game I have no interest in thank you. > That would be an awesome game. I can't wait to see the new rote cards. Ooh, and Garou gifts. And Changelings... well, maybe we should skip the Changelings... ;)

In message <dqlif2$e62$2...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch [ quoted text not captured ] How is preventing a card from being game-ruining even close to "useless"? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <43cde2a8$2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >and what if i hate the set, but the guy across the table loves it, and >is playing a hunter deck? how am i supposed to be able to stop _him_ >from playing it? The same way you deal with the fact that you absolutely hate people playing Malkavian stealth-and-bleed decks - you let them play the game, and beat them at it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1137602882.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >And Changelings... well, maybe we should skip >the Changelings... ;) But but but but but but but but but.... where am I going to get a Pooka that changes into a whale now? :( [ quoted text not captured ]

jnew...@difsol.com wrote: > talonz wrote: > > Look at the back of your crypt cards. They say 'vampire' don't they? > > I wonder if thats for a reason? > > > > Putting allies into crypt cards is a collosally bad idea imo. > > > > G > > I absolutely agree. The game definitely started going bad when they > decided to put ally cards in the library. > > Don't those have vampire written across the back of them, too? > I might mention that I have equipment that says Vampire on the back of it too. I don't care what anyone says, a Flak Jacket is *not* a vampire! WW, please ban all cards that aren't vampires. =P I know the post I replied to is kinda old, but I just had to dredge it back up.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > talonz wrote: > > No, i'm saying that a game about vampires should be predominantly about > > vampires. All ally crypts make no sense given the influence mechanic, > > source background, and stated premises of the game in the rulebook. > > The game is predominantly about vampires. If one looks at the numbers of crypt cards, of course it is. What I am saying is that the crypt mechanic as originally designed based on the source material and supported by the rulebook is to influence 'younger' vampires. Not allies, not werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. Messing with that mechanic dilutes the dominat factor of the game, vampires. So why is this changing? Why is the repugnant (to me anwyays) all ally/hunter crypt possibility allowed? What exaclty is wrong with simply making these new hunters as ally cards as has been done in the past? Why risk game balance and game flavour if those cards could be represented with an existing mechanic at all? Novelty, most likely. Otherwise known as a 'selling point' when you are marketing a product. > All the other stuff you mention > is certainly valid to some extent, but only really if you are > particularly wrapped up in the backstory of the game. Which I realize > that a lot of people are, but I'm not so much. So why do you play this game? Is it not about Vampires, elders and fledglings, and the vampiric jyhad? Or just plain, you know, vampires? >The influence mechanic > is a way to buy resources Not resources plural, resource singular. Younger vampires. > Assuming that the game continues to work, I can't see a problem with > using the influence mechanic to get allies into the game. An assumption, yes. I can already see alot of cardtext issues arising from this. How they are dealt with could prove interesting and awkward. Hard to speculate on such game balance issues until the mechanic is revealed. > The game > already has changed the things that given mechanics have been > traditionally used for (discard actions used to put cards into play; New cards though, events. > master cards making allies), All of one card iirc. > > You already can make all ally decks. There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. > Yes, previously, you could only get allies from actions to get > them. Previously, you could also not put cards into play by using a > discard action. Things change. As long as this expansion isn't breaking > the game, I'm unconvinced it is a problem. > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed before. But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an existing one which serves a different purpose? > > I don't know where it ends. But assuming the game continues to be a > good game, I'm not worried about it. If, say, crypt based allies are so > powerful that they start to predominantly eclipse regular crypts, then > that would be a problem, as it is compromising game play. But that is > unlikely to happen. > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see that in a game called *vampire*. G

talonz wrote: > ... What I am > saying is that the crypt mechanic as originally designed based on the > source material and supported by the rulebook is to influence 'younger' > vampires. Not allies, not werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. > Messing with that mechanic dilutes the dominat factor of the game, > vampires. Yes, and the original Jyhad mechanic was designed with Camarilla vampires, not Sabbat, Independent or Laibon. That was diluted. Changes will necessary dilute the old things. That is their nature. > So why is this changing? Because VTES is a trading card game. They are designed around the idea, that they change with every expansion. > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > that in a game called *vampire*. So call it VTES and forget the original meaning. Or Jyhad. Frank

talonz wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > All the other stuff you mention > > is certainly valid to some extent, but only really if you are > > particularly wrapped up in the backstory of the game. Which I realize > > that a lot of people are, but I'm not so much. > > So why do you play this game? Is it not about Vampires, elders and > fledglings, and the vampiric jyhad? Or just plain, you know, vampires? Alot of people in my area just like the game for its play mechanics/dynamics. > > You already can make all ally decks. > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. Come on now. There's that ally card that when put into play is an ally. He can take actions to get other allies. There. No need for vampires. Move along. > > Yes, previously, you could only get allies from actions to get > > them. Previously, you could also not put cards into play by using a > > discard action. Things change. As long as this expansion isn't breaking > > the game, I'm unconvinced it is a problem. > > > > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed > before. > But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an > existing one which serves a different purpose? Oh Piffle. Events could have been Out of Turn Master cards played during your discard phase, denying you a discard, not sudden-able, granting you another master phase action/out of turn master possibility, whose effects do so to the entire table. There. Events in the form of master cards. Move on. > > I don't know where it ends. But assuming the game continues to be a > > good game, I'm not worried about it. If, say, crypt based allies are so > > powerful that they start to predominantly eclipse regular crypts, then > > that would be a problem, as it is compromising game play. But that is > > unlikely to happen. > > > > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > that in a game called *vampire*. And others want to see mages and werewolves and cardboard boxes with sentient mind bullet powers. ~SV

talonz wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > No, i'm saying that a game about vampires should be predominantly about > > > vampires. All ally crypts make no sense given the influence mechanic, > > > source background, and stated premises of the game in the rulebook. > > > > The game is predominantly about vampires. > > If one looks at the numbers of crypt cards, of course it is. What I am > saying is that the crypt mechanic as originally designed Sure. But many things have changed from how they were "originally designed". > based on the source material There is source material about vampires making use of hunters for their own purposes too. Since "control" of crypt cards is usually invisible to the one being controlled I don't see any problems with this. > and supported by the rulebook is to influence 'younger' vampires. Not allies, not > werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. The rulebook isn't meant to be a design guide or a requirements guide for future development. The rulebook describes "vampires" as being in the uncontrolled region because that is all that was in the uncontrolled region. I'm sure the rulebook will be modified to encompass the possiblility of other creatures that can be influenced. > > You already can make all ally decks. > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. I believe I've seen that. > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > that in a game called *vampire*. The Methuselahs are still vampires. That hasn't changed. Just as before, the methuselahs make use of all manner of creatures (vampires, mortals, garou, hunters...) to achieve their goals. If you'd prefer, though, maybe we can get them to change the name back to the original Jyhad (that wider net should handle hunters just fine). -Robert

talonz wrote: > If one looks at the numbers of crypt cards, of course it is. What I am > saying is that the crypt mechanic as originally designed based on the > source material and supported by the rulebook is to influence 'younger' > vampires. Not allies, not werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. > Messing with that mechanic dilutes the dominat factor of the game, > vampires. Sure. But in terms of game mechannics, there is nothing actually special about the influence phase as a way to purchase resources that prevents it from being used to get things other than vampires--I realize that the rule book says something about "bringing your vampiric power to sway over younger minions" or whatever, but in terms of how the game works, it doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to use this particular resource management system to bring out something other than vampires. > So why is this changing? Why is the repugnant (to me anwyays) all > ally/hunter crypt possibility allowed? What exaclty is wrong with > simply making these new hunters as ally cards as has been done in the > past? 'Cause having to bring them into play with actions that can be blocked/cancelled leads to having a whole deck concept shut down from the get go. With "hunters" (whatever they end up being--I have absolutely no pre-knowledge of this expansion) as crypt cards, you can build a "hunter" based deck and, at the very least, not have to worry about not being able to get the necesary minions into play by virtue of the recruit action being blocked. > Why risk game balance and game flavour if those cards could be > represented with an existing mechanic at all? Why risk game balance and game flavor over any new mechanic? > Novelty, most likely. Otherwise known as a 'selling point' when you > are marketing a product. Sure. That this expansion introduces a new mechanic to the game certainly is a selling point. I (and I'm likely not alone) am certainly intrigued by the use of crypt cards to bring out allies. > So why do you play this game? 'Cause it is a fantastic game. I never have never played the RPG. I only know about the backstory 'cause I have picked up a few of the old rulebooks used and at auctions, just to get some backstory so the VTES cards make more sense. Like, I find the window dressing appealing, as, like, I like monsters and vampires and stuff, but if the game had been a science fiction game with the exact same mechanics (just different names for stuff), I likely would have been just as sold on it when I started playing. > Is it not about Vampires, elders and > fledglings, and the vampiric jyhad? Or just plain, you know, vampires? Yeah, it is. But the vampires sometimes fight hunters. And I suspect that the designers wanted to try out a new mechanic with crypt based mortals as it made them more accessible (you don't need to wait till they are in your hand and then have to recruit them to get them in play) and probably more capable in general (depending on how they make them work), but likely less capable than vampires. Maybe it will work great. Maybe not. Maybe it will be a failled plan, and the whole idea will cease to be an issue. Maybe it'll work great, be interesting and balanced, and make the game more interesting. We'll see. > Not resources plural, resource singular. Younger vampires. Not any more. > An assumption, yes. I can already see alot of cardtext issues arising > from this. How they are dealt with could prove interesting and > awkward. Hard to speculate on such game balance issues until the > mechanic is revealed. True. I suspect that the mechanics involved will be fairly simple, as it is a booster only set, so no rulebook reprints. Perhaps all mechanics will be dealt with via card text. > All of one card iirc. Sure. This is all of 20 cards. What is the difference, really? > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. They exist. Based on the ally that comes into play via the master phase (i.e. without him being recruited the normal way). They aren't real good, but the are viable. > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed > before. > But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an > existing one which serves a different purpose? 'Cause it allows the hunters to be better than library based allies. The designers apparently thought it would be interesting to be able to build a deck around mortal hunters with no vampires at all (which already exist, but are harder to pull off). By making them crypt cards, you don't have to wait to draw them and you don't have to not get blocked recruiting them. Making build the all mortal deck much more of a viable concept. But not necessarily any more successful--if they are still suceptible to all the steal ally effects, and get killed when they run out of life, and don't have much life to begin with, they are hardly going to eclipse vampires. It seems more likely that they'll get shuffled into vampire crypts that they fit into as spice or added ability and they will show up in all hunter decks that aren't that good. > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > that in a game called *vampire*. Sure. But you can already do that. You can make pure ally decks that influence out no vampires at all with Jake Washington. You can make, say, War Ghoul decks that influence out 1 weenie vampire the whole game and just brings out War Ghouls that do everything else. I've made plenty of decks where the vampires were little more than an afterthought and the allies did everything (hordes and hordes of computer hacking Arms Dealers with .38s). Not good decks to be sure. But they worked. Now, we will be taking an already existing concept (vampireless or ally focused decks) and making it more viable by adjusting an existing mechanic. It'll probably be not *that* effective, though, and the hunters will probably hang out with vampires more often than not. -Peter

Robert Goudie wrote: > > The Methuselahs are still vampires. That hasn't changed. Just as > before, the methuselahs make use of all manner of creatures (vampires, > mortals, garou, hunters...) to achieve their goals. > True, although there's less evidence that they're still methuselahs. ;) No mere methuselah would be likely to gain control of Etrius, Saulot, or Goratrix. I tend to think of the player as being a meme, a sort of living idea that is powerful enough to sway the minds of certain minions into working together for a cause. Either that, or some as-yet-unknown 2nd generation vampire controlling things from behind the scenes. Or for clan based decks, they are just the combined power that clan Tremere has brought to bear in this particular arena (perhaps a battle for the city of Seattle, or a struggle against the demon Nergal). Of course, other people have other ideas of why a methuselah can influence out Saulot (you are only buying part of his power, or he is in a weakened state, or he's actually controlling you, you just don't realize it).

Chris Berger wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > > The Methuselahs are still vampires. That hasn't changed. Just as > > before, the methuselahs make use of all manner of creatures (vampires, > > mortals, garou, hunters...) to achieve their goals. > > > True, although there's less evidence that they're still methuselahs. > ;) No mere methuselah would be likely to gain control of Etrius, > Saulot, or Goratrix. I tend to think of the player as being a meme, a > sort of living idea that is powerful enough to sway the minds of The players could be playing Caine, Lilith, Osiris, some god or another, Lucifer, the Wyrm, The Wyld, Oracles, Aracadians, Abysal thingies, or any number of other powerful entities :) -Mercuriel

xex...@hotmail.com wrote: > At this point is only wild especulation, but I just read about the > thread of the new set, and the "teaser" page on the VTES site from WW. > However discussing yesterday with a friend about this new set and what > it means for the future of VTES we thought of a theory. <SNIP> > Of course if this works it opens a whole new universe in VTES, why only > hunters? maybe next we'll have a 60 cards self cotnained Mummy set, or > demon (how would I wet my pants having the Hasmed crypt card), and the > same, you like it, you buy the specific set, you don't you just ignore > it as if it never existed. > Of course all of this is just especulation, but I don't think it is a > bad idea. Any thoughts? Would it be a possible that the new set, containing only 60 cards, is intented to introduce a more efficient/playable draft format to Vtes? If there are 20 crypt cards, it would be sensible to assume that You get a playable crypt and deck (reshuffle after deck runs out) with approx. 5 boosters? Nights of Reckoning could work both as an expansion to Vtes and as a (draft)set using the same game mechanics (with NoR, Hunter-only simplified rules for Newbies)? This is speculation, of course. Somebody might also have mentioned this earlier, but I have'nt noticed - apologies in advance for the inconvenience. Best regards, Heikki P.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > talonz wrote: > > Messing with that mechanic dilutes the dominat factor of the game, > > vampires. > > Yes, and the original Jyhad mechanic was designed with Camarilla > vampires, not Sabbat, Independent or Laibon. That was diluted. Changes > will necessary dilute the old things. That is their nature. > Brilliant. Except that, the common factor there is that they were all vampires. Not a change in the influence mechanic. > > So why is this changing? > > Because VTES is a trading card game. They are designed around the idea, > that they change with every expansion. > Oh the influence mechanic you mean? Sure yeah, that changed with every expansion. Good lord man are you even reading before you post? > > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > > that in a game called *vampire*. > > So call it VTES and forget the original meaning. Or Jyhad. > Utterly failed to convey any meaning here. G

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > talonz wrote: > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. > > Come on now. There's that ally card that when put into play is an ally. > He can take actions to get other allies. There. No need for vampires. > Move along. > Are you somehow under the delusion that I'm not aware of Jake Washington? Please reread my text you quoted above, peraps it will be more clear then. > > > > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed > > before. > > But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an > > existing one which serves a different purpose? > > Oh Piffle. Events could have been Out of Turn Master cards played > during your discard phase, denying you a discard, not sudden-able, > granting you another master phase action/out of turn master > possibility, whose effects do so to the entire table. > And removable by emergency preparations/black hand ritual, and require a number of other event/master cards in play, and have a 'don't replace until' clause and so on. Oh wait, I know...just make a new mechanic for it instead. > > > > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > > that in a game called *vampire*. > > And others want to see mages and werewolves and cardboard boxes with > sentient mind bullet powers. > And they can't accomplish this with current or future ally cards why...? G

Robert Goudie wrote: > talonz wrote: > > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > The game is predominantly about vampires. > > > > If one looks at the numbers of crypt cards, of course it is. What I am > > saying is that the crypt mechanic as originally designed > > Sure. But many things have changed from how they were "originally > designed". > So change justifies change for change's sake? Thats weak Robert, c'mon. > > based on the source material > > There is source material about vampires making use of hunters for their > own purposes too. Recruit Ally! > > and supported by the rulebook is to influence 'younger' vampires. Not allies, not > > werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. > > The rulebook isn't meant to be a design guide or a requirements guide > for future development. Don't you think it really should be? Shouldn't future development just maybe, be compatible with the rules? I'm not saying new ideas should be constrained by it as if it were set in stone, but I see no reason not to use it as a design guide. It contains for the most part the original designers rules for the game after all. And just maybe, he got the vast majority of it right? > > > You already can make all ally decks. > > > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. > > I believe I've seen that. > Sure thing. But the point was (that everyone seems to have missed) is that it is exceptionally rare and for the most part, not terribly strong. I see no reason to change this, as I would like the game to remain primarily about vampires. G

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > talonz wrote: > > Sure. But in terms of game mechannics, there is nothing actually > special about the influence phase as a way to purchase resources that > prevents it from being used to get things other than vampires I assume you mean 'compatible resource requirements' ala pool here, because otherwise I have to wonder what it takes for some mechanic to be 'special' in your books. And in either case I disagree, the influence/crypt mechanic is currently unique (IE: special) to vampires only. I'd like to see it stay that way. > > > So why is this changing? Why is the repugnant (to me anwyays) all > > ally/hunter crypt possibility allowed? What exaclty is wrong with > > simply making these new hunters as ally cards as has been done in the > > past? > > 'Cause having to bring them into play with actions that can be > blocked/cancelled leads to having a whole deck concept shut down from > the get go. You're joking right? Ally decks that (by the ally card mechanic) require actions to put them into play are all shut down from the start by the nature of that mechanic? C'mon Peter, you're going nowhere with that line of logic. Or do you mean an ALL ally deck? Something I disagree with on the very concept to begin with, and thus the whole point of my complaint? > With "hunters" (whatever they end up being--I have > absolutely no pre-knowledge of this expansion) as crypt cards, you can > build a "hunter" based deck and, at the very least, not have to worry > about not being able to get the necesary minions into play by virtue of > the recruit action being blocked. > Because this is such a hurdle why exactly? > > Why risk game balance and game flavour if those cards could be > > represented with an existing mechanic at all? > > Why risk game balance and game flavor over any new mechanic? > Well if they can be represented with an existing mechanic, I have no idea Peter. Kind of my point. > > All of one card iirc. > > Sure. This is all of 20 cards. What is the difference, really? > 19. :) That, and one is a master, the rest are crypt cards of course. > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. > > They exist. Based on the ally that comes into play via the master phase > (i.e. without him being recruited the normal way). They aren't real > good, but the are viable. > I wouldn't even call them viable. Conceptually possible, yes. Thus why I have yet to see them. > > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed > > before. > > But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an > > existing one which serves a different purpose? > > 'Cause it allows the hunters to be better than library based allies. See its that 'better' that I have a real issue with. It makes the all ally deck 'better' and thus more likely to see play. Something that goes against the very concept of the game not to mention the original design. Ergo, repugnant to me. > > You can make, > say, War Ghoul decks that influence out 1 weenie vampire the whole game > and just brings out War Ghouls that do everything else. I've made > plenty of decks where the vampires were little more than an > afterthought and the allies did everything (hordes and hordes of > computer hacking Arms Dealers with .38s). Not good decks to be sure. > But they worked. > Sure. They still involved vampires. And clan specefic ones at that, which opens you up to various clan and contesting mechanics as well. Not something to ignore really. G

talonz wrote: > I assume you mean 'compatible resource requirements' ala pool here, > because otherwise I have to wonder what it takes for some mechanic to > be 'special' in your books. And in either case I disagree, the > influence/crypt mechanic is currently unique (IE: special) to vampires > only. I'd like to see it stay that way. Nah, I mean in a conceptual and game design sense--there is nothing particularly "vampire-ry" about the influence mechanic. Historically, yeah, in VTES, the influence phase has only brought out vampires. But there is nothing specific about why it has to *only* bring out vampires--in a game design sense, it is just a way of buying things (say, if VTES was instead a game about giant fighting robots, you could use the exact same mechanic, call it the "build phase", and bring giant fighting robot cards into play in the exact same way). In a backstory sense, assuming the influence phase represents the player "methuselah" using their powers to influence vampires to do their bidding, why couldn't the player "methuselah" use their powers to influence mortals to do the same thing? Why would an ancient and powerful being need to use a middle man (i.e. get a weaker vampire to do the influencing for them by recruiting the ally)? > You're joking right? Nope. > Ally decks that (by the ally card mechanic) > require actions to put them into play are all shut down from the start > by the nature of that mechanic? C'mon Peter, you're going nowhere with > that line of logic. Getting blocked recruiting an ally is a sure way to get an ally deck not to work. If you are designing an expansion that the whole focus of which is using mortal allies, it would make sense to me to want to ensure that the mortal allies had no problem getting into play. Making the hunters into crypt cards does a couple things that seperates them from ally library cards: A) It makes them a certain resource, as opposed to a possible resource. Ally library cards require you drawing them and getting them into play, both of which make them a crap shoot to rely on. Making them crypt cards means that you can always draw them and always get them in play. B) It makes them likely more powerful than library based allies. Again, I have no pre-knowledge of these hunter cards, but by making them crypt cards, it opens up a new avenue for rules to make the hunters more capable than library based allies. Assuming that you, as a designer, want to make an expansion that focuses on hunter mortal allies, and you want to make it work well, making the hunters crypt cards seems like the most obvious way to do that. I mean, like, I can accept that someone might not like the very basis of the idea (i.e. making mortal hunters as the basis of a deck and an expansion), but I don't find it remotely problematic. > Because this is such a hurdle why exactly? It is a hurdle if you want to be able to play a mortal hunter based deck--having to rely on drawing and recruiting ally cards from your library makes the concept of a mortal hunter based deck a questionable plan. The designers, apparently, wanted people to be able to do this. This being the case, hunter crypt cards become obvious. > Well if they can be represented with an existing mechanic, I have no > idea Peter. Kind of my point. But thay can't necessarily be represented in the same way--that they are crypt cards, again, makes them into a different kind of resource than when they are library cards. They are recources that you can reasonably build a deck around, assuming that you *will* have access to them and *will* be able to get into play. Allies in the library are sketchy to rely on. > See its that 'better' that I have a real issue with. It makes the all > ally deck 'better' and thus more likely to see play. Something that > goes against the very concept of the game not to mention the original > design. Ergo, repugnant to me. I have no problem with hunter crypt cards or all mortal based decks from either a design or a conceptual level. If they lead to interesting game play, I'm all for them. Again, I'm assuming that the hunter crypt cards are going to be mostly like the Bloodlines vampires--best used as a thrown in sideline to a crypt of mostly vampires, but possible to make a whole deck out of, although likely of questionable utility. Which works for me. > Sure. They still involved vampires. And clan specefic ones at that, > which opens you up to various clan and contesting mechanics as well. > Not something to ignore really. Sure. But on a conceptual level, I'm not so much seeing the difference between: A) A deck that brings out only Horatio and uses him to recruit 5 War Ghouls that do everything else. B) A deck that is all allies all the time, and doesn't even bring out Horatio. -Peter

talonz wrote: > Screaming Vermillian wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > > > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. > > > > Come on now. There's that ally card that when put into play is an ally. > > He can take actions to get other allies. There. No need for vampires. > > Move along. > > > > Are you somehow under the delusion that I'm not aware of Jake > Washington? Yes. You said decks without vampires to put them (allies) into play, and I respond Jake Washington. > Please reread my text you quoted above, peraps it will be more clear > then. Sorry. I don't see how the text I quoted above made your position on Jake Washington any clearer than I presented it (that you were unaware or unbelieving of its existence as a way to make ally decks without vampires). > > > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed > > > before. > > > But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an > > > existing one which serves a different purpose? > > > > Oh Piffle. Events could have been Out of Turn Master cards played > > during your discard phase, denying you a discard, not sudden-able, > > granting you another master phase action/out of turn master > > possibility, whose effects do so to the entire table. > > > > And removable by emergency preparations/black hand ritual, and require > a number of other event/master cards in play, and have a 'don't replace > until' clause and so on. Oh wait, I know...just make a new mechanic > for it instead. See below. > > > "Powerful" or not, someone will build the all ally/hunter deck, and I'm > > > sure some new hunter card will warrant it. I have no desire to see > > > that in a game called *vampire*. > > > > And others want to see mages and werewolves and cardboard boxes with > > sentient mind bullet powers. > > > > And they can't accomplish this with current or future ally cards > why...? Because LSJ wants them recruitably unblockable by using tranfers in some way. It (bringing minions into play via your crypt) could be something like this instead: "Ally. X Pool. Stats. This action cannot be blocked, may be taken by a tapped minion. No action modifiers or reaction cards may be played during or after this action. Put this card in your uncontrolled region. Spend X transfers during your untap phase. When you've spent a number of transfers equal to this minions pool cost, put it into play. etc..." Oh, wait. How about we just put them in as Crypt cards instead, as a sort of pseudo new mechanic? Crypts are quite undeveloped as far as a resource system or mechanically manipulated concept is concerned. It needs further developement, and this is a start. (by putting non-vampire cards into crypts).

talonz wrote: > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > Messing with that mechanic dilutes the dominat factor of the game, > > > vampires. > > > > Yes, and the original Jyhad mechanic was designed with Camarilla > > vampires, not Sabbat, Independent or Laibon. That was diluted. Changes > > will necessary dilute the old things. That is their nature. > > > > Brilliant. Except that, the common factor there is that they were all > vampires. Not a change in the influence mechanic. > Originally, the common factor was they were all Camarilla vampires. Then the common factor was they were all Camarilla or Independent, and so on. Now they include Laibon. After NoR, the common factor will be that they are all major players in the vampiric Jyhad. Or you could say the common factor is that they are all minions who are either vampires or hunt vampires. FFS, man, it's something a little bit different. They're not adding lasers and the USS Enterprise to the game. It's still thematically accurate. They're Hunters. They hunt vampires.

talonz wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > > The game is predominantly about vampires. > > > > > > If one looks at the numbers of crypt cards, of course it is. What I am > > > saying is that the crypt mechanic as originally designed > > > > Sure. But many things have changed from how they were "originally > > designed". > > So change justifies change for change's sake? Thats weak Robert, > c'mon. Your words--not mine. You seem to be saying that because it has been this way it must stay this way or at best that it should only change if it *has to* and that because hunters have traditionally come into the game using some mechanics that it can't use others.. I'm simply pointing out that past design does not automatically become a constraint on future design. > > > based on the source material > > > > There is source material about vampires making use of hunters for their > > own purposes too. > > Recruit Ally! Master - Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter. So in the original set we have a Master card that is a hunter and an ally (coming in via recruit action) that is a hunter. So therefore we can only bring allies into the game using those two mechanics? > > > and supported by the rulebook is to influence 'younger' vampires. Not allies, not > > > werewolves, not hunters, but vampires. > > > > The rulebook isn't meant to be a design guide or a requirements guide > > for future development. > > Don't you think it really should be? Guidelines? Sure. Set-in-stone-requirements? No. > Shouldn't future development just maybe, be compatible with the rules? Most is. Most new cards work within the framework of the existing rulebook. > I'm not saying new ideas should be constrained by it as if it were set in > stone, but I see no reason not to use it as a design guide. Okay then there's nothing to argue about. The rulebook isn't a set-in-stone-requirements-document. I'd agree that introducing something new or different to the rulebook should only be done with great care. I would disagree if you said that it should never be done or should only be done if it is absolutely necessary. > original designers rules for the game after all. And just maybe, he > got the vast majority of it right? IMO, some parts of the rulebook have to be viewed as describing the core concepts of the game and those should not be changed. Other parts have to be viewed as descriptive of the current state of the game and not prescriptive of how it must be in the future. -Robert

In message <1138026443.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >Nah, I mean in a conceptual and game design sense--there is nothing >particularly "vampire-ry" about the influence mechanic. Historically, >yeah, in VTES, the influence phase has only brought out vampires. Sonja isn't a vampire in the WoD sense, exactly. Nor is the demon Nergal. Of course, in V:TES terms they are, but that's not quite the same. (The Hunters could, if people really wanted them to be, vampires who just happened to be of the Hunter clan - I doubt this will happen, but you never know.) Aabt Kindred are sort of vampires-ish, but they're special in that animals almost always die when embraced (though they can be ghouled pretty easily). So it's not exactly as if transfers have been sacrosanct, from a theme point of view. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1138030418.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >FFS, man, it's something a little bit different. They're not adding >lasers and the USS Enterprise to the game. OMG. Squirrels with lasers on their heads! (Also: isn't phased motion detector a laser of a sort?) Dear LSJ, Please can you fix it for me to have a card which has a squirrel with a laser on its head, please? Much love, [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1138030418.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > >FFS, man, it's something a little bit different. They're not adding > >lasers and the USS Enterprise to the game. > > OMG. Squirrels with lasers on their heads! (Also: isn't phased motion > detector a laser of a sort?) > > > Please can you fix it for me to have a card which has a squirrel with a > laser on its head, please? > I'll second that. Squirrel with laser. Preferrably a were-squirrel of some sort. And if the laser could do non-preventable agg damage to Gangrel, that would be even better. Oh, and also hose Earth Meld and Form of Mist.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1138030418.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >>FFS, man, it's something a little bit different. They're not adding >>lasers and the USS Enterprise to the game. > > OMG. Squirrels with lasers on their heads! (Also: isn't phased motion > detector a laser of a sort?) > > Dear LSJ, > > Please can you fix it for me to have a card which has a squirrel with a > laser on its head, please? > > Much love, If it's any consolation, we have a vampire with a squirrel on it's head. The Nosferatu Sebastien Marley, from Jyhad. I think. It's one of those Nos. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1138081542.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Oh, sheesh, I thought you guys were serious there for a minute. I would just be happy with any kind of card that somehow found an excuse to show a distinct picture of a squirrel with a distinct laser on its distinct squirrelly li'l head. Unpreventable ag damage on a squirrel card. Srnk! That's *crazy* talk right there, that's what it is. Fred

talonz wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > > Sure. But in terms of game mechannics, there is nothing actually > > special about the influence phase as a way to purchase resources that > > prevents it from being used to get things other than vampires > > I assume you mean 'compatible resource requirements' ala pool here, > because otherwise I have to wonder what it takes for some mechanic to > be 'special' in your books. And in either case I disagree, the > influence/crypt mechanic is currently unique (IE: special) to vampires > only. I'd like to see it stay that way. > > > > > > > So why is this changing? Why is the repugnant (to me anwyays) all > > > ally/hunter crypt possibility allowed? What exaclty is wrong with > > > simply making these new hunters as ally cards as has been done in the > > > past? > > > > 'Cause having to bring them into play with actions that can be > > blocked/cancelled leads to having a whole deck concept shut down from > > the get go. > > You're joking right? Ally decks that (by the ally card mechanic) > require actions to put them into play are all shut down from the start > by the nature of that mechanic? C'mon Peter, you're going nowhere with > that line of logic. > > Or do you mean an ALL ally deck? Something I disagree with on the very > concept to begin with, and thus the whole point of my complaint? > Currently it requires an action to put allies in play, so it almost also requires a stealth discipline and some stealth cards in your deck to put allies into play. If a new mechanic circumvents the requires an action part, ally based decks (with or without vampires) don't have to also play stealth cards (cards which are rarely usable by the ally themself). Also the part where allies are in the library makes playing unique allies problematic. If you want to get Carlton Van Wyck into play, you need to play a lot of copies of him or accept that you might not get him into play early. If you go with the lot of copies route you end up with a bunch of dead cards in your hand later in the game (unless he gets killed). With allies in the crypt you can play 3 copies of an ally and have a good chance of seeing him in your opening draw. > > With "hunters" (whatever they end up being--I have > > absolutely no pre-knowledge of this expansion) as crypt cards, you can > > build a "hunter" based deck and, at the very least, not have to worry > > about not being able to get the necesary minions into play by virtue of > > the recruit action being blocked. > > > > Because this is such a hurdle why exactly? > > > > Why risk game balance and game flavour if those cards could be > > > represented with an existing mechanic at all? > > > > Why risk game balance and game flavor over any new mechanic? > > > > Well if they can be represented with an existing mechanic, I have no > idea Peter. Kind of my point. > > > > > > All of one card iirc. > > > > Sure. This is all of 20 cards. What is the difference, really? > > > > 19. :) > > That, and one is a master, the rest are crypt cards of course. > > > > There are tons of ally focused decks. But decks without vampires to > > > put them in play? That I have yet to see. And for a reason. > > > > They exist. Based on the ally that comes into play via the master phase > > (i.e. without him being recruited the normal way). They aren't real > > good, but the are viable. > > > > I wouldn't even call them viable. Conceptually possible, yes. Thus > why I have yet to see them. > Maybe you haven't seen it yet because the deck requires an early play of Jake Washington, preferably first turn, so that means what 8-12+ copies of Jake in a 60-90 card deck. That is a lot of copies of a rare that is useful for more than just trick decks (I have been trying for some time now to get a single copy of him for normal uses and no one has any for trade). The deck also probably isn't that good, so that contributes to its scarcity. > > > Events required some form of new mechanic, that card type never existed > > > before. > > > But allies already have applicable card mechanics, so why screw with an > > > existing one which serves a different purpose? > > > > 'Cause it allows the hunters to be better than library based allies. > > See its that 'better' that I have a real issue with. It makes the all > ally deck 'better' and thus more likely to see play. Something that > goes against the very concept of the game not to mention the original > design. Ergo, repugnant to me. > When the design and rules team made equipment better, was that also repugnant to you? Jyhad had lots of way to screw equipment decks; requiring an equip action (Concealed Weapon required Obfuscate), blocking the equip action, there was no Sire's Index Finger to counter Drawing out the Beast (which was also a stronger card when you could play more than one per combat), Immortal Grapple (if you owned them) had less cards that countered it, probably lots of other things I can't remember about back then. Equipment was made better, but it wasn't made better than Malk Stealth Bleed. Allies will most likely be better after this set, but I highly doubt they will be made better than vampires. If all allies < vampires, then I doubt you will see a lot of competitive all ally decks. > > > > You can make, > > say, War Ghoul decks that influence out 1 weenie vampire the whole game > > and just brings out War Ghouls that do everything else. I've made > > plenty of decks where the vampires were little more than an > > afterthought and the allies did everything (hordes and hordes of > > computer hacking Arms Dealers with .38s). Not good decks to be sure. > > But they worked. > > > > Sure. They still involved vampires. And clan specefic ones at that, > which opens you up to various clan and contesting mechanics as well. > Not something to ignore really. > The vampires in such a deck can be almost an afterthought, something almost ignored. After building the library for an all War Ghoul deck, you can just grab 4 each of the 3 smallest Tzi and throw them in the deck, regardless of their disciplines. 3 different Tzi should get you around any contesting problems. > G Later, ~Rehlow

> > Dear LSJ, > > > > Please can you fix it for me to have a card which has a squirrel with a > > laser on its head, please? > > > > Much love, > > If it's any consolation, we have a vampire with a squirrel on it's head. > The Nosferatu Sebastien Marley, from Jyhad. I think. It's one of those Nos. > I thought it was a cat, or maybe one of them funny australian "koala" squirrels. :) Hmm, good eatin' Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Salem wrote: > If it's any consolation, we have a vampire with a squirrel on it's head. > The Nosferatu Sebastien Marley, from Jyhad. I think. It's one of those Nos. Man. Sebastian Marley. I've been wanting him to get better for years and years. He's a 7 who suffers from +1 hand damage costing 2 points in the original set, so he only has 1 superior discipline. But his picture is fantastic (I'm pretty sure he has a cat on his head, not a laser guided squirrel...). If only he had one more superior discipline (maybe if he was a (7) ANI, OBF, pot, aus, +1 strength), he'd be teh awsome. -Peter

> Man. Sebastian Marley. I've been wanting him to get better for years > and years. He's a 7 who suffers from +1 hand damage costing 2 points in > the original set, so he only has 1 superior discipline. But his picture > is fantastic (I'm pretty sure he has a cat on his head, not a laser > guided squirrel...). If only he had one more superior discipline (maybe > if he was a (7) ANI, OBF, pot, aus, +1 strength), he'd be teh awsome. Of course this can be said about each and every original vamp who has +1 bleed or +1 strength....The 10th Anniversary set was a great oportunity to change a lot of the old vamps to meet the current "power curve"....too bad it didn't happen...

The Bard of Crete schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Too good it didn´t happen. I don´t want to be in the situation where everytime I use one of my 1000s of VTES/Jyhad vamps I have to check for the actual disciplines :-/ -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I hate self-replies but that would have been a so perfect example for "useless errata" (as referred in one of my other posts). Some vamps are good some are bad, that´s the way of the world and not every vamp has to match the "current power curve". On the other hand you have vamps way above the power curve in G1 (Can any current vamp beat Anson? Hell no!) so it´s all pretty leveled out. -- johannes walch

> > Too good it didn´t happen. I don´t want to be in the situation where > > everytime I use one of my 1000s of VTES/Jyhad vamps I have to check for > > the actual disciplines :-/ > I hate self-replies but that would have been a so perfect example for > "useless errata" (as referred in one of my other posts). Some vamps are > good some are bad, that´s the way of the world and not every vamp has to > match the "current power curve". On the other hand you have vamps way > above the power curve in G1 (Can any current vamp beat Anson? Hell no!) > so it´s all pretty leveled out. > Which is exactly why I didn't start a rant or even get all that upset at the time, or even now. There will always be some vamps "over the curve" and some vamps "under the curve". Not a big deal.

The Bard of Crete wrote: > Of course this can be said about each and every original vamp who has > +1 bleed or +1 strength....The 10th Anniversary set was a great > oportunity to change a lot of the old vamps to meet the current "power > curve"....too bad it didn't happen... Sure it could have. But he was *extra* cool. -Peter

Johannes Walch wrote: > I hate self-replies but that would have been a so perfect example for > "useless errata" (as referred in one of my other posts). Yeah, but see, it didn't actually occur. So it isn't so much a perfect example of anything other than something that would have been a bad idea. This being said, there is nothing preventing them from making Advanced versions of underpowered Jyhad Vampire X with better disciplines. Like, say, while Commander Sela isn't the best example, her advanced version is a 7 cap (as regular Sela probably should have been). -Peter

XZealot wrote: >> > Dear LSJ, >> > >> > Please can you fix it for me to have a card which has a squirrel with a >> > laser on its head, please? >> > >> > Much love, >> >> If it's any consolation, we have a vampire with a squirrel on it's head. >> The Nosferatu Sebastien Marley, from Jyhad. I think. It's one of those Nos. >> > > I thought it was a cat, or maybe one of them funny australian "koala" > squirrels. :) dude! koalas have round fluffy ears and short stubby tails. the tail on that thing is waaay to big for it to be a cat, either, i'm sure. > Hmm, good eatin' well, according to those "australian history" classes i was forced to take during high school, since i live in australia and all, the native aboriginals did eat koalas. Unfortunately european colonisation led to people going nuts with guns and shooting them all for fur, leaving the poor lil buggers an endangered species. And, thus, off the menu. Kangaroos, however, are prolific, and you can find kangaroo on the menus of some of the more 'la-di-da' restaurants around. and it's quite nice. (doing work experience for a life insurance company sure did lead to some enjoyable free lunches...) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <43d7...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >well, according to those "australian history" classes i was forced to >take during high school, since i live in australia and all, the native >aboriginals did eat koalas. I heard the aboriginals also ate drop bears. Now there's a frightening thought: drop bears with lasers. Actually, it gets more frightening when a friend in Melbourne was telling me all about aquatic drop bears. Scary stuff. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > dude! koalas have round fluffy ears and short stubby tails. the tail on > that thing is waaay to big for it to be a cat, either, i'm sure. Just checked on the Sebastian Marley. Totally a cat on his head. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Cats are pretty gud eatin' too. :) "Yes, I would like the Kung Pao Meow." [ quoted text not captured ]

> well, according to those "australian history" classes i was forced to > take during high school, since i live in australia and all, the native > aboriginals did eat koalas. Unfortunately european colonisation led to > people going nuts with guns and shooting them all for fur, leaving the > poor lil buggers an endangered species. And, thus, off the menu. Endangered... Hmm, that's probably why they tasted so good ;P Comment Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <43d7...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem > <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: > >well, according to those "australian history" classes i was forced to > >take during high school, since i live in australia and all, the native > >aboriginals did eat koalas. > > I heard the aboriginals also ate drop bears. > > Now there's a frightening thought: drop bears with lasers. Actually, it > gets more frightening when a friend in Melbourne was telling me all > about aquatic drop bears. Scary stuff. > I suspect that this is a joke that only you and Salem will understand out of everyone on the entire newsgroup. For others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear ;)

Chris Berger wrote: > I suspect that this is a joke that only you and Salem will understand > out of everyone on the entire newsgroup. For others: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear Ahh. That makes much more sense now. -Peter

In message <1138287517.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Don't believe it. It's pro-Drop Bear propaganda for people who want poor tourists and rural Australians to get eaten. They've subverting Wikipedia. :-( [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:ss1YNaF4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1138287517.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > pd...@lightlink.com writes: >>Chris Berger wrote: >>> I suspect that this is a joke that only you and Salem will understand >>> out of everyone on the entire newsgroup. For others: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear >> >>Ahh. That makes much more sense now. > > Don't believe it. It's pro-Drop Bear propaganda for people who want > poor tourists and rural Australians to get eaten. They've subverting > Wikipedia. :-( Jeez, from the name, I keep thinking Drop Bears are what gets left in the toilet by folks who've consumed sufficient quantities of fiber and coffee. If so, the aquatic ones are very disturbing indeed. If you see one, swim the other way in all haste. In fact, probably best to climb out of the pool altogether. Fred very sorry, couldn't resist sharing that image with you

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1138287517.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > pd...@lightlink.com writes: > >>Chris Berger wrote: >> >>>I suspect that this is a joke that only you and Salem will understand >>>out of everyone on the entire newsgroup. For others: >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear >> >>Ahh. That makes much more sense now. > > > Don't believe it. It's pro-Drop Bear propaganda for people who want > poor tourists and rural Australians to get eaten. They've subverting > Wikipedia. :-( There is no vast pro-Drop Bear conspiracy.

In message <drbiqa$g59$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, flan <nomai...@gmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Don't believe it. It's pro-Drop Bear propaganda for people who >>want >> poor tourists and rural Australians to get eaten. They've subverting >> Wikipedia. :-( > >There is no vast pro-Drop Bear conspiracy. Pfft. That's what They want you to believe. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <drbiqa$g59$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, flan > <nomai...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >There is no vast pro-Drop Bear conspiracy. > > Pfft. That's what They want you to believe. > Do not feed the fnords.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1138334210....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Howdy Ho!

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > talonz wrote: > > > > And they can't accomplish this with current or future ally cards > > why...? > > Because LSJ wants them recruitably unblockable by using tranfers in > some way. You somehow speak for him now? This is a guess at best. > It (bringing minions into play via your crypt) could be > something like this instead: > > "Ally. X Pool. Stats. This action cannot be blocked, may be taken by a > tapped minion. No action modifiers or reaction cards may be played > during or after this action. Put this card in your uncontrolled region. > Spend X transfers during your untap phase. When you've spent a number > of transfers equal to this minions pool cost, put it into play. etc..." > > Oh, wait. How about we just put them in as Crypt cards instead, as a > sort of pseudo new mechanic? So this is your sum argument for having them be cyrpt cards? Is the fact that the example given above comes from your library escaped you? > > Crypts are quite undeveloped Bullocks. It does exactly what it was intended to do. >It needs further developement, and this is a start. (by putting non-vampire cards into > crypts). Also bullocks. No valid reason given for this 'need' for further development. G

> Crypts are quite undeveloped as far as a resource system or > mechanically manipulated concept is concerned. It needs further > developement, and this is a start. (by putting non-vampire cards into > crypts). What are you talking about? There's an entire phase devoted to managing your crypt resources, which is among the most fundamental elements of what makes Jyhad different from other card games. In addition to the influence phase, there are 4 vampires and 22 library cards that interact directly with the crypt--not to mention the uncontrolled region, which sort of an extension of it. In terms of developing the crypt (whatever that means), how does adding non-vampire cards to it accomplish that? Adding more vampires would have done precisely the same thing. And why does anything in the game "need" further development? The game works quite well as far as I've noticed.

talonz wrote: > > > And they can't accomplish this with current or future ally cards > > > why...? I would guess that it has to do with the power curve. The Ally template has it's own costing established, and if the new allies are Imbued or whatever, it might make dropping them from your hand too expensive. Rampant speculation, from a business sense it also seems like the logical next step for expanding the game. There is finite material from which to build new product. We've been co-habitating the PoB long enough for me to pick up on your purism a bit, and I respect that, but from a thematic view it (non-vamp crypt cards) makes sense. If a methuselah can "influence" powerful vampires, why not powerful mortals? The game allows for the vampires you control to recruit allies, why couldn't a methuselah (presumably more powerful than the vampires he/she controls) recruit allies directly? I think Jake Washington sets a precedent for this - just moving it to another phase.

CthuluKitty wrote: > > Crypts are quite undeveloped as far as a resource system or > > mechanically manipulated concept is concerned. It needs further > > developement, and this is a start. (by putting non-vampire cards into > > crypts). > > What are you talking about? There's an entire phase devoted to > managing your crypt resources, which is among the most fundamental > elements of what makes Jyhad different from other card games. In > addition to the influence phase, there are 4 vampires and 22 library > cards that interact directly with the crypt--not to mention the > uncontrolled region, which sort of an extension of it. > You can do only three things in the influence phase; move counters on, move counters off, add a vampire to your uncontrolled region. That seems quiet undeveloped to me, contrast that with the minion phase. Although the master phase only lets you play master cards or use a master phase action for a card in play, what you can do with a master phase action is quiet broad. After events were added as a new option to the discard phase, did you not see that other phases could be further developed? > In terms of developing the crypt (whatever that means), how does adding > non-vampire cards to it accomplish that? Adding more vampires would > have done precisely the same thing. > No, it would have added more vampire variety, and only a small percentage of new variety since there are already lots of vampires. Now a completely different minion type can be brought into play during your influence phase. > And why does anything in the game "need" further development? The game > works quite well as far as I've noticed. Because a game that stays stagnant will probably die. Sure Vampire lasted many years with no new expansions, but it also did not make any money for the publisher at that time. If White Wolf puts out expansions with no new mechanics, eventually they will put out expansions that look like previous expansions and no one (or fewer players) will buy them. Speculating that they want to grow the game of Vampire into the World of Darkness. Later, ~Rehlow