An(other) modest rules proposal

Fellow Methusalehs: I recently suggested that once a unique vampire, equipment, location, retainer, or ally was burned (that is, actually destroyed while in play) then that unique vampire, equipment, location, retainer, or ally should be barred from the game (except thru game mechanics such as Daemonic Possession). This was not particularly well received, and some time when I have more time (oh, in about 10 years) I'll rebut some of the comments I received. Notwithstanding that episode, I would like to humbly and respectfully offer another rules suggestion based on a recent thread having to do with vampire names vs. vampire cards. At present the rules specify (for whatever reason), that a Contract on Gerard is not really a Contract on the vampire named Gerard but rather a Contract on a card named Gerard. I am suggesting that any "baggage" that Gerard picks up during a game should remain/be attached to any and all incarnations of Gerard during that game. In other words, Gerard has a Contract out on him. Gerard is attacked and utterly destroyed in combat (i.e. burned). Another Gerard "card" is influenced and again he comes into play. Well, that Gerard should also have a Contract. Or say that Player A's Jimmy Dunn is running amok with a Flamethrower. Player B brings out Jimmy Dunn. Player A's Jimmy Dunn is placed into A's ashheap and Player B's Jimmy now has a Flamethrower. This proposal (as well as my previous one) has the advantage of being more in line with the backstory, and presents some intriguing opportunities for game play. Thoughts anyone?? Madman

Madman2001 <4fis...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:7d8b1942.01100...@posting.google.com... > Fellow Methusalehs: > > I recently suggested that once a unique vampire, equipment, location, > retainer, or ally was burned (that is, actually destroyed while in > play) then that unique vampire, equipment, location, retainer, or ally > should be barred from the game (except thru game mechanics such as > Daemonic Possession). I made this same suggestion to the guys down here in D.C. a couple of months ago, and I was met with the same reaction. After thinking about it some more, I've realized that it isn't the greatest idea. It would be more consistent with the backstory (and the design team could always make a card that could allow an already burnt vampire to be reinfluenced), but in general this situation would be bad because it gives a significant advantage to combat decks. It's always reassuring to know that if I'm playing my Ventrue Law Firm Deck that Bridges, Nash and Crowley can still be as such after Emerson gets burning wrathed, since any respectable Law Firm deck is going to have multiple copies of the three main princes. If I didn't have that option, my deck is severely crippled without ANY chance of making a comeback. And the last thing we want to do is give Ben Peal more evidence that the Ventrue are a weak clan ;-) > Notwithstanding that episode, I would like to humbly and respectfully > offer another rules suggestion based on a recent thread having to do > with vampire names vs. vampire cards. At present the rules specify > (for whatever reason), that a Contract on Gerard is not really a > Contract on the vampire named Gerard but rather a Contract on a card > named Gerard. I am suggesting that any "baggage" that Gerard picks up > during a game should remain/be attached to any and all incarnations of > Gerard during that game. My initial thought is that this is not a bad suggestion. It certainly makes sense in terms of the backstory. The thing is that this is a very minor thing when looking at the bigger picture of the V:TES in general. For something to warrant a rules change in V:TES, where the rules are already so complex, there's got to be something really wrong or whatever. I don't think that this minor issue fits. Of course, if you want to make this a house rule thing, then by all means... The example you've given above could be argued to fit the backstory the way the current rules reflect. If Gerard were to be contracted by the Assamites and then if Gerard were to be successfully burned, Alamut would probably have to issue a new contract if they found out that Gerard were to have come back to life, unless the Assamite were to realize it before he ever got back to Alamut. I dunno. Whatever. Peteo

On 1 Oct 2001 14:45:15 -0700, Madman2001 wrote: >I recently suggested that once a unique vampire, equipment, location, >retainer, or ally was burned (that is, actually destroyed while in >play) then that unique vampire, equipment, location, retainer, or ally >should be barred from the game (except thru game mechanics such as >Daemonic Possession). >Notwithstanding that episode, I would like to humbly and respectfully >offer another rules suggestion based on a recent thread having to do >with vampire names vs. vampire cards. At present the rules specify >(for whatever reason), that a Contract on Gerard is not really a >Contract on the vampire named Gerard but rather a Contract on a card >named Gerard. I am suggesting that any "baggage" that Gerard picks up >during a game should remain/be attached to any and all incarnations of >Gerard during that game. Some other CGG work in this way, e.g. Doomtown. If a unique character dies then you can't play another and if something happens to him then that sticks with him even if he goes back to your hand or deck. It's called "card memory" there. The nice thing about the uniqueness is that you don't have to worry about collecting more than one copy of a character's card. Andrew

> In other words, Gerard has a Contract out on him. Gerard is attacked > and utterly destroyed in combat (i.e. burned). Another Gerard "card" > is influenced and again he comes into play. Well, that Gerard should > also have a Contract. I don't like this. It is unbalanced in the favour fo the Assamites. One of the only ways to shift unpleasantness like Contracts is to conceed the vampire and let him or her get burned. If you set the precident for stuff like this with contracts, where will it go to next? Sensory Deps staying on newly re-influenced vampires? Vampires that have had their title stolen or upgraded - e.g. Calebros the Matyr has his title stolen, but becomes Nossie Justicar. He then gets burned, but brought out again - as a Prince, Justicar or Neither? What you are suggesting says that he should be a Justicar. In the case of bad stuff, it makes it pointless re-influencing vampires (Why bring out Sir Wlater Nash if he is just doing to get staved in by Abd Al Rashid... again). It also means the value of cards like contract is slightly more than their current cost (0!) since it is eternally damning. No, bad idea. DH

4fis...@compuserve.com (Madman2001) wrote: >Notwithstanding that episode, I would like to humbly and respectfully >offer another rules suggestion based on a recent thread having to do >with vampire names vs. vampire cards. At present the rules specify >(for whatever reason), that a Contract on Gerard is not really a >Contract on the vampire named Gerard but rather a Contract on a card >named Gerard. I am suggesting that any "baggage" that Gerard picks up >during a game should remain/be attached to any and all incarnations of >Gerard during that game. > >In other words, Gerard has a Contract out on him. Gerard is attacked >and utterly destroyed in combat (i.e. burned). Another Gerard "card" >is influenced and again he comes into play. Well, that Gerard should >also have a Contract. > >Or say that Player A's Jimmy Dunn is running amok with a Flamethrower. > Player B brings out Jimmy Dunn. Player A's Jimmy Dunn is placed into >A's ashheap and Player B's Jimmy now has a Flamethrower. > >This proposal (as well as my previous one) has the advantage of being >more in line with the backstory, and presents some intriguing >opportunities for game play. > >Thoughts anyone?? One quirk to consider: blood on the vampire and tappedness: The new Jimmy Dunn doesn't start with 4 blood (his transfers) - he starts with however much blood the Jimmy he's replacing has (along with any discipline cards, equipment, Haven Uncovered, etc. the previous Jimmy had). If the previous Jimmy was in torpor, the new one starts in torpor. If the previous Jimmy was tapped, the new Jimmy starts tapped. Similarly for contested vampires - the winner of the contest gets the initial vampire. A little gray here for the tapped part, though - since you don't win the contest until after you've untapped your cards (and you don't untap contested cards since you don't control them), does the vampire become ready in the tapped or untapped state? With burned vampires, you need to keep track of the blood the burned vampire had prior to being burned (and his tapped status). Figuring out if a new copy of a burned vampire starts in torpor or not could also be tricky. Do the retainers "hang around the graveyard" waiting for their masters to dig themselves up? -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson