[Werewolf expansion] Would you like to see it?

It's just a question out of pure curiosity. I''m longing for the day I would be able to play good werewolves, and the existing aren't really satisfying in my opinion, but that's not the point i'd like to raise here. My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new expansion with werewolves as crypt cards?

Yes that would be great. Also Mage en Wraith wouyld be cool. Again there will be problems, just like NOR the absence of blood will give problems. Making them less capable of interacting in the table control with the vampires. Which will result in the werewolfs playing their "own game". This will be a great challange for the designteam. About the werewolfs not be playable. I dont agree. Although I dont see them win every tournament, from time to time a garou deck makes it on top.

[ quoted text not captured ] Assuming that something was learned from NOR I'd love to see the mechanic explored in a few other ways, and werewolves could be a nice option for sure. Imbueds have/had their issues (some removed, some new gained), but all that aside I think that crypt mechanism is a nice way to evolve the game and I like the imbueds in theory at least. I also love how googlegroups filters stuff inside square brackets making this post look like something it wasn't :>

In message <3c90522b-87d9-4582...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroup s.com>, Huruem <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> writes: >My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all >the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new >expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? Assuming it was a well-thought out expansion, I have no objections to it. What I wouldn't want to see is, for example, LSJ to be pressured into releasing a Werewolf expansion for whatever reason (player demand, marketing, whatever), but not being happy with what's been created. Also, I'd like to see it go through a significantly longer playtest, so that there is room for more evolution and feedback. There are a few issues with Werewolves that might make them slightly trickier to handle than Imbued. - If you wanted to represent Rage and Gnosis properly, you might make them two different sorts of Untap card, like Conviction. This might get confusing and/or fiddly, especially if you wanted to make a few different kinds of each. However, you might simplify it in the first expansion to just one card for Rage and one for Gnosis, with an appropriate keyword on them. You could then create others in the future, perhaps. - Moots would probably be something you'd want to design in at the start, even if you didn't do much with them. Trying to retrofit a political structure onto them in a later Werewolf expansion might be tricky. Then you get the fun of how/if they interact with vampire politics. Free interaction, with compatible votes, would be annoying from a back-story point of view. Exclusivity to Werewolves gives you the fun of a new mechanic that existing decks aren't able to handle well (see Events for a similar issue). You might be able to handle it well with a few simple rules and card text, but it's all fun. - Gifts would probably be handled somewhat like Powers and/or Virtues. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

I actually dont think there will be a werewolf expansion per se with werewolf crypt cards and special rules around them since there is quite a few library cards that is werewolves and at least 2 of the abominations are of werewolf origin. So I dont think theres going to be a clean, cut-out werewolf expansion in the same way the Imbued got one. On the other hand I hope there will be some sort of mish-mash expansion where the introduction of one or two tribes are inserted and they get a unique discipline to represent their powers, together with something else (more imbued for example, werewolfs and werewolf hunters in the same set?). With the introduction of werewolf crypt cards therer could be weapons that is made of silver too ;) Or ammunition! I'd love to see changelings and mages the most. Wraiths can go die in a fire :P > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? I admit that I have never played with the NOR cards, never sat at a table with someone playing a NOR deck and just briefly watched a game with them involved - But from my view they represented something healthy for the game and a big leap forward in how you can design entire new concepts for V:tes which is needed for this card game to evolve (like Henrik said) and stay healthy. I really dont understand what exactly people dislike with them so I'd love to hear some thoughts on that one :)

On 28 juil, 12:51, alex.pun...@gmail.com wrote: > I actually dont think there will be a werewolf expansion per se with > werewolf crypt cards and special rules around them since there is > quite a few library cards that is werewolves and at least 2 of the > abominations are of werewolf origin. So I dont think theres going to > be a clean, cut-out werewolf expansion in the same way the Imbued got > one. On the other hand I hope there will be some sort of mish-mash > expansion where the introduction of one or two tribes are inserted and > they get a unique discipline to represent their powers, together with > something else (more imbued for example, werewolfs and werewolf > hunters in the same set?). > I don't think it would be faithful to the werewolves, which, again, has been treated rather badly so far... > With the introduction of werewolf crypt cards therer could be weapons > that is made of silver too ;) Or ammunition! > There is already Argent Baton ;) > I'd love to see changelings and mages the most. Wraiths can go die in > a fire :P > > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? > > I admit that I have never played with the NOR cards, never sat at a > table with someone playing a NOR deck and just briefly watched a game > with them involved - But from my view they represented something > healthy for the game and a big leap forward in how you can design > entire new concepts for V:tes which is needed for this card game to > evolve (like Henrik said) and stay healthy. I really dont understand > what exactly people dislike with them so I'd love to hear some > thoughts on that one :) I thought so too, but the conflicts due to the wording of a lot of vampire cards such as seduction, really pissed a lot of people off, and I think to a certain extent their reaction was legitimate. On the other hand, I really liked the overall concept, and I'm happy to see that they're far more balanced now without memories. Hence my question. Some people on the French forum thought that if a Werewolf expansion was out before NOR, far less people would have complained about the whole concept related to NOR. I'm kind of dubious, but I think they may be right. There are definetly a lot more Werewolves fans than Hunters fan anyway. Arthur

Huruem schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I would love to see different crypt mechanics. BUT instead of having another one why not fix the NoR first? It is one expansion which has spawned 1 archetype of deck (perhaps two, but they are really similiar). Why not have a 2nd NoR expansion making the imbueds more varied and usable with different tactics.

alex....@gmail.com writes: > I admit that I have never played with the NOR cards, never sat at a > table with someone playing a NOR deck and just briefly watched a game > with them involved - But from my view they represented something > healthy for the game and a big leap forward in how you can design > entire new concepts for V:tes which is needed for this card game to > evolve (like Henrik said) and stay healthy. I really dont understand > what exactly people dislike with them so I'd love to hear some > thoughts on that one :) I think the main reason was that NoR totally broke Memories of Mortality, making it into a -7 fun "sit on your ass and watch me play the game" card. Thankfully, it was banned. Second, the first idea that came into the mind of every player was to make a deck with Imbued and one of each Gehenna card in existence, generating lots of understandable table hate. Third, even without Memories, there still are a lot of staple cards that are unplayable against the imbued, such as Taste of Vitae and Fame. HG

[ quoted text not captured ] I wouldn't even mind a compatable adaptation of the pre-existing Rage. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In article <3c90522b-87d9-4582...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Huruem <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? For the love of punk rock no. I'd be totally ok with a Werewolf themed expansion, but leave the Werewolves as ally crypt cards. Just make them cool. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

As an avid Rage player I'd be thrilled to get my pawns on some Werewolf Crypt cards! Just make it more balanced and interesting than NOR. And keep in mind that it IS a game about the nocturnal leeches... The fact that there are already several Werewolf Allies is not that different from the fact that there also were several Hunter cards available when NOR came out. I don't think that adapting Rage to VTES is a possibility for various game mechanical and economical reasons. Changelings and Wraiths? Yeah, why not. Cheers, Janne/Lönkka

In message <pdb6-4E285F.0...@nntp.aioe.org>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >I'd be totally ok with a Werewolf themed expansion, but leave the >Werewolves as ally crypt cards. Just make them cool. Dude. Sunglasses, cigar. Renegade Garou is already the epitome of cool. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Agree, 100 % like the recents expansions who had fixed; The Black Hand and Anarchs mechanics, fix the Imbued and also the Red List mechanics. Then let's make an expansion for Vampires of the East and Werewolves ;)

On Jul 28, 7:37 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Huruem schrieb: > > > It's just a question out of pure curiosity. I''m longing for the day I > > would be able to play good werewolves, and the existing aren't really > > satisfying in my opinion, but that's not the point i'd like to raise > > here. > > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? > > I would love to see different crypt mechanics. BUT instead of having > another one why not fix the NoR first? It is one expansion which has > spawned 1 archetype of deck (perhaps two, but they are really similiar). I'd say again that there were more archetypes, but really only a couple of them are A-list, so I guess that's accurate enough. > Why not have a 2nd NoR expansion making the imbueds more varied and > usable with different tactics. I'm game ;) -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Nope. Personal preference, but I'm fairly solidly in the 'no, we don't need to add werewolves, mages, garou, mummies, fomori, gypsies or any other form of alternate supernatural into VTES crypts' camp. Additionally: Given that one of the larger issues Princes (and WW) run into is that VTES is based on an RPG setting that is no longer in production (and uses terms from the current RPG in conflict with how the RPG uses them), it would likely compound the problem to start including yet more of WW's core supernaturals that are -also- based on games and sourcebooks no longer in print - and that conflict in terminology and story with their current iterations. -John Flournoy

In article <VtoBjf$14fj...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Dude. Sunglasses, cigar. Renegade Garou is already the epitome of > cool. Stand: Corrected! [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 jul, 15:30, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 3:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > It's just a question out of pure curiosity. I''m longing for the day I > > would be able to play good werewolves, and the existing aren't really > > satisfying in my opinion, but that's not the point i'd like to raise > > here. > > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? The fact that the RPG is no longer in production should not be an argument to that, IMHO. if that was the case we should simply shut down VTES production and start from scratch a new card game based on the new setting (which I am NOT supportive of). All next expansions we see in the future (except maybe Storyline resulting cards) will be based upon out-of-print material... Dan [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 28, 3:39 pm, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > On 28 jul, 15:30, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 28, 3:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > It's just a question out of pure curiosity. I''m longing for the day I > > > would be able to play good werewolves, and the existing aren't really > > > satisfying in my opinion, but that's not the point i'd like to raise > > > here. > > > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > > > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > > > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? > > The fact that the RPG is no longer in production should not be an > argument to that, IMHO. I pointed this out because it is a very specific comment being made by a number of people (including Princes) about the difficulty in introducing new players to the game. Sadly, there's not a good solution to the problem, but that doesn't mean the problem is nonexistent. > if that was the case we should simply shut > down VTES production and start from scratch a new card game based on > the new setting (which I am NOT supportive of). Pretty much all the existing VTES players (including me) agree with you there. > All next expansions we > see in the future (except maybe Storyline resulting cards) will be > based upon out-of-print material... Certainly true. My point is, expanding the game to include extensive material from other games that are not Vampire yet are also out of print cannot make the existing problem any better, and could possibly make matters worse in terms of attracting new players. Also, it almost certainly becomes harder to market/attract players to a CCG whose title is Vampire when you start adding more and more expansions that don't actually have anything to do with vampires. Picture trying to tell a new player this: 'We're playing a game of Vampire.. oh, but none of us are actually playing any vampires. Bob and Jay are playing werewolves, Steve over there is playing mortal monsterhunters, and Eric is playing evil fairies." "So why is the game called Vampire, again?" "Because it's about vampires!" > Dan -John Flournoy

> My point is, expanding the game to include extensive material from > other games that are not Vampire yet are also out of print cannot make > the existing problem any better, and could possibly make matters worse > in terms of attracting new players. > > Also, it almost certainly becomes harder to market/attract players to > a CCG whose title is Vampire when you start adding more and more > expansions that don't actually have anything to do with vampires. > > Picture trying to tell a new player this: 'We're playing a game of > Vampire.. oh, but none of us are actually playing any vampires. Bob > and Jay are playing werewolves, Steve over there is playing mortal > monsterhunters, and Eric is playing evil fairies." "So why is the game > called Vampire, again?" "Because it's about vampires!" Yeah, I hear you. It's becoming more and more difficult to attract new players to an RPG based game where the RPG id dead, BUT, when we talk about teaching/presenting the game to new players, even now, you have to do it in modules. VTES is simply too much to throw at the average person/player at once. Even the experienced players end up forgetting details of how this or that card works, or how it interacts with the rulebook and other cards. It also depends how experienced the person is with card games in general. Nevertheless, I only see a far relationship between new Crypt creatures and attracting new players. Some people might even see the game more attractively than if it had only vampires... Dan

> Picture trying to tell a new player this: 'We're playing a game of > Vampire.. oh, but none of us are actually playing any vampires. Bob > and Jay are playing werewolves, Steve over there is playing mortal > monsterhunters, and Eric is playing evil fairies." "So why is the game > called Vampire, again?" "Because it's about vampires!" This game have name Jyhad at the beginning... another change of name should be possible. Werewolves are one of the most popular ally types, we have already some of them with special powers (disciplines). I have never played Apocalypse so I'm not expert but I think that crypt werewolves at the same level and with powers based like "he can use basic SOMETHING discipline at inferior as a vampire with capacity of X". Also werewolf based expansion could have only few crypt cards - abominations and easy to put in the game werewolf allies. You would start with one abomination (I think that abominations would be great as an explanation what werewolves are doing in vampire games) or normal vampires connected with werewolves. To make playing werewolves/mages/changelings easier there could be vampires able to search your crypt for a specific ally type and put them in your hand or play. I like werewolves but I would be more glad of expansion with changelings or at least lot of different normal allies.

On 28 Juli, 13:32, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it would be faithful to the werewolves, which, again, > has been treated rather badly so far... Its better to streamline the werewolf tribes and make them just like any vampire clan (3 main disciplines) so its easier to work them into the game. It is alot more practical at least. Some of the werewolf abilities are very similar to allready existing disciplines, and you can even make better versions of existing cards that requires a werewolf + disciplines. For example: Super Blur Combat Card, cost 2 blood cel: Gain one additional strike CEL: Gain 2 additional strikes. If this minion is a werewolf she can destroy an equipment card on the opposing minion as a strike. Of course introducing a discipline or two to get something unique for them wouldnt be bad, but it is in my opinion better to not clutter down more than nessecary :) > There is already Argent Baton ;) Youre right! :) Still, a silver ammunition card would be totaly cool :P > I thought so too, but the conflicts due to the wording of a lot of > vampire cards such as seduction, really pissed a lot of people off, > and I think to a certain extent their reaction was legitimate. Well, it is totaly possible to change the wording on a lot of cards. The ones that makes sense to reword at least. Isnt it?

Hell no. This game is about Vampires. I haven't played for about 4 years, so when I came back into the game and heard about imbued, my worst fears from the old days were realised, and LO! They were cheesy pieces of crap. Please don't do it. Go kindred of the east of you are looking for something a little different or expand the African vamps.

I really don't like to see a Werewolf/Mage and of course not Wraith/ Changeling (find them already despicable RPG wise) in a way the imbued were done which imho was not good and also didn't seem well tested. Kindred of the East could be something else since you can make them just a different sect with different disciplines and don't have to fix any old stuff. Though fluff-wise there is not that much interaction in the WoD between these two vampired-kinds and it would feel silly if we'd have mixed crypts (maybe a different grouping?).

Despite CREATING SEVERAL UNOFFICIAL CARDS FOR WERECREATURES, i'm against introducing them as a crypt cards BUT i'd like to see toys for them in themed 'World of Darkness' expansion. Werewolves have two attributes: RAGE GNOSIS and can be in five forms: CRINOS GLABRO HOMID HISPO LUPUS or something like that [ i hate werewolves tbh btw ;) ] main problem with Werecreatures is 'ALLY STEAL' cards. It is not only werewolf problem - but werewolves are traditionally most cost- intensive allies - so losing a 5/4 pool investment hurts - thats why nobody use them [ossian and cry wolf are exceptions - guess why ;)] another problem is their fragility in combat - usuall werewolf have 3/4 life and die easly in combat [but vampires die as easly too - so it is not major concern - and werewolves now can use effective combat including WWS and Target:Vitals - so they pack a punch] so my Idea: create 5 form cards [mine are at The Path of Blood and were at dnn.vtes.net][uasble by both abomination and werewolf allies] and 2 attribute cards [werewolf allies only] and 1 generic anti-steal action/master/reaction card. [abo/were again] and thats it. it does not need whole expansion imo creating more unique [sect based? clan based? dual clan based[like tre/!tre gargoyle toys <hint>]?] and non-unique [clan based - abomination does not have one - and probably should have - despite being hated by most of werecreatures. Gangrel/!Gangrel could have a new one ?]

[ quoted text not captured ] Guys, have you ever read KoE? They are waaaay too different from kindred. The mechanics is completely different in the RPG. In that sense, other creatures like Werewolfes and Mages have much more common ground and easier to translate (into VTES) features...

[ quoted text not captured ] i like your ideas for ways to fill-out werewolves as a theme! i'll go find your cards and check them out. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] They are RPG wise, but could be made easily VTES wis

On 29 Lip, 14:58, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] space is somehow limited in that site, and i created other cards, so currently there are only BLACKJERICHO versions of these cards. my versions were first, but this guy added some 2 new forms and made better wording. there is a link: http://dnn.vtes.net/Default.aspx?tabid=863&language=en-US you should have no problems in finding those

On Jul 28, 6:02 pm, John Flournoy wrote: > My point is, expanding the game to include extensive material from > other games that are not Vampire yet are also out of print cannot make > the existing problem any better, and could possibly make matters worse > in terms of attracting new players. Is that so? Although I completely understand your point here, and I believe you can be right, it occured to me that, in fact, including material from other oWoD games could actually help attracting more players - Werewolf fans, Mage fans etc. > Also, it almost certainly becomes harder to market/attract players to > a CCG whose title is Vampire when you start adding more and more > expansions that don't actually have anything to do with vampires. Yes, name weirdness could be a problem. That would be, IMO, one of the reasons to be careful about printing new types of creatures on crypt cards along with: - The strong feeling in the VTES community against it; - The inconvenience of adding new mechanics, card types etc. to a game that already has plenty of it. I don't think it's too much as it is today (and, as Dragos says, it's perfectly possible and desirable to present/teach the game in modules), but things could get silly at a certain point. Just to make myself clear, I'm totally in favor of expanding the game to include other oWoD games (even if it means to have other creatures on crypt cards). I like it, and I don't think more diversity would hurt the game. Quite the opposite. As far as promoting VTES goes, I'm not sure of how much the game being based on a "dead" RPG will hurt. It probably won't help, but the fact is that VTES needs to be able to stand on its own. I think it already does to an extent. Maybe Dragos will disagree, but my educated guess is that in Brazil it will take a while until the "death" of Vampire: The Masquerade will be a serious obstacle to us. Vampire: The Requiem in Portuguese is only 8 months old now, and the old VTM clan novels are still being released. YMMV, of course, but I believe there are other, bigger obstacles to promoting VTES than VTM being out of print. With that in mind, I tend to welcome any ideas that would potentially add players to our public. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <pdb6-4E285F.0...@nntp.aioe.org>, Peter D Bakija > <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >> I'd be totally ok with a Werewolf themed expansion, but leave the >> Werewolves as ally crypt cards. Just make them cool. > > Dude. Sunglasses, cigar. Renegade Garou is already the epitome of > cool. > Smoking is not cool anymore. Look at the movies. No more smokers.

On Jul 28, 4:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? No. The last time we went to this party, most people seemed to agree that it sucked. Why would we go back, to get everyone riled up again? More to the point: what's wrong with introducing a bunch of new werewolf allies that follow the same mechanic for non-imbued allies? (Honestly, I still don't quite get *why* the imbued were printed as crypt cards, and I like those guys just fine.) John Eno

In message <g6nffa$nsr$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch [ quoted text not captured ] No, it's clearly because the people in those films aren't werewolves wearing sunglasses. [ quoted text not captured ]

ok, here is sample for those who are lazy and do not want to click in some random links :P Lupus Form Reaction Burn Option Requires an ready abomination or werewolf ally. form. +1 intercept. Also usable by an abomination or werewolf ally if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept. In this formm that minion cannot use equipment until the end of the action. A minion may play only 1 form each action. Crinos Form Combat Burn Option Requires an ready abomination or werewolf ally. form This minion gets +1 strenght for the remainder of the combat, can prevent 1 damage once per combat and cannot use presses to end combat.A minion may play only 1 form each action Glabro Form Combat Burn Option Requires an ready abomination or werewolf ally. form +1 stealth. A minion may play only 1 form each action there is also homid and hispo form. Rage and Gnosis are as conviction, action, power ... and i thought about trifle master ... i'm undecided. thoughts? [werewolf hater]

In article <35b58372-3762-4d7e...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > More to the point: what's wrong with introducing a bunch of new > werewolf allies that follow the same mechanic for non-imbued allies? > (Honestly, I still don't quite get *why* the imbued were printed as > crypt cards, and I like those guys just fine.) Well, to be fair, if you are going to build a whole expansion out of a wacky mechanic that is The Imbued, and you want them to be able to fight toe to toe with Vampires, making them crypt cards makes sense; if they had been just plain brown allies: A) It would be difficult to get them in play (and you'd need a crypt anyway, which is thematically counter to the Imbued as a concept). B) Making them use Conviction would be tricky (as your deck would have to have, like, 20 Imbued so you draw them early and often *and* 20 Conviction). C) Making them not get burned when they ran out of life would seem more out of the realm of feasible if they were just normal allies ("If this normal ally goes to the hospital, why doesn't Renegade Garou?") While I don't think the Imbued necessarily worked out as well as they could have, I think making them crypt cards was probably the best way to make them go. With werewolfs, we already have them in the game and already they do what they are going to do. I could totally see a heavily werewolf themed expansion, with extra cool ("And also smoking...") werewolf allies, and cards that affect werewolf allies (make them cheaper, ramp them up, whatever), but that also keep inside the realm of pre-existing rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

WHAT IF this so called expansion, instead of being released as an expansion, it be released as some sort fo stand-alone yet compatible game to VTES? Maybe just using same library card backs, so that a lot of basic cards (equipment/combat) could still be used and we wouldn't have to buy all those cards anew? Someone on this thread suggested a "WoD" expansion; why not a WoD cardgame? That would keep the integrity of the game for most skeptics and bring the extra-fun for the ones willing to... Dan

On 29 Lip, 19:58, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <35b58372-3762-4d7e-b34c-ca477ef29...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff entire idea of allies that do not burn after ran out of life is stupid. how could ally survive direct hit for 6R with RPG LAUNCHER. it is just dumb. Hunters are worst set in entire VTES history, and should be banned and forgotten. about werekin - just more of them and probably some Abomination/ Gangrel/!Gangrel ally deck will arise. let them use some disciplines at basic level and form in additional, and we have quite powerful force to be reckoned with. but there should be some hard counter for ghouls [war ghouls and shamblings are too strong ATM]

Personally, I'm all in favour of expanding the game, even if it does bring in new rules and ways of doing things that will rile those that don't like change. I seem to remember a lot of outrage over the Event mechanics and how game-breaking Events were. Nowadays they're an accepted part of the game. I mentioned in another thread that the ideal situation would be separate but compatible games for each of the main lines. This wouldn't fly, though, as much as I would love for that to happen. There just wouldn't me a large enough market for it. But making each game's foundation the same of Vampire (turn structure, combat structure, play of cards, etc.), with specifics on how their crypt minions work. So the games would be cross-compatable, but separate, so you could still have your vampire only games, or expand out into World of Darkness games. But, such is the dream. For Werewolves, we already have pretty much all the basics laid out, and I doubt there would be much if any actual rule additions. Gifts could work like Virtues of Imbued, or even like inferior/superior Disciplines .. just match the symbol as always. Tribes akin to Clan. Auspices/Breeds could be key-words much like Black Hand or Anarch. Forms could come into play much like Convictions, each giving different bonuses and negatives that you can switch out of your ash heap each turn. Regenerating could be much like a Hunt action. Being allies, they are affected just like allies, and have access to the Incapacitated Region. Much of the aggravated damage that affects vampires will affect werewolves in the same manner (and could actually burn werewolves just like vampires). Moots can work just like Political Actions. Rage can either be ignored, incorporated into Frenzy type cards, or perhaps have a new mechanic (say, starting with Rage equal to capacity, and spend rage to play cards, or having a card in play that you can use to reduce card costs, etc.). In the end, VTES is more concerned about mechanics than the RP characteristics that inspire the cards. Why a vampire could influence a werewolf Moot is not much more of a stretch than a Laibon Magagi or Sabbat Archbishop having a say in an Archon vote, or that the Baron of LA really cares that the Prince of Cairo is going out to hunt for some blood one night. The concern over VTES being about vampires, or based on a 'dead' RPG can work both ways, I feel. It's possible other supernaturals could turn away players, just as it's possible to attract new players. There are plenty of people who aren't keen on vampires, but think werewolves are 'the coolest', or mages, or wraiths, or changelings. The Rage CCG still has a fan following, after all. I'd be more inclined to think that Kindred of the East would be a more viable expansion to start, though. True, they're not like V:tM vampires, but there are similarities enough that mechanically, they can fit in just fine. Perhaps a new rule or two, or just clever use of key words and cards. Chris, Thrall of Arika

AcheronNi...@gmail.com writes: > entire idea of allies that do not burn after ran out of life is > stupid. > how could ally survive direct hit for 6R with RPG LAUNCHER. it is just > dumb. A quick Google News search turned up this: http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1092177&pagina_chiamante=index.php "(WAPA) - Two air riflemen from the Italian Air Force were injured after yesterday's ambush at 07:45pm (local time) in Shiwashan district, a little far from Herat, when the armour where they were travelling with 3 other soldiers has been hit by an anti-tank RPG rocket (also usable against helicopters or low-speed tools), and knocked down by the shots that caused serious injuries to the legs and the arms of lieutenant Gabriele Rame and airman Francesco Manco." So oridinary people have been known to survive an RPG attack. And if you want "stupid", how about laptop computers that cost as much as a Learjet? And deer rifles that cost as much as *two* Learjets? > Hunters are worst set in entire VTES history, and should be banned and > forgotten. Don't confuse your personal preferences with universal truth. And if you hate the Imbued, feel free to have a house rule in your playgroup that bans them. HG

In message <58c0a430-d3de-48bd...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, AcheronNi...@gmail.com writes: >entire idea of allies that do not burn after ran out of life is >stupid. >how could ally survive direct hit for 6R with RPG LAUNCHER. it is just >dumb. Ally != mortal. Many of the creatures represented by allies have supernatural powers in the World of Darkness which are equal to those of vampires - sometimes surpassing them in some areas. This doesn't, of course, mean they have to work that way in V:TES. But if you're going to make a realism-based argument, please remember that vampires do not rule the WoD with an iron fist with all other creatures unable to combat them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Lip, 20:47, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <58c0a430-d3de-48bd-8a48-e7ba9ded1...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroup [ quoted text not captured ] we're talking about Imbued - no other ally can survive [outside left for dead and that obe thing] after loss of his life points [aforementioned info that they survived rpg - yes, it could happend - especialy that it wasn't direct hit - but is not a norm][in imbued case it is norm - they are only minions in the game that can't be burned in COMBAT - even antideluvian can be burned if hit hard with agg damage ? why mere mortals, pawns that should bite the ground can survive ?] NOR is the worst V:tes expansion - yes, it is my oppinion. but it is widely accepted even by imbued fans and close to truth.

On Jul 29, 11:21 am, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > entire idea of allies that do not burn after ran out of life is > stupid. > how could ally survive direct hit for 6R with RPG LAUNCHER. it is just > dumb. About as dumb as a Vampire doing the same, really. An exploded vampire is pretty dead. Part of how the mechanics override the 'realism' of the cards. Same as shooting a wraith with a gun is 'stupid', or the classic Hellhound wearing a Leather Jacket riding a Hawg with a Combat Shotgun. And who says you hit a minion directly with the RPG Launcher? Most of the damage would be collatoral damage anyway. > Hunters are worst set in entire VTES history, and should be banned and > forgotten. Totally disagree. About the only 'problem' that still exists with Imbued is their resilience to pure combat disciplines (namely Potence and Protean). Even with that, I think they make a fine addition to the game and even to the spirit of it. > about werekin - just more of them and probably some Abomination/ > Gangrel/!Gangrel ally deck will arise. let them use some disciplines > at basic level and form in additional, and we have quite powerful > force to be reckoned with. > but there should be some hard counter for ghouls [war ghouls and > shamblings are too strong ATM] I would agree in some part ... the costs for Werewolf allies are higher than for War Ghouls or Shambling Hordes. I wouldn't say that such ally decks are too strong though. If your deck can't deal with rushing allies, would it really fair much better against straight rushing vampires? And there are already tons of hard counters against allies (though depending on what is meant by 'hard'). There are straight ally block denial cards, burn ally cards, steal ally cards, action denial cards, nevermind actually blocking the recruit action in the first place. A simple maneuver outdoes most combat ally decks. What more is needed? Chris, Thrall of Arika

On 29 Lip, 21:16, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 11:21 am, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > entire idea of allies that do not burn after ran out of life is > > stupid. > > how could ally survive direct hit for 6R with RPG LAUNCHER. it is just > > dumb. > > About as dumb as a Vampire doing the same, really. An exploded vampire > is pretty dead. Part of how the mechanics override the 'realism' of > the cards. Same as shooting a wraith with a gun is 'stupid', or the > classic Hellhound wearing a Leather Jacket riding a Hawg with a Combat > Shotgun. > > And who says you hit a minion directly with the RPG Launcher? Most of > the damage would be collatoral damage anyway. most reasonable wraiths are immune to non-agg damage. and classic sniper riffle hellhound, while amazing, is very cornercase. but Imbued are not cornercase, they are crypt cards, and are immune to burning in combat [outside burn opposing ally cards] when taking damage. > > Hunters are worst set in entire VTES history, and should be banned and > > forgotten. > > Totally disagree. About the only 'problem' that still exists with > Imbued is their resilience to pure combat disciplines (namely Potence > and Protean). Even with that, I think they make a fine addition to the > game and even to the spirit of it. we have agree to disagree here - they are too resillient to combat [and combat primary oust tech and blood gain - namely fame and taste of vitae] > > about werekin - just more of them and probably some Abomination/ > > Gangrel/!Gangrel ally deck will arise. let them use some disciplines > > at basic level and form in additional, and we have quite powerful > > force to be reckoned with. > > but there should be some hard counter for ghouls [war ghouls and > > shamblings are too strong ATM] > > I would agree in some part ... the costs for Werewolf allies are > higher than for War Ghouls or Shambling Hordes. I wouldn't say that > such ally decks are too strong though. If your deck can't deal with > rushing allies, would it really fair much better against straight > rushing vampires? And there are already tons of hard counters against > allies (though depending on what is meant by 'hard'). There are > straight ally block denial cards, burn ally cards, steal ally cards, > action denial cards, nevermind actually blocking the recruit action in > the first place. A simple maneuver outdoes most combat ally decks. > What more is needed? > > Chris, Thrall of Arika vampires go to torpor and are not so cheap as war ghouls and shamblings. and as i said - taste of vitae does not help in combat with them. but they have the vampires who could be killed - yes, they are tier 1, i dislike them, but i think that they are mostly 'fair' imbued are not fair - they have insane amount of permacept [but only permacept i have to addmit], and i have much dead draws [taste of death, taste of vitae, baal's bloody talons, fame, tension<that screams imbued for me> ...] i can counter and oust most decks, tier 1 or not, ally, s&b, politics - because every such deck have minion who can be send to torpor, rescued and send to torpor again imbued are immune for most of these cards :( i'm playng CEL QUI OBF combat

In message <03d49d79-1945-4a0f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, AcheronNi...@gmail.com writes: >we're talking about Imbued - no other ally can survive [outside left >for dead and that obe thing] after loss of his life points So? The history of V:TES is full of new things happening that couldn't happen before. Attempting to enshrine this principle as your sacred cow is rather foolish. >NOR is the worst V:tes expansion - yes, it is my oppinion. but it is >widely accepted even by imbued fans and close to truth. Repeatedly asserting your opinion as fact does not make it fact. [ quoted text not captured ]

AcheronNi...@gmail.com writes: > NOR is the worst V:tes expansion - yes, it is my oppinion. but it is > widely accepted even by imbued fans and close to truth. Speak for your self. Come on - how many imbued fans can you find who think NoR is worse than Dark Sovereigns? You know, the expansion filled with locations that cost a lot of pool, but can be burned by inbuilt actions. Introducing the Giovanni with their crappy crypt, and the Ravnos who bled all their blood away playing Chimestry cards. You hate the imbued, that's OK. You don't need to invoke legions of imaginary imbued haters to legitimize your opinion. HG

On 29 Lip, 21:28, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <03d49d79-1945-4a0f-a593-8519a8141...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup > > s.com>, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com writes: > >we're talking about Imbued - no other ally can survive [outside left > >for dead and that obe thing] after loss of his life points > > So? The history of V:TES is full of new things happening that couldn't > happen before. > > Attempting to enshrine this principle as your sacred cow is rather > foolish. Well, as a person who welcomed Events [it was ... new thing happening that couldn't happend before ?] i disagree with the oppinion. combat should allow minon removal, in that case it is impossible, > >NOR is the worst V:tes expansion - yes, it is my oppinion. but it is > >widely accepted even by imbued fans and close to truth. > > Repeatedly asserting your opinion as fact does not make it fact. > > -- > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. truth of the thousand lies ;> show me worse expansion. show me expansion that make one deck broken [with very very high percentage of wins for obscure tactics - like imbued decks]

On Jul 29, 3:30 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > imbued are not fair - they have insane amount of permacept [but only > permacept i have to addmit], and i have much dead draws [taste of > death, taste of vitae, baal's bloody talons, fame, tension<that > screams imbued for me> ...] There is a definite and noticeable gap in the pool-damage-for-beating- up-minions when it comes to the imbued. It is one of the remaining issues that really should be 'fixed'. As a general rule, strong cards should not be made stronger, but I think it would be thematically appropriate to have Tension in the Ranks updated to affect imbued-becoming-incapacitated. It would probably be preferable to just print a new card that works generically (though slightly less well) on both allies and vampires. -witness1

On 29 Lip, 22:08, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] you mean the set which introduced both giovanni and ravnos clans ? and many wonderful cards, some of them are even in your deck for sure ? yeah, it have it's downfalls, but is nowhere so bad as is NOR. not only i hate imbued.

On Jul 29, 12:30 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > imbued are not fair - they have insane amount of permacept [but only > permacept i have to addmit], and i have much dead draws [taste of > death, taste of vitae, baal's bloody talons, fame, tension<that > screams imbued for me> ...] And animalism/auspex vampires don't have insane amounts of intercept? Taste of Death is not dead in your hand. Baal's isn't dead (though less useful, certainly). Fame I agree is. If Tension is dead in your hand, it's not the Imbued's fault, it's that you've packed too many and drew into them. > i can counter and oust most decks, tier 1 or not, ally, s&b, politics > - because every such deck have minion who can be send to torpor, > rescued and send to torpor again And so there is a deck archetype that can counter your ousting strategy, and thus unfair? I'll start rallying against wall decks, since they often do in my political decks, even with stealth added. > imbued are immune for most of these cards :( > > i'm playng CEL QUI OBF combat If you're facing Imbued so much, start putting in cards to do them in, or change your strategy. Instead of going aggravated damage, go for multiple strikes that can't be prevented (Vascular Explosion will put down most any Imbued, add in Target Vitals, and any Imbued is going down). Obfuscate by and pillowface Imbued. Break the Code. Not quite as effective as Tastes, but go Contracts and Provisions of Silsila. On Jul 29, 1:08 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > On 29 Lip, 21:28, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > In message <03d49d79-1945-4a0f-a593-8519a8141...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup > > > s.com>, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com writes: > > >we're talking about Imbued - no other ally can survive [outside left > > >for dead and that obe thing] after loss of his life points > > > So? The history of V:TES is full of new things happening that couldn't > > happen before. > > > Attempting to enshrine this principle as your sacred cow is rather > > foolish. > > Well, as a person who welcomed Events [it was ... new thing happening > that couldn't happend before ?] i disagree with the oppinion. > > combat should allow minon removal, in that case it is impossible, It's not impossible. It seems more a refusal to adapt, and realizing that just doing aggravated damage isn't always going to trump everyone. No deck is going to win all the time, and chances are you'll come across something that totally derails your deck (like the time I was playing my Toreador Gun deck with my prey being a Count Germain rush deck). Besides, if your ousting strategy is Fame, you don't want to burn minions anyway. I can understand the frustration of the Imbued, I have faced them often enough and usually come out on the losing end. I still don't think they should be banned and forgotten. And if Imbued are so broken and winning all the time .. change sides and play them yourself? [ quoted text not captured ] Oh, Dark Sovereigns had some tremendous cards (included by beloved Arika). It also had some of the worst cards ever made. Conflict of Interest? Fortune Teller? Hunt Club? Release the Shackled Soul? Tara, the Hollow One? Eyes of the Dead??? It did give something you may want to use, though, if Imbued are so troublesome: Sacre Cour Cathedral, France. ... say, what happened to the Werewolf talk? Chris, Thrall of Arika

Thrall of Arika wrote: > Oh, Dark Sovereigns had some tremendous cards (included by beloved > Arika). > > It also had some of the worst cards ever made. Conflict of Interest? > Fortune Teller? Hunt Club? Release the Shackled Soul? Tara, the Hollow > One? Eyes of the Dead??? > > It did give something you may want to use, though, if Imbued are so > troublesome: Sacre Cour Cathedral, France. > > ... say, what happened to the Werewolf talk? Werewolf Pack was in Dark Sovs. :D [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 29, 10:08 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > On 29 Lip, 21:28, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > In message <03d49d79-1945-4a0f-a593-8519a8141...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup > > > s.com>, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com writes: > > >we're talking about Imbued - no other ally can survive [outside left > > >for dead and that obe thing] after loss of his life points > > > So? The history of V:TES is full of new things happening that couldn't > > happen before. > > > Attempting to enshrine this principle as your sacred cow is rather > > foolish. > > Well, as a person who welcomed Events [it was ... new thing happening > that couldn't happend before ?] i disagree with the oppinion. > > combat should allow minon removal, in that case it is impossible, > > > >NOR is the worst V:tes expansion - yes, it is my oppinion. but it is > > >widely accepted even by imbued fans and close to truth. > > > Repeatedly asserting your opinion as fact does not make it fact. > > > -- > > James Coupe > > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. > > show me worse expansion. like.. anarchs? Personally I'd say that the first anarch expansion is the crappiest expansion so far, but since all the things anyone can show here is just opinions it's kinda pointless to ask for that kind of stuff :s > show me expansion that make one deck broken [with very very high percentage of > wins for obscure tactics - like imbued decks] First I'd like to say that I really doubt that imbued decks would've caused so much alarm if it hadn't been for another expansion, namely Dark Sovereigns that brought Memories of Mortalities. While it might be argued whether MoM or Edge Explosion was the "worst" card that the imbued was given I think most will agree that MoM played a decent part in the Imbued crusade. Final Nights brought Shambling Hordes. Sabbat brought War Ghouls. Sure.. War Ghouls and Shamblings might not be the most obscure decks (even first ally decks probably were quite obscure) but still. And well.. Jyhad brought Parity Shift and First Tradition: The Masquerade. Obscure tactics can't really get more obscure than those pieces of art if you ask me.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > A) It would be difficult to get them in play (and you'd need a crypt > anyway, which is thematically counter to the Imbued as a concept). Not really. If you accept that methuselahs can manipulate imbued into working for them, it's not really that much of a stretch to accept that other vampires could too. (And importantly, this is backstory stuff that can be interpreted however you want and doesn't actually impact the game, so let's just agree to move past this. :)) > B) Making them use Conviction would be tricky (as your deck would have > to have, like, 20 Imbued so you draw them early and often *and* 20 > Conviction). "If the action to recruit this imbued is successful, you may search your library, hand or ash heap for a conviction card and move it to this imbued." Or give each imbued abilties not shared by other imbued, the way other allies work now. > C) Making them not get burned when they ran out of life would seem more > out of the realm of feasible if they were just normal allies ("If this > normal ally goes to the hospital, why doesn't Renegade Garou?") By your reasoning here, Black Spiral Buddy should be able to rush any minion at +1 stealth - if a Renegade Garou can, why can't Buddy? Just stick card text on them to make hospitalization happen, if it's even that important. (I sorta doubt that it is, actually.) > With werewolfs, we already have them in the game and already they do > what they are going to do. We already had imbued in the game before NoR (Jake Washington, Carlton Van Wyk, Wendell Delburton), and they already did what they were going to do, so that's not really applicable here one way or the other. > I could totally see a heavily werewolf themed > expansion, with extra cool ("And also smoking...") werewolf allies, and > cards that affect werewolf allies (make them cheaper, ramp them up, > whatever), but that also keep inside the realm of pre-existing rules. Agreed! I just think we probably would have been better off overall if the imbued had done the same. John Eno

On Jul 29, 3:30 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > i'm playng CEL QUI OBF combat And you're getting beaten by the imbued? They must be broken, then, because normally CEL/QUI/OBF combat decks are as close to unstoppable as anything in V:TES. Hang on a minute... John Eno

In message <ba1e8ea5-7d9e-488f...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups .com>, Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> writes: >> B) Making them use Conviction would be tricky (as your deck would have >> to have, like, 20 Imbued so you draw them early and often *and* 20 >> Conviction). > >"If the action to recruit this imbued is successful, you may search >your library, hand or ash heap for a conviction card and move it to >this imbued." As I read it, that wasn't the problem Peter was trying to address. Most Imbued-heavy decks currently use a large number of Conviction cards to power themselves - 16-22 isn't unheard of, although possibly less in a very tight deck, or a deck that branches out into some vampires too, or whatever. So you have 20 Conviction in the deck anyway, because each Imbued will probably be hoping for 2 or 3 at a time, possibly more. This is already the case with the Imbued in the crypt. Then on top of that, you want to draw your library Imbued early, so you can play them, so you can use them. This is much the same as a War Ghoul deck including 12 copies of a War Ghoul so you can kick ass early. So perhaps you have somewhere from 10-20 Imbued allies in your library. At this point, your ability to actually have a library left over is severely compromised. >Or give each imbued abilties not shared by other imbued, the way other >allies work now. Which would be a considerably different flavour from the set as it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Hang on - last time i checked TWDA, it was CEL OBF QUI deck - you're right - Assamites are unstopable force :> and no, never an imbued deck oust me :> @James Coupe: yes, it would be different - but imo better. hunters were even before NOR. and nobody argued they should not be in the game - quite the opposite. Even i, with my innate hatred toward hunters/ werewolves/mages, am for these creatures in the ethernal struggle. it is just mechanic that is broken IMO. even not the fact, that they are crypt cards ....

In article <ba1e8ea5-7d9e-488f...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not really. If you accept that methuselahs can manipulate imbued into > working for them, it's not really that much of a stretch to accept > that other vampires could too. Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to realistically build an imbued deck that had no vampires at all. Which presumably was a design goal. > (And importantly, this is backstory stuff that can be interpreted > however you want and doesn't actually impact the game, so let's just > agree to move past this. :)) Well, yeah, but I wasn't really talking about backstory--it makes sense that the designers thought it would be a good idea to be able to run a completely imbued deck (whether or not this is a good idea at all is beyond the scope of my discussion :-). If this is a goal, making them crypt cards is a perfect solution. If they are library cards, you can't get them into play (well, ok, Jake Washington. But that is a real gamble to hoist a whole deck on...) without vampires. And you are going to have a crypt of vampires anyway (can you show up to a game without a crypt? It might be legal, but I don't know...) Again, if a goal of the Imbued expansion was "make it possible to play a completely Imbued deck and not need vampires at all", then crypt cards it is. > "If the action to recruit this imbued is successful, you may search > your library, hand or ash heap for a conviction card and move it to > this imbued." Oh, sure. But then your hypothetical deck would be overflowing with Imbued and Conviction. Where will there be room for other stuff? > By your reasoning here, Black Spiral Buddy should be able to rush any > minion at +1 stealth - if a Renegade Garou can, why can't Buddy? Well, in a design sense, if you make something decidedly different than other things, then folks are more willing to accept them working differently. If Imbued were library cards, making them go to the hospital would be a much bigger leap to make, conceptually speaking, than if they are crypt cards. > Just stick card text on them to make hospitalization happen, if it's > even that important. (I sorta doubt that it is, actually.) Well, again, if one of the goals of the expansion was "be able to play a whole deck of Imbued with no vampires at all", then they kinda need to be more resilient. So they get to go to the hospital. > We already had imbued in the game before NoR (Jake Washington, Carlton > Van Wyk, Wendell Delburton), and they already did what they were going > to do, so that's not really applicable here one way or the other. Oh, sure, but you can't realistically build a whole deck out of them. > Agreed! I just think we probably would have been better off overall if > the imbued had done the same. Oh, sure--I suspect you are right. I don't think the Imbued were necessarily a good idea overall. But in a design sense, if you accept a few things as what probably were goals of the designers making the set: -Be able to play a deck of the Imbued without any vampires at all. -Have them be more resilient than standard allies. Then the path they took was probably the right one for making those things happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <58c0a430-d3de-48bd...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AcheronNi...@gmail.com wrote: > entire idea of allies that do not burn after ran out of life is > stupid. > how could ally survive direct hit for 6R with RPG LAUNCHER. it is just > dumb. Neither here nor there in this discussion. I'm not defending the Imbued as an idea. I'm just defending the design decisions that were made to make them work the way the designers apparently wanted them to work. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Shintai could just be new disciplines. chuck in some masters to represent there Thrashing Dragon, Resplendent Crane etc simcof On Jul 29, 10:42 pm, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > On 29 jul, 08:22, xcver <bernd.schw...@firstdata.de> wrote: > > > I really don't like to see a Werewolf/Mage and of course not Wraith/ > > Changeling (find them already despicable RPG wise) in a way the imbued > > were done which imho was not good and also didn't seem well tested. > > > Kindred of the East could be something else since you can make them > > just a different sect with different disciplines and don't have to fix > > any old stuff. Though fluff-wise there is not that much interaction in > > the WoD between these two vampired-kinds and it would feel silly if > > we'd have mixed crypts (maybe a different grouping?). > > Guys, have you ever read KoE? They are waaaay too different from > kindred. The mechanics is completely different in the RPG. In that > sense, other creatures like Werewolfes and Mages have much more common > ground and easier to translate (into VTES) features...

Peter D Bakija wrote: > And you are going to have > a crypt of vampires anyway (can you show up to a game without a crypt? > It might be legal, but I don't know...) No. [1.2.1]

In article <QqPjk.15155$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, that's what I figured. I just didn't realize that there was an actual rule stating that :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 29, 8:10 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > and no, never an imbued deck oust me :> Then they couldn't possibly be broken. John Eno

On Jul 29, 8:49 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > it makes sense > that the designers thought it would be a good idea to be able to run a > completely imbued deck (whether or not this is a good idea at all is > beyond the scope of my discussion :-). If this is a goal, making them > crypt cards is a perfect solution. If they are library cards, you can't > get them into play (well, ok, Jake Washington. But that is a real gamble > to hoist a whole deck on...) without vampires. And you are going to have > a crypt of vampires anyway (can you show up to a game without a crypt? > It might be legal, but I don't know...) Again, if a goal of the Imbued > expansion was "make it possible to play a completely Imbued deck and not > need vampires at all", then crypt cards it is. Ah, okay. Fair enough. This is why I don't design card games. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] other than screwing my game? they were broken. now they just screw the game for their prey and predator ...

In message <cfdb30e4-1996-41fe...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, AcheronNi...@gmail.com writes: >On 29 Lip, 21:28, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In message <03d49d79-1945-4a0f-a593-8519a8141...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup >> >> s.com>, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com writes: >> >we're talking about Imbued - no other ally can survive [outside left >> >for dead and that obe thing] after loss of his life points >> >> So? The history of V:TES is full of new things happening that couldn't >> happen before. >> >> Attempting to enshrine this principle as your sacred cow is rather >> foolish. > >Well, as a person who welcomed Events [it was ... new thing happening >that couldn't happend before ?] i disagree with the oppinion. You're not making much sense at this point. >combat should allow minon removal, in that case it is impossible, No, it isn't. Various pre-existing combat strategies don't allow for the straight- forward removal of Imbued allies - although they can be followed up with pillow-facing. Other combat strategies can remove Imbued allies. >> >NOR is the worst V:tes expansion - yes, it is my oppinion. but it is >> >widely accepted even by imbued fans and close to truth. >> >> Repeatedly asserting your opinion as fact does not make it fact. > >truth of the thousand lies ;> show me worse expansion. show me >expansion that make one deck broken [with very very high percentage of >wins for obscure tactics - like imbued decks] Again, you're confusing your opinion with fact. Even if you don't like Nights of Reckoning, you are making factual claims about what other people think, without any evidence. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <08b864cf-735f-495d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroup s.com>, sg3kmb6...@gmail.com writes: >First I'd like to say that I really doubt that imbued decks would've >caused so much alarm if it hadn't been for another expansion, namely >Dark Sovereigns that brought Memories of Mortalities. ObPedantry: Memories of Mortality was in Ancient Hearts (and then reprinted in Camarilla Edition). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8fdee82a-90b3-4e15...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroup s.com>, AcheronNi...@gmail.com writes: >@James Coupe: yes, it would be different - but imo better. Dude, if you want to follow up on something I said *reply to that post* with an appropriate quote. That's just good Usenet etiquette. It means you put in ten seconds of work to make life easier for everyone else. This means people will read and respond to your posts in an appropriate context. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thrall of Arika <christoph...@amec.com> writes: > On Jul 29, 1:39 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 29 Lip, 22:08, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > > > Come on - how many imbued fans can you find who think NoR is worse than > > > Dark Sovereigns? You know, the expansion filled with locations that > > > cost a lot of pool, but can be burned by inbuilt actions. Introducing > > > the Giovanni with their crappy crypt, and the Ravnos who bled all their > > > blood away playing Chimestry cards. > > > [SNIP] > > > > you mean the set which introduced both giovanni and ravnos clans ? They were made playable by a later expansion, Final Nights. > > and many wonderful cards, some of them are even in your deck for sure ? > > > > yeah, it have it's downfalls, but is nowhere so bad as is NOR. > > [SNIP] > > Oh, Dark Sovereigns had some tremendous cards (included by beloved > Arika). I rest my case. HG

In article <413a8bbd-d87c-4b3a...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, okay. Fair enough. This is why I don't design card games. Heh--I was thinking, and they probably *could* have made Imbued both library cards and able to support a whole strategy without vampires; something like "this ally may be put into play as a discard phase action, pay cost as normal", but then: A) That is another line of text on all the already probably text heavy library cards. B) If you were going to have the hospital for them, they would need even more unwieldy text. C) Still, you'd have a crypt of vampires anyway. A and B can be worked around my making the cards special new "Imbued" cards and then making Imbued cards have the same special rules that Imbued have, and have the new rules written down somewhere (rules cards, new rulebook, whatever), and even though they are library cards, you set up the Imbued so that you can put them in play as a discard phase action, they can go to the hospital, and they get conviction in the same way or something. But then, you get to C. If you had really potent library based allies that hit play as a discard phase action *and* a crypt full of vampires as well, you'd probably end up with something even more powerful then you do now. So how to avoid this particular pitfall? Make them crypt cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4185f207-871f-4521...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, AcheronNi...@gmail.com wrote: > other than screwing my game? they were broken. now they just screw the > game for their prey and predator ... Lots of decks that have nothing at all to do with the Imbued do the exact same thing. And lots of Imbued decks don't "screw the game" of their prey and predator (well, any more than any other deck does as it is trying to win). And the win occasionally too. Not much of an argument here. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Given all your talk about screwing your game cross-table, my guess is you've got problems with events? It looks like the actual expansion you have problems with was Gehenna, only nobody in your area bothered to build the "screw the table Gehenna weenie deck" until the Imbued came along, even though it was just as viable then as it was with the Imbued... which is to say, not very, because mostly it just screws up tables and draws table hate and sucks. By the way, Gehenna's events make me wonder if *that* wasn't the game's worst expansion yet. :P - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] My god, yes, you're right. I got blinded by around Release the Shackled Soul in my scan of DS cards that I missed that one. I played them once when the set first came out ... yeah. Considering the recent release of Walks-with-Might (whom I seem to remember being a favourite of mine from Rage), I would wager that a Werewolf expansion isn't on the books yet. My thoughts lead me to think that WW will stick with vampire-related material still, so any potential non-vampire expansion would likely be Kindred of the East. Different, yet similar enough, and part of the V:tM umbrella. Another potential expansion would be Mummy. The only difficulty would be that their abilities are rather different than vampire disciplines. Dark Ages would be interesting as well, but I don't see how it would be compatible with the modern age game we have now. But it would be fun to have Cappodocians and the lost Bloodlines. Chris, Thrall of Arika

In message <ce3b517f-5540-4657...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> writes: >By the way, Gehenna's events make me wonder if *that* wasn't the >game's worst expansion yet. :P I think a lot of the expansion itself was interesting, although some of the Event cards were - to my mind - a little too powerful. My broader concerns were summed up roughly in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/79790e2c97654753 and the surrounding thread. I think what was missing was a good way of interacting with Events if you weren't playing a deck with a few, very narrow cards, meaning that the Events were sort of bolted on to the game sideways. If, for example, there had been: - ways of using existing cards to cancel them (e.g. making them a special type of master card, played at a different time, perhaps) - burn clauses on the more powerful cards (potentially harder to access, e.g. maybe requiring more than one burn action, or more expensive e.g. discarding your hand when it happens) - multifunctional ways of interacting with them with good new solid tech as a backup option, so the card is playable to good effect anyway (e.g. [dis] Bleed at +1 bleed [DIS] Burn an event card) there would have been fewer problems. I think that the third option has happened a bit since, but I think it was a missed opportunity in the Gehenna set. You could have started relatively weakly (e.g. move an Event card out of play for a turn, rather than burning it), then upgrade to stronger tactics in a later set if necessary. But I think making them so much at right-angles to the rest of the game to start with was a mistake. Worst set ever? Hard to say. I think Dark Sovereigns represents the biggest missed opportunity. So much crap in it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 29, 1:23 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > Personally, I'm all in favour of expanding the game, even if it does > bring in new rules and ways of doing things that will rile those that > don't like change. I seem to remember a lot of outrage over the Event > mechanics and how game-breaking Events were. Nowadays they're an > accepted part of the game. > > I mentioned in another thread that the ideal situation would be > separate but compatible games for each of the main lines. This > wouldn't fly, though, as much as I would love for that to happen. > There just wouldn't me a large enough market for it. But making each > game's foundation the same of Vampire (turn structure, combat > structure, play of cards, etc.), with specifics on how their crypt > minions work. So the games would be cross-compatable, but separate, so > you could still have your vampire only games, or expand out into World > of Darkness games. But, such is the dream. > A special werewolf set could be handled like the Nergal storyline deck. Then you could have a crypt full of werewolves (if you wanted to go the route Imbued did) and a library full of new cards. The deck wouldn't be very customizable (you could combine multiple preconstructed decks and remove the parts you didn't like, but overall card selection would be pretty limited). It would be compatible with the regular VTES, but not legal for tournament play after the storyline event like the Nergal decks (if White Wolf decided to release it with a storyline), so you wouldn't have to worry about all the Imbued haters hating on another non-Vampire crypt. You'd just talk to your playgroup before the game and see if its cool that you play a Werewolf deck (and since its such a limited deck that would help with making sure someone else wasn't trying to play it at the same time and contesting with you). I don't know what the production and distribution costs associated with the Nergal decks were, but White Wolf already pulled it off for Nergal, so there should be a chance that they'd be able to swing something similar again. Now how much time do you spend on R&D and playtesting for a very limited release? Later, ~Rehlow

On Jul 28, 4:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? No. I would not mind mechanisms that the possibility off an essentially all-werewolf minion strategy. But the rules say crypt cards are vampires, and I want that rule respected. I know NOR already broke this rule, but I don't want a repeat of that. There are already many mechanisms that can bring allies into play. A card (master, minion, event, or special ability on a vampire) that brings a unique werewolf into play, at a cost of burning (or removing from play) one of your vampires, is certainly one possibility. I would not mind a vampire crypt card that becomes a Wraith Ally (and ceases to be a vampire) after entering play, because that progression does not seem thematically wrong. However, vampires that turn into mortals, or werewolves, does seem thematically wrong.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > But the rules say crypt cards are > vampires, and I want that rule respected. I understand you're purposefully stretching for the point there, but still: The rules say "The cards in your crypt represent the vampires (or other minions) you hope to control" [1.2.1]

In message <6cbd25c2-d760-43bc...@l64g2000hse.googlegroup s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >But the rules say crypt cards are >vampires, and I want that rule respected. Only if you ignore the bit of the rules that says: "Some advanced expansions include other types of crypt cards. Details for these types can be found on the web site." The rule you want respected doesn't exist. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 jul, 05:24, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It's just a question out of pure curiosity. I''m longing for the day I > would be able to play good werewolves, and the existing aren't really > satisfying in my opinion, but that's not the point i'd like to raise > here. > > My question is :DespiteeverythingthathappenedaroundNOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? I really don't see the flaws on the expansion per se. Maybe the synergy between Imbued and Events caused what you might be referring to as "everything that happened around NOR". I belive the way the Convictions work was a brilliant way to translate Imbued into the CCG. I believe similiar mechanics (using cards that double as counters and can be used for something else, depending on the creature and type of counter) could be developed for other creatures. So, to your question: hell yeah. Dan

On Jul 28, 4:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? I would be weary of such an expansion. Putting yet another type of minion into the crypt means creating yet more library cards to allow those minions to function, and creates yet another all-new type of deck to meta game against, etc. I do think werewolves could be added to the game in a themed expansion and allowed to work within existing mechanics, however. Just off the top of my head, the Web of Knives Recruit mechanic could be utilized to move a werewolf from your hand to the uncontrolled, and then influenced like a vampire via card text. To offset the opportunity costs (card in hand, successful action, etc), they could be playable during your influence phase via card text, as well, thus circumventing most normal interruptions. Include in the set 'fish tech' (vampires that can move a werewolf ally to your hand as an action, Master Locations [Caerns?] that do the same, etc), and going werewolf could be on the level of clunky as going anarch. I would also want to see an avoidance of "play [disc] as a vampire" text, to allow for more creative deck building. Text like "once each combat, you may discard a card that requires [disc X or Y] to give Pine Cone Butt-Wiper a manuever, press, or additional strike. Do not replace until after combat." With a sprinkling of other interesting special abilities, werewolves could be diverse and playable, but still require that a deck have vampires in the crypt and, presumably, in play. The one thing I didn't like about Imbued is that they don't require a vampire in play upon which you can at least hope to dump all of your cards that only effect vampires.

On Jul 30, 6:28 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <6cbd25c2-d760-43bc-bc3e-40b7bc9b5...@l64g2000hse.googlegroup > > s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >But the rules say crypt cards are > >vampires, and I want that rule respected. > > Only if you ignore the bit of the rules that says: "Some advanced > expansions include other types of crypt cards. Details for these types > can be found on the web site." > > The rule you want respected doesn't exist. Sure ... once the rule was broken, the break was officially acknowledged. Nonetheless, a slight mess was created, requiring a slew of rulings explaining how to deal with various card texts that naturally assume that crypt cards are vampires -- and a thematic disconnect emerged with Imbued rising from "crypts". Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. That was the precisely why it was called a "crypt" in the first place.

On Jul 30, 6:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sure. When the rules-makers break the rules, the rules change. It is the privilege of authority. But this WAS a rule, before an exception was made to disprove it. All I am saying is that I would still like to see this former rule -- this norm -- respected. But, just to be a pain in the neck, I would like to point out that, although the section you cite does seem to acknowledge the theoretical possibility that imbued cards can somehow be in your crypt, there is still no rule-book acknowledged way of putting them in your crypt, or getting them from your crypt into play if they somehow get in your crypt. Section 2.3 gives instructions for starting the game, but (if we take it literally) only allows you to start the game with vampires in your crypt -- and, consistent with this, only permits you to draw four vampires in your opening draw. Section 7 (and Section 3) consistent with the above, provides rules which only permit the influencing of "vampires". If we take it literally, there is no rulebook method that permits Methuselahs to influence the imbued -- even if they do somehow get in your crypt.

In message <8d4cec01-0858-4b7b...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. Yes they were. That happened in Nights of Reckoning. You seem to be having issues with what the rules say, and concepts like "never". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <dd3acee8-76c7-4b10...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >Section 7 (and Section 3) consistent with the above, provides rules >which only permit the influencing of "vampires". If we take it >literally, there is no rulebook method that permits Methuselahs to >influence the imbued -- even if they do somehow get in your crypt. If we read the whole rulebook, we find that it tells us about advanced expansions and checking the website. This then takes us to the Nights of Reckoning page. Cherry-picking sections of the rulebook to prove a point which is easily disproved by actually reading the rest of the rulebook does nothing to help you. [ quoted text not captured ]

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > But, just to be a pain in the neck, I would like to point out that, > although the section you cite does seem to acknowledge the theoretical > possibility that imbued cards can somehow be in your crypt, there is > still no rule-book acknowledged way of putting them in your crypt, or > getting them from your crypt into play if they somehow get in your > crypt. Incorrect. [1.5]

[ quoted text not captured ] Nothing personal, but this is sort of the attitude I dislike in an evolving card game like VTES. If we slavishly kept to the rulebook, we would have a very stale game indeed. We'd have no Independent or Sabbat or Laibon sects, no Inner Circle, no Grouping rule (and likely some very broken decks by now), no Advanced vampires, no Events (though some may cheer this), no Trifles, no Discard Phase Action, no Default Going Anarch action (thus making it more difficult to work an Anarch deck), no Sterile vampires, no Scarce vampires, no Slave rule, no Burn option, etc. Nevermind the myriad changes and tweaks to the rules to make the game more smooth and playable (most notably the rules on handling Aggravated Damage). You can't just keep heaping on more of the same into a game and hope that it will remain fresh and interesting. And an active game needs to be able to adapt as new ideas come into things. Jyhad originally was just the 7 Camarilla clans (when Gangrels were still part of it), because at the time the designers didn't consider future Sects coming into things. Eventually things expanded into the various sects, but the crypt was still all vampires, and so the rules simply called crypt cards vampires. Then a new innovative thought came to develop Imbued crypt cards, and so the rules expanded. I've fully embraced all the new innovations to the game, and enjoy VTES just as much, if not more, than when I first started playing 14 years ago, despite my own disagreement with some of the innovations (I personally believe that Slaves should be defensive, not offensive, in that they should be able to jump in when your vampires block actions, not when they get blocked). I love having options, and different ways of doing things. I would love to one day be that conniving Methuselah that manipulates a Garou pack into serving my own ends, all the while thinking they're 'saving the world' ... ah, such glorious irony. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Jul 31, 2:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <8d4cec01-0858-4b7b-8744-c751f49a7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups > > .com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. > > Yes they were. That happened in Nights of Reckoning. Nope. He's very correct. Mortals were never meant to emerge from the crypt. The fact that Nights of Reckoning added that to the game doesn't change the fact that the original plans never intended to do that... everything was based on the fact that the crypt had vampires, and the NoR Card Rulings section of the official list page is a testiment to how that had to be hacked (it even starts off by pointing out that "card effects that deal with crypt cards have generally assumed that crypt cards were all vampires"). Overall, the hack was pretty smooth considering the amount of cards in the game at that point... but it's still a big hack. Similarly, minions were never supposed to be limited to performing actions only once during a minion phase... the original design was that if they managed to untap, they were free to bleed, vote, or use a second copy of the same action card again. This, of course, proved problematic and was fixed by abandoning that part of the design. Things change in the game. Typically it's for the better. It's delusional however to think that the original design ever foresaw where the game is now. And it's silly to put the cart before the horse and assume that something was always intended because it's that way now. Brent Ross

bwross wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In message <8d4cec01-0858-4b7b-8744-c751f49a7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups >> >> .com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: >>> Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. >> Yes they were. That happened in Nights of Reckoning. > > Nope. He's very correct. Mortals were never meant to emerge from the > crypt. The fact that Nights of Reckoning added that to the game > doesn't change the fact that the original plans never intended to do > that... everything was based on the fact that the crypt had vampires, > and the NoR Card Rulings section of the official list page is a > testiment to how that had to be hacked (it even starts off by pointing > out that "card effects that deal with crypt cards have generally > assumed that crypt cards were all vampires"). Overall, the hack was > pretty smooth considering the amount of cards in the game at that > point... but it's still a big hack. Assumptions are not quite the same thing as intentions. See also the "design intention" that only three action modifiers should exist to increase the bleed amount of a bleed action. Or the "design intention" that retainers should only be usable by vampires and not allies. Or the intention that allies should not play cards that require Disciplines. It often takes some "hack" to overcome assumptions (bigger hacks for longer-standing assumptions), true. > Similarly, minions were never supposed to be limited to performing > actions only once during a minion phase... the original design was > that if they managed to untap, they were free to bleed, vote, or use a > second copy of the same action card again. This, of course, proved > problematic and was fixed by abandoning that part of the design. Not sure that that's a close parallel, but whatever works. > Things change in the game. Typically it's for the better. It's > delusional however to think that the original design ever foresaw > where the game is now. And it's silly to put the cart before the > horse and assume that something was always intended because it's that > way now. > > Brent Ross And that's a great summary.

In message <5ce6150a-e4e1-45ab...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroup s.com>, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> writes: >On Jul 31, 2:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In message <8d4cec01-0858-4b7b-8744-c751f49a7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups >> >> .com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: >> >Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. >> >> Yes they were. That happened in Nights of Reckoning. > >Nope. He's very correct. Mortals were never meant to emerge from the >crypt. No, they were meant to - see Nights of Reckoning. What you both appear to mean is "Mortals weren't originally intended to emerge from the crypt." However, many things have been changed from the original rules. For example, using your version of what "never" means, we could say "Vampires were never meant to be any sect but Camarilla." I demand that this rule be adhered to, and all non-Camarilla vampires must be banned. We are doing things that were never intended. The fact that a later designer had different ideas to the Jyhad set? Preposterous nonsense. Ban everything but Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 31, 1:06 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 7:54 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. That was the > > precisely why it was called a "crypt" in the first place. > > Nothing personal, but this is sort of the attitude I dislike in an > evolving card game like VTES. It is not an "attitude". It is merely a true fact regarding a game- design element that remained true for all expansions up until Nights of Reckoning. > If we slavishly kept to the rulebook, we > would have a very stale game indeed. I never advocated such an attitude. I merely expressed the desire that a particular original design assumption be respected and preserved. It's not all or nothing. To pretend that it must be all or nothing is to set up a straw man as your opponent. > We'd have no Independent or > Sabbat or Laibon sects, no Inner Circle, no Grouping rule (and likely > some very broken decks by now), no Advanced vampires, no Events > (though some may cheer this), no Trifles, no Discard Phase Action, no > Default Going Anarch action (thus making it more difficult to work an > Anarch deck), no Sterile vampires, no Scarce vampires, no Slave rule, > no Burn option, etc. Nevermind the myriad changes and tweaks to the > rules to make the game more smooth and playable (most notably the > rules on handling Aggravated Damage). We could have all these things, and still keep the design assumption that I indicated I would prefer to have preserved.

On Jul 31, 2:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <8d4cec01-0858-4b7b-8744-c751f49a7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups > > .com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. > > Yes they were. Yes, after Nights of Reckoning. > That happened in Nights of Reckoning. I know that. You know I know that, because I have been referring to Nights of Reckoning all along. My meaning, in context, was quite clear. Why are you pretending you don't know what I meant. > You seem to be having issues with what the rules say, and concepts like > "never". You just have issues, apparently. Why are you so determined to misunderstand me just so you can correct me? Seems unfriendly.

On Jul 31, 6:09 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, this is not worth arguing about, of course. But I see nothing in 1.5 that contradicts what I wrote. Nor, for that matter, do I see anything on the Nights of Reckoning Page that contradicts what I wrote. The existence of non-vampire crypt cards is acknowledged, yes. But (although we all know what is intended) the literal language of the rulebook provides no method of getting them into play.

In message <2fa333df-e7c6-4daa...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroup s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >On Jul 31, 2:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> That happened in Nights of Reckoning. > >I know that. You know I know that, because I have been referring to >Nights of Reckoning all along. My meaning, in context, was quite >clear. Why are you pretending you don't know what I meant. Because you have been claiming there's an inviolable rule that must be respected, complete with cherry-picking the rulebook. In context, you appear to be clutching at straws and behaving in a very confused fashion. >> You seem to be having issues with what the rules say, and concepts like >> "never". > >You just have issues, apparently. Why are you so determined to >misunderstand me just so you can correct me? Seems unfriendly. Why have you been claiming the rulebook doesn't cover situations it does? Seems unfriendly. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 6:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Nope. He's very correct. Mortals were never meant to emerge from the > >crypt. > > No, they were meant to - see Nights of Reckoning. > > What you both appear to mean is "Mortals weren't originally intended to > emerge from the crypt." OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN!!!! DUH!!! > However, many things have been changed from the > original rules. I know. > For example, using your version of what "never" means, > we could say "Vampires were never meant to be any sect but Camarilla." I think that's a bit less clear. But at least you are getting warmer as to what we meant. > I demand that this rule be adhered to, and all non-Camarilla vampires > must be banned. That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing.

On Aug 1, 9:50 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <2fa333df-e7c6-4daa-ac02-fbd3f893b...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroup > > s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >On Jul 31, 2:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> That happened in Nights of Reckoning. > > >I know that. You know I know that, because I have been referring to > >Nights of Reckoning all along. My meaning, in context, was quite > >clear. Why are you pretending you don't know what I meant. > > Because you have been claiming there's an inviolable rule that must be > respected, complete with cherry-picking the rulebook. Incorrect. I indicated that I would prefer that the (former) norm that the crypt was for vampires only be preserved and respected. I indicated this design preference in response to the question asked by the original poster.

> That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. So it can only be all or nothing when it's convenient to your point?

On Jul 31, 2:57 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <dd3acee8-76c7-4b10-be7e-be2497c81...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroup > > s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >Section 7 (and Section 3) consistent with the above, provides rules > >which only permit the influencing of "vampires". If we take it > >literally, there is no rulebook method that permits Methuselahs to > >influence the imbued -- even if they do somehow get in your crypt. > > If we read the whole rulebook, we find that it tells us about advanced > expansions and checking the website. This then takes us to the Nights > of Reckoning page. > > Cherry-picking sections of the rulebook to prove a point which is easily > disproved by actually reading the rest of the rulebook does nothing to > help you. Help me do what? What do you think my purpose is, and why does it matter anyway? Informally, we both know what the rules intend, and I am not trying to prove otherwise. I merely stated a true fact. Taken literally, the rulebook does not permit the influencing of non-vampire crypt cards into play during your influence phase. If you think I am wrong, please point out where it says otherwise.

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed. Specifying another reason for your preference might lead to more productive conversation. ("I just don't like it" is fine, but doesn't really enhance the conversation much.) -witness1

On Aug 1, 10:22 am, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > > That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. > > So it can only be all or nothing when it's convenient to your point? What point? I never claimed it was all or nothing.

> > > That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. > > > So it can only be all or nothing when it's convenient to your point? > > What point? I never claimed it was all or nothing. "Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. That was the precisely why it was called a "crypt" in the first place." Neither vampires were supposed to be anything else than Camarilla. Neither grouped or anything that came after Jyhad.

[ quoted text not captured ] The original poster asked a question. I answered it. I am now defending myself from a slew of silly attacks. But if you look upthread, I think you will find I did give reasons. In this case, I indicated I wanted to preserve the thematic significance of the game term "crypt". Also I do think that norms are worth respecting, unless there is good reason to break them. I therefore noted that there were other mechanisms available for getting allies into play that would preserve the "crypt" theme. I indicated that NOR has created complications requiring a slew of rulings on cards which are worded on the assumption that all crypt cards are vampires

On Aug 1, 10:32 am, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > > > > That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. > > > > So it can only be all or nothing when it's convenient to your point? > > > What point? I never claimed it was all or nothing. > > "Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. That was the > precisely why it was called a "crypt" in the first place." You misunderstood. I was indicating a desire to preserve the thematic significance of the game term "crypt". > Neither vampires were supposed to be anything else than Camarilla. > Neither grouped or anything that came after Jyhad. I do not understand why you find it impossible that I might want to preserve one game norm but not others.

In message <ddd9f85e-72bb-4cfc...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroup s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >On Aug 1, 6:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> >Nope. He's very correct. Mortals were never meant to emerge from the >> >crypt. >> >> No, they were meant to - see Nights of Reckoning. >> >> What you both appear to mean is "Mortals weren't originally intended to >> emerge from the crypt." > >OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN!!!! DUH!!! Then why not say that, instead of talking about it being a rule that only vampires can appear in crypts, and that it wasn't intended? This isn't like (for example) a Shadow Court Satyr accidentally ending up in torpor due to a clearly unforeseen and unintentional card interaction. (Hence leading to a ruling/rule change to handle this situation later.) Imbued allies being in the crypt is entirely intentional, and is meant to happen. Telling people it wasn't intended is simply wrong. >> I demand that this rule be adhered to, and all non-Camarilla vampires >> must be banned. > >That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. So why is it a binary choice for mortals in the crypt? Things have changed in all other aspects of the game. Why is this so inviolable? There can be many reasons for not doing something - increased complexity, inability to support it for a whole expansion, poor interaction with current cards, and what have you. And some of these may be inherent (or near inherent) to any plausible implementation of a given idea, but others may be implementation dependent - for example, you might not like the current way that Anarchs work, without being against Anarchs as a concept. But simply saying "It wasn't like that before, so it can't be like that now"? Completely unproductive. Evolution of a card game more or less requires that you mine things that the card game hadn't done before, or you end up providing all options to all clans/disciplines/colours/factio ns/whatever. Of course, there may be scope to fill in some gaps before looking for new stuff, but too much of that can be unexciting (and provide little incentive for players to buy sets that appear to be "just more of the same"). Opposing a change simply because that wasn't how it used to be is more or less the exact opposite of how collectible card games work. Every expansion changes how things are, and break how things used to be. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <812fdf4f-1996-4455...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >Incorrect. I indicated that I would prefer that the (former) norm >that the crypt was for vampires only be preserved and respected. Incorrect. You wrote: But the rules say crypt cards are vampires, and I want that rule respected. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <3725b12c-9b46-4858...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroup s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >I merely stated a true fact. Taken literally, the rulebook does not >permit the influencing of non-vampire crypt cards into play during >your influence phase. If you think I am wrong, please point out where >it says otherwise. The Nights of Reckoning page indicates that the cost (which sets the starting life) functions like capacity for vampires. We can therefore easily treat it as such for the purpose of influencing out Imbued. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 ago, 11:38, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:32 am, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > > > > > > That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. > > > > > So it can only be all or nothing when it's convenient to your point? > > > > What point? I never claimed it was all or nothing. > > > "Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. That was the > > precisely why it was called a "crypt" in the first place." > > You misunderstood. I was indicating a desire to preserve the thematic > significance of the game term "crypt". > > > Neither vampires were supposed to be anything else than Camarilla. > > Neither grouped or anything that came after Jyhad. > > I do not understand why you find it impossible that I might want to > preserve one game norm but not others. I do not find it impossible. Back to my original question intent: it's convenient for you to preserve the rules (or thematic) you want but not what other players (or the designers) want.

In message <9b624a48-0531-4931...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >Also I do think that norms are worth respecting, unless there is good >reason to break them. I therefore noted that there were other >mechanisms available for getting allies into play that would preserve >the "crypt" theme. > >I indicated that NOR has created complications requiring a slew of >rulings on cards which are worded on the assumption that all crypt >cards are vampires The Sabbat expansion (and, to a lesser extent, the two Indie expansions) also required a slew of errata/rulings relating to sect. The rules sheet that came with Sabbat had a variety of cards that needed to be changed (and have pretty much all been reprinted since, I think). There was no actual need to introduce the Sabbat into the game. So what's the difference? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 10:35 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > The original poster asked a question. I answered it. I am now > defending myself from a slew of silly attacks. Just so you know, from someone who's been staying out of this generally, you're coming across as repeatedly asserting something with overly-dramatic reasons that other people have pointed to the flaws in. I haven't seen anything that I'd classify as a "silly attack" - though some of James' responses come close, and are definitely silly - other than some of your statements and attacks on game concepts. > But if you look upthread, I think you will find I did give reasons. > > In this case, I indicated I wanted to preserve the thematic > significance of the game term "crypt". Oh. Well, moot point, then, as that's not actually thematically significant either - given that most WoD vampires don't choose to live in "crypts" to begin with, the very choice of the term is pretty flawed from that sense and not worth defending. > Also I do think that norms are worth respecting, unless there is good > reason to break them. I therefore noted that there were other > mechanisms available for getting allies into play that would preserve > the "crypt" theme. And as a fairly large chunk of this and other threads have pointed out, unless you're able to search your library for them without card effects, it wouldn't have met the designer's intent that they could be the major focus and moving part of a deck, let alone a stand-alone group. Which, thematically (given your apparent devotion to that word), as it's been pointed out, makes more sense than them working for/with non-Methuselah-level vampires anyway. > I indicated that NOR has created complications requiring a slew of > rulings on cards which are worded on the assumption that all crypt > cards are vampires Actually, one pair of rulings, briefly summarized on one rule card, differentiating the general case. The fact that folks routinely ask questions about something that's already succinctly answered with no ambiguity doesn't show that the rule is complicated, or even that there are complications, just that folks would rather ask than think a lot of the time. (See the percentage of LSJ's answers that read "Card text." or quote a rulebook section.) Previous design teams were sloppier in language than LSJ is, which is part of the source of the wordings. - D.J.

On Aug 1, 10:33 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > The Nights of Reckoning page indicates that the cost (which sets the > starting life) functions like capacity for vampires. No. It doesn't say that. Again, we all know what was intended, but that's not what is said. It merely says their cost is their capacity. It provides no mechanism for paying the cost, or otherwise getting them into play. Section 7, describing the influence phase, only has rules for paying the cost for VAMPIRES. > We can therefore > easily treat it as such for the purpose of influencing out Imbued. Well yes. That's what we've all been doing.

On Aug 1, 10:54 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > The Sabbat expansion (and, to a lesser extent, the two Indie expansions) > also required a slew of errata/rulings relating to sect. The rules > sheet that came with Sabbat had a variety of cards that needed to be > changed (and have pretty much all been reprinted since, I think). > > There was no actual need to introduce the Sabbat into the game. So > what's the difference? The difference was that, in this case, I thought there was a better way of adding "new stuff" to the game, via different mechanisms. I explicitly said so.

On Aug 1, 10:51 am, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > > I do not understand why you find it impossible that I might want to > > preserve one game norm but not others. > > I do not find it impossible. Back to my original question intent: it's > convenient for you to preserve the rules (or thematic) you want but > not what other players (or the designers) want. I don't understand the question

In message <rLKuKvch...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >In message <3725b12c-9b46-4858...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroup >s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: >>I merely stated a true fact. Taken literally, the rulebook does not >>permit the influencing of non-vampire crypt cards into play during >>your influence phase. If you think I am wrong, please point out where >>it says otherwise. > >The Nights of Reckoning page indicates that the cost (which sets the >starting life) functions like capacity for vampires. We can therefore >easily treat it as such for the purpose of influencing out Imbued. Additionally, the Rules Outline http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/?line=outline is agnostic on the subject of transferring to uncontrolled minions. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 10:31 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <812fdf4f-1996-4455-bcb8-c6be704d0...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups > > .com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >Incorrect. I indicated that I would prefer that the (former) norm > >that the crypt was for vampires only be preserved and respected. > Incorrect. You wrote: > > But the rules say crypt cards are vampires, and I want that rule > respected. And I have already clarified my meaning multiple times. If you continue to mistunderstand, it is because you are not interested in communication.

On Aug 1, 10:56 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Just so you know, from someone who's been staying out of this > generally, you're coming across as repeatedly asserting something with > overly-dramatic reasons that other people have pointed to the flaws > in. I haven't seen anything that I'd classify as a "silly attack" - > though some of James' responses come close, and are definitely silly - That's primarily what I had in mind. > other than some of your statements and attacks on game concepts. Well, there is nothing here constructive that requires a response. > > But if you look upthread, I think you will find I did give reasons. > > > In this case, I indicated I wanted to preserve the thematic > > significance of the game term "crypt". > > Oh. Well, moot point, then, as that's not actually thematically > significant either - given that most WoD vampires don't choose to live > in "crypts" to begin with, the very choice of the term is pretty > flawed from that sense and not worth defending. "Crypt" in this case means "hidden storage place of a corpse". > > Also I do think that norms are worth respecting, unless there is good > > reason to break them. I therefore noted that there were other > > mechanisms available for getting allies into play that would preserve > > the "crypt" theme. > > And as a fairly large chunk of this and other threads have pointed > out, unless you're able to search your library for them without card > effects, it wouldn't have met the designer's intent that they could be > the major focus and moving part of a deck, let alone a stand-alone > group. I don't agree that this is necessarily true. > Which, thematically (given your apparent devotion to that > word), as it's been pointed out, makes more sense than them working > for/with non-Methuselah-level vampires anyway. If they enter play by burning one of your vampires, it makes perfect sense thematically.

On Aug 1, 11:24 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > If they enter play by burning one of your vampires, it makes perfect > sense thematically. That is as awesome as it is untrue :) -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] What better way for a Methuselah to gain control over a vampire hunter than by offering him a vampire to destroy?

On Aug 1, 11:41 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > What better way for a Methuselah to gain control over a vampire hunter > than by offering him a vampire to destroy? Lies and misdirection, the same methods used by methuselahs to control other vampires. Likely less than one-third of imbued would be willing to knowingly team up with a vampire, even if it was to kill other vampires. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Imbued are not traditional vampire hunters. Redeemers and Innocents in particular would be unlikely to take up such an offer. Many Visionaries and Martyrs might refuse as well. Some Judges, Defenders, and even Avengers wouldn't take the bait. Awesome as it is, it doesn't make sense thematically. -witness1

In message <63bf1eaa-aa44-4c98...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups [ quoted text not captured ] And we could have introduced the Sabbat in a different way that didn't require the slew of errata, too. I cry myself to sleep every night in the knowledge that it wasn't done. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > John Enoe Hunter: Nocturnal had a very nice story about that.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > The existence of non-vampire crypt cards is acknowledged, yes. But > (although we all know what is intended) the literal language of the > rulebook provides no method of getting them into play. Language of the rulebook that provides methods for getting them into play: "Some advanced expansions include other types of crypt cards. Details for these types can be found on the web site." With a link.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:32 am, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: >>>>> That's very silly of you. It's not all or nothing. >>>> So it can only be all or nothing when it's convenient to your point? >>> What point? I never claimed it was all or nothing. >> "Mortals were never meant to emerge from crypts. That was the >> precisely why it was called a "crypt" in the first place." > > You misunderstood. I was indicating a desire to preserve the thematic > significance of the game term "crypt". You understand that some vampires are found in the "library", right?

[ quoted text not captured ] The intent of the question was to tempt you to admit that it's convenient for you to preserve the rules you want/like but not what other players (or the designers) want/like (in this specific case, creatures on the crypt other than vampires).

On Aug 1, 12:27 pm, nac.snor...@gmail.com wrote: > Hunter: Nocturnal had a very nice story about that. Hmm. It's been a while since I read that book, and the only one of the three that I can remember is the guy living in the construction site. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. Likely less than one-third of vampires would be willing knowingly to serve a Methuselah who considers them pawns to be saved or sacrificed at whim in the Eternal Struggle.

On Aug 1, 2:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes. Likely less than one-third of vampires would be willing knowingly to serve > a Methuselah who considers them pawns to be saved or sacrificed at whim in the > Eternal Struggle. Right! Which is why the method for methuselahs to manipulate vampires and imbued are similar, if not identical. John Eno

On Aug 1, 12:31 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry. I stand by what I said. That language merely acknowledges the existence of non-vampire crypt cards. It provides no method for getting them into play. If we follow the link, the best we find is this line: "Their cost is also their starting life, and is specified on each card individually (like capacity)." This strongly *IMPLIES* that you treat them like vampires during your influence phase, and treat them as though they were vampires with cost equal to life. But it does not say so. The only thing that makes this implication particularly strong is the fact that the rules fail to mention any OTHER method of getting them into play. Meanwhile, Section 7, read literally, still permits only the influencing of vampires. Again, I understand what the rule really is, and I know what the intent was. I am merely saying that, to my mind, the rules as currently worded to not literally reflect the intent.

On Aug 1, 11:07 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <63bf1eaa-aa44-4c98-bd47-f2c8f0657...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups > .com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > > And we could have introduced the Sabbat in a different way that didn't > require the slew of errata, too. If I had issues with the design of the Sabbat, they would be different issues, and that would be an entirely different discussion. > I cry myself to sleep every night in the knowledge that it wasn't done. That's sad. But its not an issue of crying over spilt milk. The werewolf expansion has not been released, or, as far as I know, even designed yet. Someone asked for opinions on how I would like it done, and I expressed my opinion.

On Aug 1, 12:47 pm, Dragos <dra...@uol.com.br> wrote: > The intent of the question was to tempt you to admit that it's > convenient for you to preserve the rules you want/like but > not what other players (or the designers) want/like (in this specific > case, creatures on the crypt other than vampires). I still don't get it ... unless you are merely trying to say "other people disagree with you, so there!" Opinions were solicited, and I expressed mine. I never presumed to speak for anyone other than myself, and I see no need for me to "admit" anything about what other people's opinions might be. I'm sure all these other people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

On Aug 1, 12:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Do you mean thematically? Like where the Tzimisce like to hunt? In game terms, I am aware of no vampires in the library -- only of library cards that become vampires when in play. Seems that, at least in most cases, this is true thematically as well as technically -- before The Embrace, the vampire in question does not even exist.

[ quoted text not captured ] embrace was there since Jyhad ... so cards creating vampires [in library] existed always :>

On Aug 1, 5:58 pm, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote: > embrace was there since Jyhad ... so cards creating vampires [in > library] existed always You missed what I was saying. Embrace, while in your library, is not a "vampire" in game terms. Conversely, crypt cards, even while still in your crypt, are "vampires" (unless they turn out to be imbued). Moreover, Embrace, while in your library, cannot even be considered to be a vampire in thematic terms. Thematically, the vampire does not exist until the embrace action is performed.

[ quoted text not captured ] Stretching to miss a point, now, eh? You're pretty limber. How is the thematic significance of the game term "library" preserved by having Shock Troops, Arsons, Helicopters, Powerbase: Chicagos, and Warghouls in it? How is the thematic significance of the game term "crypt" any more "violated" by having Imbued in it than by the above "violations" of "library"?

On Aug 1, 6:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Stretching to miss a point, now, eh? You're pretty limber. Maybe I am, but I was not trying to be. I honestly did not get the point, and, honestly, I'm still not sure I get it. > How is the thematic significance of the game term "library" > preserved by having Shock Troops, Arsons, Helicopters, > Powerbase: Chicagos, and Warghouls in it? > > How is the thematic significance of the game term "crypt" > any more "violated" by having Imbued in it than by the > above "violations" of "library"? Well. Why don't you explain to me the original idea behind Garfield's choice of the term "library". Then I can decide whether or not I think that idea has been "violated", and whether or not I care. Whatever the idea behind the term "library", the idea behind the word "crypt" has always seemed a lot clearer and a lot less abstract. It is called a "crypt" because it contains about 12 stinking corpses. It may be nothing more than a macabre joke, but I still like the joke, and using that "crypt" to store werewolves or imbued kinda spoils that joke. Of course, if you want to have mummies arise from the crypt, I might not mind as much.

On Aug 1, 6:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > How is the thematic significance of the game term "library" > preserved by having Shock Troops, Arsons, Helicopters, > Powerbase: Chicagos, and Warghouls in it? It may be worth pointing out that a Helicopter in your library does not represent, thematically, a helicopter sitting on the roof of your library. The helicopter, when it is in your library, still has to be paid for -- so logically you have yet to acquire it. What the card represents, thematically, are your plans and schemes to acquire a helicopter to further your nefarious goals. Similarly, a war ghoul in your library does not represent a war ghoul sitting in the basement of your library. The moment when it leaves the library is typically the moment of its creation. Prior to that it does not, thematically, exist at all. Once again, the card in your library would seem to represent your nefarious plans and schemes. to acquire a war ghoul. Along similar lines, it does not seem to difficult to explain the Shock Troops, the Powerbase Chicago, or the Arson.

[ quoted text not captured ] You realize that neither Imbued cards nor Kindred cards represent, thematically, stinky corpses in a crypt, right? Yes, indeed, not difficult to explain at all.

On Jul 28, 5:02 am, Oortje <internetoor...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yes that would be great. Also Mage en Wraith wouyld be cool. > Again there will be problems, just like NOR the absence of blood will > give problems. Making them less capable of interacting in the table > control with the vampires. Which will result in the werewolfs playing > their "own game". > This will be a great challange for the designteam. > > About the werewolfs not be playable. I dont agree. Although I dont see > them win every tournament, from time to time a garou deck makes it on > top. There a TEAM that works on VTES? I thought it was just LSJ! :)

In message <51500f81-df92-477c...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, Screaming Vermillian <alexand...@gmail.com> writes: >There a TEAM that works on VTES? I thought it was just LSJ! :) At various points, different sets have had a co-designer. There are also roles like the Storyline Director, who'll clearly have some input on the direction on the Storyline and its cards - with, I assume, LSJ's input too! I'd be reasonably certain that some of the playtesters are somewhat static, too i.e. they change over to,e, but not a wholesale replacement with every set. Then you have the various other people, like art directors, organized play, and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 28, 4:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It's just a question out of pure curiosity. I''m longing for the day I > would be able to play good werewolves, and the existing aren't really > satisfying in my opinion, but that's not the point i'd like to raise > here. > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? I think that working other OWoD types into the game is a reasonable way to address the reality that a CCG must keep printing new stuff. I'd like to see one small expansion for each of various possibilities every few years. While there are only 20 imbued in existence, I don't think they dilute the vampiric nature of the game at all. How many crypt vampires are there now, 1000? If there were 20 crypt mages and 20 crypt wraiths and 20 crypt werewolves and 20 crypt changelings, the game would still be a vampire game. The problem is that however ingenious the Conviction and Power mechanisms are, they add a significant complication to learning the rules of an already complicated game. If werewolves need a whole different bunch of new mechanisms, and mages too, etc, it could seriously get out of hand.

8, 4:24 amOn Aug 3, 8:11 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? > > I think that working other OWoD types into the game is a reasonable > way to address the reality that a CCG must keep printing new stuff. > I'd like to see one small expansion for each of various possibilities > every few years. While there are only 20 imbued in existence, I don't > think they dilute the vampiric nature of the game at all. How many > crypt vampires are there now, 1000? If there were 20 crypt mages and > 20 crypt wraiths and 20 crypt werewolves and 20 crypt changelings, the > game would still be a vampire game. > > The problem is that however ingenious the Conviction and Power > mechanisms are, they add a significant complication to learning the > rules of an already complicated game. If werewolves need a whole > different bunch of new mechanisms, and mages too, etc, it could > seriously get out of hand. Just to throw it out there on this point, do the other oWoD creatures need new mechanisms? However people feel about the imbued, the conviction mechanics are in my opinion, not that bad. Would it be possible to transplant these now already existing rules to Garou, Mages, etc, instead of writing new systems for each? They wouldn't be called convictions obviously, but Gnosis, rage, etc, but could serve to fuel their powers in a similar way. That way at least there are no real "new" rules to learn, just different uses for an already existing rules structure. Just a stray thought Sutekh_23

> > The problem is that however ingenious the Conviction and Power > > mechanisms are, they add a significant complication to learning the > > rules of an already complicated game. If werewolves need a whole > > different bunch of new mechanisms, and mages too, etc, it could > > seriously get out of hand. agreed. strongly. > > Just to throw it out there on this point, do the other oWoD creatures > need new mechanisms? However people feel about the imbued, the > conviction mechanics are in my opinion, not that bad. Would it be > possible to transplant these now already existing rules to Garou, > Mages, etc, instead of writing new systems for each? They wouldn't be > called convictions obviously, but Gnosis, rage, etc, but could serve > to fuel their powers in a similar way. That way at least there are no > real "new" rules to learn, just different uses for an already existing > rules structure. how about something more like this for the basic crypt card? Ally Conduit Capacity 1-6 available. group: none. only other group:none crypt cards may mix with this card in a crypt. When Ally Conduit enters play, remove it from the game, (burning all counters on it,) and search your library for an ally card with less blood or pool cost than was paid as the Ally Conduit's capacity. Ignoring clan or discipline requirements, put that ally into play under your control with full starting life. you are committed to strictly allies for minions, and imbued wouldn't be included. then, you could also add something like this to push it toward thematic consistency... Ally Recruitment +1 stealth Action The acting ally recruits another ally of the same type from your hand. (i.e. garou recruits garou, mage recruits mage, etc.) Ignore clan or skill requirements. You pay any blood or pool cost for the recruited ally in pool. You may not use this card if you have any ready minions who are not of the same type. this would only be useful to single-type focused decks, but it doesn't carry additional pool penalties. then print 5 or so each of interesting garous, changelings, wraiths, mummies, mages, demons, and mortals. flavor cards could stay within the current mechanics... it is for others, more familiar than i, to say whether Rage should be a master card playable only on a garou, or whether it should be broken up into Rage: combat, Rage: action, and Rage: action modifier, somehow, with cooler names.... Moot Point Political Action at +1 stealth Each Methuselah, each Abomination, and each Garou gets 1 vote; no other votes besides the edge may be tallied for this referendum. Choose one: If this referendum passes, the next political action that passes has no effect; or, If this referendum passes, choose an ally type from mortals, changelings, mages, mummies, demons, wraiths, ghouls, or garous; any garou may enter combat with an ally of the chosen type controlled by another methuselah as a (D) action. Breach War Master, cost 2 pool. requires a ready Garou. Choose a clan. Any ready Garou may enter combat with any vampire of that clan controlled by another methuselah as a (D) action. it's late, obviously, they would need re-working... for the ally cards, still print them with whatever clan/etc requirements as seems fitting, so they could be recruited in the "normal" fashion. let's make Argent Baton into the desirable weapon it should be! i think you would certainly need to have better pool-gain options for these types of decks. some other card names: Transmigration (mage reaction,) Silver Shot (ammo,) 5 auspices (a garou may only have 1 auspice,) Awaken the Sleeper (mage action for use on a mortal,) 3 resonances (mages,) Court of Thorns (changeling location,) and Lon who can count as garou, mummy, or changeling... ok, that's just silly... hope it was thought-provoking, john

In message <fc7d3192-cb0d-4ead...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups .com>, sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >Just to throw it out there on this point, do the other oWoD creatures >need new mechanisms? It depends on how much you want to integrate them into the game, and how much of their backstory you want to bring in. However, Convictions and Powers could serve as a perfectly reasonable way of handling the basics of them, adding a few keywords here and there. Then you add a few minor rules about which cards can go on which. e.g. Vanilla Convictions go on Imbued. Gnosis and Rage go on Werewolves. Quintessence goes on Mages. Glamour goes on Changelings. You could add a keyword to vanilla Conviction if you wanted. You could have such rules on discovering Powers too, but since they should basically all require a Creed/Virtue, you should get away with it. Then you can have things like: Timmy the Googler Mage, 3 cost, Virtual Adept Correspondence Virtue When Timmy comes into play with no conviction, you may fetch a Rote from your library and place it in your hand, instead of fetching a Quintessence card. Bobby Changeling, 3 cost, Pooka Chicanery and Pyretics Virtues Bobby does not untap after successfully discovering an Art. and so on. Most of the oWoD creatures have things that you can map like this. The bigger issue is mapping other things, like Moots, Paradox, Banality, and so on. You might decide not to do it, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 2, 7:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > You realize that neither Imbued cards nor Kindred cards > represent, thematically, stinky corpses in a crypt, right? I realize that about Imbued, yes. That is why I said it "spoils the joke" to include them in a "crypt". All kindred are by nature corpse creatures, and to refer to them as "stinking corpses" is merely to wax poetic about their true nature. I realize there are many who idolize vampires, fantasize about being vampires, and therefore prefer not to think of them as corpse creatures, but rather as glamorous and sexy immortals. But this is not how I think of them. A "crypt" is a hiding place, especially an underground hiding place for corpses. Since all kindred must hide from the sun, and all kindred are, in my view, stinking corpses, (with the Toreador being the most stinky of all, underneath their false glamour) it therefore follows that anywhere a kindred hides is a "crypt". Richard Garfield seems to have had much the same idea. Hence, he thought "crypt" was an appropriate name for a stack of unrevealed (hidden) cards representing vampires. But yes, I do realize that the "crypt" does not represent, in thematic terms, a gathering of 12 vampires trapped by a single Methuselah in the same single underground vault, waiting for him or her to let them out. I still appreciate the joke, or the poetry, inherent in calling the "crypt" a "crypt". I expressed a preference for preserving it. I thought that putting the imbued in the crypt rather spoiled it, and including werewolves would spoil it further. This is my opinion and my aesthetic preference.

On Aug 4, 3:19 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I realize there are many who idolize vampires, fantasize about being > vampires, and therefore prefer not to think of them as corpse > creatures, but rather as glamorous and sexy immortals. But this is > not how I think of them. And yet you claim you're trying to preserve fealty to the "source" material. Maybe you should try looking over V:tM source material again? Because however you prefer to think of them, they're not "corpse creatures" in V:tM or its predecessors (Anne Rice, et al) except where they're intended as contrasts or reminders of that paradox (ie, Nosferatu, Harbingers), so that it can make a poignant tragic comment for a bit, then be conveniently forgotten again in the next round of supernatural-badass, rockstar-glamorous, sexy, leather- wrapped asskicking. Not that I'm saying that's particularly good fiction... that's a whole other debate. But recognizing what it is VTES is drawing from (which doesn't equate to idolizing or fantasizing about it in the least) seems to be, I dunno, critical to any claim of fealty to said sources. And given that, "Crypt" is a poor choice for term to defend. - D.J.

On Aug 4, 9:46 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > And yet you claim you're trying to preserve fealty to the > "source" material. I don't recall saying that. I wanted to preserve fealty to the idea which apparently underlies Richard Garfield's decision to call the "crypt" a "crypt". There are a thousand V:tM and pre-V:tM source materials related to vampires, and I am sure at least some are loyal to this idea, and that at least some are hostile to it. I am loyal to the idea. Hence, my preference. > Maybe you should try looking over V:tM source material > again? Because however you prefer to think of them, > they're not "corpse creatures" in V:tM or its predecessors > (Anne Rice, et al) except where they're intended as > contrasts or reminders of that paradox (ie, Nosferatu, > Harbingers), so that it can make a poignant tragic comment > for a bit, then be conveniently forgotten again in the > next round of supernatural-badass, rockstar-glamorous, > sexy, leather- wrapped asskicking. Sounds like you are saying that the idea *IS* indeed incorporated into the source game, via certain "reminders" or "poignant tragic comments". Meanwhile, storytelling games are basically designed to be flexible enough to be whatever the storyteller and players want it to be. Meanwhile, I see nothing about "supernatural" or "badass" or "rockstar" or "leather-wrapped asskicking" that is inconsistent with the theme to which Richard Garfield showed loyalty when he named the smaller deck. The idea that vampires are capable of seeming, in some sense, to be sexy and/or glamorous is an idea that goes back as far as Bram Stoker, and Sheridan Le Fanu, and much of the folklore that preceded it. However, all of these sources preserved the idea that, underneath the illusion, underneath the false glamour, lay a corpse-monster whose illusion of life was robbed from the living. As for Anne Rice, her vampires slept in coffins, and her first novel ends in a crushing affirmation that the vampiric fantasy was a dead end, and that vampires are, in the final analysis, basically living corpses. I am aware that she "conveniently forgot" this lesson for a good while, so she could go on to write a slew of questionable sequels, until she finally got fed up and told her fans to go screw themselves. > Not that I'm saying > that's particularly good fiction... that's a whole other debate. Seems to me that that cuts to the bone of the matter. I desire loyalty to the "source material" to the extent that it is good, not to the extent that it is bad. > But recognizing what it is VTES is drawing from (which > doesn't equate to idolizing or fantasizing about it in the > least) seems to be, I dunno, critical to any claim of fealty to > said sources. I have no "fealty" to the sort of sources you seem to have in mind. > And given that, "Crypt" is a poor choice for term to defend. Seems to me that, it is an excellent choice of term to defend. Apparently it needs defending. According to you, the underlying idea has come under heavy siege.

In message <a1a1394d-164f-4c17...@k13g2000hse.googlegroup [ quoted text not captured ] It seems no more under siege as an amusing short-hand name than the Ash Heap is under siege by having cards that weren't burned in it. [ quoted text not captured ]

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:46 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> And yet you claim you're trying to preserve fealty to the >> "source" material. > > I don't recall saying that. I wanted to preserve fealty to the idea > which apparently underlies Richard Garfield's decision to call the > "crypt" a "crypt". It is fairly apparent that the term was simply a convenience. Like "burn" and "ash heap" and "blood bank". Sure, the terms were chosen because of their relation to vampires. But that doesn't mean they are somehow sacred and only applicable to vampires. To wit: allies in the original game pull their life counters from the "blood bank". They "burn" when punched hard enough. And then they enter the "ash heap" (not the graveyard). So it's not surprising to find them starting in the "crypt" of minions (wandering outside in the wide wide world) that the Methuselah plans to use her influence to control.

On Aug 4, 12:55 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <a1a1394d-164f-4c17-a352-91d55eb07...@k13g2000hse.googlegroup > > s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes: > >On Aug 4, 9:46 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> And given that, "Crypt" is a poor choice for term to > >> defend. > > >Seems to me that, it is an excellent choice of term to > > defend. Apparently it needs defending. According to > > you, the underlying idea has come under heavy siege. > > It seems no more under siege as an amusing short-hand > name than the Ash Heap is under siege by having cards > that weren't burned in it. You've lost the thread of the discussion. "Ash Heap" is indeed an amusing short-hand name. However, it is amusing only if you get the joke. "Crypt" is also an amusing short-hand name. Once again, it is amusing only if you get the joke. Meej, evidently, does not get the joke. He challenged the idea that Vampires are undead corpse creatures. He challenged the idea that a crypt is called a crypt precisely because it has vampires

On Aug 4, 2:43 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > "Crypt" is also an amusing short-hand name. Once again, it is amusing > only if you get the joke. Meej, evidently, does not get the joke. He > challenged the idea that Vampires are undead corpse creatures. He > challenged the idea that a crypt is called a crypt precisely because > it has vampires Bzzt. I did no such thing. I simply referenced V:tM, which is *the* source material for VTES, and which (in its many sub-sources, meaning the books in the product line, not the sources V:tM drew on) doesn't really play heavily on the "undead corpse creatures" angle. I'd agree that it is exactly that, an amusing short-hand name. You're the one that has been trying to use some sort of thematic significance from it to justify a pedantic rules-point that's been shot full of holes from every other angle. However, I'm done feeding what might well be just a trolling attempt at this point. And if it's not, well - my apologies for misunderstanding where you're coming from, and how strongly you feel about vampires being the only things coming out of something called a "crypt" just for the sake of Richard Garfield's design team's mediocre joke. - D.J.

On Jul 28, 4:24 am, Huruem <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > My question is : Despite everything that happened around NOR, and all > the flaws that the expansion had, would you be in favor of a new > expansion with werewolves as crypt cards? Not to hijack your thread, but I'd like to know how much interest there is in a Mage expansion? I've had an idea for a V:TES-compatible expansion for Mages. Without getting too far into it, I think you could do something with Sphere magic modeled loosely on the old vote- pitch mechanic that V:TES used to have. -- David Cherryholmes

In message <37b733e1-0f36-4aec...@k30g2000hse.googlegroup s.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> writes: >Not to hijack your thread, but I'd like to know how much interest >there is in a Mage expansion? I've had an idea for a V:TES-compatible >expansion for Mages. Without getting too far into it, I think you >could do something with Sphere magic modeled loosely on the old vote- >pitch mechanic that V:TES used to have. That's sort of what the multiple cards on a single action effect gives you in V:TES anyway. You blend and mould some improvised magic, or enact a tried and tested rote, based on the circumstances around you. - The Celestial Chorister starts enacting a ritual to heal a fallen companion (plays an action card / uses an action power based on the Life sphere). - When faced with an intruder, he hastens his ritual by burning The Quickening (a Quintessence conviction) for +1 stealth on his action that requires a Sphere. - The intruder breaks into his sanctum before his ritual is complete. The Chorister calls upon his faith to thwart this monster, by playing a Warding action modifier. It requires Prime - possibly with extra benefits for Choristers, whose Sphere that is? - that gives negative intercept to monsters, or other effects to thwart them. Maybe it makes monsters burn a blood/life to continue blocking? In Mage: The Ascension turns, them seems like an extended skill challenge, trying to accumulate successes, which has been using Life and Prime, with some Quintessence channelling into it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 4, 3:12 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > I'd agree that it is exactly that, an amusing short-hand > name. Okay. > You're the one that has been trying to use some sort of > thematic significance from it to justify a pedantic rules-point > that's been shot full of holes from every other angle. No. I indicated that I wanted to preserve the norm of the crypt containing vampires only. It was a minor issue for which I provided one of several minor reasons. I already explained what I meant by "thematic significance", you seem to understand what I meant. Why attach to the phrase a different meaning, so you can pretend I meant more than I did? > However, I'm done feeding what might well be just a trolling > attempt at this point. Insult noted. > And if it's not, well - my apologies for > misunderstanding where you're coming from, and how > strongly you feel about vampires being the only things > coming out of something called a "crypt" just for the sake of > Richard Garfield's design team's mediocre joke. It is the arbitrary features of a game that give it it's flavor. Change too many of these arbitrary features, and it eventually becomes, for better or worse, a different game. If I express a certain preference for preserving certain arbitrary features of Mr. Garfield's game, as he designed it, including certain jokes that you consider mediocre, you cannot disprove my preferences in the manner you are attempting. I never claimed this was much more than my own aesthetic taste and opinion. I expressed this opinion in response to a request for such opinions. Why should I back down in response to everyone's attempt to "disprove" my opinion. If you want werewolves in the crypt, just say so. I won't harass you. I won't "troll" you. It's not a big deal unless you try to make it one. But If you keep attacking my position, I reserve the right to defend it. You call me a "troll" for defending it. But why do YOU feel so strongly about this?

On Aug 4, 3:32 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > That's sort of what the multiple cards on a single action effect gives > you in V:TES anyway. You blend and mould some improvised magic, or > enact a tried and tested rote, based on the circumstances around you. I'd like to get into this more, maybe tomorrow when I have more time. But for now, let me just say this: if a Mage card game doesn't capture the feel of dynamic magic, then you might as well not make it. I understand that, starting with Mage:Rev and going forward, the game designers decided to gut that aspect and make it a big rote-fest, but I am rather old-school and fond of the Origins award-winning first version of Mage, and that is what I am interested in ensconcing in the card game. I do not like the permanent effect of Powers, and I do not think the set effect of disciplines reflect the on-the-fly nature of Spheres. Rotes have their place, but they should be more akin to the draft outferior effect that is now printed on existing cards. Ritual magic should be something that can be dumped to over turns, and defended against, like the Rack; the number of card pitchable during a turn (1, 2, or 3) should be a function of the capacity of Mages you have influenced. If, after some turns, they don't get popped, then they go off. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 4, 1:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It is fairly apparent that the term was simply a convenience. One chosen for its thematic flavor. > Like "burn" and "ash heap" and "blood bank". Since the Imbued were printed, it is a little more like those terms than it was previously. If I am in a room full of headless corpses, and a blade swings down and cuts my head off, the fact that I am now no taller than anyone else in the room cannot be used to prove that nothing has been changed. This situation is not nearly as critical, but the same logic applies. There once was a time when the "crypt" contained, and was intended to contain, only cards representing vampires. There was never a time when "libraries" contained only cards representing books. If I say I want to keep the first feature, you cannot disprove the first by citing the second. The fact that "crypt" is now no more flavor- appropriate than "ash heap" does not prove that nothing has been lost. > Sure, the terms were chosen because of their relation to > vampires. But that doesn't mean they are somehow sacred > and only applicable to vampires. I never said it was "sacred". I never accused the design team of committing blasphemy. The design team is clearly entitled to pursue its own artistic vision, which naturally includes making changes to the game that are not necessarily consistent with Garfield's original vision, nor with mine. But Crypt cards WERE only meant to represent vampires, and this was clearly a deliberate design intention of Richard Garfield. The term "crypt" is only one of many indications of this. The assumption was incorporated into the rulebook and many subsequently-printed cards. It is the arbitrary features of the game that give it it's flavor, and this particular arbitrary feature of the game is one that I would have preferred to keep, for a variety of minor reasons. It's not a big deal. It is certainly the least of my complaints regarding the imbued. Overall, I think the design team is doing an excellent job. And if the design team decides to put werewolves in the crypt, I have no plans to protest.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > But Crypt cards WERE only meant to represent vampires, and this was > clearly a deliberate design intention of Richard Garfield. The term No. They did represent vampires exclusively. But that's not the same thing as being "only meant to". cf. allies using retainers. Many retainers were originally printed as only usable by vampires. But they weren't MEANT to be only usable by vampires. The designer was simply focusing on vampires. Hence: "crypt", "burn", and retainers' texts. > "crypt" is only one of many indications of this. The assumption was > incorporated into the rulebook and many subsequently-printed cards. No. It's one of the clever names used that indicates nothing further in the foundations of the game. Like burn.

On Aug 4, 6:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > But Crypt cards WERE only meant to represent vampires, > > and this was clearly a deliberate design intention of > > Richard Garfield. The term > > No. They did represent vampires exclusively. But that's not > the same thing as being "only meant to". It may not be the same thing, but it is still clear to me that both apply in this case. > cf. allies using retainers. Many retainers were originally > printed as only usable by vampires. But they weren't > MEANT to be only usable by vampires. Usually, people mean what they say. Sometimes, people don't consider their choice of words adequately, and it can be said that they did not really mean what they said. It is possible that this was the case in the way certain retainers were worded. I cannot possibly stretch this idea to cover any claim that Garfield did not really mean the crypt to be vampires-only. Clearly that was a deliberate design choice. They were not even called "crypt cards" originally. There was a "crypt", but it was where you kept your "vampire cards". Those were the two types of JYHAD cards: "Vampire Cards" and "Library Cards". For instance, from section 5: "Each card deck is composed of *library cards* and *vampire cards*. Each player will need at least 12 vampire cards ...." When the name of the game changed, and all "Jyhad Cards" became "Vampire Cards", the former "Vampire cards" were renamed "crypt cards". (I agree, however, that it does not necessarily follow that Garfield would disapprove of the revisions being made now.) > The designer was simply focusing on vampires. Sure he was. But that was precisely what he MEANT to do. And it can hardly be said that he was so focussed on vampires that he forgot to create other types of minions. He did create other minions. He called them "allies" (meaning "allies" of your vampires) and deliberately provided for a separate means of getting them into play. > Hence: "crypt", "burn", and retainers' texts. > > "crypt" is only one of many indications of this. The > > assumption was incorporated into the rulebook and many > > subsequently-printed cards. > No. It's one of the clever names used that indicates nothing > further in the foundations of the game. Like burn. I disagree. Sorry.

In message <68cf9018-6f9c-45c2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroup s.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> writes: >I do not like the permanent effect of Powers, and I do not >think the set effect of disciplines reflect the on-the-fly nature of >Spheres. Rotes have their place, but they should be more akin to the >draft outferior effect that is now printed on existing cards. Ritual >magic should be something that can be dumped to over turns, and >defended against, like the Rack; the number of card pitchable during a >turn (1, 2, or 3) should be a function of the capacity of Mages you >have influenced. If, after some turns, they don't get popped, then >they go off. I think you'd have a very hard time finding something flexible enough to capture the true spirit of Mage: The Ascension that could be fitted onto card text without a massive number of rules, or look-up tables, or something. At the end of the day, you want most of the effects on fairly easily understood cards, and you probably don't want players having to cross-reference mountains of them to find out the effects of one action. I'd also caution against straying into things that are too wild, because of the complications it would add to the rules, which would likely piss off players. But there are various things you can do to try to get some of the flavour, without straying too far from what we have. I'll probably use the term "spell" in the rest of this post, rather than rote/ritual/whatever, to avoid being too prescriptive either way. Quintessence ------------ One of the reasons I picked the idea I had with a Quintessence conviction was that it empowered a spell, rather than being an effect of its own (like Strike with Conviction is). So you could have a theme for the Quintessence convictions that they piggy-back on other cards - after all, most Mages don't do much with raw Quintessence in the game. So you could have things like: - stealth on a spell - reduced cost of a spell - move a spell-related card (action, action modifier) back to the bottom of your library at the end of the action (see Art of Memory) - if you use a spell to strike in combat, you get first strike - if you use a spell to strike in combat, you can play it during Set Range and use this conviction to get an optional maneuver (so a "Strike: 1R" strike becomes "Strike: 1R with an optional maneuver") - adding an extra effect to a spell-based action when you announce it ("and your prey burns a pool", "tap a minion controlled by your prey") Alternatively, some cards could have gaps that get "filled in" by a Quintessence, so that there's a bit more flexibility. That presents some interesting design challenges, though. Three-ways and multi-functions ------------------------------ Now, you don't have to rip off Anarch three-ways entirely, but they provide some flexibility. Keystone Kine is one option to think about. Keystone Kine can have up to seven different effects (1 discipline * 3, 3 combinations of 2, or all 3). You could do something similar with spells. So, you might have something like: Heal Spell, Action / Power / Whatever Select a target who is not a monster. [LIFE] Move one life counter from this acting minion to the target. [PRIME] Burn a Quintessence card to add a life counter to target (from the blood bank). [LIFE] [PRIME] Add three life to the target (from the blood bank). You can argue over whether it's a Power or an Action or whatever. But that gives you something a little more flexible, without being uber- flexible such that I try to scratch my eyes out. For longer term, more powerful effects, you can spend time on an action. For example, you can create something a little like the Great Beast. Take an action to put it on yourself, put one or more counters on it over time. What have you done? Created a secluded sanctum where you have good defence? Filled yourself with radiant faith? Those are doable. And you can make those flexible too. e.g. When this card has 3 counters: if you have [FORCES], ...; if you have [LIFE], ...; if you have [SPIRIT], .... Random stuff like that, that can combine together. Rotes ----- Mage: The Ascension did have its fair share of rotes. Improvised magic happened, but a lot of players did have favourite rotes. Certainly, there were quite a few factions out there with their own signature rotes they taught to people. And I think that at end of the day, you're going to have to allow for some rote-like actions. However, as I've indicated, I think you could probably have some sort of compromise between open-ended flexibility and rigid. So you might get a three-way action modifier that goes about achieving the same effect in different ways. You can hint at an outcome, with necessarily mandating an exact method. Circumvention Spell, Action Modifier (again, argue if this is a power or not) [MIND] A blocking minion gets -1 intercept. [TIME] Burn a quintessence to get +1 stealth. [FORCES] The blocking minion must burn a blood or life to continue blocking. 9 Spheres, 3 effects per card. Say, 9 cards. You have 27 different magical effects, which is quite a lot of flexibility. Take, say, a 60 card set. 20 Mages (2 per core faction, plus 2 Hollow Ones), 40 library cards. 3 Quintessence, a few masters, a few talismans/pieces of equipment, perhaps a retainer or two, perhaps a loquipment or two representing a Sanctum of some sort. 12-15 cards so far? Throw in a few generic reactions, maybe an event or two. Are we up to 20 cards? 20 cards left for flexible spells of some sort. With Heal-like multi-discipline cards and Circumvention-like three-ways, you seem to have a lot of scope for flexibility, without being too insane. If you can extend slightly beyond a 60 card set, there's a lot of scope to do some fun things. Perhaps 80 cards (4 sheets of 20 cards). Or, assuming that the 60 card sets have been 3 sheets with each card on them 5 times, you could print each card 4 times on a sheet and get 75 cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

I think the interview in 2001 with Richard Garfield found at http://www.vtesinla.org/articleGarfield.htm, discussing his thoughts on the evolution of Jyhad/VTES, to be very telling to this discussion. On Aug 4, 5:02 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 4, 6:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > cf. allies using retainers. Many retainers were originally > > printed as only usable by vampires. But they weren't > > MEANT to be only usable by vampires. > > Usually, people mean what they say. Sometimes, people don't consider > their choice of words adequately, and it can be said that they did not > really mean what they said. It is possible that this was the case in > the way certain retainers were worded. > > I cannot possibly stretch this idea to cover any claim that Garfield > did not really mean the crypt to be vampires-only. Clearly that was a > deliberate design choice. Yes, since the game was based on Vampire: The Masquerade, and you don't often throw everything into the melting pot all at once when you're developing something that could be potentially very big. So you start with the basics, and build upwards. If you're going to base your arguments on what the original Jyhad CCG offered, then I hope you don't play Independents or Sabbat, since they too weren't part of the original design. If I were to use your arguments, clearly it was a design choice that only the original 7 Camarilla clans should have been vampire cards in your Crypt. Heck, the original design plan gave us totally random starter decks. I think we're all thankful that we no longer use this design convention. > They were not even called "crypt cards" originally. There was a > "crypt", but it was where you kept your "vampire cards". Those were > the two types of JYHAD cards: "Vampire Cards" and "Library Cards". > > For instance, from section 5: "Each card deck is composed of *library > cards* and *vampire cards*. Each player will need at least 12 vampire > cards ...." Clearly the terms were meant to be catch-all phrases to describe the cards. It's rather cumbersome to say your deck of Action, Action Modifer, Combat, Political Action, Retainer, Ally, Equipment and Reaction Cards .. so you group them under an umbrella term, like 'Library Cards'. Likewise, when the game was originally designed there were just 111 vampires as crypt cards. It's just as easy to call them vampire cards (since they are cards that represent vampires) as it is to call them crypt cards. Much like if all you have are apples for a fruit stand, you could just as easily call it an apple stand. Doesn't mean that you can't one day add oranges. > When the name of the game changed, and all "Jyhad Cards" became > "Vampire Cards", the former "Vampire cards" were renamed "crypt > cards". > > (I agree, however, that it does not necessarily follow that Garfield > would disapprove of the revisions being made now.) I think this is a telling quote from the above interview: "Garfield: ... I just know that the mileage I get out of a single word, game design wise, has increased a lot, and we make much more concise cards than we used to that are as rich or richer than the old ones." So he is in agreement with you on a point, words hold a particular power in card games. But the words you're clinging to even the game designer has moved on from. Garfield since learned that terms are much more useful than he first thought, and that clarity is paramount. Plus, remember that he was commissioned to design this game. From the interview, it certainly doesn't seem like this was a labour of love, beyond developing the actual mechanics of the game. The theme and flavour of the game was just window dressing. > > The designer was simply focusing on vampires. > > Sure he was. But that was precisely what he MEANT to do. And it can > hardly be said that he was so focussed on vampires that he forgot to > create other types of minions. He did create other minions. He > called them "allies" (meaning "allies" of your vampires) and > deliberately provided for a separate means of getting them into play. He did indeed, because he and the designers wanted these other entities in the game, but took the starting design route to just have vampires as Crypt cards. Nothing in this indicates that other supernaturals couldn't later come as crypt cards, just like nothing precluded vampires being created by various library cards. You have to start with basics for a game of this scope. The development of VTES mirrors that of V:tM very closely. The original RPG gave us just the 7 Camarilla clans. Then sourcebooks started coming out (much like card expansion sets) giving us Independent clans, some Bloodlines, and eventually the Sabbat clans. These all built upon the original concept, even though they were never really included in the original book. Eventually, the entire RPG line was _revised_ ... clearing up rules, streamlining the game and concept, making things more cohesive. The later revisions included the Independent and Sabbat clans right off. Why? Because it as found that these were popular and viable character choices, something that probably wasn't considered when V:tM was first printed. > > Hence: "crypt", "burn", and retainers' texts. > > > "crypt" is only one of many indications of this. The > > > assumption was incorporated into the rulebook and many > > > subsequently-printed cards. > > No. It's one of the clever names used that indicates nothing > > further in the foundations of the game. Like burn. > > I disagree. Sorry. How can you possibly disagree with this point? If terms like 'burn' and 'ash heap' are clever terms, wouldn't it make sense that other non- game terms be in the same vein? (Yes indeed, pun intended!) The term is clearly tongue-in-cheek, something clever to respesent your stack of then vampire cards. If you know anything about the RPG, you'd know that many of the hollywood vampire conventions don't apply to 'real' vampires, including the fact that they don't sleep in coffins in some dank tomb. I can appreciate your desire to maintain the pure vampire feel you want from the game. I just think hinging it all based on a term chosen when the game was first developed is not the thing to do. The game has always been about you, an elder Metheselah, manipulating others to your own ends. Why would these ancient, powerful beings refrain from using whatever tools they had access to? I find it sweet irony that the Imbued are so manipulated to believing they are bettering the world by destroying the plans of other Methuselahs, while all the time just furthering victory for another. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Aug 6, 3:49 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > If you're going to base your arguments on what the original Jyhad CCG > offered, .... What "arguments"? I merely mentioned a feature of the original game, which particular feature I happened to like and happened to want preserved. Then, for some strange reason, people started denying that it WAS a feature of the original game. > ....then I hope you don't play Independents or Sabbat, since they > too weren't part of the original design. If I were to use your > arguments, clearly it was a design choice that only the original 7 > Camarilla clans should have been vampire cards in your Crypt. Why do you assume that if I like some changes, I MUST like ALL changes. By do you assume that if I accept any change, I lose the right to object to any change. Why is it all or nothing with you? Obviously the game was meant to expand. Some things were meant to change. Some things, however, were meant to stay the same. It was meant to remain, in some broad sense, the same game. What should change and what should remain the same is inevitably a matter of opinion. I happened to express my opinion and preference on one small point. I stand by my opinion. > Likewise, when the game was originally designed there were just 111 > vampires as crypt cards. They were called "vampire cards", not "crypt cards". > It's just as easy to call them vampire cards > (since they are cards that represent vampires) as it is to call them > crypt cards. He could have called them "minion cards" and put all the minions in it. He chose otherwise. > Much like if all you have are apples for a fruit stand, > you could just as easily call it an apple stand. Doesn't mean that you > can't one day add oranges. He did add oranges. He put them in the library. > I think this is a telling quote from the above interview: > > "Garfield: ... I just know that the mileage I get out of a single > word, game design wise, has increased a lot, and we make much more > concise cards than we used to that are as rich or richer than the old > ones." > > So he is in agreement with you on a point, words hold a particular > power in card games. I would not presume to stretch his words so far. > But the words you're clinging to even the game > designer has moved on from. Now you are stretching them even further. > He did indeed, because he and the designers wanted these other > entities in the game, but took the starting design route to just have > vampires as Crypt cards. In short, he intended the crypt to be vampires only -- just as I said. It amazes me that people want to either (a) deny this simple fact; or (b) admit this simple fact, while accusing me of ascribing to that simple fact some super-duper earth-shattering importance, simply because I said I would prefer it not be changed. > Nothing in this indicates that other > supernaturals couldn't later come as crypt cards, [...] There is nothing about anything Mr. Garfield designed that could not in theory be changed. > [...] just like nothing > precluded vampires being created by various library cards. "The Embrace" and "Third Tradition: Progeny" were part of the original set. > > > No. It's one of the clever names used that indicates nothing > > > further in the foundations of the game. Like burn. > > > I disagree. Sorry. > > How can you possibly disagree with this point? If terms like 'burn' > and 'ash heap' are clever terms, wouldn't it make sense that other non- > game terms be in the same vein? (Yes indeed, pun intended!) You misunderstand. I was not disagreeing that the terms were clever. > The term is clearly tongue-in-cheek, something clever to respesent > your stack of then vampire cards. It is less clever, and less funny, when applied to a stack of Imbued. > I can appreciate your desire to maintain the pure vampire feel you > want from the game. Right. So why are you arguing with me? > I just think hinging it all based on a term chosen > when the game was first developed is not the thing to do. Why are you accusing me of "hinging it all" merely because I brought it up, and why is it "not the thing to do"? > The game has > always been about you, an elder Metheselah, manipulating others to > your own ends. Why would these ancient, powerful beings refrain from > using whatever tools they had access to? They don't. The original game had other minions besides vampires. The original jyhad booklet does seem to suggest, however, that Methuselah's, who operate from afar and/or in complete anonymity, have more direct control over vampires than they do over other minions, whom they generally recruit using vampire intermediaries. Personally, I always assumed this was because of a psychic connection that ancient vampires have over lesser kin. There were cards to represent Methuselahs acting directly: Master Cards. Including "Millicent Smith" (not techincally a minion card). Later, Jake Washinton permitted direct recruitment of allies. > I find it sweet irony that > the Imbued are so manipulated to believing they are bettering the > world by destroying the plans of other Methuselahs, while all the time > just furthering victory for another. The same sweet irony was present in "muddled vampire hunter". The idea does not require vampires in the crypt.

On Aug 6, 3:02 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 6, 3:49 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > Why do you assume that if I like some changes, I MUST like ALL > changes. By do you assume that if I accept any change, I lose the > right to object to any change. Why is it all or nothing with you? I'm not saying you need to like it, and perhaps I'm misreading this part of the thread. It just seems that your objection is over the fact that in the original release of the game, brown-backed cards were called Vampire Cards and formed your Crypt, rather than the currently used Crypt Cards forming your Crypt .. and thus any future crypt cards can only be vampires. > > Likewise, when the game was originally designed there were just 111 > > vampires as crypt cards. > > They were called "vampire cards", not "crypt cards". I'm still failing to see this point. Vampire cards went into your crypt, and thus are crypt cards, just as action cards are library cards. Just because the original release made reference to them as vampire cards doesn't negate the revised wording to be crypt cards. The original independents were called Non-Camarilla, then revised to Independents. Both hold true, but the second term is more accurate (since Sabbat are not Camarailla either, but they are certainly no independent). I'm highly doubting that days were spent agonizing over what to call brown-backed cards that a player could immediately identify. Vampire Cards just comes as a natural term to use, since all brown-backed cards at the time were indeed vampires. > > It's just as easy to call them vampire cards > > (since they are cards that represent vampires) as it is to call them > > crypt cards. > > He could have called them "minion cards" and put all the minions in > it. He chose otherwise. Or just Crypt Cards, I agree. I just feel that "vampire cards" was picked because all the available designed cards were vampires. I can't say what future plans (if any) there were, or what reference material Garfield was given for design. But I think you're reading too much into the choice to refer to them as vampire cards. Perhaps, at the time, it wasn't envisioned to have other supernaturals as crypt cards. I don't think plans were made that far ahead, since neither Independent nor Sabbat vampires had really been considered either. > > He did indeed, because he and the designers wanted these other > > entities in the game, but took the starting design route to just have > > vampires as Crypt cards. > > In short, he intended the crypt to be vampires only -- just as I > said. It amazes me that people want to either (a) deny this simple > fact; or (b) admit this simple fact, while accusing me of ascribing to > that simple fact some super-duper earth-shattering importance, simply > because I said I would prefer it not be changed. Perhaps I did stretch. I got the feeling from the quote that things like Key Words and card names became more important and evident to him some time after finishing Jyhad. Perhaps he would have still have called them vampire cards, or perhaps he would have used another term. But I think you stretch just as far saying that the choice of 'vampire cards' over 'crypt cards' meant that anything other than vampires in the crypt was inviolate on Garfield's part. It's a shame I don't have the original Jyhad rulebook, I'd like to have a look at it now. It's hard to debate on a topic that I don't have accurate information on. > > [...] just like nothing > > precluded vampires being created by various library cards. > > "The Embrace" and "Third Tradition: Progeny" were part of the original > set. Yes, sorry, that was my point. The Library already had both types of minions, so my parallel was that the same could (and has) been done for the Crypt. > > The term is clearly tongue-in-cheek, something clever to respesent > > your stack of then vampire cards. > > It is less clever, and less funny, when applied to a stack of Imbued. As is the fact that Allies get life from the Blood Bank. In the end, it's just a vampirish term applied to an aspect of the game to save on words. It could be more accurately called the "Blood, Life, Pool and Miscellaneous Counter Bank". Crypt is just a handy term to describe your deck of brown-backed cards, as it's one word rather than many, and have a vampiric tone to it (even if it doesn't match the setting of the actual game). > > I can appreciate your desire to maintain the pure vampire feel you > > want from the game. > > Right. So why are you arguing with me? I appreciate your desire, as in I understand it, I didn't say I agree with it. > > I just think hinging it all based on a term chosen > > when the game was first developed is not the thing to do. > > Why are you accusing me of "hinging it all" merely because I brought > it up, and why is it "not the thing to do"? Perhaps it's just been the direction of the discussion, which has been focusing on the terms "Crypt" and "vampire cards". You're not wanting to lose the feel of a game centred around vampires, fearing that other supernaturals as crypt cards will detract from this. That's certainly a valid opinion. I don't feel such would be lost. There are currently 1144 distinct crypt cards that are vampires, 20 Imbued (2%). We've another ~100 coming with the next set coming. Even if the other 4 main RPG games produced mini-sets a la Nights of Reckoning, that's 80 more non-vampires. By the time all those get developed, we'll have likely hundreds more vampires, and the non-vampire percentage may get upwards of say 7%. The game is still totally dominated by vampires. Your argument, perhaps wrongly perceived, has been that it doesn't make sense for anything but vampires to be in a "Crypt". That because they were originally called vampire cards, then it should be impossible for there to be non-vampires in the crypt, and that because of all this, there shouldn't be any non-vampire crypt cards. > > The game has > > always been about you, an elder Metheselah, manipulating others to > > your own ends. Why would these ancient, powerful beings refrain from > > using whatever tools they had access to? > > They don't. The original game had other minions besides vampires. > > The original jyhad booklet does seem to suggest, however, that > Methuselah's, who operate from afar and/or in complete anonymity, have > more direct control over vampires than they do over other minions, > whom they generally recruit using vampire intermediaries. Personally, > I always assumed this was because of a psychic connection that ancient > vampires have over lesser kin. Perhaps with Malkavians, but I don't see this working otherwise. I've always seen it as the Methuselah manipulating events to set their minions on particular paths to achieve their goals. And there is something in what you say, the orginal concept was of Methuselahs manipulating things from afar. I just feel that this manipulation could be applied to other supernaturals and even regular humans just as well. > There were cards to represent Methuselahs acting directly: Master > Cards. Including "Millicent Smith" (not techincally a minion card). > Later, Jake Washinton permitted direct recruitment of allies. Also true. Though personally, I wouldn't want to fill my Library with cards to be able to play say a Werewolf oriented deck. I really think Nights of Reckoning provided an elegant method of bringing non- vampires into the game, while still keeping the feel of the game, both thematically and mechanically. Yes, some new terms needed to be added, and a couple of new mechanics. But I think they added something we hadn't had before; dynamic, flexible allies. Library allies are pretty much meant for a specific purpose, but otherwise aren't useful to other strategies. Muddled Vampire Hunters make poor bleeders, for example. Even for their main purpose, your options are limited. I still use and love Library allies, but most are far from being as useful as a vampire. > > I find it sweet irony that > > the Imbued are so manipulated to believing they are bettering the > > world by destroying the plans of other Methuselahs, while all the time > > just furthering victory for another. > > The same sweet irony was present in "muddled vampire hunter". The > idea does not require vampires in the crypt. Mispoke? I'm assuming you mean non-vampires here. And it's true, you could play ally decks without the need of having them in the Crypt. Few beyond War Ghouls and Shambling Hordes are usually effective though. And though you can design decks based on allies, they're real strength is in supporting your vampires. I realize this is what you prefer, that players need to use vampires to achieve their ends. I just find that I like options and variety, and the fact that Imbued decks often make appearances shows that there is a fair amount of interest in this by others as well. I enjoyed the old World of Darkness line. I collected the main books of each of the 5 central games. I guess I just see a lot of potential in these other resources that could add to VTES, providing new and interesting ways of doing things. And really, nothing says you have to obtain any of such expansion sets. But even vampires have to defend themselves from and deal with other supernatural creatures. Perhaps it would be a pain to learn any potential new rules pertaining to these other crypts, but I think a lot of things can be built on existing mechanics, as has been suggested in this thread. Chris, Thrall of Arika

Thrall of Arika wrote: > It's a shame I don't have the original Jyhad rulebook, I'd like to > have a look at it now. It's hard to debate on a topic that I don't > have accurate information on. The original rulebook uniformly refers to the cards as "vampire cards", never as "crypt cards". Indeed, your "deck" is 12 or more vampire cards together with 40 to N library cards. The "library" is created from the entire set of your library cards at the start of the game, but the crypt is not created until after you've placed four vampire cards in your uncontrolled region (the "remaining vampire cards in your vampire deck should be set aside in a face-down stack that is referred to as your crypt.") Anyhow, the following is a transcription of, I think, the Revised Jyhad Rulebook (the 8.5" x 11" rulebook). It differs from the original 2.5 x 2.5 rulebook in a few places, but I don't have a list of those differences. I did not produce this transcription. BEGIN QUOTE... Archivist's Note: These are the official Jyhad Rules, and are copyright to Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf. Mention is made of symbols at verious places in these rules, however, we are unable to include them in a text version. Look for the www version, coming soon, and a possible postscript version, if we can get the legalities straightened out. Darrell Budic <bu...@wizards.com> 11/9/94 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyhad Table of Contents (By Section Numbers) QUICK REFERENCE Overview of Jyhad 1 Overview of Deckmaster Card Games 2 INTRODUCTION TO WHITE WOLF'S VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE 3 OBJECT OF THE GAME 4 EQUIPMENT NEEDED 5 TAPPING/UNTAPPING CARDS 6 OVERVIEW OF THE CARDS 7 Vampire Cards 7.1 Library Cards 7.2 Master Cards 7.2.1 Minion Cards 7.2.2 CONTESTED CARDS 8 THE GOLDEN RULE OF CARD OWNERSHIP 9 THE GOLDEN RULE FOR CARDS 10 GAME ENVIRONMENT AND TERMINOLOGY 11 The Playing Area 11.1 Blood Pool 11.2 Blood Bank 11.3 Organizing the Cards 11.4 The Predator and the Prey 11.5 Playing for Ante 11.6 WHAT YOU CAN DO ON YOUR TURN 12 Phase 0-Untap 12.1 Phase 1-Master 12.2 Phase 2-Minion 12.3 Minion Actions 12.3.1 Phase 3-Influence 12.4 Phase 4-Discard Phase 12.5 WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN 13 Playing Out-of-turn Cards 13.1 Playing Reaction Cards 13.2 Blocking an Action 13.3 Who May Block Whom 13.3.1 Stealth and Intercept 13.3.2 SUMMARY OF THE COURSE OF AN ACTION 14 COMBAT 15 Combat Sequence 15.1 Weapons in Combat 15.2 Special Combat Effects 15.3 TORPOR 16 Going into Torpor 16.1 Leaving Torpor 16.2 Encountering a Vampire in Torpor 16.3 POLITICS 17 Voting 17.1 Contested Titles 17.2 ENDING THE GAME 18 Winning the Game 18.1 Withdrawing from the Game 18.2 GLOSSARY 19 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quick Reference The following is an outline of the game. For detailed rules particular to each step, refer to relevant sections of this manual. Setup A. Make a blood pool of thirty blood counters (glass beads or other convenient counters). Designate a common blood bank of extra counters. B. Choose the Edge counter. C. Separate vampire cards from library cards in your deck. D. Shuffle separately your vampire deck and library deck. E. Take ante from your library. F. Deal four vampire cards from your vampire deck face down into your inactive region, leaving eight or more vampire cards in the vampire deck, henceforth known as the crypt. G. Set library and crypt aside, close at hand. H. Draw a hand of seven library cards from your library. I. Who goes first may be determined any way acceptable. Turn Phases A. Untap phase (The only mandatory phase) B. Master phase C. Minion phase 1. Action attempted: Each ready and untapped minion may attempt one action. Any ready and untapped vam- pire with no blood must hunt as its action. Minion actions: -bleed -call vote -employ retainer (+1 stealth) -encounter vampire in torpor (+1 stealth for own) -equip minions (+1 stealth) -hunt (+1 stealth) -leave torpor (+1 stealth) -recruit ally (+1 stealth) -rescue vampire from torpor (+1 stealth for own) -take equipment from own minion(+1 stealth) 2. Player affected by attempted action may block, and only that player may block. If action does not directly affect another player, then first the prey and then the predator may attempt to block. If a block is successful, blocking minion is tapped and combat begins. Combat round sub-phases: i. Establish range by maneuver ii. Choose strike iii. Resolve strike iv. Additional strikes (repeats choose strike and resolve strike sub-phases) v. Press (returns through all phases of entire combat round) 3. Actions unblocked by prey or predator deemed successful D. Influence phase E. Discard phase -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. OVERVIEW OF JYHAD Jyhad is a collectable trading card game requiring about three hours of playing time. In Jyhad two or more players take on the roles of ancient vampires, known as Methuselahs, engaged in an age-old political battle. So great and subtle are the Methuselahs that they are considered mere legend by the younger vampires. These younger vampires think they are pursuing their own ends even as they are being used by one Methuselah to undercut the power base of another. The motivations for the war between the Methuselahs are lost in the sands of dead civilizations. Perhaps the Methuselahs are vying for world conquest. Perhaps they work under the influence of yet older vampires, believing as naively in their own autonomy as the vampires they control believe in theirs. The cards in your deck represent your minions (vampires you might control and their allies), the equipment and attributes of your minions, and the retainers of your minions. Your minions are characters that you control in the game by "playing" particular cards. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. OVERVIEW OF DECKMASTER CARD GAMES Deckmaster is a line of collectable trading card strategy games. With Deckmaster games, no two decks are alike, and no two games play the same way. Deckmaster games are unlike conventional card games because new cards in your deck open up new avenues of play, embellishing the rules without departing from their essential framework. You will find certain lines of strategy that suit you better than others, and your deck will shrink and grow as you win and lose cards and trade cards to fill gaps in your ideal strategic configuration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. INTRODUCTION TO WHITE WOLF'S VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE In White Wolf's Gothic-Punk universe, vampires roam the streets at night among mortals in a decadent, information age world. The Kindred, as vampires call themselves, have spent countless centuries preying secretly on humanity, cooperating uneasily among themselves through a clandestine and Machiavellian social order governed by many laws. Preeminent among these laws is the Tradition of the Masquerade. Disguised as humans, vampires have infiltrated the mortal world and manipulated its very history. The power of vampires is determined by their distance, measured in generations, from the progenitor of the vampire race, Caine. The first and second generations created by Caine were destroyed. The third generation, known as the Antediluvians, has been unseen for millennia. The fourth generation, Methuselahs, employ younger vampires from later generations as pawns in a constant struggle against each other. These battles, sometimes covert and subtle, sometimes open and spectacular, are collectively known as the "Jyhad." There are many bloodlines within vampire society. Seven of these claim recognition within the Camarilla, the sect of vampires on which Jyhad focuses. Each clan of vampires possesses certain powers, or Disciplines. Toreador: Members of this clan are thought of as artists and degenerates. They are frequently adept at the Disciplines of Auspex (ESP), Celerity (supernatural quickness), and Presence (ability to influence crowds). Nosferatu: These hideously deformed creatures use their influence to gain knowledge. They are loners by necessity but still manage to know more about the workings of Kindred society than do many of the most powerful of vampire leaders. Nosferatu are often skilled in the Disciplines of Animalism (communication with and control of animals), Obfuscate (the ability to remain unseen), and Potence (strength). Ventrue: The most old-fashioned of the clans, the Ventrue are sophisticates who move in the highest social and political circles. They are frequently proficient in the Disciplines of Dominate (mind control), Fortitude (toughness), and Presence (ability to influence crowds). Brujah: The Brujah are rebels; they make no secret of their disrespect for undead society and are often viewed as a force of chaos by other Kindred. They are often skilled in the Disciplines of Celerity (supernatural speed), Potence (strength), and Presence (ability to influence crowds). Gangrel: The most earthy of Kindred, the Gangrel have close ties to Gypsy society. The Gangrel frequently possess the Disciplines of Animalism (communication with and control of animals), Fortitude (toughness), and Protean (ability to change shape). Tremere: This close-knit clan is known to have many arcane and magical skills. Their powers often include Auspex (ESP), Dominate (mind control), and Thaumaturgy (sorcery). Malkavian: Members of this clan are insane; yet from madness may come wisdom, and many Malkavians seem to glimpse hidden truths. Malkavians commonly possess the powers of Obfuscate (the ability to remain unseen), Auspex (ESP), and Dominate (mind control). Caitiff: These clanless, thin-blooded outcasts are high-generation vampires, many generations removed from Caine, who are somewhat uninvolved with the political structure of the Kindred. Members of all bloodlines serve equally well as pawns of the Methuselahs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. OBJECT OF THE GAME Each player, through intrigue, worldly political maneuvers, and exercise of supernatural abilities, exerts influence over less powerful vampires and, by extension, over the humans and animals they might command. You use those you influence as pawns in the game of Jyhad, where your opponents are other Methuselahs. Your goal is to use your minions to destroy the influence the other Methuselahs hold over their minions. Influence is measured by blood counters, the main currency of the game. When a player's blood pool is out of blood counters (see Game Environment and Terminology, Sec. 11), he or she is bereft of influence and ousted from the game. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EQUIPMENT NEEDED (See Game Environment and Terminology, Sec. 11, for placement of equipment.) Cards: Each card deck is composed of library cards and vampire cards. Each player will need at least twelve vampire cards, which have oval portraits of the vampires on the front and amber marble backs, and at least forty library cards, which comprise all other cards and have green marble backs. You must have a minimum of forty library cards, but you may also have an additional ten library cards for each player in the game. Thus, in a six-player game, each player may have a minimum of forty and a maximum of one hundred library cards. Blood Counters: Blood counters are an integral part of the game. You need about forty counters: thirty for your personal blood pool and an extra ten blood counters to help fill the communal blood bank. Blood counters can be any convenient items, such as pennies, glass beads, or stones. The Edge Counter: The Edge is a symbol showing that your vampires have won you special influence in the game. It is given to players who successfully bleed their prey (see Bleed, Sec. 12.3.1, and Politics, Sec. 17), and it imparts certain advantages to the player controlling it. You will need some small distinctive object, such as a candle, a glove, or hat, to represent the Edge. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. TAPPING/UNTAPPING CARDS The concept of tapping and untapping is a unique feature in Deckmaster games. During the course of play you will turn cards 90 degrees to "tap" them- a procedure that indicates that the card has been activated to perform a particular action. Untapping a card restores it to its original position; this indicates the card is reset and will be able to be tapped again to take another action at a later time. Your untapped minions may block (see Blocking An Action, Sec. 13.3), take actions (which thus tap the minions), or play reaction cards. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. OVERVIEW OF THE CARDS 7.1. Vampire Cards Each vampire card normally has the following elements: name, red blood capacity symbol in lower right corner, clan symbol in upper left corner, Discipline symbol/s in lower right corner above the blood capacity, and, in the card text, any political positions the vampire may hold and sometimes one or more special characteristics. The vampires are your minions. Each vampire is unique, and if two players put the same vampire into play, it is considered contested (see Contested Cards, Sec. 8), which means the Methuselahs are struggling to control it. Blood capacity: This number (which starts between one and ten) reflects many things at once: the relative age of the vampire, the amount of influence in blood counters you must invest in it in order to bring it under your control, and the amount of strength it has to heal wounds or perform certain actions. A vampire with a larger capacity than another is said to be older, and one with a smaller capacity younger. A vampire's blood capacity, and therefore its age, increases when you play skill cards on it or when the vampire commits diablerie (see Torpor, Sec. 16). A vampire cannot have more blood than its capacity; if an effect puts more blood on the vampire, ignore the excess. An uncontrolled vampire will have blood counters stacked on it representing the amount of influence that has been invested in it. When that stack equals the blood capacity of the vampire, at the end of the influence phase you reveal the vampire and place it in the active region (see Game Environment and Terminology, Sec. 11), with the blood counters used to influence it kept on its card to serve as its "blood," which is its personal reserve of strength and influence and enables it to heal wounds and play special cards. Clan: Certain library cards require that you control a member of that vampire clan before you can use those cards, while other library cards may affect vampires of only a particular clan. Also, the clan will give you an idea of what sort of Disciplines the vampire will have. For example, Nosferatu tend to have Obfuscate. Disciplines: These are vampiric powers. The Disciplines determine which minion cards can be used by individual vampires. A Discipline symbol within a diamond signifies that the vampire has superior skill in that Discipline and therefore may opt to use either the plain type or the boldfaced section given on cards that pertain to that Discipline, but not both. Here is the list of Disciplines and their respective symbols: Animalism - Control of and communication with animals. Auspex - Enhanced and extrasensory perception. Celerity - Supernatural speed. Dominate - Ability to exert influence over other vampires and mortals. Fortitude - Supernatural toughness. Obfuscate - Ability to hide or diguise oneself or others. Potence - Supernatural strength. Presence - Impact of personal appearance. Protean - Ability to change body form. Thaumaturgy - Magic spell-casting ability, mostly blood-oriented 7.2. Library Cards There are two main types of library cards: master cards and minion cards. Master cards are used by the players in their roles as Methuselahs; minion cards are used by the vampires and the allies you control. You play a card by placing it in the playing area or on any applicable minion card, and paying its cost. Any library card not explicitly named as a master card is assumed to be a minion card. Cost of Playing Cards: On the left side of a library card is the cost of playing that card. This may include any of the following: symbol for card type, a Discipline symbol, a blood cost symbol (a number within a drop of blood), and a clan symbol. The Discipline symbol indicates that the vampire using that card must have that Discipline to use it. The number in the drop is the cost in blood counters that you must pay to the blood bank in order to play that card. You usually augment minions by playing minion cards on them and placing the requisite number of blood counters from the minion to the blood bank; however, cards having the number in white lettering within a black blood drop you pay for from your blood pool to the blood bank. The clan symbol appears in the cost on certain master cards. You can only play that master card if you have a ready (see Game Environment and Terminology, Sec. 11) member of that clan. A clan symbol may also appear on certain minion cards. If this is the case, only vampires of that clan may use the cards. 7.2.1. Master Cards Master cards are cards you play in your role as a Methuselah. Master cards are clearly marked as such and fall under the following subcategories: Locations: Location cards give your vampires certain long-term advantages in play. These advantages are described on the cards. Location cards stay in play and have an effect that repeats each turn, though certain library cards can eliminate them from play. Location cards may be used the turn they are put into play. Skills: Skill cards are played on your vampires. The skill card remains on your vampire and is burned (see Ash Heap, Sec. 11.4) when your vampire is burned. Skills are abilities granted to your vampires through your powers as a Methuselah. The vampire also gains an additional blood capacity along with a skill granted but does not automatically gain an extra blood to fill it. Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn; however, if you play an out-of-turn card, you must sacrifice your master phase (see Master Phase, Sec. 12.2) for the next round of play. You may not use another out-of-turn card if you've already used one for your master phase for the next turn. Other master cards: Any master cards not explained here have their effects described on them. 7.2.2. Minion Cards Minion cards are cards that you place on a vampire or an ally (unless the minion card is itself an ally; see Recruit Ally, Sec. 12.3.1) to indicate that the vampire or ally is using that card. Certain minion cards, called Kindred cards, are only usable by vampires and not their allies. In many cases there is a Discipline listed on a minion card; in these cases the card can only be used by a vampire with that Discipline. Sometimes a card will list a clan; these cards can only be used by a member of that clan. Unless the card states otherwise, you always burn a minion card after your minion uses it. The general types of minion cards are as follows: Action cards: On your turn you can play an action card for your minion's action. Only one action card may be played for each action, and your minions may only use action cards on your turn. Action modifier cards: Only the acting minion can use these cards, unless the particular cards note otherwise. Action modifier cards can only be used to modify your own minion's actions. The same action modifier card type cannot be used twice by a minion during the same action. Ally, equipment, and retainer cards: These a minion brings into play as an action. Equipment and retainers are stacked on the minion using them, but allies are kept separate. Equipment and retainers are burned when the minions using them are burned. Combat cards: These are used by minions in combat. Reaction cards: You or your minions use these cards to respond to actions of a minion controlled by another Methuselah. These cards can only be played when it is not your turn. The same reaction card type cannot be used twice by a minion during the same reaction. Reaction cards do not tap the minion using the card. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CONTESTED CARDS There can only be one vampire of each description in the game. Vampire cards and certain other cards designated as such on the card are called unique. If two unique cards of the same type come into play (for example, if two cards describing the same vampire are brought into the active region), the cards are both placed face down and are considered contested. You lose one blood from your blood pool during your untap phase for each of your contested cards. Alternatively, you can decide to discard your contested cards (and all blood counters those cards may have on them) to the blood bank. This is called yielding. All cards stacked on the card being yielded (for example, equipment) are burned. If your contested card is the only contested card not being yielded, you turn it face up and move it into play, untapped, at the start of your turn. Be careful not to contest your own unique cards. If one of your unique cards leaves play, though, you may wish to use a second if you have it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. THE GOLDEN RULE OF CARD OWNERSHIP Your cards are never transferred to another player permanently as a result of card play. When you are ousted from the game, the cards you began the game with are immediately returned to you. Any of your opponents' cards you may have are returned to the respective owners and placed in their ash heaps (see Ash Heap, Sec. 11.4). The only exception to this rule is the ante (see Playing for Ante, Sec. 11.6): ante cards may change hands permanently. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. THE GOLDEN RULE FOR CARDS Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. GAME ENVIRONMENT AND TERMINOLOGY 11.1. The Playing Area There are three card-playing regions in front of each player. Your vampires and allies are collectively referred to as minions. When vampires are in the torpor region, they are said to be in torpor. A minion in the active region is said to be ready. A vampire in the inactive region is said to be uncontrolled. A vampire in either torpor or the active region is considered controlled. 11.2. Blood Pool Your blood pool represents the resources that you have available to carry out your manipulations and machinations. At the beginning of the game, this pool consists of thirty blood counters. 11.3. Blood Bank Off to one side, in a location that everyone playing can reach, put a few extra counters for the blood bank. The blood bank cannot run out of blood, so if you need more counters for it during the course of play, you will have to find (or create) some more. 11.4. Organizing the Cards Preparation: Separate your vampire cards from your library cards and select at least twelve vampire cards for your vampire deck. You should shuffle separately both your vampire cards and deck of library cards and then allow the player at your right to cut both. Library: You should keep your stack of library cards face down a little off to one side in front of you. Inactive Region: You should now take up your deck of vampire cards and deal four vampires into a space just in front of you, in what is known as your inactive region. Place these four cards face down in order to conceal them from the other players. You may look at your own inactive region vampires whenever you wish. Crypt: The remaining vampire cards in your vampire deck should be set aside in a face-down stack that is referred to as your crypt. Vampires in your crypt can be called out to the inactive region later in the game during the influence phase. The Hand: Draw seven cards from your library into your hand. During game play, you draw additional cards whenever you discard or play cards from your hand, thus maintaining a hand of seven cards; however, if your library runs out of cards, you must continue play with just the cards you are left holding, and you then ignore any cards that allow you to draw additional cards. If a card in play has allowed you to maintain a hand of more than seven cards and that card leaves play, you must immediately discard down to seven. Ash Heap: Cards that you take out of the game are placed face up to one side of the library in what is known as your ash heap. Cards end up here when you discard them from your hand, or when they are burned, which means removed from play. Your ash heap can be examined by any other player at any time. 11.5. The Predator and The Prey You are the predator of the player on your left and the prey of the player on your right, and players are predator and prey of each other in a two-player game. Note that if seating changes during the course of the game, the person who is then to your left will immediately become your prey. 11.6. Playing for Ante At the beginning of the game, players may choose to put one of their cards at stake in the game. After shuffling and cutting his or her playdeck, each player turns over the top card of his or her library and sets it aside. Any predator who ousts his or her prey by depleting his or her blood pool wins the ante. Note that playing for ante is optional. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. WHAT YOU CAN DO ON YOUR TURN Turns proceed clockwise around the playing area. Your turn is as follows: 0) Untap - You untap all your cards. 1) Master - You may play one master card. 2) Minion - Each untapped minion you control may take an action. Taking an action may involve playing one or more minion cards, and taps the minion. Any ready and untapped vampires with no blood on them must hunt as their minion action. 3) Influence - During this phase you may transfer blood to your uncontrolled vampires or from your uncontrolled vampires, or take vampires out of the crypt and into your uncontrolled region. 4) Discard - You may discard one (and only one) card from your hand and draw another from your library. 12.1. Phase 0 - Untap At the beginning of your turn, you must untap any tapped cards. Any cards requiring you to take an action during the untap phase take effect after you have untapped your cards. Some cards in play may cause some or all players to perform actions during this phase. You may choose the order in which these effects take place. If you have the Edge, you may add one blood to your pool from the blood bank. The costs for contested cards are paid during this phase unless you agree to yield. Note that untapping is the only mandatory phase in a turn. 12.2. Phase 1 - Master You may play one (only one) master card. 12.3. Phase 2 - Minion You may have each of your untapped controlled minions take one action. Taking an action taps the acting minion. Announce and resolve each action before proceeding to the next. If your minion manages to untap due to a card effect this phase, it may take another action. Thus it is possible for the same minion to take several actions during a turn. Any ready and untapped vampires with no blood on them must hunt as their action during this phase. Other players' minions might be able to block the action (see Blocking An Action, Sec. 13.3). 12.3.1. Minion Actions The possible actions are: Bleed (no card required): Bleeding is one of the most fundamental directed actions (see Who May Block Whom, Sec. 13.3.1) of the game. It is the basic action of your minion to undermine the power and influence of another player and represents your vampire meddling directly in the affairs of another Methuselah. You might picture bleeding as paying bribes, burning down property, spreading rumors, etc. You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by declaring a bleed action. If unblocked, this action removes one blood from the blood pool of the bled player to the blood bank. If your vampire has a modifier to its bleed, it may remove extra blood from your prey to the blood bank. Whenever a minion successfully bleeds a Methuselah, the controller of that minion gains control of the Edge. Example: A vampire with +2 bleed attempting to bleed against the prey will cost the prey 3 blood if unblocked. Employ Retainer (retainer card required): Retainers are mortals and creatures that vampires use to protect their resting places and take care of their worldly interests. Some human retainers may serve vampires' allies. The employ retainer action brings a retainer into play for a vampire. This action is at +1 stealth (see Stealth and Intercept, Sec. 13.3.2). If the action is unblocked, you put the retainer on the acting minion. If the attempt to employ the retainer is blocked or otherwise unsuccessful, the retainer is discarded with no cost. A minion can have any number of retainers. The retainer is not itself considered your minion and so cannot take a minion action. Retainers cannot use equipment, deal damage in combat, or act independently of the minion they are augmenting. They can be destroyed (burned) in combat by suffering as much damage as they have life. The only damage that can be dealt to them is ranged damage (see Combat, Sec. 15), and any time ranged damage is dealt to a minion, the Methuselah controlling the minion dealing the ranged damage may choose to apply all of it to either the minion or to a retainer on the minion. This damage cannot be prevented by Dodge or any other intervention. If a retainer is not burned in a given combat, its wounds are considered healed. Retainers are also burned when the minion they are employed by is burned. Encounter Vampire in Torpor (no card required): Your vampire can attempt to encounter a vampire in torpor, either your own vampire or, as a directed action, a vampire of another player. If your vampire is encountering a vampire in your own torpor region, this action is at +1 stealth. Allies may not perform this action. If your vampire encounters a vampire in torpor, then it can choose either to rescue the vampire or destroy the vampire. (See Torpor, Sec. 16.) Equip Minions (equipment card required): Equipment cards are action cards that give minions special abilities. The equip minion action is at +1 stealth. If the equip action is unblocked, the equipment card is placed on the minion. If the action is blocked, the equipment is simply discarded (see Blocking An Action, Sec. 13.3), and no cost is paid. A minion may be equipped with any number of equipment cards. If you have a minion with equipment in play, this equipment may be taken from it by another of your minions, who then controls the equipment. The minion attempting to take the equipment does so at +1 stealth. Taking equipment is an action that taps your minion taking the equipment. More than one piece of equipment can be taken at one time from the same minion. If the action is blocked, the equipment is simply not taken. Hunt (no card required): A vampire can hunt as its action. This action adds one blood to the vampire from the blood bank. This cannot bring the vampire's blood to exceed its blood capacity. A ready vampire that begins the minion phase with no blood must hunt as its action, and this action must be taken before any other minion actions are taken. This action is at +1 stealth (see Blocking An Action, Sec. 13.3). Leave Torpor (no card required): The only action a vampire in torpor can take is to rescue itself by spending 2 blood. This action is at +1 stealth. If this action is blocked, there is no combat, the vampire attempting to leave torpor remains in torpor, and the blocking vampire is given the opportunity to destroy the vampire (see Diablerie, Sec. 16.3.). Like any other action, this taps the acting vampire. Recruit Ally (ally card required): This action brings an ally into play. The recruit ally action is at +1 stealth. If this action is blocked, the ally is discarded without cost of blood. (See Blocking An Action, Sec. 13.3.) Though an ally should be treated as a vampire in most ways, with its ready card placed beside the ready vampire cards, you should keep in mind that an ally is, above all, mortal. Allies are not spoken of as having blood points. Rather, they have a certain number of life points, and for each life, you should put a blood counter on them as a life counter, understanding that this is not blood the ally uses to heal itself and that it cannot be renewed in any way. Each damage to the ally removes one life counter, and when all the lives are gone, the ally is killed and that ally card burned. Aggravated damage (see Resolve Strike, Sec. 15.1) is treated the same as regular damage to an ally. Allies can block (see Blocking An Action, Sec. 13.3) and attempt to bleed (see Bleed, Sec. 12.3.1) as regular vampires do. Sometimes they have special abilities or actions they can take. Cards that refer to vampires do not apply to allies. Cards that refer to minions apply both to vampires and allies. Allies cannot take an action on the turn recruited. When brought into play, allies should be put in your inactive region to indicate that they cannot act. At the end of your turn, allies in the inactive region are moved to your active region. Vote (political card required): Sometimes a vote must be taken for an action to be concluded (see Politics, Sec. 17). 12.4. Phase 3 - Influence Moving Blood and Bringing Vampires from the Crypt: During your influence phase, you have four transfers to use on your uncontrolled vampires. Transfers are an abstract currency and not directly represented by any tangible thing. You may spend these transfers to move blood counters on vampires to bring them under your control, take blood back from uncontrolled vampires already having some blood transferred to them, or bring a vampire card from the top of your crypt into your inactive region. The costs for these actions are described below. It costs one transfer to move one blood counter from your blood pool to one of your uncontrolled vampires. It costs two transfers to take one blood counter back from one of your uncontrolled vampires to your blood pool. It costs four transfers and one blood from your pool to take a vampire off the crypt and put it onto the uncontrolled region. The blood counter goes to the blood bank. At the beginning of a multi-player game, the first few turns Methuselahs will have less than four transfers. On the first, second, and third turn, a Methuselah gets one, two, or three transfers respectively; for example, the Methuselah who goes third gets three transfers on that turn. After this, players will get the usual four transfers. Example: Nora goes first in a three-player game. She spends one transfer on the card of a vampire with a six-point blood capacity. On her next turn, she decides that she made a mistake for some reason in putting influence on that vampire, and, as she receives four transfers on this turn, she spends two of them to move one blood counter off the vampire and put it back in her blood pool. Then she uses her remaining two transfers to influence another uncontrolled vampire with two blood counters, finishing the influence phase. Putting Vampires into Play: At the end of the influence phase, a vampire in your inactive region with as many blood counters on it as its blood capacity becomes controlled, is turned right-side up, and is put into the active region. The blood counters are kept on the card of the ready vampire, as they are a measure of its present strength, which may increase and decrease throughout the game. Example: Nora comes to her influence phase. She has four transfers to spend, but only two blood counters in her blood pool. She sees that she has built up eight blood counters on a vampire with a blood capacity of ten, and she thinks she can win the game if she gets it into play. But she cannot use both counters in her pool to put it into play because that would put her out of the game. She had invested a couple of blood counters in a vampire with a seven blood capacity on a previous turn, so she spends two of her four transfers to take back one of those counters and put it in her blood pool. Now she has three counters in her blood pool and two transfers left to spend. She spends the two transfers by moving two of the three blood counters in her blood pool out to her vampire with the ten blood capacity and moves that vampire to the active region. 12.5. Phase 4 - Discard Phase You can discard one card from your hand and replace it with a card from the top of your library during this phase. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN There are a number of things you may do when it is not your turn. They are as follows: 13.1. Playing Out-of-turn Cards See section 7.2.1. 13.2. Playing Reaction Cards Reaction cards can be used to block the minions of other players or to interfere with the actions of those other minions. Reaction cards are played by an untapped minion and may only be used in response to another player's minion's actions. Also, you can only use a reaction card of a particular type once for each declared action. For example, you cannot play more than one Wake with Evening's Freshness during a given action, but you can play multiple reaction cards of other types. 13.3. Blocking An Action 13.3.1. Who May Block Whom Whenever your minion announces an action, other Methuselahs can attempt to block that action to prevent it from taking place. Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are called directed actions and can only be blocked by that Methuselah's minions. Other actions are called non-directed and can be blocked by either your predator's or prey's minions. Directed actions are noted on action cards with a D in the card text and allow you to direct the action against any Methuselah. If the D does not appear, it is not a directed action. The only directed actions that do not require a card are bleeding and encountering another Methuselah's vampire in torpor. Non-directed actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah, such as equipping one of your minions. Your prey has the first opportunity to block. If your prey does to block the action, then your predator has the opportunity to block. Once a Methuselah has passed an opportunity to block an action, he or she cannot attempt to block it later, regardless of whether other blocking attempts have been made, or whether the action has been modified. A successful block (see next section) taps the blocking minion. 13.3.2. Stealth and Intercept Stealth and intercept are opposed characteristics of minions, represented by a number. Stealth is a measure of a minion's ability to avoid detection and/or pursuit, and intercept is a measure of the minion's ability to detect and/or pursue. Normally minions have a 0 stealth number and a 0 intercept number. One minion can block an acting minion only if its intercept number is equal to or greater than the stealth number of the acting minion. If the action is blocked, the action is not successful, and there is combat between the acting minion and the blocking minion (exception: see Leave Torpor, Sec. 16.2). Any cost for using cards or vampire powers for the action are not paid, and any action cards or action modifier cards are burned. The acting minion remains tapped. A minion that is attempting to block is called the blocking minion. If you want to block, you indicate which minion is the blocker. That minion must have an intercept at least as great as the acting minion's stealth; reaction cards and cards in play can be used to increase the intercept. Before the block is successful, the blocked player has the opportunity to play action modifiers or use cards in play to increase the acting minion's stealth. (Note that action cards that say "+1 stealth" have an intrinsic stealth bonus to performing that action alone.) Play continues with players alternately increasing intercept and stealth. A player cannot increase stealth or intercept beyond that needed to counter directly another player's increase of stealth or intercept; although, if a single card grants more than enough stealth or intercept needed to counter, that card may be played. Players can alternately apply stealth and intercept until they have no more modifiers or do not wish to continue adding. At that point, if the intercept of a minion attempting to block is at least as great as the stealth of the acting minion, the acting minion is blocked. If this is not the case, the blocking minion is left untapped, and another minion may attempt to block. Increased stealth and intercept return to normal after the action is resolved. Example: You declare that your vampire Cassandra is hunting. Hunting gives a vampire +1 stealth, so the action cannot normally be blocked. Your prey does not block. Your predator then plays a reaction card that gives a +1 intercept to her vampire Che. This brings Che's intercept to 1, which is as great as Cassandra's stealth. You have no cards in hand or in play that will increase Cassandra's stealth any further, so Che successfully blocks. Both Che and Cassandra are tapped, and combat ensues. Example: Your predator declares that his vampire Tiberius is bleeding you, and plays a card that increases Tiberius's stealth to 1. Cassandra is untapped, and you have a card that can increase Cassandra's intercept number by 1. So you play the card, and now Cassandra can block Tiberius. But first Tiberius has the opportunity to enhance his stealth again, and he does. You have no more cards to enhance Cassandra's intercept, so it looks like Tiberius will bleed successfully. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. SUMMARY OF THE COURSE OF AN ACTION 1) A player's action is declared, and an action card is played if necessary. The acting minion is tapped. 2) If a Methuselah was directly affected, he or she has the opportunity to try to block the action. If the action is blocked, the blocking minion is tapped, and combat ensues (exception: Leave Torpor action, Sec. 16.2). 3) If the action was not directed against a Methuselah, then your prey may attempt to block the action. If your prey does not block the action, then your predator may attempt to block the action. 4) If unblocked, the minion's action is successful. The Methuselah must then pay any cost associated with the action. If the Methuselah cannot pay the cost, whatever can be paid is paid, and the effects of the unpaid cards do not take place. Players cannot play the same action modifier card more than once per action. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. COMBAT If a player's minion's action is blocked, the action is considered unsuccessful, and no cost is paid attempting it, though any action card used is burned. The blocking minion is then tapped, and combat begins. 15.1. Combat Sequence Each round of combat has the following phases: 1) Establish range by maneuver. 2) Choose strike. 3) Resolve strike. 4) Any additional strikes. 5) Press. In general, the player of the acting minion must decide each phase if the minion will use a card or do something before the blocking minion. If the player of the acting minion foregoes this opportunity to act first, he or she cannot reconsider and take action, except in direct response to the blocking minion. Establish Range by Maneuver: Combat may occur at either close or long range. Ranged weapons can be used at either close range or long range. They are identified by the "R" next to the damage they do, as in 2R, which means 2 ranged damage, usable at either close or long range. All attacks that are not specifically ranged can only be performed at close range, and all of a vampire's or ally's attacks, whether or not it has a ranged weapon, are assumed to be close range unless that minion plays a maneuver. Maneuvers can be played to make the combat long range, or to cancel an opponent's maneuver. If you want to make the combat long range, you must play a maneuver. Your opponent has the opportunity to cancel your maneuver with another maneuver. Then you have the opportunity to play another maneuver, and so forth. If there is an uncanceled maneuver, the round of combat is at long range. You cannot cancel your own maneuver. If a combat card played by a minion has a maneuver as part of an effect, the maneuver must be used that round of combat. If a combat card played by a minion has an "optional maneuver" as part of the effect, then the minion may decline to use the maneuver. If a strike card is played to gain a maneuver, the acting minion is then committed to using the strike that gave the maneuver. Generally a minion that can attack at long range will want to set the combat at long range against a minion that can only attack at close range. If the minion that can attack at long range out-maneuvers its opponent, the combat is at long range, and its opponent will not be able to attack. Example: You are blocking Tiberius with Cassandra. Cassandra has a handgun that gives 1 ranged damage, and the handgun gives one maneuver per entire combat. You choose to maneuver, making the combat at long range. Cassandra deals one damage, and Tiberius, not being able to attack, deals none. If Tiberius had IR Goggles, which give 1 maneuver each combat, then Tiberius could cancel the maneuver and bring the combat to close range where both vampires would inflict a damage. Choose Strike: Normally, each minion has only one strike per round. The strike may be made with a normal hand attack for one damage, with a weapon, or with a strike card. Remember, if you used a weapon or strike card for a maneuver, you must also use the card for the minion's strike. Consequently, you cannot use more than one weapon or strike card to get more maneuvers. If weapons were not used to maneuver, then, after the range is determined, the player with the acting minion first decides the manner in which the minion is striking. Then the blocking minion can respond by either using a weapon or using a strike card. All cards to be used during a strike say "strike" on them, and only one strike card can be used in a round of combat unless cards are played making additional strikes available. This is important to note, as cards such as Dodge are strike cards, even though Dodge might be thought of as being performed more in lieu of a strike than as a strike. Only one blow can be struck in a round. When combat is at long range, it is possible that one minion or even both minions may not be able to strike a blow. You cannot opt to not have your minion strike a blow during a round and later change your mind. Only one strike may be made each round by each minion unless a card allows you another; note, though, that a press (see Press, Sec. 15.2) does not give you an extra strike in a given combat round but is considered as having initiated a completely new combat round. Example: When blocking Tiberius with Cassandra, you used the handgun to get a maneuver. If Tiberius canceled it with his own maneuver and thus brought the combat into close range, Cassandra would still be compelled to use the handgun for her strike. Resolve Strike: Damage each round is dealt by minions simultaneously during this phase. The normal, unaided hand attack does one damage. Blood (or life points in the case of allies or retainers) is removed from the minion and moved to the blood bank. The damage number, in the case of vampires, is the amount of blood that will be lost healing the damage. If a vampire has no blood to pay to the blood bank to heal a wound (that is, if it received damage in excess of the blood on its card), it goes into torpor. If a card is played that causes the damage to be aggravated damage, the injured vampire is sent into torpor even if it had blood counters left on it. Aggravated damage shocks a vampire's system so that it does not heal. Thus, the vampire loses no blood unless more than one aggravated damage is received. In this case the excess is paid in blood. If the vampire does not have the blood to heal excess aggravated damage, then it is considered destroyed, and its card is burned. Note that this destruction of the vampire does not constitute diablerie. During this sub-phase, damage prevention cards can be played. You may play these cards one at a time until all damage is prevented or until you don't wish to play any more. You cannot play more cards than are necessary to prevent damage. If a damage prevention card or effect blocks more damage than is being dealt, the extra prevention is lost and cannot be applied toward future strikes. For example, if a vampire is dealt three points of aggravated damage, you can play one card that prevents two damage and immediately after that another that prevents two damage. (Note that the vampire will not go into torpor for aggravated damage at this point, as it is considered not to have been damaged at all.) Additional Strikes: If you have a minion use a combat card that gives it an additional strike, you may use more than one strike card in the current round. This is handled by having another choose strike phase and resolve strike phase after the first, in which only the minions with additional strikes may play strike cards. All additional strikes take place at the same range. This is repeated as necessary. Only one card may give an additional strike to a minion for each round of combat. Example: You are blocking Tiberius with Cassandra. Tiberius announces he is using a Vampiric Strength card, which allows him to inflict 2 damage, as his strike. Cassandra uses a Dodge card as her strike, so no damage is dealt by either vampire. Next, Tiberius plays a Blur card, giving him one extra strike. Cassandra plays a Blur also, giving her two extra strikes since she has superior Celerity. Tiberius uses his hands for the second strike. Cassandra uses her hands also. Both suffer one damage and so lose one blood. Cassandra then uses her hands one more time, and Tiberius can't use a strike because he had only one additional action. Tiberius suffers one more damage. Press: Presses can be used to start another round of combat or to cancel an opponent's press. If you want another round of combat, then you must play a press. Your opponent has the opportunity to cancel your press with a press; then you have the opportunity to play another press, and so forth. If there is an uncanceled press, the extra round of combat begins. Note that you cannot cancel your own press. If a combat card used by a minion has a press as part of an effect, then the press must be used that round of combat. If a combat card used by a minion has an optional press as part of the effect, then the minion may decline to use the press. Example: In the preceding combat Tiberius has a motorcycle, which gives one press a turn. He uses the press to extend combat another round. Cassandra and Tiberius now exchange blows at close range, since Cassandra has already used the maneuver on her handgun. Tiberius plays a Potence card that increases his damage by 1, so Cassandra now loses 2 blood while Tiberius loses only 1. If you had had a card that gave you a press, you could have used it to cancel Tiberius's press. 15.2. Weapons in Combat Minions can arm themselves with weapons by using equipment cards during the action phase of the minion round, but not during combat. Often weapons will give your minion the capability of doing one or more maneuvers during the course of a combat. If a minion uses a weapon for a maneuver, that weapon must be used for its strike. If your minion does not use a weapon to gain a maneuver, you may still announce the use of a weapon during the choose strike phase. This will give your minion the ability to deal extra damage, and it may also give a maneuver on a succeeding round. You may only use hand-damage modifiers on melee-type weapons (such as knives, clubs, etc.). 15.3. Special Combat Effects +N Hand Damage: Adds to a minion's hand or melee weapon damage. Destroy Equipment: This effect will force a piece of equipment to be put in the owner's ash heap. This cannot be done at long range unless specified by the card. If there is more than one piece of equipment on the opposing minion, the destroying minion chooses which is affected. The equipment can be used on the turn it is burned unless the destroying was done before the use would happen (see First Strike, below, and Additional Strikes, Sec. 15.1). The effect may specify a weapon; in which case a weapon must be burned. Steal Equipment: This effect is like destroy equipment, except that the equipment goes to the stealing minion. The equipment may not be used by the stealing minion until the following round of combat. The equipment is retained by the stealing minion after combat ends. First Strike: The strike of a minion with first strike is resolved before the strike of the opposing minion. If both minions have first strike, then the strikes are resolved simultaneously. Example: Cassandra and Tiberius are at it again. Tiberius has a Flamethrower. The combat is at close range, and Cassandra has first strike due to a mysterious amulet. You play a card that allows Cassandra to destroy a weapon; because she has first strike, the weapon is burned before it is used. Dodge: The Dodge strike card deals no damage, but it negates the effect of the opponent's strike that round. Close Quarters: During the remainder of the combat there is no long range. Combat Ends: Considered a strike, this ends combat immediately (before any damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place). Note that combat ends is not affected by Dodge and even cancels strikes with first strike. Steal Blood: This does not count as damage, so it alone cannot put a vampire into torpor; but neither can it be prevented with damage prevention. The amount of blood stolen is given to the stealing vampire. If the amount stolen exceeds the stealing vampire's capacity, the excess is kept on the vampire until the end of the turn and then put in the bank. A vampire heals any existing wounds immediately after stealing blood unless the damage was dealt to it with first strike. If Steal Blood is used against an ally, the ally loses the appropriate number of lives, and the vampire stealing blood gains the appropriate amount in blood. An ally can be burned in this way. Example: Ebanezer Roush steals two blood from a Mage ally with one life left. The Mage loses its last life, and Ebanezer gains one blood. The Mage is burned. Had Ebanezer been stealing two blood from Tiberius, who only has one blood left from his many encounters with Cassandra, Tiberius would lose one blood, Ebanezer would gain one, and the excess would be ignored. If Ebanezer had no blood left on his card prior to that combat and receives a wound from Tiberius the same time he steals the blood, the stolen blood could be used to heal his wound as long as the wound was not delivered with first strike. Paralyze: This sends a vampire to torpor, tapped. The vampire cannot be untapped during the untap phase. Any vampire that encounters a vampire in torpor may rescue it at no cost. A paralyzed vampire may be diablerized as usual. Mark the vampire to show it has been paralyzed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. TORPOR 16.1. Going Into Torpor If a vampire doesn't have enough blood points to heal a wound, that vampire goes into torpor, a state of hibernation. Vampires may also go into torpor by sustaining aggravated damage; in this case they may enter torpor still having some blood points left. Vampires in torpor are placed in an area to one side of their inactive region. Any retainers and equipment stay with the vampire going into torpor. 16.2. Leaving Torpor (no card required) To get a vampire out of torpor, you tap the vampire during the minion phase, and the vampire pays two blood to get out of torpor. However, if the vampire doesn't have enough blood to pay, then it will require another ready and untapped vampire to rescue it (see below). Note that the action of leave torpor can be blocked. This action does give the vampire in torpor +1 stealth, but if it should be successfully blocked, the vampire not only remains in torpor but loses the two blood points that it spent attempting to leave torpor and may be destroyed (burned) by the blocking vampire (see Diablerie, Sec. 16.3). 16.3. Encountering a Vampire in Torpor (no card required) Only another vampire may perform the action of encounter a vampire in torpor. Encountering a vampire in torpor gives your acting vampire an opportunity to do one of two things: rescue the vampire or destroy the vampire by committing diablerie. Rescue a vampire in torpor (no card required): To rescue a vampire in torpor, you must sacrifice two blood points to the blood bank by removing them from either the rescuing vampire or the rescued vampire, or by removing one blood point from each vampire. This action like all others may be blocked. If attempting to rescue one of your own vampires in torpor, your minion performs this action at +1 stealth. The rescued vampire is not tapped, but if it went into torpor tapped, rescuing it will not untap it. Diablerie (no card required): As stated previously, a vampire in torpor may be destroyed by a vampire encountering it. This is done through the action of diablerie. Diablerie is killing another vampire by drinking its blood. It gives the vampire performing the action all the blood and equipment on the slain vampire's card, so it may be useful to perform on even your own vampires in torpor. Also, a vampire that diablerizes an older vampire (one with a greater blood capacity) immediately gets a bonus Discipline, which you bestow upon your vampire by going through your library, ash heap, and/or hand and placing any one of the skill cards, if any, found there on your vampire. Reshuffle your library. Note this skill gives your vampire an extra blood capacity, but that blood capacity is not automatically filled. Diablerie may seem advantageous; however, as diablerie is looked upon unfavorably by vampire society, any Methuselah may immediately call a vote among all the Methuselahs to decide whether a bloodhunt will be called. If the vote passes (see Voting, Sec. 17.1), the vampire committing diablerie is destroyed, and its card burned. This vote is not considered an action, so reaction and action modifier cards cannot be played. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. POLITICS 17.1. Voting When a political card is played as an action or a call made for a bloodhunt against a vampire committing diablerie, a vote is called. A vote is always yes or no. A political card always provides one vote for the Methuselah playing it. Note that no cards played during a vote are replaced until after the vote. Additional political cards can also be used by any of the other Methuselahs for votes. The actual effects of these cards are ignored. Cards used in this way are discarded to the ash heap, but, as stated, not replaced until the voting is finished. In addition to the vote provided by the card played, you get the following extra votes for vampires under your control: 1 for each ready Primogen 2 for each ready Prince 3 for each ready Justicar If you have the Edge, you may relinquish the Edge to the center of the table in return for the right to cast one extra vote. The vote is run by the player playing the vote card. People call out votes freely, for or against. Once a vote has been cast, it cannot be changed. After fifteen seconds have gone by with no new votes (give a three-second warning), the vote is closed, and the results are tallied. If a vote comes to a tie, it is merely treated as a lost vote. A vote either passes or it doesn't. There is no obligation to vote. Political actions can be blocked as any other action can, but must be blocked before the terms of the vote are set; otherwise, the voting begins. Political actions are never directed against specific players and so may be blocked both by the acting player's predator and prey. 17.2. Contested Titles As noted above, Princes and Justicars give players votes when a vote is called for. However, there can be only one Prince of a particular city and only one Justicar of a particular clan. It is possible that more than one will come into play; in which case, all such vampires are treated as having contested titles, which are similar to contested cards but with the following differences: 1. Blood paid during untap is paid from the vampire, not from the blood pool. Inability to pay sends the vampire to torpor. 2. When yielding, the vampire does not have its card burned; it merely loses its title. Burn the title if it was added to the vampire by another card; otherwise, make a note of it. A vampire in torpor must yield a contested title during untap. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. ENDING THE GAME 18.1. Winning the Game When your prey is ousted, you earn six blood points from the blood bank, the prey's ante card, if ante is being played for, and a victory point. If a predator is ousted the same turn that his or her prey is, the predator gets the ante and victory point but does not get the six blood points. You earn an additional victory point if you are the last one left in the game. The winner of the game is the person with the most victory points. Example: Nora, Eddie, Suki, and Winnie are seated clockwise around a table in that order; they are playing a game for ante. Eddie is reduced to zero blood first-Eddie is Nora's prey, so Nora gains 6 blood and a victory point and Eddie's ante card. Suki is ousted next by Nora; and now Suki is to Nora's left, so Nora gets another 6 blood, another victory point, and Suki's ante card. Now Nora and Winnie are the only ones left, and so each is prey of the other. All the blood Nora earned doesn't save her from falling, and Winnie gets 6 blood, a victory point, and Nora's ante card (but not the two cards Nora won from the other players). Since Winnie was not ousted at all, she gets an additional victory point, and the final score is tied between Winnie and Nora, with 2 victory points each. Winnie and Nora also tie in ante because Nora got one ante each from Eddie and Suki and Winnie got Nora's ante and got to keep her own ante. 18.2. Withdrawing from the Game If you begin your turn with less than a full hand due to having exhausted your library, you have the option of withdrawing from the Jyhad. To exercise this option you must announce your intent to withdraw during your untap phase. For the withdrawal to be a success, your minions cannot enter combat, and no blood can be lost (or spent) from your blood pool or any of your minions until your next untap phase, when the withdrawal becomes effective. The withdrawal fails, even when the total amount of blood goes up, if you lose a single blood. If you withdraw, you get to keep your ante, and you receive one victory point to add to any victory points you have already gained. Your predator gets nothing (unless he or she is the last player left in the game; in which case he or she gets the usual one victory point). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. GLOSSARY The following is a glossary of some of the terms of Vampire: The Masquerade relevant to Jyhad. Amaranth: The act of drinking blood from another Kindred. Commonly known as diablerie. Autarkis: A vampire that refuses to be a part of Kindred society. An outcast. Beast, The: The drives and desires that pull Kindred away from their humanity and turn them into monsters. Blood Bond: A mysterious link that forms between Kindred that drink one another's blood. The blood bond can give the donor control of the recipient. Bloodhunt: When a vampire commits diablerie, the vampire becomes subject to a bloodhunt. A vote is taken immediately. If it passes, the card of the Diabolist vampire is burned. Book of Nod, The: The sacred book of the Kindred. This has never been published in totality, and most of it has been lost to time. Caine: The first vampire, from which all other vampires are descended. Camarilla, The: The Camarilla is a sect made up of seven clans of vampires that have banded together and are protected by the Traditions. Clan: A group of vampires that share certain mystic and physical characteristics. Consanguineous: One of the same clan (usually a younger member). Cunctator: A vampire that drinks shallowly from its prey. Domain: The fiefdom claimed by a vampire, most often a Prince. Invariably a city. Garou: A werewolf. Golconda: A state of inner peace gained when a vampire accepts and achieves balance with its inner beast. Justicar: A vampire that serves as judge, jury, and executioner of vampires that have broken the Traditions. There may be only one Justicar for each clan. Kindred: The term that vampires use to refer collectively to their kind. Masquerade, The: The Masquerade is the practiced Tradition of keeping mortals ignorant of the truth of the existence of vampires. Methuselah: A powerful vampire, thousands of years old, that involves itself in the struggles of the Jyhad from afar or in complete anonymity. Each player in Jyhad represents a Methuselah. Praxis: The right, given by the Traditions, for a Prince to rule a domain. This may also refer to the rules, laws, and customs enforced by a particular Prince. Primogen: A council of vampires in a city that supports the Prince ruling the city. Primogen members may cast one vote. Prince: A Kindred that rules a city and enforces the Traditions upon the city's vampire population. Princes may cast two votes. Traditions: The six laws of the Kindred. These Traditions are laws that protect the Kindred from mortals and from one another.

On Aug 6, 6:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Thrall of Arika wrote: > > It's a shame I don't have the original Jyhad rulebook, I'd like to > > have a look at it now. It's hard to debate on a topic that I don't > > have accurate information on. > > The original rulebook uniformly refers to the cards as "vampire cards", never as > "crypt cards". > > Indeed, your "deck" is 12 or more vampire cards together with 40 to N library cards. > > The "library" is created from the entire set of your library cards at the start > of the game, but the crypt is not created until after you've placed four vampire > cards in your uncontrolled region (the "remaining vampire cards in your vampire > deck should be set aside in a face-down stack that is referred to as your crypt.") > > Anyhow, the following is a transcription of, I think, the Revised Jyhad Rulebook > (the 8.5" x 11" rulebook). It differs from the original 2.5 x 2.5 rulebook in a > few places, but I don't have a list of those differences. > > I did not produce this transcription. > > BEGIN QUOTE... > <<snipped>> Wow, graci! Good ol' nostalgia kicking in right abouuuut .. now! Chris, Thrall of Arika