Ian Forestal--the Busiest Man in Show Business

Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His ability of every minor discipline stayed. My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but not broken. First off, he's an 8 blood vampire. To bring him in takes optimally 2 solid rounds of transfers, and still 2 rounds with Info. Highway. At the start of a game, it is usually three unless you have an optimal start at 4 transfers. Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. He also doesn't have a title. Yes, he can get one, but an 8 blood vamp not having a title is harsh. Chances are he won't be in a vote deck. Finally--if he is popular, I expect to see him contested like nobody's business. That's my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. -- --Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "We cannot rest, knowing that The Captain and Tennille are in good health!" --Milk and Cheese

Shawn F. Carnes wrote >Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross >over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of >the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. >Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador >and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level >disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think >that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. I think Ian should have no intrinsic diciplines...just his special ability. ___________________________________________________________ All of us are wathcers - of television, of time clocks, of traffic on the freeway - but few are observers. Everyone is looking, not many are seeing. Peter M. Leschak

On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes, in a fit of Malkavian-induced madness wrote: > Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak > that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His > ability of every minor discipline stayed. I'm extremely disappointed in hearing that. > My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but > not broken. The contention was never that the card was a _game_-breaker, but that it totally spat in the face of the point creation system for vampires... see below. [snip meaningless point about his 8 capacity] > Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross > over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of > the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. > Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador > and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level > disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think > that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. Since, however, he actually has the virtual ability of having those disciplines (give him a Master Skill and he becomes superior (!!!)), then his cost is too low. If his special ability was changed so that giving him a Master Skill would give him the "real" inferior (and thus two skill cards would be need to give him superior), I agree, he wouldn't be overpowered. But instead, he goes immediately to superior, and might as well not have any special ability and just had all the disciplines printed on him. > He also doesn't have a title. Yes, he can get one, but an 8 blood vamp > not having a title is harsh. Not really. Plenty of 8 blood vampires don't have a title. Ebanezer Roush (NOS 8 ANI OBF POT pro -- (D)+2 stealth: attack a prey/pred weenie) Rebekka (TRE 8 AUS pot PRE THA -- +1 stealth; +1 bleed vs. MAL) Faruq (GAN 8 ANI dom for pot PRO -- Fight Assamites with +1 hand) Cornelius Ottavo (MAL 8 AUS OBF pre qui -- +1 bleed; +1 bleed vs non-Cam) Makarius (TOR 8 AUS dom PRE SER -- Seduction counters; +1 bleed) Bindusara (VEN 9 AUS DOM FOR PRE tha -- +1 bleed; get cards) ...with more at 7 capacity The vampires all have decent abilities that are well within point range. Just because I might not use Corneluis's Quietus, however, doesn't mean I shouldn't have to pay for it. The whole "you won't use all the abilities" is a null-argument. Use is unimportant. If Ian's special power is a 2 or 3 point power, then I guess we should assume that the Inner Circle member's should only cost 8, since they don't use all those disciplines. > Chances are he won't be in a vote deck. > Finally--if he is popular, I expect to see him contested like nobody's > business. Another null-argument. As Tom Wylie wrote some time ago, (loose paraphrasing): "Democritus at 6 pool would be too good. Just because a card will be contested, that doesn't mean it will be balanced." The fix of this card is easy. Change it so that Ian is able to play cards of disciplines he doesn't have as though he had inferior, but _NOT_ (!!!!) that playing the first skill card raises him to superior. (Thus, playing an Animalism on him would give him inferior, and a Second one would give him superior. > That's my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. This one isn't worth too much. The card is a travesty. [Off Topic notes] <SkinOfSteel=ON> Ancient Hearts was a good step in the right direction after (the horrid) Dark Sovereigns and the (near total) bungling of the 2nd Printing of V:TES. Why does it seem that Jyhad's current designers are determined to wreck a good thing? Shawn, I know this is harsh, but I have not been happy with the steps I've seen you taking. TTBOMK, under you, Jyhad has been stumbling down a slope towards breaking, with only a slight stall at Ancient Hearts. One of the great features of (the original) Jyhad is the economy of its cards: each thing has a cost appropriate to the card. This principle seems to be disappearing under you. I used to say to people, "Jyhad is the most balanced game on the market..." I am beginning to fear I may no longer say this. On this newsgroup, a lot of people are relatively fanatical about this game. It is excellent, and far better than anything else I've seen on the market. However, the nature of the CCG is that the balance of power changes with new cards. For the most part, I have seen Jyhad's balance becoming more and more tenuous (though still holding), and I hope this trend won't continue. This balance is what (I think) maintains fans to Jyhad. Most people I know who get into Jyhad, stay into Jyhad (barring RL forcing them to stop playing games). Don't toss out your core supporters by hurting this game any more. I apologize if that is harsh. All I know is that at every convention, tournament, game group I have been at, 95% of the players I have talked to have been concerned about where Jyhad is heading. Ancient Hearts perked most of us up (with a few singular card exceptions), but we're still wary. Don't disappoint us. There are so few good games out there, it'd be a shame if this ceases to be one. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

The Corrupter wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes, in a fit of Malkavian-induced madness > wrote: > > > Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak > > that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His > > ability of every minor discipline stayed. > > I'm extremely disappointed in hearing that.As am I(you'll find me agreeing with the corrupter a lot through this post). > > My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but > > not broken. > > The contention was never that the card was a _game_-breaker, but that it > totally spat in the face of the point creation system for vampires... see > below. > > [snip meaningless point about his 8 capacity] > > > Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross > > over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of > > the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. > > Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador > > and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level > > disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think > > that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. > > Since, however, he actually has the virtual ability of having those > disciplines (give him a Master Skill and he becomes superior (!!!)), then > his cost is too low. If his special ability was changed so that giving > him a Master Skill would give him the "real" inferior (and thus two skill > cards would be need to give him superior), I agree, he wouldn't be > overpowered. But instead, he goes immediately to superior, and might as > well not have any special ability and just had all the disciplines > printed on him.Agreed. It makes absolutely no difference in game terms except to kiss of Ra. That's one card. And Ian has 19 points in disciplines otherwise... Personally, I still think that he shouldn't be put out even with the corrupter's fix, but he would certainly be a lot more reasonable that way. He'd help out the bizzare deck types without being TOO overpowered...but he'd still have too many points. > > He also doesn't have a title. Yes, he can get one, but an 8 blood vamp > > not having a title is harsh. > > Not really. Plenty of 8 blood vampires don't have a title. > Ebanezer Roush (NOS 8 ANI OBF POT pro -- (D)+2 stealth: attack a > prey/pred weenie) > Rebekka (TRE 8 AUS pot PRE THA -- +1 stealth; +1 bleed vs. MAL) > Faruq (GAN 8 ANI dom for pot PRO -- Fight Assamites with +1 hand) > Cornelius Ottavo (MAL 8 AUS OBF pre qui -- +1 bleed; +1 bleed vs non-Cam) > Makarius (TOR 8 AUS dom PRE SER -- Seduction counters; +1 bleed) > Bindusara (VEN 9 AUS DOM FOR PRE tha -- +1 bleed; get cards) > ...with more at 7 capacityAgreed. And that means nothing in a lot of decks anyway. If you aren't going politics or diablerie, then the only things that titles are good for are vote defense and prince/justicar cards. Whee! The non-camarilla vampires don't usually seem to suffer from their lack of titles, because their other abilities make up for it(or else they seem underpowered...). This is definitely the case with Ian; he's not a bad vampire, no matter what way you look at him, even with no title. And if you tell me that Kemintiri or Al-Ashrad suffer from having no titles, I'll laugh. > The vampires all have decent abilities that are well within point range. > Just because I might not use Corneluis's Quietus, however, doesn't mean I > shouldn't have to pay for it. > > The whole "you won't use all the abilities" is a null-argument. Use is > unimportant. If Ian's special power is a 2 or 3 point power, then I > guess we should assume that the Inner Circle member's should only cost 8, > since they don't use all those disciplines. > > > Chances are he won't be in a vote deck. > > Finally--if he is popular, I expect to see him contested like nobody's > > business. > > Another null-argument. As Tom Wylie wrote some time ago, (loose > paraphrasing): "Democritus at 6 pool would be too good. Just because a > card will be contested, that doesn't mean it will be balanced."I hate to compare this to magic, but the argument runs along these lines; "If a card is broken/overpowered, then just making it unique/a legend won't make it any less broken, just make a race for who gets the overpowered card first." Sound familiar? Contestation just makes Ian a boon for the person who actually pulls him out without contesting, or who wins the fight via their opponent yielding or with a praxis: solomon. Uniqueness in no way balances a card unless that card only becomes too powerful in multiple copies. > The fix of this card is easy. Change it so that Ian is able to play > cards of disciplines he doesn't have as though he had inferior, but _NOT_ > (!!!!) that playing the first skill card raises him to superior. (Thus, > playing an Animalism on him would give him inferior, and a Second one > would give him superior.Better, like I said, but I'd much prefer this combined with the "burn one extra blood for each card played in this manner" fix. Seems less ridiculous. > > That's my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. > > This one isn't worth too much. The card is a travesty.Check. Although you are entitled to your opinion, I'm still seeing a tremere bias coming from R&D through the expansions. Ian is just the most blatant sign of it, that's all. [ quoted text not captured ] I wholeheartedly agree with the Corrupter's points. I doubt that you want to get my laundry-list of what I see as broken/unbalanced/weak cards, Shawn, but if you do, just ask for it or check the various news archives. I've complained about most of them multiple times before. I agree with the Corrupter; Jyhad is quite possibly the best game on the market, with only Netrunner even being close on my list. Please, please keep it as balanced as possible. I've noticed a tendency towards cards which "aren't too powerful, just on the brink of being too powerful," coming out in all WotC games. In my opinion, most of these cards ARE too powerful, or too upseting to the existing game balance, giving the potential for degeneracy and the tipping of the scales towards certain strategies. I just hope that nothing will make the games which I and my friends enjoy as unbalanced and broken as many of the other (honestly quite awful) CCGs on the market. Please, Shawn, listen to your players. Alec Chang, concerned gamer

> Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak > that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His > ability of every minor discipline stayed. Well, that would make him a _little_ bit better, but it is still a two point power to gain every discipline in the game. 21 for 8 is still the best trade in the game. He should have some restrictions, such as spending blood to use disciplines he doesn't have, or that no master skills may be placed on him. > My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but > not broken. First off, he's an 8 blood vampire. To bring him in > takes optimally 2 solid rounds of transfers, and still 2 rounds with > Info. Highway. At the start of a game, it is usually three unless you > have an optimal start at 4 transfers. Does the number of transfers it takes to bring him out really matter? A degenerate card is a degenerate card no matter how long it takes to bring him out or how many people contest him. > Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross > over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of > the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. > Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador > and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level > disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think > that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. Why is he *this* strong? Why doesn't he get his powers the way other vampires do, by paying for them? > He also doesn't have a title. Yes, he can get one, but an 8 blood vamp > not having a title is harsh. Chances are he won't be in a vote deck. No? With basic presence and Dominate, and Auspex, he's very good in a reactive or active vote deck. Telepathic Vote Counting, Kindred Coercion, Pulling Strings, Dread Gaze, Treachery, Bewitching Oration- plus new cards from the Sabbat. Make him a Ventrue, and he can Elder Kindred Network and really hurt your opponent. Bindusara has no title-a 9 cap. Ventrue, at that. Neither does: Rebekka, Cornelius Ottavio, Makarios, Ebenezer Roush, and all of the non-Cam 8 and above (that's votes, not title). Compared to an extra _few_ points in disciplines, Forestal is still better in the long run than Tura Vaughn, who has a title. Someone commented that the weakness of the Tremere was their inability to vote. That hasn't been fixed (except by making a Tremere immune to Bloodhunts) just like Gangrel vote hasn't been fixed. The Tremere have just been made better fighters and bleeders. I could have seen a Thaumaturgy reaction/action modifier based off the Path of Corruption that could have changed votes from no to yes(action) & yes to no (reaction), instead of a broken hoser. However, the Tremere still have more Princes than the Gangrel and Malkavians, and as many as the Nosferatu. What's the difference? The Tremere have bigger Princes with better powers; compare Nikolaus Vermeulen to Javier Montoya, and compare Murat to Spiridonas. Why weren't these clans made better bleeders and fighters, or given overpowered vampires? > Finally--if he is popular, I expect to see him contested like nobody's > business. See above. If everyone's contesting *Death Ray* Forestal because he's so much better than everybody else, it means that he was made with more powers and fewer drawbacks than anybody else. Why? Is there a problem with the Tremere in the basic set that had to be fixed by giving them cards like the Ankara Citadel, and vampires like Spiridonas, Muaziz, Rebekka, Kalinda, Parnassus, and Ian? Even before DS, the Tremere were a good clan. Look at Merill Molitor, Chantry, Arcane Library(one of only three). > That's my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. And this is mine. Ian Forestal is a broken card, not worthy of inclusion in the Sabbat. The point system that evens out vampire abilities had been cracked with Rebekka, broken with Muaziz, and Ian Forestal takes a hammer to the remnants. Jyhad/V:teS appears to be slowly weighted to some clans and some cards, and I, for one, do not wish to play a broken game simply because it was good once. There are other vampires (Tremere, undoubtedly) of Ian's caliber, I assume, and that frightens me. Blythe wasn't really a misprint, was she?? She was a playtest version who wasn't changed.. I don't think that we'll see any other overpowered vampires before the Sabbat comes out, will we? Not with our adamant stand against Ian... -Nathan Harada Salubri sympathizer There is a WotC Tremere conspiracy...when the all-Tremere Thaumaturgy expansion comes out, run. (There are other clans in the Pyramid expansion-but they all have Thaumaturgy. And there are allies, too. "All mages?" "Well...yes.") You have been warned. Sleep well. :P"

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak >that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His >ability of every minor discipline stayed. >My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but >not broken. First off, he's an 8 blood vampire. To bring him in >takes optimally 2 solid rounds of transfers, and still 2 rounds with >Info. Highway. At the start of a game, it is usually three unless you >have an optimal start at 4 transfers. Since when is this a major limitation? Most vampires come out at about this speed - 1 turn vamps are weenies; 3 turns are biggies. >Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross >over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of >the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. >Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador >and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level >disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think >that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. A common mistake in costing cards is to consider their routine use when costing. Cards need to be costed on "best use" - otherwise their best use is broken (Majesty springs to mind here). Mr. Forestal obviously fits well into a Trem-Tor-Malk deck, where he has 3 superior and 3 normal skills for used disciplines. That's at least 9 points. And, frankly, vampires so large almost always waste disciplines, while Forestal is perfect.\ Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak >that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His >ability of every minor discipline stayed. >My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but >not broken. First off, he's an 8 blood vampire. To bring him in >takes optimally 2 solid rounds of transfers, and still 2 rounds with >Info. Highway. At the start of a game, it is usually three unless you >have an optimal start at 4 transfers. Moot. This is true of all 8-cpacity vampires (all of which only take one turn to bring out with the use of TombIII - another broken card). >Next, his two key disciplines are auspex and dominate (ones that cross >over potentially with other clans). Thaumaturgy is a sole primary of >the Tremere, so of course you might include him in a Tremere deck. >Auspex and Dominate mesh well with Malkavian, fairly well with Toreador >and Ventrue. Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level >disciplines associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think >that it is that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. Well, the people who designed the other 8+ blood vampires apparently thought that the vampire should pay for the inferior disciplines: Crusher pays full price for inferior fortitude. Don Cruez pays full price for inferior ani, dom, and pro Miranda Pays an extra half point (3.5) for her three inferior skills. (probably due to rounding the "Primogen" half point.) Tura pays full price for inferior dominate. Angus pays an extra half point (3.5) for his three inferior skills. Dr. Jest pays full price for his *4* inferior skills. So why not have Ian pay a minimum of three points for his 14+ inferior skills? That's certainly a precedent set way back in 1994. Paying four would not be out of line, and would make him balanced with the likes of Dr.J Two is unthinkable, unless you also reduce Angus to a 9 capacity, Don Cruez to a 9, etc. (paying two for three unneeded skills is certainly at least as balanced as paying two for *all* unneeded skills). >He also doesn't have a title. Yes, he can get one, but an 8 blood vamp >not having a title is harsh. Chances are he won't be in a vote deck. He doesn't pay for a title. Not having a title/skill/ability that you don't pay for in not harsh - ask Rebekka. Being handed a pack of skills that you haven't paid for is harsh for the competitors - which is why Anvil always seems to come out once a game. >Finally--if he is popular, I expect to see him contested like nobody's >business. Then why not leave Blythe's auspex at superior? She'd be overwhelmingly great (like Ian is now) and everyone would contest her. You fixed it then because it was broken, even though the contesting "check/balance" would have curtailed her runaway use. Fix Ian now, instead of using the uniqueness factor as a crutch. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A one-bit brain with a http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | parity error. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > My take on it is this--it is *not* broken; it is a strong card, but > not broken. ... snip ... > Still, an 8 blood vampire only has the basic level disciplines > associated with the clan Ian will work with. I don't think that it is > that major. Strong, yes, but not broken. I agree. I can only see Ian in decks using unusual skill combinations. There are a lot of better vamps to use if you are building a deck around common skill combinations. > He also doesn't have a title. Yes, he can get one, but an 8 blood > vamp not having a title is harsh. Chances are he won't be in a vote > deck. Well, I've seen a couple of Vote/Blood Management decks that he would fit right into. He has superior dominate and a high cap, so he would be a good vamp to do Govern the Unaligned with. Also, he is a good target to use in a Minion Tap/5th Tradition combo. > Finally--if he is popular, I expect to see him contested like nobody's > business. Very true. -- David Kent -aka- Constant Hazard \----------------------/ \ haz...@potomac.net / \------------------/

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes, in a fit of Malkavian-induced madness : wrote: : > Lots o' interesting discussions on this card. First, I will leak : > that his blood cap. is 8, not the 7 of the playtest cards. His : > ability of every minor discipline stayed. : : I'm extremely disappointed in hearing that. I think you are going easy on 'em, Corrupter. : The contention was never that the card was a _game_-breaker, but that it : totally spat in the face of the point creation system for vampires... see : below. This is _really_ the key. This can't be stressed enough. : Since, however, he actually has the virtual ability of having those : disciplines (give him a Master Skill and he becomes superior (!!!)), : then his cost is too low. [If he gets a Master card] he goes : immediately to superior, and might as well not have any special : ability and just had all the disciplines printed on him. Ah, but if they had printed all of the disciplines on him, he wouldn't be able to make use of the completely made up disciplines that they will eventually create in some future expansion to drum up some more cash. Face it -- he is patently BETTER than a vampire with ALL of the inferior disciplines printed on him/her because that printed list is only valid for the current printing. If ever they add even more disciplines, he wins some more. This card is SO stupid. The design team should be shot. -spongy - a disgruntled carrot

So, um, Shawn, Are you getting this? This card is _broken_ in a way that is apparent without anyone on this group ever playing with it. Has the design team done _any_ play testing? I think the message from the people on the newsgroup is pretty clear: fix this card. Don't wait until it comes out and then issue errata. ( Is that the problem? Have you already printed this stupid card and now can't change it? ) You guys need to step up and admit that this card is a mistake. If you can't muster up the guts to do that, then please adopt the position that it tests as "unpopular" with the "target audience" in "marketing research." When The Corrupter, Alec Chang, LSJ, Curt Adams, Nathan Harada and so many others on this group can all agree that this card is in need of a big fix it should tell you something. Please give us a reason to believe that WotC cares about this game. Doug Dunaway ( A Very Uneasy Artistically Inept Torreador )

DOUGDWISE wrote: > > Nathan, > I hate to give in to conspiracy theories but...when they put up a banner > the size of Ian (Doc-Savage-with-more-skills) Forestal, it's hard to > ignore the obvious. > > What is going on with WotC and this Tremere love affair? I think your > conspiracy theory might just be on target. I shudder to think what might > await us in this Sabbat set. And we thought Dark Sovereigns was bad! Sorry you thought DS was bad. Sorry you think Ian is "Doc Savage". I wish there was some way we could change your opinion, but you are entitled to them. > Shawn didn't convince me that this card is even remotely fair. It kind of > makes me afraid. Are they making Vampire: Son of Magic? Be wary of them. I AM NOW NOT SPEAKING AS A NET-REP, BUT AS ME; THIS IS MY OPINION. The people with whom I work on V:TES are a dedicated core group of people who have every committment to making the best TCG possible. I know *FOR A FACT* that we have no desire to "mirror" M:tG, and such an assumption is false. Your opinions are your opinions, but to simply brush off a dedicated group of people who do a lot of good for the game because soneome thinks a card is overpowered or a set is weak is, IMHO, unfair. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Puzzo wrote: > [CLIP] > > Ah, but if they had printed all of the disciplines on him, he wouldn't be > able to make use of the completely made up disciplines that they will > eventually create in some future expansion to drum up some more cash. > > Face it -- he is patently BETTER than a vampire with ALL of the inferior > disciplines printed on him/her because that printed list is only valid for > the current printing. If ever they add even more disciplines, he wins > some more. >A fine point! Just imagine him when 4 new skills enter the game. OUCH! Now I'm convinced that both of the fixes that the Corrupter suggested are necessary. Skill cards bring you to the inferior level and you must burn an additional blood (card cost +1 blood) when playing cards with IF's ability. Robert ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > I AM NOW NOT SPEAKING AS A NET-REP, BUT AS ME; THIS IS MY OPINION. I am not speaking for all Jyhad players, just all the ones that I have met... > The > people with whom I work on V:TES are a dedicated core group of people > who have every committment to making the best TCG possible. The people with whom I've talked to, gamed with, and competed against in RL have _all_ wanted to know why it seems like the design team seems to be going out of their way to destroy the game. > I know *FOR > A FACT* that we have no desire to "mirror" M:tG, and such an assumption > is false. I know for a fact that the Design Team has lost the trust of most of the players I've talked to (as original author of the Sensible Player's Tournament Rules, that is quite a few). > Your opinions are your opinions, but to simply brush off a > dedicated group of people who do a lot of good for the game because > soneome thinks a card is overpowered or a set is weak is, IMHO, unfair. [I've tried to rewrite this section 4 times, because each time I felt it sounded too harsh. Unfortunately, I cannot word it much differently...] The idea that the work the design team has done has been good for the game is highly debatable. If the design team is also the rules team, then it is highly laughable. In a fluctuating game like a CCG, there come times when a ruling or bring about a new card type will set the game down a path. At these junctures, multiple avenues are available, but once a road is chosen, it's hard to retrace steps (the cards are out there, after all). It seems every time the design team / rules team has an opportunity to go down a bad path, they take it, be it with the overkill on anti-bleed cards in the V:tES reprinting, the total lack of design savvy with Dark Sovereigns, the leaning towards Tremere as of late, rulings on Clan Impersonation (which someone override card text despite not having any card text that would make this apparent from the card), and many other examples. Sadly, I am not the only one of this opinion. Shawn, you may be in a unique position to change this. Really, there are only a few simple rules that need be followed: 1) Cards should have an appropriate card cost (either pool/blood/discipline/etc.) 2) "Trump" cards should not be made (clarification: a Brujah frenzy hinders Brujah, but doesn't trump Brujah as Archon Investigation does) 3) Cards should be appropriate to the group using them (Ian Forestal's ability is appropriate for Tremere (though not expensive enough) though not Nossies) There are far more subtle things that are important, but cost, appropriateness to the game world, and making cards that advance strategies rather than trump them are the important things. It seems the Design Team has forgotten that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nathan, I hate to give in to conspiracy theories but...when they put up a banner the size of Ian (Doc-Savage-with-more-skills) Forestal, it's hard to ignore the obvious. What is going on with WotC and this Tremere love affair? I think your conspiracy theory might just be on target. I shudder to think what might await us in this Sabbat set. And we thought Dark Sovereigns was bad! Shawn didn't convince me that this card is even remotely fair. It kind of makes me afraid. Are they making Vampire: Son of Magic? Be wary of them. Hoping this is all a big joke, Doug Dunaway (Artistically Inept Torreador)

What is all the hubbub about this vamp? What is his special ability and his disciplines? I haven't seen this card nor can I find info about him from any of the lists. What set is he from? Sorrow

Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > DOUGDWISE wrote: > > > > Nathan, > > I hate to give in to conspiracy theories but...when they put up a banner > > the size of Ian (Doc-Savage-with-more-skills) Forestal, it's hard to > > ignore the obvious. > > > > What is going on with WotC and this Tremere love affair? I think your > > conspiracy theory might just be on target. I shudder to think what might > > await us in this Sabbat set. And we thought Dark Sovereigns was bad! > > Sorry you thought DS was bad. Sorry you think Ian is "Doc Savage". I > wish there was some way we could change your opinion, but you are > entitled to them. There is a way that you can change our opinions for the better; make each expansion set use appropriate pricing for vampires and library cards, making each vampire and each clan pay for all of it’s abilities, and keep any spoilers or even semi-spoilers from entering the game enviroment. Once they’re in, the only way that you can keep people from abusing them is by banning them entirely; and as magic has shown, semi-spoilers add up(what do you think the only cards that are seen in tournament play are?). > > Shawn didn't convince me that this card is even remotely fair. It kind of > > makes me afraid. Are they making Vampire: Son of Magic? Be wary of them. > > I AM NOW NOT SPEAKING AS A NET-REP, BUT AS ME; THIS IS MY OPINION. The > people with whom I work on V:TES are a dedicated core group of people > who have every committment to making the best TCG possible. I know *FOR > A FACT* that we have no desire to "mirror" M:tG, and such an assumption > is false. Your opinions are your opinions, but to simply brush off a > dedicated group of people who do a lot of good for the game because > soneome thinks a card is overpowered or a set is weak is, IMHO, unfair. First: Perhaps a blanket brush-off is too harsh, without supporting evidence. In fact, that’s probably what you see the above as. However, when one looks at things from the perspectives of the people who have been posting about game balance and Ian recently, one will find that we do have a point. Our evidence and points? I e-mailed a letter with my arguments about the Tremere being overpowered and helped out too much in AH to you earlier this month, Shawn. You may not have gotten it; if so, send me mail and I’ll send you another copy. In that letter, I made the same point about Ian Forestal which I and others have made on the newsgroup, and also discussed each of the Tremere cards which I and others percieve as evidence of a bias on the design team’s part towards the Tremere. The primary problem which I have(and this goes for a number of other people, I know) with certain Tremere and Thaumaturgy cards and Dark Soveriegns in particular, is that the cards tend to fit into two categories, with very few in the middle: underpowered/too expensive(most of DS library cards with a few exceptions, and a number of 5 and 6 capacities from both expansions who are clearly undercosted in most analyses of the point creation system) and overpowered/too inexpensive(most of the ‘spoiler’ cards which people complain about, the two large AH Tremere, and to a lesser extent, the Inner Circle members). The underpowered cards are almost useless, and various proposed “fixes” have sprung up to solve the fact that it is almost worthless to play them as written. The overpowered cards, although they may not break or throw the game all on their own(with the exception of Spiridonas, who has swept tables around here in a Malk/Tremere Stealth and Bleed deck) are a dangerous sign of what might be coming in the next expansion set; and when I saw Ian Forestal in the duelist, it seemed as if my worst fears(and those of others) had been completely validated: that not only had the design team not recognized the cards that had been put out as unbalanced, but that they were going to create cards which were even MORE unbalanced. My main concern is that Jyhad stays the best CCG on the market. Its system was based on a solid foundation of rules and mechanics which keep all strategies relatively equal in power, and no card necessarily better than another. All this changed when V:tES came out, and new cards were introduced which hosed bleed for no apparent reason. Not only did these cards hose bleed(Archon Investigation, Protected Resources, and to a lesser extent, Justicar Retribution) but they also were GENERIC hosers that anyone could use without any thought required to make them work. As such, bleed’s ability to function as a viable strategy took a huge dive as long as those cards were legal and available; and bleed is usually very vulnerable to rush, vote, and intercept. The cards solved a ‘problem’ which wasn’t there. Dark Soveriegns introduced very few cards which could be considered to be spoilers...but it also introduced very little that could be considered anything else, either. The high point of DS was the Inner circlers and the other vampires with too many points for their capacity(Blythe Candeleria, even with the errata, and Francois Villon); these were disturbing, but tended to balance out due to the large investment needed to use most of them effectively. However, the fact that there were vampires in the same expansion who were underpowered(at least the two 5 capacity non-cams, Sigrid Bekker, Darius Styx after the D action ruling, and Teresa Rostas) was, if possible, more disturbing. It seemed as if the point system, which worked reasonably well to balance vampires in the basic set, had been thrown out the window, without any simple guidelines as to what was under or over powered. This impression was only reinforced by Ancient Hearts. All the 6 capacity vampires in AH were under-costed for their disciplines, titles, and powers. The most that any of their powers could be realistically construed as would be a point for Nakova, and that would make her have 4 and 1/2 points for 6 capacity; an identical deal to Judah and Elizabetha Romano. Damaskenos was the best of those vampires at 5 for 6, and I still have not been able to find a use for him where someone else could be better. Muaziz and Spiridonas, on the other hand, struck me as overpowered the moment I saw them. Muaziz pays 2 points for her +1 stealth and immunity to bloodhunts; whereas in the basic set, Lucretia paid two points for her +1 stealth alone. Not only that, but Muaziz was the 2nd Tremere with +1 stealth, the first being Rebekka from DS, who only escapes the list of overpowered vampires by being difficult to integrate into most decks. Even so, she is on the high end of reasonable; and Muaziz is over the top, even if she won’t break a game all on her own. Spiridonas, if he can get through, is a monster, who can get up to +7 bleed from his special ability alone. Not having blood is a problem? C’mon. He’s a Tremere, a member of the clan which regains blood the fastest in the Game. And he can always use hospitality on himself. Get the idea yet? Do our concerns strike you as totally unfounded now, Shawn? I have the highest respect for the design team at WotC; but I’m extremely frightened by the idea that I might have a clearer grasp on the basic system for powering vampires and library cards than they do. The only reason that I have that idea at all are the (multiple) vampires who don’t have their points in abilities and the number of points they should have match, and the various cards which I’ve seen come out recently which strike me as spoilers. I do not believe that we are just brushing these people off; we are concerned that they might be doing things which will adversely affect a game which we love and are somewhat fanatical about, and as such, we WILL do our damndest to try to communicate our concerns to them(through you, as you are the only person on the team who we have any way of communcating with at all). If you and the design team desire to make the best TCG possible, as I believe that you do, then that goal would likely be aided by listening to those players who actually care about the balance and equity of the game when they express concerns about the power and/or inconsistency of a card as compared to the cards from the original set and the other expansions. We have no way of even making sure that you listen to us, much less consider what we’re saying. If you find our concerns ungrounded, then please explain to us in a cogent, cohesive argument why you find them so, without resorting to arguments which have been overturned earlier out of common sense, consistency, or whatever. I do not mean to be offensive; I just found your justification of Ian extremely weak(as I’m sure you know by now). I, myself, will do almost anything to try to keep Jyhad the best TCG possible. If I can communicate with the people in R&D about my concerns, I will. If I have to playtest for no pay, I will. If I have to rant on the net about how unbalanced certain cards in previous and the next expansions are until people pay attention, I will. There are two main points which I want to get across with this post/letter; all of the above will have been wasted bandwidth if these are ignored. One is that I and almost every other player on this group would like Jyhad to be the best balanced, high quality, interesting game it can be, and to avoid from stepping into the realms of overpowered and unbalanced cards which EVERY other TCG that I’ve seen (except possibly Netrunner) has entered. We care about the game, and as such, are not simply rabid maniacs trying to change something on a whim. I’ve seen more posts on Ian than I’ve seen on almost any other topic, ever. When the players, especially those who debate the balance and theory of the game for hours and months on end, are concerned about something, it would be good for the netrep or game company representative to(at the absolute least) listen to their concerns and bring them up. The second point is that there seems to be very little communication seems to occur between the people at WotC and the players of Jyhad/V:tES. The only person who we have access to is the Netrep, who will not necessarily see every post or respond to every concern due to time constraints and other aspects of his job. When we find something to be a major issue of concern, very little or nothing is typically done about it; whether this is a matter of Jyhad’s lesser clout at WotC or just a lack of importance placed on Jyhad’s players is debatable. But we do not get our voices through, or heard at all, from all of the evidence that I’ve seen. This lack of communication can be dealt with. Would it be so hard to discuss issues of game balance and design with us? I, for one, don’t think that it would be. Is it the most important part of your job to be talking to players about game balance? Obviously not. Would it help iron out the often major discrepancies between what players think is reasonable and what WotC thinks is reasonable? Absolutely. It would also create an enviroment in which the players and the people in charge of the game would be able to work together to make Jyhad not just the best TCG on the market, but possibly the best TCG ever. Alec Chang, Concerned Gamer and advocate for better communications between WotC and their consistuents(customers, I mean).

The Corrupter wrote: > > On this newsgroup, a lot of people are relatively fanatical about this > game. It is excellent, and far better than anything else I've seen on > the market. However, the nature of the CCG is that the balance of power > changes with new cards. For the most part, I have seen Jyhad's balance > becoming more and more tenuous (though still holding), and I hope this > trend won't continue. This balance is what (I think) maintains fans to > Jyhad. Most people I know who get into Jyhad, stay into Jyhad (barring > RL forcing them to stop playing games). Don't toss out your core > supporters by hurting this game any more. > Jyhad was superbly balanced. There are still cards that don't jump out at you but after much pondering you see how well designed they are. A good example is something like Undead Persistance. I looked at it because no one was using it and then I built a deck around it. A card doesn't need to have a lot of flash and instantly obvious uses for it to be a good card. I'd prefer more of the subtle cards anyday! [ quoted text not captured ]

> DOUGDWISE wrote: > > Nathan, > I hate to give in to conspiracy theories but...when they put up a banner > the size of Ian (Doc-Savage-with-more-skills) Forestal, it's hard to > ignore the obvious. > > What is going on with WotC and this Tremere love affair? I think your > conspiracy theory might just be on target. I shudder to think what might > await us in this Sabbat set. And we thought Dark Sovereigns was bad! > > Shawn didn't convince me that this card is even remotely fair. It kind of > makes me afraid. Are they making Vampire: Son of Magic? Be wary of them. > > Hoping this is all a big joke, > Doug Dunaway > (Artistically Inept Torreador) Two words: DARK Thaumaturgy. Three words: New Thaumaturgical Rituals. Four words: Invisible Chains of Binding. (Thaumaturgy Strike 1 blood: Place this card on a vampire. Usable at range. That vampire may not play any strikes for the duration of this combat. When combat ends, that vampire may take and block no actions as long as this card is on him or her, and does not untap during it's controller's untap phase. This card may be burned as a D action by any minion. Five words: Chill of the Wind Saber. Thaumaturgy 2 blood Strike: The opposing vampire goes to torpor. Usable at long range only. Superior: as above, but the opposing vampire is burned. copyright Nathan Harada, overpowered Tremere ideas. I'd like to think I were only paranoid....

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >The >people with whom I work on V:TES are a dedicated core group of people >who have every committment to making the best TCG possible. I know *FOR >A FACT* that we have no desire to "mirror" M:tG, and such an assumption >is false. It's inapproriate to accuse you or any other member of the VtES design team of ill-will towards Jyhad/V:tES, or of an obsession with Magic. Newsgroups are firey places; don't take personal attacks seriously, although pointing out personal attacks as such is often a good idea. But, you should know, when Dark Sovereigns came out, the only disagreement in my group was whether to call it "Vampire: the Gathering" or "Magic with Fangs". When Jyhad came out it had many things that distinguished it from Magic, including an absence of a lot of elements common in Magic. Jyhad players assumed that these distinctions were mostly based on things that, while perhaps cute or initially appealing, were a bad thing for Magic. Amongst these were: 1) Very few cards with global effects. 2) Significant unique restrictions on many desired cards (e.g. Master locations) 3) Very few cards with unlimited effects, especially "pay X for X". 4) A marked preference for simple cards requiring combinations over complex standalone cards. 5) An absence of built-in antipathies (e.g. clan vs. clan) 6) Few cards that mucked with the game mechanics, with the ones that did mild. Exceptions to the above rules basically came only from votes and Malkavian cards. Even there, exceptions were few. Dark Sovereigns came out breaking of the above, in spades. I'd say more than half of the cards in DS broke at least one of the above rules. Some were wallpaper, a few spoilers, but even when neither, they just didn't look or feel like Jyhad cards. "All Gangrel gain +1 hand damage" was the kind of effect you just didn't see in Jyhad, for *any* cost. In Jyhad, you had a card the *one* Gangrel could use for 2 hand damage, and that didn't do any good if they already had 2 hand. DS cards, as a whole, differ significantly from Jyhad cards, and basically they always differ by being more like Magic. I don't think this is *deliberate*, but I do believe that most of the Design Team are Magic players who were assigned to Jyhad/V:tES. Hence I do think V:tES is being "Magicized", albeit unintentionally. To clarify where people are coming from, you should remember that people who play Jyhad/V:tES usually dislike Magic. If you like Magic, you play Magic. Jyhad/V:tES does have aspects that make it better for multiplayer play, but people don't appreciate them unless they play Jyhad quite a bit, and they're unlikely to do that unless they've soured on Magic. So when you make V:tES more like Magic (and you have) you are damaging or even destroying the game for these folks (most Jyhad/V:tES players). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On 23 Aug 1996, Kelly Michael wrote: I wrote (via private e-mail): >> Forrester is too cheap, and simply because his powers might not be >> totally utilized, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for. Does >> someone always use all of an ICs powers? He would be inline if it >> weren't for the fact that the first master card played on him gives him >> superior. A blood cost and making the inferior powers "fake" (and thus >> requiring a master skill to get a "real" inferior) makes him inline. In >> fact, either one of those two would make me relatively happy, if both >> don't happen. Though, I should have added, not _very_ happy. Just happiER. > I, too, would prefer that the ability had some sort of limitation on it such > as paying 1 blood to use it or only applying to skills he does not have. But > that would only lower the value I give to it. I do not believe the ability is > out of line and without knowing the entire text for Ian I can not tell if he > is underpriced. If he has no disciplines and the special ability he would be > overpriced. If he has 3 superior skills and the special ability he would be > underpriced. That is the case. He has superior Tremere skills, and all other skills that are and ever will be at inferior. > If he has 1 or two superior skills and his special, then I am OK > with the vampire cosing 8. This is because his special ability is NOT WORTH 19 > POINTS. Surely you agree with this. The question is how many points is it > worth, and if it is worth too much should it be allowed. His special ability is worth at least 5 or 6 points in my book (sheer versatility. He can go into any deck that isn't highly clan specific). He needs errata, however. While his special ability doesn't do anything spectacular like let him burn Camarilla locations, it does give him a huge amount of disciplines that he really doesn't pay for. The "justification" that he won't use them all is meaningless. On larger vampires, who does use all their disciplines in every deck they put that vampire in? > By the way, this response was not posted because I am too busy right now. You > can post it if you want. No problem. Consider it done. [ quoted text not captured ]

Shawn, Sounds as if I touched a nerve there. Glad to hear you are paying attention to this ongoing discussion of Ian Forestal anyway and taking part. Let's continue. Yes, I thought Dark Sovereigns was bad. Not as bad as Spellfire, but not nearly as good as the original Jyhad overall. The cards themselves wore out so quickly that card sleeves became a necessity. There didn't appear to be much playtesting of the cards and quite a few were spotted by the folks on this newsgroup as broken before the set was out a week. If I am alone in my lack of enthusiasm for Dark Sovereigns then I am probably just a difficult bastard. But I think a review of the traffic on the newsgroup would show that mine is far from a lonely position. And yes, I think Ian Forestal is a lot like Doc Savage: knows everything, can do everything, owns everything. That's fine for a pulp hero but not very interesting in anyone else. My opinion, of course. You probably can't change my opinion of the Ian Forestal card as it is now but I welcome your attempts. Always intersted to hear from those who I don't agree with. OK, Shawn, as long as you are speaking as just you and not the netrep, I'll tell you as just a player and not a fanatic of this game: I am _not_ brushing off the entire production team because I think one card is overpowered or a set is weak. I _am_ unsure about the direction this game is going. I have to honestly say that it seems as if there is some kind of bias toward the Tremere in the game development now. Maybe I'm wrong. If so then could you explain what is going on with the game? I'm not a big fan of the Tremere but I don't dislike the clan either. To me they are just another clan, not as cool as the Nossies or as hip as the Torreador. It does really look as if they have become something of the favorite with the powers that be. Not necessarily bad, but it seems to be leading to some questionable cards, in my opinion. If I am wrong about this then I would like to be set straight. Please offer up some explanations for the swing that some of us on the newsgroup have noticed toward Tremere power cards. I will tell you in advance, though, that any arguement based on the premise that these cards are no better than any other clan's new cards will likely not make much of an impression. As I said, you haven't convinced me with your earlier post or this one that Ian Forestal is anywhere near fairly valued. Most very skilled vampires won't use all of their disciplines and the cost to put them into your active region still includes the cost of those unused disciplines. The fact that it takes two turns to bring him out normally is not very interesting because even fairly valued vampires of 8 capacity take two turns to come to your active region. As far as not having a title, I think the Gangrel would be interested to know that this is a disadvantage and apparently worth points. Generally, vampires only have titles if their pool-cost to control includes the cost of the title. Shawn, I hope you will accept my apologies if my posts were out of line or seemed to be some kind of ad hominum attack. That was not my intention. As a fanatic of this game ( who did buy three boxes of Dark Sovereigns and put together a set) I sometimes engage in rhetoric. Take it in the spirit in which it is offered. No matter what I say about this game I will keep playing even if I have to adopt house rules for Ian Forestal and his ilk. Fair enough? Good luck with the expansion, Doug Dunaway

Alec Chang wrote: > [An amazingly great post agonizingly snipped due to length.] [ quoted text not captured ] This is just a suggestion - why doesn't WOTC post "spoiler lists" of all potential cards in either their VTES-List or to this newsgroup? Then all of us (there are probably several hundred to thousands of us players here) could proxie the cards we found interesting and play with them in our respective groups - letting our group know that we would be playtesting some cards. Then e-mail (and post publicly) the results back to Shawn or whoever in the DT and let them know what is _really_ the effect of Ian Forrestal in a game. While many game groups would probably skip doing this (for a variety of reasons), there would be some who would really get into the spirit of the thing. As Alec says, we are a fanatical group, and we care about this game. If WOTC thinks that this would deteriorate their sales, I would quickly point out that if I got a working preview of the cards, then I would be likely to spend even more money on an expansion. I have never really understood the whole secrecy thing with CCG's anyway. Remember what happened when Id Software let people test out Doom (the computer game) before its commercial release? Sales were beyond phenomenal; they changed the paradigm of computer game promotion and marketing. The same could be done for CCG's. Conversely, as seems to be the case now, and as Alec pointed out eloquently in his post, WOTC does little to no test marketing of their product before it hits the shelves. All of their fixes are reactive, not proactive. While Shawn and the DT may work for WOTC, WOTC works for us, the customer. If we don't like their performance, we will fire them, and move onto the next thing. I would do the playtest/proxie thing for free, and the only credit that I would want would be a line thanking "the rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Usenet newsgroup" or something comparable in the next rules book. I think that I would rest easier when a new expansion comes out, or a new version of the basic set is produced, knowing that LSJ, Corrupter, Curt A, Alec C, and the rest of us had a chance to work out the kinks. Even if a card which I thought sucked, or was too powerful made it into the set, if other changes suggested were instituted, I would not just really enjoy V:TES, but truly love it, because it would have a little of me in it. I would try to turn even more people onto it than I do right now. My point I guess is that WOTC could take a relatively simple step and increase the brain power of the Design Team thousand fold, with little maintenance and cost. If Ian Forestal appears in the Sabbat expansion as he currently is, I for one will promptly sell all my V:TES/Jyhad cards, and find something else to do with my time. Just like Jyhad replaced my interest in Magic, so to will something easily replace my desire to play Vampire. Just my $.02 Chris

>Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > >DOUGDWISE wrote: > > > > Nathan, > > I hate to give in to conspiracy theories but...when they put up a banner > > the size of Ian (Doc-Savage-with-more-skills) Forestal, it's hard to > > ignore the obvious. > > > > What is going on with WotC and this Tremere love affair? I think your > > conspiracy theory might just be on target. I shudder to think what might > > await us in this Sabbat set. And we thought Dark Sovereigns was bad! > > Sorry you thought DS was bad. Sorry you think Ian is "Doc Savage". I > wish there was some way we could change your opinion, but you are > entitled to them. > > > Shawn didn't convince me that this card is even remotely fair. It kind of > > makes me afraid. Are they making Vampire: Son of Magic? Be wary of them. > > I AM NOW NOT SPEAKING AS A NET-REP, BUT AS ME; THIS IS MY OPINION. The > people with whom I work on V:TES are a dedicated core group of people > who have every committment to making the best TCG possible. I know *FOR > A FACT* that we have no desire to "mirror" M:tG, and such an assumption > is false. Your opinions are your opinions, but to simply brush off a > dedicated group of people who do a lot of good for the game because > soneome thinks a card is overpowered or a set is weak is, IMHO, unfair. Shawn, none of the people on this newsgroup bear any animosity towards you or the design team or any people at WotC. It is just that the current trend towards overpowerful and underpowerful cards has been chipping away at our faith and respect for your ability to keep Jyhad/V:teS at it's current high level. We feel frustrated by the dismissal of many of our concerns (especially surrounding the Tremere antitribu Ian) about game balance. I, personally, would like to challenge the bias towards Tremere at WotC-and was hoping a few posts back, that there would be someone to debate with about whether there was indeed a conscious bias towards them. Ian Forestal is the proverbial heavy straw, and we seem to see him as an omen for the future of the game. The design team did a very good job on the basic set. Unfortunately, that great design has taken a turn for the worse in the new expansions, and Ian is just the most blatant characterization of the trend in WotC towards "almost overpowered cards." In AH, I saw an overpowered and degenerate Tremere clan and an underpowered and combat-weak Setite clan (hosed by the Tremere, too, to add insult to injury) and an Assamite clan which would have been better had more members had Quietus and other in-clan disciplines instead of Thaumaturgy. The failure of overpowered cards is that many are not just overpowered, but broken. Some cards which are broken are instantly recognizable as broken, some are not. Ian Forestal and the Ankara Citadel are broken, and broken cards hurt the game much more than good, or balanced powerful cards could aid it. Please listen to us when we post. We can't ask for much more. (Except to take most of our bitching in stride. We feel strongly about whatever we're talking about, and some of us get rabid.)

> : The contention was never that the card was a _game_-breaker, but that it > : totally spat in the face of the point creation system for vampires... see > : below. > > This is _really_ the key. This can't be stressed enough. The basis by which cards (vampires) are designed does not have to have the rule that they all have to be done by that same method. Sure, some cards are a point or two up or down for whatever reason (our mistakes included), but it is weak design to base ALL cards on the formula. You have to try to color outside the box once in a while, lest you get a boring standard, IMHO. Also, I would be interested, in general, not the Netizens of this group analyze the design of a vampire. As far as I know, WotC has never published it. Now, please don't take me the wrong way--there are tons of intelligent and creative people on this newsgroup, and you could have devised the very formula we generally use. I seriously want to hear the formula back to me, and we can potentially trade notes. > : Since, however, he actually has the virtual ability of having those > : disciplines (give him a Master Skill and he becomes superior (!!!)), > : then his cost is too low. [If he gets a Master card] he goes > : immediately to superior, and might as well not have any special > : ability and just had all the disciplines printed on him. > > Ah, but if they had printed all of the disciplines on him, he wouldn't be > able to make use of the completely made up disciplines that they will > eventually create in some future expansion to drum up some more cash. To be frank, we don't create new disciplines, even to "drum up" money for our continued sales and revenue. The Design Team is dedicated to keeping with the World of Darkness as presented by White Wolf. As a result, you will never see a made up discipline, so long as *I* have anything to do about it. > This card is SO stupid. The design team should be shot. Should us being shot ever come before the DT or RT, I am afraid I will have to vote against it, thank you. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

DOUGDWISE wrote: > > So, um, Shawn, > > Are you getting this? This card is _broken_ in a way that is apparent > without anyone on this group ever playing with it. Has the design team > done _any_ play testing? Belive me, I'm getting it all loud and clear, although the loudness could be turned down a bit. :) Obviously, we've done playtesting. While you (and anyone else, for that fact) may disagree with the card, our playtesters through extensive PT didn't have a problem with it. Believe me when I say the following: Ian is a card we kept a very close eye on. We think it is not broken, and we stand by it. > When The Corrupter, Alec Chang, LSJ, Curt Adams, Nathan Harada and so many > others on this group can all agree that this card is in need of a big fix > it should tell you something. It tells me you all are concerned. Damn straight I agree with you that it tells me something, and I want it to keep coming. My point: I am unconvinced by the arguments, and so is the DT, that the card is broken. They are strong, and it made us all think about it again and again. Still, we came to our decision based on our own PT and the info provided by our playtesters. > Please give us a reason to believe that WotC cares about this game. I hope my posts at least give you a glimmer of hope that someone here thinks about the game from time to time. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

DOUGDWISE wrote: > > Shawn, > > Sounds as if I touched a nerve there. Glad to hear you are paying > attention to this ongoing discussion of Ian Forestal anyway and taking > part. Let's continue. Yeah, a nerve synapse went off. Sorry if my comments seemed hot-headed. As people will come to learn, my Irish temper can get the best of me, but I always strive to keep it in check. > Yes, I thought Dark Sovereigns was bad. Not as bad as Spellfire, but not > nearly as good as the original Jyhad overall. The cards themselves wore > out so quickly that card sleeves became a necessity. I can say only this much, and this is just a personal opinion. I agree with you that the card quality of DS was below my personal standards, and indeed your analysis of the need for card sleeves is correct. This is all I will say on this (and all I have said on this to date.) > There didn't appear > to be much playtesting of the cards and quite a few were spotted by the > folks on this newsgroup as broken before the set was out a week. If I am > alone in my lack of enthusiasm for Dark Sovereigns then I am probably just > a difficult bastard. But I think a review of the traffic on the newsgroup > would show that mine is far from a lonely position. I will agree that DS is not as strong as AH. I will also agree that there are both underpowered cards and underpriced cards in the set. There are mistakes, and I apologize personally. I know that the DT is always trying to improve itself. > And yes, I think Ian Forestal is a lot like Doc Savage: knows everything, > can do everything, owns everything. That's fine for a pulp hero but not > very interesting in anyone else. My opinion, of course. You probably > can't change my opinion of the Ian Forestal card as it is now but I > welcome your attempts. Always intersted to hear from those who I don't > agree with. I will certainly try to state WotC's position and my opinion so long as I can. Thanks. > OK, Shawn, as long as you are speaking as just you and not the netrep, > I'll tell you as just a player and not a fanatic of this game: I am _not_ > brushing off the entire production team because I think one card is > overpowered or a set is weak. I _am_ unsure about the direction this game > is going. I have to honestly say that it seems as if there is some kind > of bias toward the Tremere in the game development now. Maybe I'm wrong. > If so then could you explain what is going on with the game? I'm not a > big fan of the Tremere but I don't dislike the clan either. To me they > are just another clan, not as cool as the Nossies or as hip as the > Torreador. It does really look as if they have become something of the > favorite with the powers that be. Not necessarily bad, but it seems to be > leading to some questionable cards, in my opinion. I am of the same opinion as you, here. Believe me when I say that there is no set favorite clan amongst all the designers and developers. Perhaps we have favored a clan, but it was unintentional if we have indeed done so. In the future, I will keep an eye on such favortitsm. Fair enough? [ quoted text not captured ]

Shawn F. Carnes (sw...@castle.wizards.com) wrote: : Still, we came to our decision based on our own PT and the info : provided by our playtesters. I simply have one question: Why was Ian simply not created as a Vampire with all of the disciplines printed on him? It seems to me that such a Vampire, costing only eight, would be viewed as "incorrect". However, a Vampire with card text giving him even more power than having all the printed disciplines is "correct"? It is this dichotomy that makes no sense to me, and leads me to believe that Ian is "broken" in the sense that he flies in the face of the balance between cost and ability. -spongy

Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > Also, I would be interested, in general, not the Netizens of this ^^^ > group analyze the design of a vampire. Wow--what a time for a misnomer. My intention was to say "how". I honestly don't know why I wrote not. In re-reading what I wrote that sentence makes no sense. Hopefully, it does so now. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > DOUGDWISE wrote: > > Are you getting this? This card is _broken_ in a way that is apparent > > without anyone on this group ever playing with it. Has the design team > > done _any_ play testing? > Belive me, I'm getting it all loud and clear, although the loudness > could be turned down a bit. :) > Obviously, we've done playtesting. While you (and anyone else, for that > fact) may disagree with the card, our playtesters through extensive PT > didn't have a problem with it. Believe me when I say the following: > Ian is a card we kept a very close eye on. We think it is not broken, > and we stand by it. That's funny. I was told somethin altogether different by the WotC playtesters I talked to (they didn't like the card). > > When The Corrupter, Alec Chang, LSJ, Curt Adams, Nathan Harada and so many > > others on this group can all agree that this card is in need of a big fix > > it should tell you something. > It tells me you all are concerned. Damn straight I agree with you that > it tells me something, and I want it to keep coming. My point: I am > unconvinced by the arguments, and so is the DT, that the card is > broken. They are strong, and it made us all think about it again and > again. Still, we came to our decision based on our own PT and the info > provided by our playtesters. The biggest arguement is simple: While he may not use _all_ the disciplines, neither do many of the bigger vamps, yet they still pay for their abilities. The power behind the big vamps isn't necessarily the abilities you use, but the abilities you _could_ use. As Tom said, just because a card will be unique (and thus contested if a good card) doesn't mean it should be too cheap for its powers. > > Please give us a reason to believe that WotC cares about this game. > I hope my posts at least give you a glimmer of hope that someone here > thinks about the game from time to time. :) A glimmer... :( I guess I am just shocked that the design team basicly wants to give Ian the inferior of every discipline for almost nothing. Appropriate card costs are important to a game like Jyhad. This is not Magic. It was designed with NL in mind. If this continues, eventually NL will break. One of the only good CL arguements is that if the Design Team continues to mess up again and again, eventually NL will die from lack of a balanced structure. [ quoted text not captured ]

Shawn F. Carnes (sw...@castle.wizards.com) wrote: : The basis by which cards (vampires) are designed does not have to have : the rule that they all have to be done by that same method. Sure, some : cards are a point or two up or down for whatever reason (our mistakes : included), but it is weak design to base ALL cards on the formula. You : have to try to color outside the box once in a while, lest you get a : boring standard, IMHO. It is a fair opinion that one should always look to be original in the design of new cards. Granted, it would be pretty dull if we got a new Vampire which was exactly the same as an old vampire other than the name and face. ;) But to be a good fit in a game with well defined mechanics a card needs to be both original AND need to fit within the structure of the game. A card with a cost around two to three times too small for its value is outside of this structure. A card with open-ended benefit (the addition of disciplines) for zero cost seem outrageous. : To be frank, we don't create new disciplines, even to "drum up" money : for our continued sales and revenue. The Design Team is dedicated to : keeping with the World of Darkness as presented by White Wolf. As a : result, you will never see a made up discipline, so long as *I* have : anything to do about it. And my tongue was planted firmly in cheek with the "sales" comment. However, why should we limit ourselves to breaking the structure of paying a cost for a certain value? If we're coloring outside the box, why not add disciplines? Or game phases? Obviously, too much sloppy coloring makes the picture blurry... and we certainly won't have the same game anymore. The biggest complaint, I believe, is that we are continually getting cards which seem to be playing with the mechanics of the game itself. Things like "Thoughts Betrayed" which make it so that someone can no longer PLAY cards from their hand for a period of time, or Ian which seem to announce a precedent that vampires will no longer necessarily have to pay for their disciplines. : Should us being shot ever come before the DT or RT, I am afraid I will : have to vote against it, thank you. ;) Do you allow vote pushing? ;) -spongy

> > Also, I would be interested, in general, how the Netizens of this > > group analyze the design of a vampire. Well, it just got figured out. It's easy to see that disciplines are worth 1 "unit". For example, look at all of the 4 capacity vampires without special abilities. They _all_ have 3 "units"; 3 disciplines or 2, with one at superior. Also, a master: discipline card gives a vampire +1 capacity. So, we would think about how to build up a vampire from scratch using printed cards. From there, it's (relatively) easy to see the rest. So... Point System: A vampire gets a certain number of points, based on capacity: Capacity Points 1-3 Cap-1 4-8 Cap 9+ Cap+1 Points can be "spent" as follows: 1 pt. -- Inferior discipline 2 pts. -- Superior discipline 2 pts. -- Either +1 bleed or +1 hand damage 1 pt. -- Title (any) Special abilities. These can vary, and usually cost more the better they are. Also, "defects". These count as negative points, because they make the vampire worse. This is how Caitiff can have disciplines. Also, some specials cost zero, usually when they are clan-specific. Here are examples from my favorite clan, the Gangrel: Giuliano "Diablerie" Vincenzi Capacity 2 --> 1 Point: for (1) Anastasia Grey Capacity 3 --> 2 Points: pro ani (2) Chandler Hungerford Capacity 3 --> 2 points: PRO (2), +1 int. v. Gangrel (0) Zack North Capacity 6 --> 6 points: pot for pro ani (4), +1 hand damage (2) Gitane St. Claire Capacity 7 --> 7 points: ANI FOR PRO (6), Primogen (1) Gunther -- Beast Lord Capacity 7 --> 7 points: aus pro for ANI (5), Pay 1 blood to untap at end of your turn (Special). Either Gunther is over priced, or his ability is actually worth 2 points (I'm inclined toward the former). Quinton McDonnell Capacity 8 --> 8 points: cel ani pro FOR (5), Primogen (1), +1 hand damage (2) ----- That's it. It works for most vampires, and it tells us when vampires are overpriced (like Radeyah, an AH Toreador with 4 pts. of disciplines and a clan-specific ability) and lets us be outraged by the un-errata-ed Blythe Candeleria and Ian Forestal. James -- * James Hamblin * * Cornell University * * je...@cornell.edu *

> I am of the same opinion as you, here. Believe me when I say that > there > is no set favorite clan amongst all the designers and developers. > Perhaps we have favored a clan, but it was unintentional if we have > indeed done so. In the future, I will keep an eye on such favortitsm. > Fair enough? It seems to me that the design team is trying to fill perceived gaps (problems) in the game: Problem: S&B is a very powerful strategy that is reasonably difficult to deal with if the disciplines you play with do not include Dominate or Auspex. Solution: V:tES has new, powerful anti-bleed cards usable by every strategy (although I'm still trying to get my hands on a Protected Resources...) Problem: The Gangrel is the only clan with no Princes. Solution: Dark Sovereigns comes with two (although the last thing the Gangrel needed was more big vampires) Problem: Gangrel combat is too easily hamstrung by anti-combat cards, and has no way to prevent S:CE and Dodge. Solution: Dog Pack and Scorpion Sting. And so on. So is there a perceived problem with the Tremere? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Problem: The Gangrel is the only clan with no Princes. > Solution: Dark Sovereigns comes with two (although the last thing the > Gangrel needed was more big vampires) Problem? How many Gangrel care enough about vampiric politics to become Princes? Hardly any Princes in the World of Darkness are Gangrel. > Problem: Gangrel combat is too easily hamstrung by anti-combat cards, > and has no way to prevent S:CE and Dodge. Try a Form of Mist on a Bum's Rush or Haven Uncovered attack sometime. :) It's a great way around S:CE, as well as those nasty "play before range is determined" Potence cards. > So is there a perceived problem with the Tremere? I don't think EVERY card is meant to fix some problem. Although I'd say a problem is a lack of first-round combat potential for Tremere... but Shotgun Ritual will fix that! }:) Mr. Pynk --- http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/

In article <322211...@castle.wizards.com>, sw...@castle.wizards.com says... > >> : The contention was never that the card was a _game_-breaker, but that it >> : totally spat in the face of the point creation system for vampires... see >> : below. >> >> This is _really_ the key. This can't be stressed enough. > >The basis by which cards (vampires) are designed does not have to have >the rule that they all have to be done by that same method. Sure, some >cards are a point or two up or down for whatever reason (our mistakes >included), but it is weak design to base ALL cards on the formula. You >have to try to color outside the box once in a while, lest you get a >boring standard, IMHO. Perhaps. One must also keep in mind that if one does not stay with a relatively stable standard by which cards and abilities are priced, the more likely it is that someone will be able to exploit the 'flexibility' granted certain cards to use them to warp or break the game's internal consistency. >Also, I would be interested, in general, not the Netizens of this group >analyze the design of a vampire. As far as I know, WotC has never >published it. Now, please don't take me the wrong way--there are tons >of intelligent and creative people on this newsgroup, and you could have >devised the very formula we generally use. I seriously want to hear the >formula back to me, and we can potentially trade notes. # of points for vampire= capacity(-1 if under 5, +1 if over 8) +point value of drawbacks(if any). Disciplines: Basic= 1 pt. Superior= 2 pts. Titles: 1/2 pt for primogen, 1 for prince, 3/2 for Justicar, 2 for Inner Circle(based off of the @ vote = 1/2 pt system), 1 for '2 votes'. Nosferatu and Gangrel paid 1/2 more points for titles in the basic set and perhaps in the expansions as well... Large Ventrue seem to get Primogen free, if they have no other title. +1 bleed and +1 hand damage are 2 pts @. Clan specific bleed or hand damage is free. +1 stealth was 2 pts for Lucretia, and 1 pt @ for Muaziz and Rebekka(this seems undercosted). No Bloodhunt votes for this vampire is apparently 1 pt(this seems undercosted). One can generally extrapolate from the system listed about what the presumed costs of the less common powers are. For instance, Gunther seems to pay 2 pts for his untap ability, while Masika pays 2 and 1/2. Anneke pays 1/2 for being able to block any actions after others fail. You get the idea. As for Drawbacks, look at the number of points the 1 capcity caitiff has who has it; that's the number of points it's supposedly worth. Of course, some drawbacks(like Uriah winter's), are a lot more painful in play than others. >> : Since, however, he actually has the virtual ability of having those >> : disciplines (give him a Master Skill and he becomes superior (!!!)), >> : then his cost is too low. [If he gets a Master card] he goes >> : immediately to superior, and might as well not have any special >> : ability and just had all the disciplines printed on him. >> >> Ah, but if they had printed all of the disciplines on him, he wouldn't be >> able to make use of the completely made up disciplines that they will >> eventually create in some future expansion to drum up some more cash. > >To be frank, we don't create new disciplines, even to "drum up" money >for our continued sales and revenue. The Design Team is dedicated to >keeping with the World of Darkness as presented by White Wolf. As a >result, you will never see a made up discipline, so long as *I* have >anything to do about it. Even without made up disciplines, if new disciplines are made, (like Obeah, etc...) Ian can still use them. By the point system above, Ian seems ridiculously overpowered. I would like to hear you perspective on the matter. Alec Chang

> Problem? How many Gangrel care enough about vampiric politics to > become Princes? Hardly any Princes in the World of Darkness are > Gangrel. I'm saying that it was a problem (albeit a minor one) with the balance of the _card_ game. Not the role-playing game. > Try a Form of Mist on a Bum's Rush or Haven Uncovered attack sometime. > :) It's a great way around S:CE, as well as those nasty "play before > range is determined" Potence cards. How does Form of Mist help? If you play S:CE, your opponent cannot play a strike. They get to keep their S:CE card in their hand and use it on you anyway. Also, Potence is not an in-clan discipline for the Gangrel, even though five of them have it (three of those are 10's). So the Gangrel cannot _reliably_ play Potence cards without a huge investment in skill cards that probably isn't going to work. > I don't think EVERY card is meant to fix some problem. Although I'd > say a problem is a lack of first-round combat potential for Tremere... > but Shotgun Ritual will fix that! }:) I did not say that every card was meant to solve every problem. I simply asked if this scheme was one that the DT uses often to try to explain the apparent favoritism toward Tremere. As to my opinion, I think that now that Thoughts Betrayed is out there, the Tremere have no problems whatsoever. I think that TB is very unbalanced. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <322212...@castle.wizards.com> "Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: [snip] >Obviously, we've done playtesting. While you (and anyone else, for that >fact) may disagree with the card, our playtesters through extensive PT >didn't have a problem with it. Believe me when I say the following: >Ian is a card we kept a very close eye on. We think it is not broken, >and we stand by it. Our concern is that the card is overpowered or underpriced, not broken. What I'm understanding you to say is that you and the DT aren't concerned about a card being overpowered, only that it is not broken. >> When The Corrupter, Alec Chang, LSJ, Curt Adams, Nathan Harada and so many >> others on this group can all agree that this card is in need of a big fix >> it should tell you something. > >It tells me you all are concerned. Damn straight I agree with you that >it tells me something, and I want it to keep coming. My point: I am >unconvinced by the arguments, and so is the DT, that the card is >broken. They are strong, and it made us all think about it again and >again. Still, we came to our decision based on our own PT and the info >provided by our playtesters. We are not as concerned about the card being broken as we are about the card being overpowered/underpriced (as I understand the discussions). When people complain about escalation and that like, they're talking about overpowered cards, not broken ones. I, too, am not convinced that the card is "broken". I *am* convinced that the card is seriously overpowered and underpriced. I am worried that you think the issue is that Ian is broken, when most of us are talking about something else. Overpowered/underpriced cards don't break the game, but they hurt game balance. It is disturbing that you do not seem to be taking this into consideration when you design and test cards. Your statements indicate that is only a minor concern. >> Please give us a reason to believe that WotC cares about this game. > >I hope my posts at least give you a glimmer of hope that someone here >thinks about the game from time to time. :) One of my worries is that the Rules/Design Team plays mostly CL-style VTES, and doesn't have a lot of experience with NL/Golden Tenets style VTES. Some of the cards in the expansions make a lot more sense for CL-style play, because they try to 'balance' things that aren't broken under NL (like Malk S&B). I was also bothered that you didn't know what the Golden Tenets were -- I deduced that although Tom Wylie seemed to listen, he didn't communicate back to the Design Team much of what we said beyond rules complaints. My impression is that CL and NL play quite differently. I am worried that the Rules/Design team might break NL VTES because the members are not thoroughly familiar with NL-style play. Are there people on the team who routinely play NL-style games? For me, the big difference between NL and CL is that I usually don't think about saving cards for later if I can use them now. I treat the cards in my hand as a relatively inexaustible resource, and design decks so that this is more or less true. But that's another thread. Shawn, I can tell you are listening. That alone is encouraging. -- Tom Doehne

On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > : The contention was never that the card was a _game_-breaker, but that it > > : totally spat in the face of the point creation system for vampires... see > > : below. > > This is _really_ the key. This can't be stressed enough. > The basis by which cards (vampires) are designed does not have to have > the rule that they all have to be done by that same method. Sure, some > cards are a point or two up or down for whatever reason (our mistakes > included), but it is weak design to base ALL cards on the formula. You > have to try to color outside the box once in a while, lest you get a > boring standard, IMHO. There is a big difference between a boring standard and a reasonable one. A boring standard would be something like, say, not letting any nosferatu ever have presence. Doesn't really do much but limit the Nossies breadth of ability. Reasonable standards are more like, let's not have a vampire of 4 capacity have more than 3 disciplines unless there are drawbacks. The reasonable standards (a la a point system for vampire creation) are extremely important to maintain. Without sensible costs, the game might as well be thrown away. Arika, for example, is a good vampire. If she cost 9 or 13, however, she would become unreasonable. [snip] > > : Since, however, he actually has the virtual ability of having those > > : disciplines (give him a Master Skill and he becomes superior (!!!)), > > : then his cost is too low. [If he gets a Master card] he goes > > : immediately to superior, and might as well not have any special > > : ability and just had all the disciplines printed on him. > > Ah, but if they had printed all of the disciplines on him, he wouldn't be > > able to make use of the completely made up disciplines that they will > > eventually create in some future expansion to drum up some more cash. > To be frank, we don't create new disciplines, even to "drum up" money > for our continued sales and revenue. The Design Team is dedicated to > keeping with the World of Darkness as presented by White Wolf. As a > result, you will never see a made up discipline, so long as *I* have > anything to do about it. In keeping with the world of Darkness, Ian should have to pay blood for his abilities (if he is using Tremere blood rituals) or he should have some hideous drawback (if he is gaining his powers from the infernal) As he is, he should not be. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, James Hamblin wrote: > > Problem? How many Gangrel care enough about vampiric politics to > > become Princes? Hardly any Princes in the World of Darkness are > > Gangrel. > I'm saying that it was a problem (albeit a minor one) with the balance > of the _card_ game. Not the role-playing game. I don't see this as a problem of balance for the game. Gangrel have other ways to make their politics effective (Vote with me or I kill you). > > Try a Form of Mist on a Bum's Rush or Haven Uncovered attack sometime. > > :) It's a great way around S:CE, as well as those nasty "play before > > range is determined" Potence cards. > How does Form of Mist help? If you play S:CE, your opponent cannot play > a strike. They get to keep their S:CE card in their hand and use it on > you anyway. Good point, but you miss the next... > Also, Potence is not an in-clan discipline for the Gangrel, even though > five of them have it (three of those are 10's). So the Gangrel cannot > _reliably_ play Potence cards without a huge investment in skill cards > that probably isn't going to work. He was saying that the Form of Mist allows the Gangrel to fcontinue the combat and avoid the Brujah playing Potence pre-range... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >The basis by which cards (vampires) are designed does not have to have >the rule that they all have to be done by that same method. Sure, some >cards are a point or two up or down for whatever reason (our mistakes >included), but it is weak design to base ALL cards on the formula. You >have to try to color outside the box once in a while, lest you get a >boring standard, IMHO. You color outside the box by adding new abilities *and restrictions* hand-in-hand so that the cards remain balanced. Adding advantages to some cards without changing anything else is breaking the game. >To be frank, we don't create new disciplines, even to "drum up" money >for our continued sales and revenue. The Design Team is dedicated to >keeping with the World of Darkness as presented by White Wolf. As a >result, you will never see a made up discipline, so long as *I* have >anything to do about it. The AH expansion created two disciplines as far as the card game is concerned. Same with DS. Just because the DT based these new disciplines on source material doesn't change the fact that they now exist where they didn't before (a fair definition of creation). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Bad Track 0. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Why can't you be more Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | like Track 1?

Fellow Players and Our Net-rep, I think I may have added to some confusion when, in my posts, I referred to Ian Forestal as a broken card. That is not a correct statement and I used the term thoughtlessly. As others have pointed out, the feeling seems to be that the card is underpriced for what it does. I don't feel, nor have I read in these threads, that Ian Forestal will break the game. I do think that substantially underpricing a vampire is unfair and a bad idea. To be sure, there are other vampires from the basic set that have all of their clan's basic disciplines at superior for 8 cost (e.g. Tura Vaughan, Ebanezer Roush) or even 7 cost (Gilbert Duane, Sir Walter Nash, Gitane St. Claire.) These vampires are just as apporopriate and useful as Ian Forestal for building a crypt based on their clans' three disciplines. Some of them even have useful titles or powers. So far, so good. But when building decks with skills added in beyond the basic disciplines, those other vampires are generally less useful as they would now probably require a master skill to be able to use the entire library. Or they could be dropped for costlier vampires that may have the needed skills. Ian Forestal doesn't have that problem. Whatever deck concept the player wants his Tremere deck to have, Ian will fit right in. Add in celerity? Use Ian. Need some Presence? Try Ian. How about putting in some Fortitude? Ian will work. He can and will be used by every Tremere deck that wants to add in a discipline, I imagine. I don't see him being contested as much as has been hinted though. Would the Ventrue deck have need of an 8 capacity with only Dominate at superior? Do Brujah want an 8 cost vamp with no superiors? How would an 8 capacity, ani for pro, vamp help the Gangrel? This vamp will only work truly well for the Tremere, and the Malks somewhat, giving them a greater flexibility in adding disciplines to the clan mix. I imagine that he would be rarely if ever seen in any other clan's crypt. For them he would be an 8 cost untitiled vamp with 3 or 4 points of useful skills. Hardly a world beater. What I'm trying to get at is that while I don't think having Ian Forestal in your crypt gives you an advantage during the game, I _do_ believe that having Ian Forestal as an option for your crypt increases the number of discipline combinations you can use and so increases the versatility and range of strategies of a Tremere crypt. No other clan has a one-size-fits-all vamp like Ian. (And I _don't_ want every other clan to get a vamp just like Ian. That is not a solution.) Hope this comes across clear. I'm not certain that my arguement is stated as well as it might be. Please feel free to ask me if something is fuzzy. Keeping an eye on the moon, Doug Dunaway

>...except for the THREE new Disciplines in the Sabbat expansion, that >is. :) What? There are three new disciplines. I thought only Obtenebration and Vicissitude were going to be added. What other one were they going to have? Joseph

James Puzzo wrote: > > Shawn F. Carnes (sw...@castle.wizards.com) wrote: > : Still, we came to our decision based on our own PT and the info > : provided by our playtesters. > > I simply have one question: > > Why was Ian simply not created as a Vampire with all of the disciplines > printed on him? IMHO, the card would be cluttered. It is true that ther are a lot of disciplines in the environment right now. There is also the chance that some new ones would be introduced depending on the future designs for expansions, though I personally will fight against The Daughters of Cacophany/Melpominee with all my heart. ;) The point is this: the ability was designed that, indeed, Ian has the potential to become more powerful still. Admittedly this flies in the face of all the arguments people have broght up against Ian. We *still* think that he's okay. To be honest, however, the chances that we introduce a new discipline are about 65/35 against it. > It seems to me that such a Vampire, costing only eight, would be viewed as > "incorrect". > > However, a Vampire with card text giving him even more power than having > all the printed disciplines is "correct"? That's what we propose. I personally think that the design point system we use gives too much credence to out-of-clan disciplines. Now, I'm not saying they shoulod be for free, heaven's no. I think that they are too expensive as they stand now. Ian is stringer than the average, yes. This, however, is far from incorrect. > It is this dichotomy that makes no sense to me, and leads me to believe that > Ian is "broken" in the sense that he flies in the face of the balance between > cost and ability. I guess, again, the basis is by which value is placed to it. Ian is strong in whatever deck you might think of, but I bet there are more worthwhile additions currently in the environment the further you move away from those decks which use his three superior disciplines as a primary (or his clan). [ quoted text not captured ]

> think that he's okay. To be honest, however, the chances that we > introduce a new discipline are about 65/35 against it. ...except for the THREE new Disciplines in the Sabbat expansion, that is. :) > That's what we propose. I personally think that the design point system > we use gives too much credence to out-of-clan disciplines. Now, I'm not > saying they shoulod be for free, heaven's no. I think that they are too > expensive as they stand now. I agree heavily. One of the main problem I currently see is that Camarilla decks have the distinct advantage of more useful vampires. It is very hard to construct a Good Settite or Ravnos deck because there are still fewer less than 15 vamps for any of the 4 NC clans and those vampires (because of the new expansions' tendency to assign non-clan Disciplines) have a lot of useless points. The useless points wouldn't be nearly so bad if there were more vampires in the underpopulated clans with strictly in-clan Disciplines. Chris Barnhart --- http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/

I don't think Ian Forestal is an overpowered card at all. The best use for Ian will be in a newbie's deck consisting of two starters. How many of you actually use 4 or more disciplines in a deck? Eric deRuiter sXe

In article <503201$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> almal...@aol.com (AlmaLadron) writes: > >>...except for the THREE new Disciplines in the Sabbat expansion, that >>is. :) > >What? There are three new disciplines. I thought only Obtenebration and >Vicissitude were going to be added. What other one were they going to >have? Hopefully, Dementation. > >Joseph -- -- Nyarlathotep : The Crawling Chaos

> What? There are three new disciplines. I thought only Obtenebration and > Vicissitude were going to be added. What other one were they going to > have? Dementate, the discipline of choice among Malkavian antitribu and really old Malkies (Vampire: the Dark Ages). Way back when, the Malkies had their own Discipline, but as the modern era crept about, more Malkies knew Dominate than Dementate, so the clans Disciplines changed. The Malkies of the Sabbat, however, mostly still practiced Dementate. Dementate is the Discipline of madness. At a glance, the Malky on the bus knows your phobias. Then you see something out of the corner of your eye. You father is sitting next to you, covered in blood. But just as you turn your head to get a better look, he's gone. For weeks, some of the most frightening things keep crawling around the corners of your eyes. You stop to give a stranger a quarter when he asks how your father's been. Frightened and incredulous, you ask, "Huh?" So he explains something, but you can't remember what. It stopped making sence all of the sudden. The world stopped making sense. The world made perfect sense? Well, regardless, you picked up about a half dozen derrangements that night as the derelect explained something... what was he saying anyway? Nothing makes any sense anymore. Where am I anyway and what's this doll doing in my pocket? Are you my dolly? Oh! You can talk! How wonderful! You... you want me to do what? Kill who? But I digress. ;) It's my guess that the Camarilla Malkavians found the effects of Dementate too taxing on their Humanity. Btw, from what I've seen of the Sabbat expansion (I attended a preview at Dragon*Con in Atlanta, where I met Shawn and Darius Styx) it looks GREAT! Hey Shawn, why don't you share your story about the 700 Club! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> That's what we propose. I personally think that the design point > system we use gives too much credence to out-of-clan disciplines. > Now, I'm not saying they shoulod be for free, heaven's no. I > think that they are too expensive as they stand now. Hmm... I am and I'm not sure that I agree with this. I agree, since it would make deck strategies that rely on disciplines that no clan has all of (eg. For/Pro/Dom/Obf S&B) more viable, but would it make them _too_ viable? Look at Ilyena, an AH Gangrel. She is 7 FOR PRO DOM tha (Contracts can't be played on her.) She has 3 out of clan disciplines. Should she cost 6? Well, then I think she would be too good. A suggestion: Try changing the point system to Inf. in-clan discipline: 1 pt. Inf. OoC discipline: 0.5 pt. Sup. in-clan discipline: 2 pts. Sup. OoC discipline: 1.5 pts. But this still says Ilyena should cost 6. Hmm... when I have a chance, I'll try it with a bunch of different vamps. and see... [ quoted text not captured ]

> >...except for the THREE new Disciplines in the Sabbat expansion, that > >is. :) > > What? There are three new disciplines. I thought only Obtenebration and > Vicissitude were going to be added. What other one were they going to > have? Dementate: the Malkavian antitribu Discipline that was the Malky clan Discipline way back when, before lots of Malkies learned Dominate. It drives others insane, essentially. Expect weird combat cards (Coma: spend 3 blood, send other vamp to torpor) and other random weirdness. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Dementate: the Malkavian antitribu Discipline that was the Malky clan >Discipline way back when, before lots of Malkies learned Dominate. It >drives others insane, essentially. Expect weird combat cards (Coma: >spend 3 blood, send other vamp to torpor) and other random weirdness. It's called Dementation. I have the PLayer's Guide to the Sabbat, and have read about it. I didn't know that they were making Malkavian antitribu in the Sabbat. I'm definately looking forward to that =o) Joseph

AlmaLadron wrote: > >...except for the THREE new Disciplines in the Sabbat expansion, that > >is. :) > > What? There are three new disciplines. I thought only Obtenebration and > Vicissitude were going to be added. What other one were they going to > have? The discipline is called Dementation and it is Malkavian. It replaces Dominate. Dementation is a discipline Malkavians originally had (in the Dark Ages) and that the Sabbat Malkavians perpetuate. -- >>> Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull goose loony here?" --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

The Corrupter wrote: > > Obviously, we've done playtesting. While you (and anyone else, for that > > fact) may disagree with the card, our playtesters through extensive PT > > didn't have a problem with it. Believe me when I say the following: > > Ian is a card we kept a very close eye on. We think it is not broken, > > and we stand by it. > > That's funny. I was told somethin altogether different by the WotC > playtesters I talked to (they didn't like the card). If this is true, then I sure wish they had told us. As far as I know, there was no negative feedback from all the PT groups. This, to quasi-defend your info, Corrupter, only goes so far as I know. Maybe someone did object. Still, I never heard one word of objection, and if there was objection, I wish I had; we rely on the PT info (in conjunction with our own development) to make those decisions. > The biggest arguement is simple: While he may not use _all_ the > disciplines, neither do many of the bigger vamps, yet they still pay for > their abilities. The power behind the big vamps isn't necessarily the > abilities you use, but the abilities you _could_ use. > > As Tom said, just because a card will be unique (and thus contested if a > good card) doesn't mean it should be too cheap for its powers. Basing this on cards 8 and up, which Ian falls into, I again bring up the point that out-of-clan disciplines may cost too much in design. I would think that a majority--not all--of the vamps with high costs and extra, out-of-clan disciplines associated with them are paying the bulk of their cost in their ability, not disciplines. If a vamp has the ability to deal aggravated damage instead of normal, that's a huge swing than having two, three, or even four levels extra disciplines. Our contention is this--the ability Ian has compensates for the bulk of points he would have had in respect to an ability like aggravated damage, plus the extra points invested into the extra disciplines. It basically comes down to design philosophy, and that's how Ian was made. > I guess I am just shocked that the design team basicly wants to give Ian > the inferior of every discipline for almost nothing. Appropriate card > costs are important to a game like Jyhad. This is not Magic. It was > designed with NL in mind. If this continues, eventually NL will break. > One of the only good CL arguements is that if the Design Team continues > to mess up again and again, eventually NL will die from lack of a > balanced structure. I counter that Ian ability is *not* at almost nothing, but rather the disciplines are the ability cost. I further offer this: Build a deck around him, or involving him. Add multiples, proxy whatever card you need--his stats are in the Duelist. Compare him to the other vamps in play. Now, without any set-up on the establishment of the test, give the deck to someone else to play with and watch their initial reaction to Ian. Then, watch their reaction as he uses him in a game. I hypothesize that the initial reaction will be much like the one on the group currently, while after the test their opinion will be considerably less drastic against the costing of the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: > Hey Shawn, why don't you share your story about the 700 Club! :) > = > Mr. Pynk Oh, I can neither confirm nor deny that the info on the 700 Club was true. ;) Seriously, my story was that, one day as I was channel surfing at home, I came across the 700 Club doing an expos=E9 on the incident that occured= down in Virginia where a man was the head of a "cult" of self-styled "vampires". (All things in quotes are taken loosely.) Anyway, they started showing V:TES stuff amongst a backdrop of things spooky and macabe, talking about the dangers of such. My first thought when I saw it was, "Cool--free advertising for V:TES!" = Ever since, I keep a vague eye on the 700 Club, and they have been using V:TES as stock footage on such matters that they talk about. And that, my friends, is the story. (Did I get everything?) -- = >>> Shawn F. Carnes = [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ericder-2808...@news.fast.net>, eri...@fast.net says... [ quoted text not captured ] Hi. I do. I always have. My Malk S & B deck uses Presence along with the other Malk powers. Malk Combat uses Celerity along with the other powers. It's not that hard, and can be a real boost sometimes. Ian just makes bizzarre tricks even nastier than they are already(and Bizzare Tremere decks especially). Ian, (degenerate and overpowered as he is) is going into my friend's Tremere deck, which is designed to prove exactly how overpowered and unbalanced most of the new Tremere and Tremere cards make the game enviroment. It's got Spiridonas, Muaziz, Ankara Citadel, Seeds of Corruption, and blood to water NOW. With Ian, (and the expected Shotgun Rituals, and any other Tremere who seems overpowered or appropriate from Sabbat) I think that it may get even more nauseating to play than it already is...(Tomb of Rameses Spiridonas. Give him Superior Obfuscate. Elder Impersonation(with a seduction if you absolutely must). Bye Bye Prey....) But anyway, about multiple discipline decks, I can think of at least four Tremere decks which will love Ian, along with a set of Malkavian decks. Oh, and my friend's Auspex/Obfuscate/Chimerestry deck will be getting a boost too..maybe it'll actually become feasible.(hey, he's the best vamp for it except Francois, okay?). Alec Chang

In article <32260E...@castle.wizards.com>, sw...@castle.wizards.com says... > >The Corrupter wrote: >> The biggest arguement is simple: While he may not use _all_ the >> disciplines, neither do many of the bigger vamps, yet they still pay for >> their abilities. The power behind the big vamps isn't necessarily the >> abilities you use, but the abilities you _could_ use. >> >> As Tom said, just because a card will be unique (and thus contested if a >> good card) doesn't mean it should be too cheap for its powers. > >Basing this on cards 8 and up, which Ian falls into, I again bring up >the point that out-of-clan disciplines may cost too much in design. I >would think that a majority--not all--of the vamps with high costs and >extra, out-of-clan disciplines associated with them are paying the bulk >of their cost in their ability, not disciplines. Hmm? How do you figure? There are a heck of a lot of vamps in the basic set who seem to spend most of their points on disciplines(mainly out of clan, one might note), instead of their abilities. And when they do have more points invested in the abilitiesm, their abilities aren't always the greatest. As an example of one who has points in Disciplines, Roxanne springs to mind, as does Marty Lechtansi. Helena Casimir, Thomas Thorne, and the other vampires who pay the points for their out of clans all exist... and have been somewhat obseleted by the vampires from the expansions which seem obviously better/more flexible. Thomas hasn't been used around here in a Tremere deck in a looong time...(They have Muaziz and Spiridonas to play with, after all). There are other vampires, of course, who seem overpowered due to their cheapness of out of clan disciplines AND the magnitude of their powers. Francois Villon, anyone? The vampire of Choice for the discerning Toreador. Also, he seems to be 13 or 14 points for 10 capacity... and I've never seen a Toreador deck which uses large vamps ignore him yet. >If a vamp has the ability to deal aggravated damage instead of normal, >that's a huge swing than having two, three, or even four levels extra >disciplines. Our contention is this--the ability Ian has compensates >for the bulk of points he would have had in respect to an ability like >aggravated damage, plus the extra points invested into the extra >disciplines. Aggs Hand damage tends to cost at least two points(Basilia seems to spend 2 and 1/2 for it). I tend to use the vampires who have the extra disciplines in more diverse and variant decks due to their flexibility; and I'd never pay 10 pool just for someone who does aggs hand damage, unless they used at least 3 different disciplines that I've got in my deck(Maybe 2 if they're both at superior, but..). The sheer investment needed to bring out Thetmes or Basillia is enormous. Ian(who should never, never be considered for aggs hand damage, just like no one below 10 should be considered without a REAL good reason), is a lot easier to bring out, and gives added flexibility to any deck which uses enough varied powers to want him. Oh, and why keep on making 5 capacities who are underpowered, like Vittorio Giovanni, who have 4 points in powers when Ian gets 14 disciplines for free? The poor 5 capacities are reduced to being semi-wallpaper except in more specialized decks(usually built around them), while Ian gives out-of clan flexibility a new lease on life. No, he's not a gamebreaker. Just untenable, especially when you say that out of clans should cost less, and then short some smaller vampires points in disciplines, while simultaneously making several of the larger vampires in the basic set obselete by saying that since out of clan powers should cost less, they pay too much for them as opposed to the newer, better(and from perspective of game stability and balance, degenerate) vampires which lace the expansions. >It basically comes down to design philosophy, and that's how Ian was >made. > >> I guess I am just shocked that the design team basicly wants to give Ian >> the inferior of every discipline for almost nothing. Appropriate card >> costs are important to a game like Jyhad. This is not Magic. It was >> designed with NL in mind. If this continues, eventually NL will break. >> One of the only good CL arguements is that if the Design Team continues >> to mess up again and again, eventually NL will die from lack of a >> balanced structure. > >I counter that Ian ability is *not* at almost nothing, but rather the >disciplines are the ability cost. I further offer this: > >Build a deck around him, or involving him. Add multiples, proxy >whatever card you need--his stats are in the Duelist. Compare him to >the other vamps in play. Now, without any set-up on the establishment >of the test, give the deck to someone else to play with and watch their >initial reaction to Ian. Then, watch their reaction as he uses him in a >game. We will. The Gauntlet is taken up. Ian Forestal and all the other Degenerate Tremere deck, here we come... >I hypothesize that the initial reaction will be much like the one on the >group currently, while after the test their opinion will be considerably >less drastic against the costing of the card. Well, we'll have to do some experimenting to see, now won't we? Alec Chang.

In article <5066h2$j...@mochi.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: > Hi. I do. I always have. My Malk S & B deck uses Presence along with > the other Malk powers. Malk Combat uses Celerity along with the other > powers. It's not that hard, and can be a real boost sometimes. Ian just > makes bizzarre tricks even nastier than they are already(and Bizzare > Tremere decks especially). > > Ian, (degenerate and overpowered as he is) is going into my friend's > Tremere deck, which is designed to prove exactly how overpowered and > unbalanced most of the new Tremere and Tremere cards make the game > enviroment. It's got Spiridonas, Muaziz, Ankara Citadel, Seeds of > Corruption, and blood to water NOW. With Ian, (and the expected Shotgun > Rituals, and any other Tremere who seems overpowered or appropriate from > Sabbat) I think that it may get even more nauseating to play than it > already is...(Tomb of Rameses Spiridonas. Give him Superior Obfuscate. > Elder Impersonation(with a seduction if you absolutely must). Bye Bye > Prey....) I agree that the Tremere are the most powerful clan in the game, but I don't think it's because of Ian, or any of the vampires in particular. The ones that have really good abilites usually have out of clan disciplines / are missing in clan disciplines. Tremere intercept combat w/ a little dominate is a very effective strategy that is easy to pull off. I don't think any other strategy in the game can get around it. > But anyway, about multiple discipline decks, I can think of at least four > Tremere decks which will love Ian, along with a set of Malkavian decks. > Oh, and my friend's Auspex/Obfuscate/Chimerestry deck will be getting a > boost too..maybe it'll actually become feasible.(hey, he's the best vamp > for it except Francois, okay?). I don't see puting him in any of my current decks. I may use him in the future though, I don't know. Eric deRuiter sXe

>Just because the DT based these new disciplines on source material doesn't >change the fact that they now exist where they didn't before (a fair >definition of creation). Creation means making something that didn't exist before. Those disciplines had been around in the V:tM game for a while. Unless WotC starts making Bloodlines, I don't expect to see anymore disciplines(except the Sabbat ones). Joseph

> > Hey Shawn, why don't you share your story about the 700 Club! :) > > And that, my friends, is the story. (Did I get everything?) The story I heard (second-hand from a friend of mine at the Sabbat preview at GenCon) was more interesting... I was under the impression that the 700 Club had specifically targeted V:tES for a "this is what your kids are playing and why you should burn the cards" story. I was also under the impression that you had this on tape and that the DT sat around and watched it, giggling like school-girls. :) (Btw, who is J. Wilder, a.k.a. Jessica?) [ quoted text not captured ]

Malcolm McCallum wrote: > >... > In all the decks that I've ever seen, 3 disciplines are all > that are used. >... Then there are many decks that you have not seen. Decks which use 4 or more disciplines are a little bit harder to build/play, but usually they will center around a "perfect vampire", i.e. one that has all of the right abilities. The point is that Ian is _the_ perfect vampire, and is not priced highly enough for such an honor. > ... > The > effect of this is to increase the liklihood that the Tremere will be > contested. Contesting, now that there have been two expansions, is fast becoming a non-issue. There are now so many vampires that contesting probably won't happen unless two people are playing similar clans/decks. Ian, I am sure, will likely be contested because of his "perfection". That is, as I see it, his only drawback; that, like all vampires, he is unique. > *Because* he can use any ability, Ian will be the > vampire most likely to be targetted for take over by your opponent ... > He is a liability. Vampire stealing is also (virtually) a non-issue. The only ways a vampire can be stolen against your will (as far as I know) Hostile Takeover, Temptation of Greater Power and Serpentis stuff (Corruption). The first two only work if you have little pool and the last certainly works, but serpentis corruption is really slow and inefficient. > Also, I am not fond of the 'point system' argument. From a purely players > point of view, there is no point system. It ain't in the rules. As soon > as every character starts fitting neatly into a formula the game will > become equally as formulaic. Sure there is. The rules do not necessarily have to be concrete, but a standard has been set. What if WotC printed any of the following: Cap 2 DOM OBF +1 bleed Cap 4 POT CEL FOR +1 hand damage Cap 5 AUS CEL PRE +1 intercept on all actions Point system aside, all of these vampires would be _way, way, way_ too powerful (as compared with Ian, who is simply too powerful). The point system exists, and it exists in the card games I play (Jyhad and Shadowfist). Take a look at the point system, and look at how it conforms to the regular edition Jyhad vampires. Every vampire (with few exceptions) conforms to this system, and, if they don't, they are close. Newer vampires from DS and AH have been either overpowered (Antoinette DuChamp, Francois Villon, etc.) or underpowered (Faruq, Murat, etc.) _simply because_ they do not conform to the standards set by the original vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ericder-3008...@news.fast.net>, Eric deRuiter <eri...@fast.net> wrote: >Tremere intercept combat >w/ a little dominate is a very effective strategy that is easy to pull >off. I don't think any other strategy in the game can get around it. I beg to differ. Pretty much any other combat clan (Gangrel, Brujah, Assamite) is at least on a par with, if not superior to, the Tremere. Brujah in particular can mete out severe punishment in the first round, staying at range with Celerity to dole out Potence pain. Can't press and Walk from torpor. Rush decks in general hose intercept combat because the intercept jams the Tremere's hand. Bruise & Bleed is perhaps a better role for a Trem deck, leaving Intercept/Run Away for the Toreador. Intercept combat, on the other hand, is very effective versus vote and bleed, or equipment-based combat (barring Disguised/Concealed Weapons). gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

[ quoted text not captured ] Tremere first round is better than second round. My friend uses flak jacket and burst of sunlight, sometimes w/ thoughts betrayed. What can they do against that? Eric deRuiter sXe

In article <ericder-0109...@news.fast.net>, Eric deRuiter <eri...@fast.net> wrote: >In article <50ao9r$e...@shellx.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: [tremere invincibility in intercept/combat discussed] >Tremere first round is better than second round. My friend uses flak >jacket and burst of sunlight, sometimes w/ thoughts betrayed. What can >they do against that? Kiss of Ra trumps TB if your Trem friend's playing Intercept. You can block the Flak Jackets as they come out. You can Rush the folks without Flak Jackets. You can (if he runs out of TB) steal the Flak Jackets, often with First Strike (or destroy them for that matter). My Setite deck, which is pretty much resigned to early and frequent torpor as a standard operating environment, frequently manages free +3 stealth rescues from torpor (Humanitas + Catacombs) while doing its thing. Thoughts Betrayed is incredibly blood intensive, and that many Flak Jackets effectively make each of your vampires 1 pool more expensive. It's ugly, but no uglier than a good Brujah deck. gomi and thoughts betrayed is a broken, misdesigned thing, anyway [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <50cnj8$s...@shellx.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > Kiss of Ra trumps TB if your Trem friend's playing Intercept. You can block > the Flak Jackets as they come out. You can Rush the folks without Flak > Jackets. You can (if he runs out of TB) steal the Flak Jackets, often > with First Strike (or destroy them for that matter). Kiss of Ra is definetely very good, but the ways to get around this deck are still few and far between (the steal equipment is definetely another). If he doesn't have the flak jackets he will use a different attack or get them out of torpor with the chantry. I realize flak jackets can be intercepted, but my point was that intercept was very strong and couldn't be gotten around by many ways other than other intercept. Also, I think intercept is very good for many other clans, but Tremere do it best. I might have to try a malk intercept deck w/ disguised weapon... > My Setite deck, which is pretty much resigned to early and frequent > torpor as a standard operating environment, frequently manages free > +3 stealth rescues from torpor (Humanitas + Catacombs) while doing > its thing. He regularly gets upwards of 6 or 7 intercept. And he doesn't give you many chances to get out - he has grave robbing. > Thoughts Betrayed is incredibly blood intensive, and that many Flak > Jackets effectively make each of your vampires 1 pool more expensive. > It's ugly, but no uglier than a good Brujah deck. His vamps are rather small (If I see Dr. John Casey one more time...), but w/ skill cards he usually has quite a few vamps w/ superior disciplines. > and thoughts betrayed is a broken, misdesigned thing, anyway I think it is worth the two blood, but not that overly powerful. Eric deRuiter sXe

In article <ericder-0109...@news.fast.net>, Eric deRuiter <eri...@fast.net> wrote: >In article <50cnj8$s...@shellx.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: [Thoughts Betrayed/Trem Intercept Combat discussion] >... my point was that intercept was very strong and >couldn't be gotten around by many ways other than other intercept. I see; I thought we were talking about Trem Intercept Combat in particular, rathern than intercept strategies in general. Intercept alone never ousted anyone, however. Intercept combat's a strong strategy, but it's significantly more vulnerable to handjam than Rush, and its reactive nature makes for game stagnation if two of these face off in the endgame ("you take an action. No, you take one.") Zero stealth actions will clog the intercepting Methuselah's hand with intercept he can't get rid of, which will seriously hose him in combat. >Also, I think intercept is very good for many other clans, but Tremere do >it best. I might have to try a malk intercept deck w/ disguised weapon... The best intercept/combat mix is, to my mind, a tossup between Tremere and Ravnos. A Malk disguised weapon deck (i'm playing one these days) is lots of fun; the trick is to get the ratios right (which is true for any deck design, but I've found this design more finicky than most). >> My Setite deck, which is pretty much resigned to early and frequent >> torpor as a standard operating environment, frequently manages free >> +3 stealth rescues from torpor (Humanitas + Catacombs) while doing >> its thing. > >He regularly gets upwards of 6 or 7 intercept. And he doesn't give you >many chances to get out - he has grave robbing. Do note that +3 stealth is the base stealth of the action, before we get into Obfuscate; additionally, Elder Impersonation kind of hoses Intercept in general. But, yeah, a kickass stealth deck should have approximately a 50% win ratio to a kickass intercept deck ("win" as in getting an action through in a stealth/intercept contest, that is). >> Thoughts Betrayed is incredibly blood intensive, and that many Flak >> Jackets effectively make each of your vampires 1 pool more expensive. >> It's ugly, but no uglier than a good Brujah deck. > >His vamps are rather small (If I see Dr. John Casey one more time...), but >w/ skill cards he usually has quite a few vamps w/ superior disciplines. If the vamps are small, they'll run out of blood that much faster then, no? >> and thoughts betrayed is a broken, misdesigned thing, anyway > >I think it is worth the two blood, but not that overly powerful. It's pretty ugly in a Trem deck. I'd up the cost by a blood, or (better) restrict its effect to the first round. Better still are some other fixes proposed on this group (see LSJ's House Rules Compendium). gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric, I don't use more than three disciplines in any of my decks but the weird thing is, if my vampires have more than those three disciplines on them I still have to pay the pool cost for those unused disciplines in order to bring them out. Why doesn't Mr. Ian Forestal require that kind of influence? Doug Dunaway

>>> and thoughts betrayed is a broken, misdesigned thing, anyway >> >>I think it is worth the two blood, but not that overly powerful. >It's pretty ugly in a Trem deck. I'd up the cost by a blood, or (better) >restrict its effect to the first round. Better still are some other fixes >proposed on this group (see LSJ's House Rules Compendium). >> I thoroughly agree. I particularly like the restrict it to the 1st round only modification. Now try to get the WotC errata team to pen it down....so its official. I sick of going up against tremere decks with ten "thoughts betrayed" and ten "traps" and a wholes schtick of steal blood cards and aggravated damage cards....and intercept. Everytime my vamps are in combat they get burned in combat with them doing nothing in return. Rotschreks and Legacy of power are good ways to counter them but ONLY if you HAVE more than ONE of each. These cards seem so rare And everyone who by some fluke has them clings to them as if they're ivory bows or something. "the ghost who walks"

In article <krtaxe01.8...@scilab.uct.ac.za>, krta...@scilab.uct.ac.za (Eric Knight) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] With 4cl, it isn't overpowered. Nothing in 4cl is overpowered since they can run out of them / they can't be certain they will have one at all times. Of course it also makes the game more interesting, as you pointed out above. We play rotschrek as sending the defending vamp to torpor, as it was intended. Eric deRuiter sXe

In article <50ejur$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, doug...@aol.com (DOUGDWISE) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Doug I don't see him as having all of the disciplines. I see him as having a special power that allows him to use disciplines he doesn't have. Yes, it is functionally the same thing, but there are better special abilites in the game. For example, see Wynn, Arika, Mariel - Lady Thunder, Anson, Black Cat, Nikolaus Vermeulen, and Muaziz - Archon of Ulugh Beg to name just one from each camarilla clan. Besides, if he is as great as everyone claims he is, then everyone will be contesting him and it won't matter. Eric deRuiter sXe

In article <ericder-0209...@news.fast.net>, eri...@fast.net says... [ quoted text not captured ] This point has been gone over and nullified already. Even if a vampire was the greatest thing since sliced bread(Say a hypothetical vampire who is 4 capacity with +1 bleed +1 hand damage, 2 votes, and three points in disciplines you choose), they will not be contested ALL of the time due to the fact that people won't always get him in their opening uncontrolled region, and WILL be an overpowered card regardless if someone is using them in a way which exhibits their overpowered nature. The issue is NOT whether Ian will be contested to high heaven(honestly, the only chance I see of that is between off-beat Tremere and Malk decks or other decks designed to exploit{and I do mean exploit} his power) but whether in a game sense his ability will set a precedent for even more ignoring the point system in creating vampires for further expansions, and thus shake up the balance and basic assumptions and systems of the game even more than they have been already by cards like( insert your personal list here; I've got mine) Muaziz, Spiridonas, Archon Investigation, Thoughts Betrayed, The Tomb of Rameses, etc.... Basically, the point is not and would never be that Ian will completely dominate the game; there is too much variety in deck construction for that to ever happen. What I (at least) am saying, is that the distinction between Ian 'having' all the disciplines and 'haivng a special power which lets him use all the disciplines' is moot. There is only one card in the entire game which will hinge in it's functionality on that distinction. That's all. In all other ways, Ian can be considered to have gotten 14 points in disciplines for two points. Or, if you want to look at it another way, Ian pays 8 for 20 points in disciplines. That comes out to 2.5 points in disciplines per point spent by the vampire. So, now I can pay (4 for 10 points in disciplines, 2 for +2 bleed, 2 for Inner Circle, 0 for special ability=8) only 8 pool for Arika, bringing her out my second turn, and Bleeding my prey to pieces. And if I can't, by Ian's standard(which had damn well not become the norm in any way), all other vampires are outdated, underclassed, and a great deal of them are rendered obselete. Except for cards which were mistakes in the first place, this game should not be making anything obselete or useless. Raven, the only vampire to be replaced, IS Camille Devereaux. This should say something; namely, that the vampires in the basic set were made along distinctly drawn and very balanced lines. Ian, and a growing number of vampires in the expansions, are not. Alec Chang

A bit off topic, But I eagerly await the gods of Intercept, the Tzimisce. With both Auspex and Animalism, nothing will get by them. I hope Viscisitude(sp) is done well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Malcolm McCallum (mcca...@pacificcoast.net) wrote: : People seem to be looking at this in a skewed manner. When a vampire is : dropped into a deck, he is put in for his special abilities or his : disciplines. True. And Ian has every discipline. : In all the decks that I've ever seen, 3 disciplines are all : that are used. In decks that _you've_ seen. First off, I have seen effective decks using more than 3 disciplines. Secondly, with vampires like Ian (I see him as setting a disturbing precedent) these multi-discipline decks become far more easy to pull off. : To try to use 4 is to risk not getting the correctly disciplined : vampires out. If you get Ian out, you have no worries. Put three of him in a crypt of 12 and you're relatively certain you'll get him. At a cost of 8, you get assurance AND versatility for quite a low cost. Hmmm. : Ian may change this, especially if there are other vampires coming : out with related abilities, but I expect not. I think you underestimate the power of precedent if you do not think that these underpriced vampires will become more common. And his existence has already changed the balance by making these multi-discipline focus decks more workable. : Don't think of Ian as having every discipline. Aside from the fact that he actually has every discipline, is there a good reason not to? :( : Think of him as having only those disciplines that you want for your : deck because that is the only way that the cost matters. But the fact that the SAME vampire can be used in MULTIPLE discipline strategies would seem to me to make him _more_ valuable. : Also, it is not a card that specifically benefits Tremere. Whether it benefits the Tremere or not is moot. I argue against the precedent of severely underpricing a minion. : If anything, it hoses them a bit. Pray tell. : For example, I can now think about including Ian in my Giovanni deck : since he has obfuscate, dominate, and necromancy. As well, I can : throw in some tremere sites. The effect of this is to increase the : liklihood that the Tremere will be contested. So the Tremere aren't especially happy. But think of it from the Giovanni side... they now have the ability to use a vampire with all of their disciplines at inferior... PLUS the ability to utilize (or contest!!) unique Tremere locations, etc. The fact that he can be utilized as a Tremere hozer AND can be used effectively in any discipline strategy should increase his value. : Here's another take: *Because* he can use any ability, Ian will be the : vampire most likely to be targetted for take over by your opponent and : when he is taken, he will be more of a boon to your opponent than any : other vampire. Therefore, should his cost not be less? He is a liability. The likelyhood of contestation should NOT _decrease_ the value of ANYTHING. If anything, this likelyhood indicates that a resource is quite valuable indeed. I argue that such a valuable resource (which is SO likely to be contested) should cost more in the first place. To state that a truly prized possession should be undervalued because many others will want it seems to be counter-intuitive. : Also, I am not fond of the 'point system' argument. From a purely players : point of view, there is no point system. How about a game background argument? That a Tremere whose special skills seem to be related to arcane matters should cost him blood? How about the contestation argument? That a card that appears to be a highly contestable is probably undervalued? : It ain't in the rules. Finally, there is nothing in the rules that states that there can't be a card which states: "Unique Master. When played, the playing Meth's prey is immediately ousted. The playing Meth. gains ALL of the prey's pool, as well as the bonus for ousting his prey". However, the fairness of this card with respect to card balance and game mechanics is suspect, wouldn't you say? The DESIGN of the game is not solely based on the rule set. The PLAY of the game is. I question the DESIGN of Ian. That is INDEPENDENT of the rules. : As soon as every character starts fitting neatly into a formula the : game will become equally as formulaic. And as soon as every character is overpowered and underpriced the game will no longer be Jyhad, which was one of the few games which exhibited careful thought for game balance. : Sit back. Chill out. Have some faith. I've been sitting back. I'm about as chilled as I can be. The faith bit is the hard part, because while it seems that our arguments against the design of Ian are being heard, I don't think they are being _listened_ to. -spongy

Eric deRuiter (eri...@fast.net) wrote: : In article <50ejur$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, doug...@aol.com : (DOUGDWISE) wrote: : > Eric, : > I don't use more than three disciplines in any of my decks but the weird : > thing is, if my vampires have more than those three disciplines on them I : > still have to pay the pool cost for those unused disciplines in order to : > bring them out. Why doesn't Mr. Ian Forestal require that kind of : > influence? : > Doug Dunaway : I don't see him as having all of the disciplines. I see him as having a : special power that allows him to use disciplines he doesn't have. Yes, it : is functionally the same thing, but there are better special abilites in : the game. For example, see Wynn, Arika, Mariel - Lady Thunder, Anson, : Black Cat, Nikolaus Vermeulen, and Muaziz - Archon of Ulugh Beg to name : just one from each camarilla clan. But that's just it... the ability is EXACTLY the same as having each of the disciplines. To take Black Cat for an example: if you have a 2 point vampire with no disciplines, would you rather have Black Cat's special ability (spend one less blood for equipping), or Ian's (get inferior in every discipline)? The special ability is far more powerful than any other in the game, and IMHO he needs some sort of fix. : Besides, if he is as great as everyone claims he is, then everyone will be : contesting him and it won't matter. See some previously stated (and far more elegant than I can put together :D) arguments for the above. : Eric deRuiter Kevin -- Kevin Donnelly----------------------------------------------------- Protector of Damsels in Distress, Lover of Ladies Fair, Tech Student "Never tell me the odds!" -- Han Solo gt2...@prism.gatech.edu vap...@prism.gatech.edu

As James says, just make this new Tremere pay 1 blood to use this special ability of his. That would end all objections to him I suspect. It makes sense from a balance aspect that he should have to have at least some cost associated with him. I will grant that he would likely not be overly popular at 8 blood with that restriction. Doug Dunaway

[ quoted text not captured ] I wish you well. The Tzimisce are interesting characters. Unfortunately, (this brings this post back to the original topic) since the Tzimisce were the original Thaumaturgy clan, there might be a 7 cap. Tzimisce with Aus, Tha, ani, dom, and special ability. (Hey, since the Assamites have Tha, why shouldn't the Tzimisce. See Kalinda.) I hope not. Vicissitude beats the hell out of Thaumaturgy, especially on Tzimisce.

On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > James Puzzo wrote: > > I simply have one question: > > Why was Ian simply not created as a Vampire with all of the disciplines > > printed on him? > IMHO, the card would be cluttered. Agreed. > It is true that ther are a lot of > disciplines in the environment right now. [snip] > The point is this: the ability was designed that, indeed, Ian has the > potential to become more powerful still. Admittedly this flies in the > face of all the arguments people have broght up against Ian. We *still* > think that he's okay. To be honest, however, the chances that we > introduce a new discipline are about 65/35 against it. Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. > > It seems to me that such a Vampire, costing only eight, would be viewed as > > "incorrect". > > However, a Vampire with card text giving him even more power than having > > all the printed disciplines is "correct"? > That's what we propose. I personally think that the design point system > we use gives too much credence to out-of-clan disciplines. Now, I'm not > saying they shoulod be for free, heaven's no. I think that they are too > expensive as they stand now. > Ian is stringer than the average, yes. This, however, is far from > incorrect. How can he be argued to be "correct" then? It makes no sense to me that appropriate cost should be thrown out the window for an underpriced vampire under the belief that his contestation and the inability to use _all_ of his powers somehow balances things out. He would be correct if he had to play blood for his power or if he didn't gain the superior immediately upon playing a skill card upon him. > > It is this dichotomy that makes no sense to me, and leads me to believe that > > Ian is "broken" in the sense that he flies in the face of the balance between > > cost and ability. > I guess, again, the basis is by which value is placed to it. Ian is > strong in whatever deck you might think of, but I bet there are more > worthwhile additions currently in the environment the further you move > away from those decks which use his three superior disciplines as a > primary (or his clan). Whether this is true or not is immaterial. In most presence-only decks, Rake is better than Sir Walter Nash, but that doesn't mean that Sir Walter Nash would be justifiable as a 6 capacity vampire (after all, I'm only using presence). [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Eric deRuiter wrote: > krta...@scilab.uct.ac.za (Eric Knight) wrote: [>> Re: overpowered Thoughts Betrayed deck] > With 4cl, it isn't overpowered. Nothing in 4cl is overpowered since they > can run out of them / they can't be certain they will have one at all > times. Of course it also makes the game more interesting, as you pointed > out above. Nothing is overpowered? :) That's relatively laughable. Let me point you to Judith and Mark's Jyhad page (follow the link from my page (URL in .sig)) for Numerous deconstructions of the brokenness of 4CL (which to date, have yet to be answered successfully). Try NL/GT. I still have a $50 dollar offer to the first person to be able to come up with a degenerate deck in that environment. In 4CL, I wouldn't wager a dime on a similar offer. I'd be sure to loss it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > People seem to be looking at this in a skewed manner. When a vampire is > dropped into a deck, he is put in for his special abilities or his > disciplines. In all the decks that I've ever seen, 3 disciplines are all > that are used. To try to use 4 is to risk not getting the correctly > disciplined vampires out. Ian may change this, especially if there are > other vampires coming out with related abilities, but I expect not. The cost, however, is not based on the abilities that a vampire uses in a deck, but its flexibility that comes from its ability to be in a varied number of decks. > Don't think of Ian as having every discipline. Think of him as having > only those disciplines that you want for your deck because that is the > only way that the cost matters. Also, it is not a card that specifically > benefits Tremere. If anything, it hoses them a bit. For example, I can > now think about including Ian in my Giovanni deck since he has obfuscate, > dominate, and necromancy. As well, I can throw in some tremere sites. Not a likely occurence. Unless he comes out, the Giovanni deck will be at a liability (unless it includes impersonations). > The > effect of this is to increase the liklihood that the Tremere will be > contested. Contesting shouldn't be the limiting factor of a unique card. Appropriate cost should. If someone doesn't contest him (likely)... > Here's another take: *Because* he can use any ability, Ian will be the > vampire most likely to be targetted for take over by your opponent and > when he is taken, he will be more of a boon to your opponent than any > other vampire. Therefore, should his cost not be less? He is a liability. So is Arika a liability? She can be stolen and having her stolen would cause a huge power swing. > Also, I am not fond of the 'point system' argument. From a purely players > point of view, there is no point system. It ain't in the rules. As soon > as every character starts fitting neatly into a formula the game will > become equally as formulaic. Was the original Jyhad set formulaic (alluded to as boring?)? I don't think it was boring or rigid, and yet it fit the formula for nearly all of its vampires. > Sit back. Chill out. Have some faith. I lost my faith some time ago. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be > contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If > you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. How is that "weak"? Btw, maybe it's just me, but is anyone else getting annoyed by netizens telling the design team that some card they've designed is "wrong"? After much repitition of the same points, the fact is that the card has been printed and will be available for purchase in a matter of weeks. As people begin to play with the card, one of two things will happen: Ian will severely unbalance the game... or he won't. At that point, if you find that the card is broken, you have the power to add the "no Ian Forestal" house rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes: >> Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be >> contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If >> you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. >How is that "weak"? By the same argument that the Corrupter has posted a dozen times already. (As you noted below) >Btw, maybe it's just me, but is anyone else getting annoyed by netizens >telling the design team that some card they've designed is "wrong"? >After much repitition of the same points, the fact is that the card has >been printed and will be available for purchase in a matter of weeks. By pointing out the errors, we have gotten some of them fixed. Notably: Blood Bond Blood Hunt Blood Rage Hawg Hidden Lurker Strike: Combat Ends (ruling) Disguised Weapon (ruling) Enchant Kindred and GtU (ruling) We're still waiting on the big ones: Targetting directed actions Vote pushing Concealed Weapon >As people begin to play with the card, one of two things will happen: Ian >will severely unbalance the game... or he won't. At that point, if you >find that the card is broken, you have the power to add the "no Ian >Forestal" house rule. Better to fix the card than to ban it. (Why do you think WotC issued errata on Blythe?) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Beatings will continue http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | until morale improves. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > The Corrupter wrote: > > > Obviously, we've done playtesting. While you (and anyone else, for that > > > fact) may disagree with the card, our playtesters through extensive PT > > > didn't have a problem with it. Believe me when I say the following: > > > Ian is a card we kept a very close eye on. We think it is not broken, > > > and we stand by it. > > That's funny. I was told somethin altogether different by the WotC > > playtesters I talked to (they didn't like the card). > If this is true, then I sure wish they had told us. They said they had, but that the DT was adamant, and that they moved on (having "bigger fish to fry"). > As far as I know, > there was no negative feedback from all the PT groups. This, to > quasi-defend your info, Corrupter, only goes so far as I know. Maybe > someone did object. Still, I never heard one word of objection, and if > there was objection, I wish I had; we rely on the PT info (in > conjunction with our own development) to make those decisions. Without divulging much of what I was told, when this thread first started, a playtester mailed me saying that they did indeed object to the card, and that they were not asleep in the matter. The rationale, I believe, was to let me (a known vocal critic of development since RCG gave his game to other hands) know that they were not to blame. > > The biggest arguement is simple: While he may not use _all_ the > > disciplines, neither do many of the bigger vamps, yet they still pay for > > their abilities. The power behind the big vamps isn't necessarily the > > abilities you use, but the abilities you _could_ use. > > As Tom said, just because a card will be unique (and thus contested if a > > good card) doesn't mean it should be too cheap for its powers. > Basing this on cards 8 and up, which Ian falls into, I again bring up > the point that out-of-clan disciplines may cost too much in design. I > would think that a majority--not all--of the vamps with high costs and > extra, out-of-clan disciplines associated with them are paying the bulk > of their cost in their ability, not disciplines. However, none of them even approach the precedent of Ian, who has easily 3 times as many disciplines as anyone his size. > If a vamp has the ability to deal aggravated damage instead of normal, > that's a huge swing than having two, three, or even four levels extra > disciplines. Our contention is this--the ability Ian has compensates > for the bulk of points he would have had in respect to an ability like > aggravated damage, plus the extra points invested into the extra > disciplines. Using Donal O'Connar and Constanza Vinti as examples (they are 8s with only 3 superiors), they have a prince title (1 pt.) and a 1 pt. special ability (+2 conditional bleed, blockers burn blood, respectively). Nice. Ian has more than a dozen disciplines as his power. Despite the utility of the title and power of the Euro-Brujah princes, I cannot agree that the amazing versatility and power that Ian possesses is worth the same amount. He should cost more, or his ability should cost something, or it should have some restriction, or some combination of the above. > It basically comes down to design philosophy, and that's how Ian was > made. What is said design philosophy? From Ian, all I can surmise is that costs of cards are going to be based on what is "likely" to be used as compared to what _can_ be used. > > I guess I am just shocked that the design team basicly wants to give Ian > > the inferior of every discipline for almost nothing. Appropriate card > > costs are important to a game like Jyhad. This is not Magic. It was > > designed with NL in mind. If this continues, eventually NL will break. > > One of the only good CL arguements is that if the Design Team continues > > to mess up again and again, eventually NL will die from lack of a > > balanced structure. > I counter that Ian ability is *not* at almost nothing, but rather the > disciplines are the ability cost. I don't believe you mean this, or else you would have him pay for the disciplines. I think you mean to say his power is cost appropriate. > I further offer this: > Build a deck around him, or involving him. Add multiples, proxy > whatever card you need--his stats are in the Duelist. Compare him to > the other vamps in play. Now, without any set-up on the establishment > of the test, give the deck to someone else to play with and watch their > initial reaction to Ian. Then, watch their reaction as he uses him in a > game. > I hypothesize that the initial reaction will be much like the one on the > group currently, while after the test their opinion will be considerably > less drastic against the costing of the card. :) Sorry, Shawn, but this arguement is relatively meaningless. While Ian's use in a particualr deck designed around him may or may not keep the hypothetical players' excitement/disbelief level up, no vampire is used for all of its powers in every deck (or even, in most cases, in most decks). Their reaction, I would guess, would be likely to fall in actual play, because most Ian decks won't use _all_ 17ish disciplines. However, the ability for them to be able to chose which of those disciplines to use is still there. That utility, as James Hamblin (???) pointed out in this thread, is what entails a vampire's cost, not the ones actually used in _most_ decks. I ask you in return, Would Ian be too expensive if his ability required a blood to use? Would he be too expensive if his ability didn't give him automatic superior levels with a single Master Skill? I don't think so. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960908...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu>, tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu says... > >> Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be >> contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If >> you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. > >How is that "weak"? It doesn't take into account the fact that someone could try to use, if not All his powers, at least a good majority of them. It's not that hard, if you don't mind being rather contrived and warped in your thinking. There's that Obfuscate, Dominate, Fortitude, Presence, Auspex Bleed monstrousity that I've been theorizing about for a while, and Ian, although he'd only have 7 points for eight, would be better than almost anyone, excepting, perhaps, Arika. And beyond contrived tricks to break Ian(hey, that's how cards get broken almost all the time...), there's the fact that he violates a basic game concept of equitable costs for comparable vampires. >Btw, maybe it's just me, but is anyone else getting annoyed by netizens >telling the design team that some card they've designed is "wrong"? >After much repitition of the same points, the fact is that the card has >been printed and will be available for purchase in a matter of weeks. It's tragic, really, that all our concerns have been disregarded. And even more tragic if you want to have such utter faith in the design team, which is composed of people just like us, that our arguments are ignored or passed off as whining. The people who have been most vocal on this argument(which has been going on for about a month now) are primarily the more respected and longer-standing members of this newsgroup, and almost to a man, the consensus is that Ian is vastly underpriced and a truly bad precedent to set. >As people begin to play with the card, one of two things will happen: Ian >will severely unbalance the game... or he won't. At that point, if you >find that the card is broken, you have the power to add the "no Ian >Forestal" house rule. Sigh. Here we go again. The point is not that Ian himself will massively unbalance the game on his own(although he almost certainly would in a sealed enviroment like the tournament I'm planning on running at halloween), but rather that he is obscenely underpriced for the abilities which he is granted. Even assuming that he pays normal price for his in-clan disciplines, he's getting 14 points of disciplines for a two point special ability. Of this there is no question. Now compare this to how much most other vampires pay for their disciplines and special abilities, and you'll quickly see that Ian gets much more for his points than ANYONE else. Where this on its own is not necessarily totally unbalancing(although from a theoretical point of view it is...), it sets a truly nasty precedent for some hypothetical WotC Tremere lover to create a vampire at three capacity which has 14 points of disciplines, because, after all, Ian did it... That is, of course, the most ridiculous example I could think up. But, unfortunately, our ability to have faith in the design team has been shaken by various other cards which violate basic game premises and have been observed to be overpowered(Muaziz, Spiridonas...). If this trend continues, I would not be (too) surprised to find a Tremere like that staring at me out of a booster of the All-Tremere/Thaumaturgy expansion. Signing off before he gets too vitriolic, Alec Chang

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: > > Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be > > contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If > > you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. > How is that "weak"? Because every other vampire which is expensize still pays for all the powers it has (point one), contesting is relatively unimportant when it comes to cost of unique items (what if it isn't contested? Should it cost more? Point two), and that those two together aren't enough to merit his cheap cost (point three). > Btw, maybe it's just me, but is anyone else getting annoyed by netizens > telling the design team that some card they've designed is "wrong"? Obviously (as one of the netizens referred to), I don't. > After much repitition of the same points, the fact is that the card has > been printed and will be available for purchase in a matter of weeks. Whether it will be available is unavoidable. Whether they errata it is important. There have already been a number of issues in which the Design Team has decided (due to net pressure) that things needed a change. This would be another good one to add to that list. > As people begin to play with the card, one of two things will happen: Ian > will severely unbalance the game... or he won't. At that point, if you > find that the card is broken, you have the power to add the "no Ian > Forestal" house rule. I prefer to not have to ban card use in casual play. Much better if the game works as a whole rather than breaking down under the weight of bad cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960908...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> "Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes: >Someone else, who has been omitted writes: >> Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be >> contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If >> you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. > >How is that "weak"? > >Btw, maybe it's just me, but is anyone else getting annoyed by netizens >telling the design team that some card they've designed is "wrong"? >After much repitition of the same points, the fact is that the card has >been printed and will be available for purchase in a matter of weeks. It's just you, AFAIK. I'm getting worried that this next expansion will thoroughly break the game, or alter it into something only abusive-combo munchkins will want to play. Thoughts Betrayed, the other trump cards, and other unbalanced cards are bad enough. >As people begin to play with the card, one of two things will happen: Ian >will severely unbalance the game... or he won't. At that point, if you >find that the card is broken, you have the power to add the "no Ian >Forestal" house rule. It would be so much better to not have to play with a ton of house rules. It's especially difficult for those people who play at some public place that sponsors Jyhad/VTES nights (like Planet X in Portland, OR, Thursdays). People have to know what rules they expect to play by. The other problem with escalation is that people who can't afford to keep up in the arms race will drop out of the game. This seems to be happening here. Because Sabbat is a full set, it will be pretty expensive to keep up if any substantial number of them are overpowered (or even if it's only a several). -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

The Corrupter wrote: > Without divulging much of what I was told, when this thread first > started, a playtester mailed me saying that they did indeed object to the > card, and that they were not asleep in the matter. The rationale, I > believe, was to let me (a known vocal critic of development since RCG > gave his game to other hands) know that they were not to blame. This comment is not intended to be insulting, but I sure wish they had told me something personally instead of telling someone who was not one of the designers nor on the development team. Maybe I could have done something. Now, it is a moot point. As for the playtesting process WotC goes through, I have made it a point to recently talk with the playtesters and collect their input on the Sabbat process. I wanted them to be candid, and they were. Now, we need to review it and make changes which will be better for the future. > > Build a deck around him, or involving him. Add multiples, proxy > > whatever card you need--his stats are in the Duelist. Compare him to > > the other vamps in play. Now, without any set-up on the establishment > > of the test, give the deck to someone else to play with and watch their > > initial reaction to Ian. Then, watch their reaction as he uses him in a > > game. > > > I hypothesize that the initial reaction will be much like the one on the > > group currently, while after the test their opinion will be considerably > > less drastic against the costing of the card. > > :) > > Sorry, Shawn, but this arguement is relatively meaningless. While Ian's > use in a particualr deck designed around him may or may not keep the > hypothetical players' excitement/disbelief level up, no vampire is used > for all of its powers in every deck (or even, in most cases, in most > decks). Why is this meaningless? First, it is not an "argument", but a challenge. Make the deck, give it to someone, and see what they say. How can outside opinion than the own opinions that we all are sharing be meaningless? Don't build a deck around ghim, then. Build *any* deck and stick multiple Ian's in it then. Does the deck improve? Does the deck play worse? What happens? I really want to hear other people's comments! > Their reaction, I would guess, would be likely to fall in actual play, > because most Ian decks won't use _all_ 17ish disciplines. However, the > ability for them to be able to chose which of those disciplines to use is > still there. That utility, as James Hamblin (???) pointed out in this > thread, is what entails a vampire's cost, not the ones actually used in > _most_ decks. I say the ability to choose disciplines is not an overpowered design element. You *aren't* going to see Ian or his clones in future designs, mainly because we have done him and it is pointless to redo a design element (IMHO). Are you going to use Ian in a Gangrel damage prevention/intercept deck? What about a VP deck? You *could*, but I bet you will find a better replacement in the buffet of vampires players can choose from. This is my opinion. > I ask you in return, Would Ian be too expensive if his ability required a > blood to use? Would he be too expensive if his ability didn't give him > automatic superior levels with a single Master Skill? > > I don't think so. Assuming that this isn't data gathering method isn't meaningless, I disagree. At one blood, this becomes closer to (but not) a "sucker" card, luring someone in with a hypnotic ability only to find out that you'd rather be playing with someone else. Without the blood cost, the card become interesting to see what you can do with it. -- >>> Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull goose loony here?" --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > Are you going to use Ian in a Gangrel damage prevention/intercept deck? > What about a VP deck? You *could*, but I bet you will find a better > replacement in the buffet of vampires players can choose from. > > This is my opinion. Ahem. Let me jump in on this one. Since that's the deck I play, I'm going to tell you that I very well might put Ian in my deck. He has: ani for pro DOM; 5 points of abilities that I use. That's a little inefficient, but then most of the vampires with dom. in my crypt are. The point is, even if I don't end up with Ian in my crypt, that he would work. He would work fairly well. James -- | James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." | | je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |

Shawn writes: >Don't build a deck around him, then. Build *any* deck and stick >multiple Ian's in it then. Does the deck improve? Does the deck play >worse? What happens? I really want to hear other people's comments! That's entirely moot. Freak Drive, under the old DC rules, was a very broken card, but most decks don't have Fortitude and get worse if you put in Freak Drive. Even most Fortitude decks don't use it abusively. But some decks can use it to loathsome effect. The Problem with Ian is primarily not that he's incredible in all decks, but that he permit wholly new decks with great potential for abuse. >I say the ability to choose disciplines is not an overpowered design >element. You *aren't* going to see Ian or his clones in future designs, >mainly because we have done him and it is pointless to redo a design >element (IMHO). Now that you've put out a vampire paying 2 for every out-of-clan discipline, are you really going to put out another Lucretia or Ulugh Begh, who pay 3 for just 3 disciplines? For that matter, how can you put out any of the many vampire who pay 2 for 2? Ian's "design principle" affects the cost of every vampire with an out-of-clan discipline. \ Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > >The Corrupter wrote: > > >Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > As for the playtesting process WotC goes through, I have made it a point > to recently talk with the playtesters and collect their input on the > Sabbat process. I wanted them to be candid, and they were. Now, we > need to review it and make changes which will be better for the future. > > > Build a deck around him, or involving him. Add multiples, proxy > > > whatever card you need--his stats are in the Duelist. Compare him to > > > the other vamps in play. Now, without any set-up on the establishment > > > of the test, give the deck to someone else to play with and watch their > > > initial reaction to Ian. Then, watch their reaction as he uses him in a > > > game. > > > I hypothesize that the initial reaction will be much like the one on the > > > group currently, while after the test their opinion will be considerably > > > less drastic against the costing of the card. > > Sorry, Shawn, but this arguement is relatively meaningless. While Ian's > > use in a particualr deck designed around him may or may not keep the > > hypothetical players' excitement/disbelief level up, no vampire is used > > for all of its powers in every deck (or even, in most cases, in most > > decks). > Why is this meaningless? First, it is not an "argument", but a > challenge. Make the deck, give it to someone, and see what they say. > How can outside opinion than the own opinions that we all are sharing be > meaningless? > Don't build a deck around him, then. Build *any* deck and stick > multiple Ian's in it then. Does the deck improve? Does the deck play > worse? What happens? I really want to hear other people's comments! Darn it, Shawn! You missed my decks! As far as I know, I'm the only person that posted some here. Other people may have made some to play with, but I haven't seen any comments. If you want me to, I'll post them again. Summary: One was my regular Tremere+Malkavian bleed thing that I sent the Corrupter some time ago. It's the most like your idea of throwing Ian in a regular deck. Yes, it works. The deck, under the following modifications-(Remove Gilbert Duane, Ozmo, Normal, and Zebulon, leaving in Didi, Mariel, and Ohanna. Add Ian, Sarah Cobbler, Merill, and Rev. Blackwood. No, I'm psychic about cards. No one told me, and I take responsibility for things man was never meant to know.) loses the "Malkavian perception" problem. People, who will, under no circumstances play a Malk S$B deck will play the same deck with more Tremere. It uses all the AH Tremere, except Elisabetta, and Etrius and Justine. I will admit that Spiridonas is more useful, but that is because Spiridonas simply blows away the competition. The second deck is based around Ian, Anvil, and four Assamites. Cel-Qui-Obf-Pot-Aus-Dom-Tha. Seven disciplines, two Ians, two Anvils. Anvil has 6 points in disciplines for 6, and Ian has 10 points for 8. The only game that this deck failed to do well in (not necessarily win) was the game that its' Methuselah failed to find either Ian in the top 6 vampires. These reactions may be skewed: these were small games, 2-3 players because of time and logistical constraints. I ended up trying the decks on Alec most of the time. In a larger game, the deck could set up a bit better, and I think that it would be able to work _very_ well. > > Their reaction, I would guess, would be likely to fall in actual play, > > because most Ian decks won't use _all_ 17ish disciplines. However, the > > ability for them to be able to chose which of those disciplines to use is > > still there. That utility, as James Hamblin (???) pointed out in this > > thread, is what entails a vampire's cost, not the ones actually used in > > _most_ decks. Look at sealed-deck play. Ian kicks more ass than anyone else. Jyhad/V:TES decks could be played out of starters plus 2 boosters so easily with _one_ Ian given. One cannot affect sealed deck without affecting normal play. > I say the ability to choose disciplines is not an overpowered design > element. You *aren't* going to see Ian or his clones in future designs, > mainly because we have done him and it is pointless to redo a design > element (IMHO). > Are you going to use Ian in a Gangrel damage prevention/intercept deck? > What about a VP deck? You *could*, but I bet you will find a better > replacement in the buffet of vampires players can choose from. > This is my opinion. And this is mine. Remember the Tremere-Gangrel For-Tha-Aus (perhaps +Dom-Ani, too.) ideas? Ulugh Beg, Cardano, Ian, Iliana, Muaziz, Merill, and the rest are weenie Gangrel and Tremere. Use both Eco- Terrorists and Arcane Library. Ian is a better choice than a lot of others, like Ingrid Rossler or Katarina. As for weenie vote-push, no. But VP with Praxis and Princes of the Toreador-Ventrue persuasion, and Ian is cool. He has Presence at basic, Aus+Dom at Superior. Acting-Bewitching Oration, Telepathic Vote Counting, Disarming Presence. For Amisa, Kephamos, Thetmes, Regina, and Stefano, Seeds of Corruption. Reacting-Kindred Coercion, Pulling Strings, Dread Gaze, and Intercept. So he doesn't have a title. Wow. > > I ask you in return, Would Ian be too expensive if his ability required a > > blood to use? Would he be too expensive if his ability didn't give him > > automatic superior levels with a single Master Skill? > > I don't think so. > Assuming that this isn't data gathering method isn't meaningless, I > disagree. At one blood, this becomes closer to (but not) a "sucker" > card, luring someone in with a hypnotic ability only to find out that > you'd rather be playing with someone else. Without the blood cost, the > card become interesting to see what you can do with it. Lure: Enchant Vampire. All V:TES players must block the vampire with this card whenever possible. <:-o (I always loved Luring Thicket Basilisks.) > Shawn F. Carnes > "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the > biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull > goose loony here?" > --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" ME! But really-part of my dislike of Ian stems from my theoretical perspective on Jyhad. At no restrictions, he's so overpowered, he's flawed. I don't like the mere concept of a vampire that can do anything with no restrictions. It is not, as the Corrupter et al. stated, whether he can actually use all the disciplines. It's that he's got them. It is also the theoretician and the trend-observer in me that hates the current escalation trend in WotC games. In V:TES, that seems mainly confined to the Tremere-which is even more blatantly obvious and unfair to all other clans. Ian was the icing on the Tremere cake-how can it be more obvious that the Tremere are getting more powerful/broken cards? Merill, Arcane Library, Chantry->Blythe, Rebekka, and Etrius, Rutor's Hand->Spiridonas, Muaziz, Ankara Citadel, Seeds of Corruption, Blood to Water->Ian Forestal, Dark Thaumaturgy, etc. -Nathan Harada

In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960908...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu>, Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> wrote: >> Your rationale on this so far (no one will use all his powers, he will be >> contested, his power is not that great because of the above) is weak. If >> you had some stronger rationale... but alas, you do not. > >How is that "weak"? After following this debate for the past month or so, I felt compelled to offer my thoughts... My worries about Ian are not so much that he is unbalancing, but that he is unimaginative. By making a card of such a universal nature, he spoils the interplay of clans that makes deck building such an interesting challenge. IMHO, he is not that much more powerful than some of the other vampires that have appeared in expansion sets. I know little about the role-playing game associated with V:TeS, but Ian seems a world away from what little I have seen. Much has been written on the subject of game balance, and it seems to me that if V:TeS is based loosely around some sort of mythos, it benefitted originally from keeping to that. Hence the good overall balance of the original set, (with only a few exceptions). > >Btw, maybe it's just me, but is anyone else getting annoyed by netizens >telling the design team that some card they've designed is "wrong"? >After much repitition of the same points, the fact is that the card has >been printed and will be available for purchase in a matter of weeks. I disagree with your sentiments here. The debate has been mainly in good spirit, and no long term offence has been caused. I agree that much of the discussion is now moot, but I am sure there will be other expansions. I only play occasionally, but our original group has expanded from three to a possible eight. However most people only have the original sets. Very little has been seen of the expansions. At our level of play Ian doesn't really matter, as we still developing tatics, but if too many powerful cards (and Ian _is_ powerful) come up, then people who haven't got the expansions are not exactly going to be inspired to continue playing. And it's very hard to find people who play Jyhad over here. (Witness the lack of UK posts on this group.) Thanks for listening to my contribution :-) Adrian. -- Adrian Rowley | Anybody who doesn't cut his | row...@physchem.ox.ac.uk | speed at the sight of a police | http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/~rowley | car is probably parked. |

Hi Nathan, On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Nathan Harada wrote: > Darn it, Shawn! You missed my decks! As far as I know, I'm the > only person that posted some here. Other people may have made some to > play with, but I haven't seen any comments. If you want me to, I'll > post > them again. > Please post them, or E-mail them to me. Thanks! > It is also the theoretician and the trend-observer in me that > hates the current escalation trend in WotC games. In V:TES, that seems > mainly confined to the Tremere-which is even more blatantly obvious and > unfair to all other clans. I have to agree here, however it is my opinion that the Tremere definately need the help. For the better part of a month now I have had a standing challenge to play posted Tremere decks in my gamming group and post the results. I will play to win and be open minded about it. If they prove to be broken, then I will post it, however, as of now, I just don't see it. Algustas *****Facts have a cruel way of substituting themselves for fancies. There is nothing more romorseless, just as there is nothing more helpful, than truth.***** William C. Redfield

> > > It is also the theoretician and the trend-observer in me that > > hates the current escalation trend in WotC games. In V:TES, that seems > > mainly confined to the Tremere-which is even more blatantly obvious and > > unfair to all other clans. > > I have to agree here, however it is my opinion that the Tremere > definately need the help. For the better part of a month now I have had a > standing challenge to play posted Tremere decks in my gamming group and > post the results. I will play to win and be open minded about it. If they > prove to be broken, then I will post it, however, as of now, I just don't > see it. I, too, have noticed the escaltion thing, though, in Magic, it may be the only thing keeping the game playable for new comers. Jyhad/Vtes, on the other hand, has game balance already . . . I don't have a Tremere deck to post, however, from what I've seen, they are as nasty, if not nastier than any of the other clans (Assamites excepted). They seem to be something of a foil to other deck strengths: unpreventable damage/theft vs. damage prevention, bleed bouncing vs. stealth/bleed, Chantry vs. aggravated, Charnas vs. untap. This also fits in with the mythos of the White Wolf universe: Who scares kindred? The Tremere. Who scares 'em more? Tremere antitribue (sabbat). The Tremere in White Wolf, also have abilities that are major foils to the other kindred, which makes them suspect/distrusted. Being powerful draws some fire . . . My two cents, Zach

In article <32437A...@osu.edu>, denn...@osu.edu says... > >> >> > It is also the theoretician and the trend-observer in me that >> > hates the current escalation trend in WotC games. In V:TES, that seems >> > mainly confined to the Tremere-which is even more blatantly obvious and >> > unfair to all other clans. >> >> I have to agree here, however it is my opinion that the Tremere >> definately need the help. For the better part of a month now I have had a >> standing challenge to play posted Tremere decks in my gamming group and >> post the results. I will play to win and be open minded about it. If they >> prove to be broken, then I will post it, however, as of now, I just don't >> see it. > > I, too, have noticed the escaltion thing, though, in Magic, it may be >the only thing keeping the game playable for new comers. Jyhad/Vtes, on >the other hand, has game balance already . . . > I don't have a Tremere deck to post, however, from what I've seen, they >are as nasty, if not nastier than any of the other clans (Assamites >excepted). They seem to be something of a foil to other deck strengths: >unpreventable damage/theft vs. damage prevention, bleed bouncing vs. >stealth/bleed, Chantry vs. aggravated, Charnas vs. untap. This also fits >in with the mythos of the White Wolf universe: Who scares kindred? The >Tremere. Who scares 'em more? Tremere antitribue (sabbat). The Tremere >in White Wolf, also have abilities that are major foils to the other >kindred, which makes them suspect/distrusted. Being powerful draws some >fire . . . And being overpowered and (apparently) favored by the design team doesn't too? Honestly, though, can you excuse a trend which threatens to unbalance a previously balanced game by escalating the power of one clan at the expense of the others?(Sorry if this sounds argumentative, I'm just not clear on your stance on this Tremere thing, and I get vitriolic...) Alec Chang

Everybody is discussing this Ian Forestal guy. Could anyone tell, what abilities he has, as I did not see him yet. Thanx, TS

Alec Chang wrote: >I, too, have noticed the escaltion thing, though, in Magic, it may be > >the only thing keeping the game playable for new comers. Jyhad/Vtes, on > >the other hand, has game balance already . . . > > I don't have a Tremere deck to post, however, from what I've seen, they > >are as nasty, if not nastier than any of the other clans (Assamites > >excepted). They seem to be something of a foil to other deck strengths: > >unpreventable damage/theft vs. damage prevention, bleed bouncing vs. > >stealth/bleed, Chantry vs. aggravated, Charnas vs. untap. This also fits > >in with the mythos of the White Wolf universe: Who scares kindred? The > >Tremere. Who scares 'em more? Tremere antitribue (sabbat). The Tremere > >in White Wolf, also have abilities that are major foils to the other > >kindred, which makes them suspect/distrusted. Being powerful draws some > >fire . . . > > And being overpowered and (apparently) favored by the design team doesn't > too? Oh, yeah, being overpowered does draw fire. I think that this is to reflect the White Wolf setup. That's just a guess, though . . . > Honestly, though, can you excuse a trend which threatens to unbalance > a previously balanced game by escalating the power of one clan at the > expense of the others? Well, yes. The Tremere are powerful, but they have a place in the scheme of the game. They balance with certain other deck's offensive capabilities, and they have to work for it. Tremere strategies/decks have to be complex to utilize some of those hoser cards. They don't develop very quickly (like the paper game), but when they get going . . . They also are weak against the vote. >(Sorry if this sounds argumentative, I'm just not clear > on your stance on this Tremere thing, and I get vitriolic...) It's cool. Heck, if I wrote the rules I would would make all the Nos really powerful, and let the Tremere rot. This would be out of character for the clans, though, so it's a good thing I don't write the rules. Zach

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Zach Dennis wrote: > Alec Chang wrote: [Re: current views of a trend towards Tremere cards] > > Honestly, though, can you excuse a trend which threatens to unbalance > > a previously balanced game by escalating the power of one clan at the > > expense of the others? > > Well, yes. The Tremere are powerful, but they have a place in the scheme > of the game. They balance with certain other deck's offensive > capabilities, and they have to work for it. Tremere strategies/decks > have to be complex to utilize some of those hoser cards. They don't > develop very quickly (like the paper game), but when they get going . . The new cards, however, nullify your arguemnt. Both Muaziz and Rebekka, Spiridonis, Ankara Citadel... All these cards are ready to use the moment they arrive. While their power levels (too high, just right, too low) are debatable, the point is, if you assume that they are overly powerful (as you seem to) and justify it by saying these cards are slow to develop, your argument falls apart. > They also are weak against the vote. Intercept. > >(Sorry if this sounds argumentative, I'm just not clear > > on your stance on this Tremere thing, and I get vitriolic...) > It's cool. Heck, if I wrote the rules I would would make all the Nos > really powerful, and let the Tremere rot. This would be out of character > for the clans, though, so it's a good thing I don't write the rules. I'd try to make each clan have their own flavor and personal strengths/weaknesses, but making sure it all balanced out would be my _primary_ concern. [ quoted text not captured ]

Zach Dennis (denn...@osu.edu) wrote: : > >Tremere. Who scares 'em more? Tremere antitribue (sabbat). The Tremere : > >in White Wolf, also have abilities that are major foils to the other : > >kindred, which makes them suspect/distrusted. Being powerful draws some : > >fire . . . : > And being overpowered and (apparently) favored by the design team doesn't : > too? : Oh, yeah, being overpowered does draw fire. I think that this is to : reflect the White Wolf setup. That's just a guess, though . . . It sure does!!! Xrist!!! This summer I played Vampire:TES quite a bit. I play a Tremere/Malk deck, and I just couldn't get Muaziz out without having all the players Bum Rushing here, Banishing her and trying to get her out of biz! It was a real pain to have to deal with 5 guys at the same time instead of only with your prey and predator!!! : capabilities, and they have to work for it. Tremere strategies/decks : have to be complex to utilize some of those hoser cards. They don't The main reason I play Tremere is 'cause I like the clan itself. I like bleeding with stealth, and I could be playing a Malk only deck, but I put the tremere there 'cause I like them (not 'cause of the thaum. combat thing since I don't have much combat cards in my deck...). I think (and this is just my opinion...) Tremere are the most flexible clan to play with. They have bleed capacity, intercept capacity, combat, and even though they are not the best in each thing they do, they have the advantage of doing all of them. : They also are weak against the vote. That's a fact. Intercept is the best way not to be bothered by a political predator... but you'll run out of auspex intercept cards sooner or later (unless you put KRCG and such stuff there...), and if you don't bash them to turpor when you intercept them, you'll have them buging you again the next round. : It's cool. Heck, if I wrote the rules I would would make all the Nos : really powerful, and let the Tremere rot. This would be out of character : for the clans, though, so it's a good thing I don't write the rules. Everybody is making a real fuz about Ian Forestal. I don't think he's that good as that! Who is going to play a deck with ALL the disciplines anyway ? Most Tremere decks are based on Auspex, Dominate and Thaum. , and those he as at superior. He will be nice for me to play with 'cause I also use obfuscate. So in my deck there will be a 7 capacity tremere with AUS, DOM, THA, obf, and no special abilities or title. Justine, Elder of Dallas, for one point more has the same disciplines, a special ability and a vote. Justine is still better than Ian! Ian will just be a very flexible vampire, that will fit in different kinds of decks (like a tremere combat with fortitude, a ventrue with Auspex deck...) 'nuff said! PMVVR

> Pedro Miguel Valerio Ramos wrote: > > : > >Zach Dennis (denn...@osu.edu) wrote: > : >Alec Chang wrote: > : > >Tremere. Who scares 'em more? Tremere antitribue (sabbat). The Tremere > : > >in White Wolf, also have abilities that are major foils to the other > : > >kindred, which makes them suspect/distrusted. Being powerful draws some > : > >fire . . . > : > And being overpowered and (apparently) favored by the design team doesn't > : > too? > > : Oh, yeah, being overpowered does draw fire. I think that this is to > : reflect the White Wolf setup. That's just a guess, though . . . > It sure does!!! Xrist!!! This summer I played Vampire:TES quite a bit. I > play a Tremere/Malk deck, and I just couldn't get Muaziz out without > having all the players Bum Rushing here, Banishing her and trying to get > her out of biz! It was a real pain to have to deal with 5 guys at the > same time instead of only with your prey and predator!!! You know, I remember a time when that only happened to Malks. It's that little "unbeatable unless we all gang up on them" perception. Malkavians are powerful because their inherent disciplines make them the unmatchable bleeders in Jyhad. The Tremere-is it _just_ Muaziz that your friends are beating on? Or would it be Justine, too? If it is because of Muaziz' +1 stealth...or Etrius' +2 bleed...or Spiridonas' +7 bleed...what does that say about expansion Tremere? > : capabilities, and they have to work for it. Tremere strategies/decks > : have to be complex to utilize some of those hoser cards. They don't They do not. Seeds of Corruption goes in any Tremere Thaum.+ Auspex deck with no modifications. You want a fight, and it benefits you whether SoC is blocked or unblocked. Ankara Citadel fits anywhere, being extremely worth 2 blood and one action. Thoughts Betrayed and Blood to Water are two of the most overpowered trump cards in the game. > The main reason I play Tremere is 'cause I like the clan itself. I like > bleeding with stealth, and I could be playing a Malk only deck, but I put > the tremere there 'cause I like them (not 'cause of the thaum. combat > thing since I don't have much combat cards in my deck...). I think (and > this is just my opinion...) Tremere are the most flexible clan to play > with. They have bleed capacity, intercept capacity, combat, and even > though they are not the best in each thing they do, they have the > advantage of doing all of them. You are right. They are, and have always been, a very flexible clan, save one flaw. They cannot vote without contrivance. But compare to the Nosfer and Gangrel-who cannot bleed _or_ vote well without contrivance. (By contrivance, I mean with the disciplines they have inherently.) Tremere rank with the Toreador in flexibility, and have gone up a notch with AH and DS. > : They also are weak against the vote. > That's a fact. Intercept is the best way not to be bothered by a > political predator... but you'll run out of auspex intercept cards sooner > or later (unless you put KRCG and such stuff there...), and if you don't > bash them to turpor when you intercept them, you'll have them buging you > again the next round. > : It's cool. Heck, if I wrote the rules I would would make all the Nos > : really powerful, and let the Tremere rot. This would be out of character > : for the clans, though, so it's a good thing I don't write the rules. Out of character for the clans does not mean that the Tremere should be demi-gods. The Nosferatu have been screwed over so many times that it's not even funny. Look at their new vampires and compare them to the Tremere...Murat's special is worthless-it's one clan, two cards he hoses, and he's a Prince. Muaziz' specials are comparative to Merill Molitor's in quality, and she pays at least a full point less for +1 stealth than Lucretia. Judah is way underpowered, and neither of the other two weenies fits in with the standard Nossie deck. At least they made Panagos and Raziya-but that cuts into the Brujah and Gangrel stacks. The Nosferatu are the only clan without Thaumaturgy. > Everybody is making a real fuz about Ian Forestal. I don't think he's > that good as that! Who is going to play a deck with ALL the disciplines > anyway ? Most Tremere decks are based on Auspex, Dominate and Thaum. , > and those he as at superior. He will be nice for me to play with 'cause I > also use obfuscate. So in my deck there will be a 7 capacity tremere with > AUS, DOM, THA, obf, and no special abilities or title. Justine, Elder of > Dallas, for one point more has the same disciplines, a special ability > and a vote. Justine is still better than Ian! > Ian will just be a very flexible vampire, that will fit in different > kinds of decks (like a tremere combat with fortitude, a ventrue with > Auspex deck...) But that's the freakin' point!!! Ian will never be a deck which uses all his potential disciplines. That is given. However, he can use any discipline, and that flexibility is worth a good deal more than 2 points. He's 8-but that doesn't matter much. Large vampires usually do not use most of their discipline points either, and they still pay. Ian will never be outdated, like some of the basic set people. If WotC comes out with Bloodlines: Samedi/Daughters of Cacophony, Ian could very well play cards requiring Thanatosis or Melpominee. I want a deck based on Chimerstry-Auspex-Celerity-Obfuscate. I have a deck that needs to look more Tremere-ish for bleeds. I have a 7 discipline Pot-Cel-Obf-Aus-Dom-Qui-Tha deck that only works with Ian. He's overpowered and undercosted. Just because a regular Tremere deck with _maybe_ one other discipline would not use him doesn't mean that he shouldn't have to pay for all his disciplines in some way. -Nathan Harada Did anyone notice that the Duelist #13 had an ad for Sabbat, but that the card texts/art promised two months ago in #12 were nowhere to be found? It's been two whole months arguing about Ian Forestal, guys, and there isn't any fresh meat to critique.

In article <324B3C...@anon.penet.fi>, Nathan Harada <an64...@anon.penet.fi> wrote: > You are right. They are, and have always been, a very flexible >clan, save one flaw. They cannot vote without contrivance. But compare >to the Nosfer and Gangrel-who cannot bleed _or_ vote well without >contrivance. (By contrivance, I mean with the disciplines they have >inherently.) Tremere rank with the Toreador in flexibility, and have >gone up a notch with AH and DS. *barely muffled guffaw* The *TOREADOR*? The only clan that's more useless than the Nosferatu, who at least have a sense of style and a decent combat discipline? Let's examine the Toreador panoply here: - no stealth, so they can't vote or get the expensive, fragile equipment they need to even pretend to be a combat force - auspex with no combat to back it up. you could do intercept/runaway, but that isn't going to oust anyobody. - some decent bleed, thanks to Aire of Elation. and no way to get through other than Mime Numb or Misdirection. they can't bleed, they can't fight, and they can't vote, except in an environment with vestigial intercept. no one here's been able to field a viable toreador deck with the exception of a misdirection-based bleed deck, and that's only viable in that it gets less hideously mangled than other toreador decks. it wins at about 60% below average. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: [Re: Contention that the Toreador are flexible][ > *barely muffled guffaw* > The *TOREADOR*? The only clan that's more useless than the Nosferatu, who > at least have a sense of style and a decent combat discipline? Let's > examine the Toreador panoply here: Before I hit your points, I want to voice a side note of amusement... A while back, I remember people arguing that the Toreador had it all (circa a year ago)... > - no stealth, so they can't vote or get the expensive, fragile equipment > they need to even pretend to be a combat force They can, however, make blocking them a pain (Aching Beauty, votes to pass Camarilla Exemplary), especially when combined with Majesty to tap out their blockers (for their next actors), Mind Numb, and Misdirection. > - auspex with no combat to back it up. you could do intercept/runaway, but > that isn't going to oust anyobody. Actually, runaway intercept can be quite powerful, especially when covering up Anarch cards. > - some decent bleed, thanks to Aire of Elation. and no way to get through > other than Mime Numb or Misdirection. See the above. Remember, however, that bleed ability is a threat, and a conceiled threat at that (using an Aire of Elation can scare opponents into blocking). This threat can be used to bleed opponents with intercept, forcing them to block. Once majestying out of combat, the Toreador can get their real threat through (the Vote, the equipment, what have you). > they can't bleed, they can't fight, and they can't vote, except in an > environment with vestigial intercept. no one here's been able to field > a viable toreador deck with the exception of a misdirection-based > bleed deck, and that's only viable in that it gets less hideously > mangled than other toreador decks. it wins at about 60% below average. I haven't seen a Toreador deck around here in a while, but one of the best combat decks I can remember was a gun based Toreador-Psyche deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

theCorrupter (adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: > On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > [Re: Contention that the Toreador are flexible][ > > *barely muffled guffaw* > > > The *TOREADOR*? The only clan that's more useless than the Nosferatu, who > > at least have a sense of style and a decent combat discipline? Let's > > examine the Toreador panoply here: First. There's no useless clans. You only have to work a little to made a good deck, no matter the clan/clans. (Yes, a Malkavian-brujah-gangrel deck not seems to be very powerful but....) > Before I hit your points, I want to voice a side note of amusement... A > while back, I remember people arguing that the Toreador had it all (circa > a year ago)... > Well, all all, not, but a lot.... > > - no stealth, so they can't vote or get the expensive, fragile equipment > > they need to even pretend to be a combat force Nobody is perfect. > They can, however, make blocking them a pain (Aching Beauty, votes to pass > Camarilla Exemplary), especially when combined with Majesty to tap out > their blockers (for their next actors), Mind Numb, and Misdirection. > Yes. > > - auspex with no combat to back it up. you could do intercept/runaway, but > > that isn't going to oust anyobody. > Actually, runaway intercept can be quite powerful, especially when > covering up Anarch cards. Anarch cards? what cards? > > > - some decent bleed, thanks to Aire of Elation. and no way to get through > > other than Mime Numb or Misdirection. No. No decent. Very good bleed. > See the above. Remember, however, that bleed ability is a threat, and a > conceiled threat at that (using an Aire of Elation can scare opponents > into blocking). > This threat can be used to bleed opponents with intercept, forcing them to > block. Once majestying out of combat, the Toreador can get their real > threat through (the Vote, the equipment, what have you). > > they can't bleed, they can't fight, and they can't vote, except in an > > environment with vestigial intercept. no one here's been able to field > > a viable toreador deck with the exception of a misdirection-based > > bleed deck, and that's only viable in that it gets less hideously > > mangled than other toreador decks. it wins at about 60% below average. Try to use potence. A toreador-Brujah Deck it's powerful. > I haven't seen a Toreador deck around here in a while, but one of the best > combat decks I can remember was a gun based Toreador-Psyche deck. I remember a game, when I have Mazica with an Assault Riffle. I was very near of death when he got the AR but later I win the match. (Mazica rules) I.C.C. Have a nice night. I'm a sexy boy (los del abanico)

Well.... To chime in on this thread I should say that I am one of those who enjoys playing the Torreador and I have had pretty good success with several types of decks. My Torreador vote decks are generally pretty successful and my intercept-gun decks can be fun and get a couple of VPs as well. Torreador bleed works best when combined with some celerity combat or votes IMHO. Perhaps the most fun is to put together a Torreador presence-bleed-and-vote/ intercept/ celerity combat deck to see how it will do against all comers. I have had some good work out of some decks of this type. They are able to defend against the three major strategies reasonably well and have some bleed and vote offense. As long as there are enough folks out there who won't play the Torreador because they think they are "useless" then I won't have to worry about having Masika contested and my Torreador Grand Ball will be the social event of the game. ;-)= Doug Dunaway (Artistically Inept Torreador)

About these points against the Toreador, where are you coming from. Stealth - Tors don't have stealth, admitted, but Gangrels (Gans) don't either (except for Backways) and the Gans voting sucks. Besides, with the Grand Ball you don't need any stealth at all to get your equipment. Combat - Tors have the option of blurring in combat, majestying out of it, and seeing your opponents hand (one of the most useful and underplayed cards in the game I feel is Aura Reading?) Bleed - Their bleed is excellent. Its a natural trait for the Tors to bleed at +1 and their presence abilities can add up to better bleeds than most (Tremere, Malks and Vents excepted) and you still get some pool gain. Vote - Only the Brujah and Vents can compare, and even they don't have the dreaded Scorn of Adonis. Toreadors are very versatile, they can bleed better than most, block almost anything, and vote just about anything through. They lack some stealth, but a few Cam Exemplarys, and Aching Beauty's fix that. Over all they are much more useful overall than the other clans. True, if you want to focus on a specific type of deck - Combat, Vote, etc., they are not the clan, but if you want to focus on more than one type (some bleed with political power). Besides, noone can go as defensive as the Tors.

> Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <324B3C...@anon.penet.fi>, > Nathan Harada <an64...@anon.penet.fi> wrote: > > > You are right. They are, and have always been, a very flexible > >clan, save one flaw. They cannot vote without contrivance. But compare > >to the Nosfer and Gangrel-who cannot bleed _or_ vote well without > >contrivance. (By contrivance, I mean with the disciplines they have > >inherently.) Tremere rank with the Toreador in flexibility, and have > >gone up a notch with AH and DS. > *barely muffled guffaw* > The *TOREADOR*? The only clan that's more useless than the Nosferatu, who > at least have a sense of style and a decent combat discipline? Let's > examine the Toreador panoply here: Hmmm...playgroup difference here. Among the circle I play with, there are two Toreador gun-intercept-vote decks. One isn't played anymore because the guy lost interest. That Toreador deck worked like this-I bleed you. Combat-zip gun, Blur, zap zap (Dragon's Breath Rounds) BOOM. No combat-I bleed you with Aire of Elation. The Toreador intercept currently played focuses on blood-gain apathy. He includes larger guns and some obfuscate, two hunting grounds, blood dolls, Francois Villon, and Auspex up the....Thank God he isn't the one with the Art Museum. As I recall, both these had access to people with inherent votes Alexandra, Francois, Anson, one had Rake and the other Marcellus, and could vote fairly well. There's another Toreador deck, which was Malk-Tor-Bru-Ven. Since _it_ got an Art Museum, it's gone further towards Toreador. It's about half Toreador now. This is the most flexible deck in the area, doing pretty much everything-vote, bleed, fight, S:Ce, stealth, intercept. There's my tap/bleed deck, which is half Toreador. I also had a recursive unblockable vote deck using Toreador Grand Balls and Precognizant Mobility, which was short lived given the fact that I had no idea that Secure Havens existed at the time. > - no stealth, so they can't vote or get the expensive, fragile equipment > they need to even pretend to be a combat force There are two with Obfuscate and three with Protean. There are innumerable Malks with Obfuscate and Celerity plus Auspex. All of the decks above get guns through Disguised Weaponry, tm. or Zip Gun Inc., if they want guns. > - auspex with no combat to back it up. you could do intercept/runaway, but > that isn't going to oust anyobody. Celerity usually beats Potence here. The apathy deck wins through sheer staying power-have you ever had a game last three hours where there are (or were) only three players? > - some decent bleed, thanks to Aire of Elation. and no way to get through > other than Mime Numb or Misdirection. Tap and bleed, tap and bleed, tap and bleed bleed bleed. You forget about Pulse of the Canaille and Majesty. > they can't bleed, they can't fight, and they can't vote, except in an > environment with vestigial intercept. no one here's been able to field > a viable toreador deck with the exception of a misdirection-based > bleed deck, and that's only viable in that it gets less hideously > mangled than other toreador decks. it wins at about 60% below average. Well, I was making a Setite vote deck that turned out to be a Toreador deck with Rebekka, Chantry Elder of Munchkin. Vote decks of most stripes don't vote at all when they play intercept decks. The only exceptions-a Ventrue Fortitude, Weenie Presence, and Toreador Grand Ball. Decks here involve lots and lots of Toreador-I suspect that out of a dozen players/former players of Jyhad, there were at least four who had favorite decks which were Toreador. Of those, two chose to make their only deck Toreador over any other type because of both personal style and playability. -Nathan Harada

To add my two cents: I love the Toreador. They in my humble opinion make an excellent clan on their own or as a backup clan in a two or three clan deck. First let's look at the disciplines: Presence: Superior bleed (3 direct bleed cards and Aire of elation to boost the bleed much higher). Enchant Kindred at superior to get smaller vamps out (I know there isn't any stealth on it but see below). Majesty to fake out an opponent and tap his minions. Celerity: My favorite of the combat disciplines. Potence, Thaumaturgy, and Protean can all hit harder but what does it matter when you can't actually touch me? Auspex: The intercepting discipline. It also has Telepathic counter and Telepathich Misdirection for any pesky bleeders. Also several of the larger vamps have dominate to make the bleeding even scarier. Next let's look at the vampires: The Toreadors got all my favorite abilities. Anson: who can argue with two master cards a turn? Masika: can you say "Energizer Bunny"? Anneke: I annoyed one person to death with her ability to try and blcok any action (he was my grand predator/great-grand prey). He couldn't get out a piece of equipment if his life depended on it. Francois Villon: Steal two blood as a +1 stealth action. I like it. How about you? Alexandra: Can untap and tap Toreadors. Francois twice (steal four blood a round) is not a very nice sight. Next, how about clan cards: Toreador Grand Ball: Alexandra to make the tapped factor a non factor and the intercept in the clan to make sure the card stays around. This card is one of the most evil things I've seen. Now you don't get a chance to block Francois. Those Enchant Kindreds ARE going to happen now. Equipping is a joke now. Votes? Oh you were going to block. I'm sorry but you can't! Aching Beauty: Makes blocking just a little more painful Art Museum: One of the 3 original clan feeders The Portrait: Not a very useful card but weird enough that even a Malkavian would love it. Scorn of Adonis: It's a reverse bribes The Louvre: Tap anyone? I like it, how about you? (I'm assuming Francois or the Prince card is out there somewhere) Finally as a back up clan: Any voting deck can always use the Princes of the Toreadors (they have 5) and the presence makes them an excellent compiment to the Ventrue. Presence and Celerity overlap with the Brujah. 3 vampires also have potence making the connenction even better. The auspex of the Toreador can also be used for card intercept that the Brujah lack. Toreador/Malkavian. The only reason I mention this one is the Masika impersonating a Malk and getting the Madness Network out. On the other hand the celerity and auspex do mesh nicely. Toreador/Ravnos. On the surface this shouldn't work but there are two Ravnos that have auspex and two that have celerity while Francois Villon has chimestry (Toreador Grand Ball and Sensory Deprivations, nuff said). Toreador/Tremer. I haven't actually tried this but once again the celerity and auspex do overlap somewhat. In closing I would like to point out that no clan is useless. I have seen a Nosferatu deck pummel people into the ground (well he did get a good draw and everyone else got crap but still.....), and I've seen Gangrel decks win it all (and not with that infinite loop thing). I can say I've definitely romped through many a methusaleh with a Toreador deck. If you can't build a deck around the Toreador that doesn't mean they suck, it just means that you don't have the cards to make them work or you're biased against the Toreadors and have a subconsious will to see them do badly. Just my thoughts Jeff Dai

In article <52gtea$c...@shellx.best.com>, go...@best.com says... > >In article <324B3C...@anon.penet.fi>, >Nathan Harada <an64...@anon.penet.fi> wrote: > >> You are right. They are, and have always been, a very flexible >>clan, save one flaw. They cannot vote without contrivance. But compare >>to the Nosfer and Gangrel-who cannot bleed _or_ vote well without >>contrivance. (By contrivance, I mean with the disciplines they have >>inherently.) Tremere rank with the Toreador in flexibility, and have >>gone up a notch with AH and DS. > >*barely muffled guffaw* > >The *TOREADOR*? The only clan that's more useless than the Nosferatu, who >at least have a sense of style and a decent combat discipline? Let's >examine the Toreador panoply here: > >- no stealth, so they can't vote or get the expensive, fragile equipment >they need to even pretend to be a combat force How much intercept does your group play with? I seem to recall a conversation a while ago in which there emerged two camps of thought on intercept; one was that all decks had to have it(generally considered a 4-CL mindset, but I take it more as a personality/need for control test), and the other was that only decks which were focused or partially focused on intercept needed it. Oh, and Zip guns with glasers and blurs can do wonders. Toss in a few dragon's breaths if you need to. >- auspex with no combat to back it up. you could do intercept/runaway, but >that isn't going to oust anyobody. Get equipment out. Use zip guns for combat. And as for Intercept Runaway, try using Smiling Jack and Anarch revolts in a high-gain pool and intercept-runaway deck. As long as you can untap and keep people from making it over to your Jack or revolts, you've got it made. >- some decent bleed, thanks to Aire of Elation. and no way to get through >other than Mime Numb or Misdirection. Offensive majesty, even with GT, still works(kind of). You can Bleed, majesty, then mind numb or consanguineous Condemnation. It's contrived, but not (too) ineffective. Oh, and Toreador Vote/Runaway with Toreador Grand ball is nice. Works with combat too; unblockable Archons and attack actions. Yick. >they can't bleed, they can't fight, and they can't vote, except in an >environment with vestigial intercept. no one here's been able to field >a viable toreador deck with the exception of a misdirection-based >bleed deck, and that's only viable in that it gets less hideously >mangled than other toreador decks. it wins at about 60% below average. Check the intercept comment; use toreador grand balls, tapping weenies, use zip guns and rounds if you have to. The toreador have the capacity to do almost anything well; it just takes more creativity and effort than for most of the other clans. Although I'll admit that Tory intercept combat took people no time at all to figure out. Alec Chang

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) writes: >*barely muffled guffaw* >The *TOREADOR*? The only clan that's more useless than the Nosferatu, who >at least have a sense of style and a decent combat discipline? Let's >examine the Toreador panoply here: >- no stealth, so they can't vote or get the expensive, fragile equipment >they need to even pretend to be a combat force Toreador don't have stealth, but they do an excellent job with tap techniques. If you're playing a vote deck, for example, it's unlikely your prey will be able to intercept every vote you call in any given turn - he'll not have the vampires. The Toreador can untap with Majesty and survive the combats with Celerity. The also have the vote power to drive cards like Consanguinous Condemnation. In terms of equipment, a Blurred Magnum does a very respectable amount of damage, and is not fragile in the hands of a clan that can Dodge/Additional Strike or Flash till the cows come home. 2 pool is not an unbearable cost >- auspex with no combat to back it up. you could do intercept/runaway, but >that isn't going to oust anyobody. No, but it can often stop things that are a real threat, allowing your osuting method to do the job. Aura Reading is a great addition to combat decks, BTW. >- some decent bleed, thanks to Aire of Elation. and no way to get through >other than Mime Numb or Misdirection. I've done very well with Aching Beauty and stacked Camarilla Exemplaries, and with Majesty as well. Toreador are versatile because they can fight (Celerity Gun) vote (all the aggresive vote modifiers), and bleed (+bleed and tap techniques). I've done well with all 3. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In <52gtea$c...@shellx.best.com> go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) writes: >they can't bleed, they can't fight, and they can't vote, except in an >environment with vestigial intercept. no one here's been able to field >a viable toreador deck with the exception of a misdirection-based >bleed deck, and that's only viable in that it gets less hideously >mangled than other toreador decks. it wins at about 60% below average. They rock if you add Thaumaturgy. I had great fun with a Toreador/Brujah Celerity + Thaumaturgy + Presence deck. Its weak point was a lack of competent blockers---the vamps took too long to build up to full strength. I could probably fix that by adding those Tremere that have Celerity, but I explicitly built it as a no-Tremere Thaumaturgy deck. -- Richard Braakman The guru that claims to be the guru is not the true guru.

Well, I've been following the Toreador discussions here lately and decided to post the deck that I've been using (and winning with quite often). CRYPT Alexandra Anneke Francios Villon Anson (2) Tatiana Romanova Elliot Sinclair Ramiel Dupre Dorian Strack Marina Gilbert Colin Flynn Delilah Easton Dieter Kliest MASTER Aching Beauty (5) Minion Tap (5) Toreador Grand Ball (4) Auspex Celerity (2) Presence (2) KRCG News Radio London Eveing Star Metro Underground AUSPEX Burnt Offerings (2) Eagle's Sight (4) Enhanced Senses (4) Spirit's Touch (2) CELERITY Blur (6) Sideslip (3) Vampiric Speed (3) PRESENCE Aire of Elation (5) Majesty (6) MISC.

For some reason my post got cut-off... MISC