New Rule Proposal:
You may spend 4 transfers and remove a crypt card in your uncontrolled region from the game to gain 1 pool.
Crypt cards in your uncontrolled region are assets to start the game. I think a rule like this would very subtly add more variety to the game. "Superstar" decks would actually benefit the most since they often have superfluous copies of the main vampire left to no effect in the uncontrolled region. Weenie decks would largely not benefit from this rule since they usually strive to get more than 4 vampires into play anyway.
Since the cost to draw a new card from your crypt is 4 transfers and 1 pool, this rule provides the next possible step and gives you an option to gain the 1 pool back when the card is completely removed from the game.
Thoughts?
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
I'm not impressed by the rule, but I appreciate the sentiment. It would be nice for transfers to be worth something later in the game. On the other hand the effect would have to be very strong indeed to provide a worthwhile alternative to Enchant Kindred, et al.
> Inconnu wrote:
> Inconnu Tutelage
> Event
> Inconnu.
> A Methuselah may spend four transfers and remove a vampire in his or her uncontrolled region from the game to search for any card in his or her library and put it in his or her hand (discarding and shuffling afterward).
>
Seems to be a less viable option than Wider View. 1 Transfer = 1 New Vamp which usually costs 4 transfers & 1 pool.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Dorrinal wrote:
> I'm not impressed by the rule, but I appreciate the sentiment. It would be nice for transfers to be worth something later in the game. On the other hand the effect would have to be very strong indeed to provide a worthwhile alternative to Enchant Kindred, et al.
>
The main point is that this is a potential new rule which does not require any card text to be effective.
Suppose you played a superstar deck and randomly drew 3 copies of the star in your opening crypt. As the game progressed, you could get out the star and one support vampire. If your pool permitted, you could then decrypt hoping to get a third vampire. If that didn't work, you could then start removing your uncontrolled vampires from the game to gain pool back. Two of them would be likely immediate candidates for RFG.
If you were also fortunate enough to play with Governs or Enchants, then you might also use those as well and just transfer pool back. For those crypts which rely on "weaker" disciplines, you still can make use of the uncontrolled crypt cards as a small pool gain resource.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Seems to be a less viable option than Wider View. 1 Transfer = 1 New Vamp which usually costs 4 transfers & 1 pool.
>
Wider View is a card which has an opportunity cost to include in a deck. Its function is to help sift through your crypt faster to find the vampires you need.
This proposal is a new rule which makes use of the fundamental principles of the game to provide a way to convert crypt cards into pool. It is the inverse of drawing new vampires.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Superstar decks are very vulnerable, and could use the support. This rule would help a little. At the moment, I can't see any downsides to it. (The existence of cards that interact with the crypt doesn't strike me as a downside.)
I dunno, I kinda like the idea to be honest.
I can't really see any obvious downsides at first glance and it's a decent way to recoup some decrypting cost when you're missing the guy you're looking for. The 4 transfer cost makes it not really abusable (if it already was) with cards like Effective Management. +1 from me.
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > Dorrinal wrote:
> > I'm not impressed by the rule, but I appreciate the sentiment. It would be nice for transfers to be worth something later in the game. On the other hand the effect would have to be very strong indeed to provide a worthwhile alternative to Enchant Kindred, et al.
> >
> The main point is that this is a potential new rule which does not require any card text to be effective.
>
I, too, appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is that VTES is a game that attempts to have all the "exceptions" on card text and not as "new" rules. Not to mention the slippery slope that your new rule, and rules like it, create. So, in that sense, without a damn good reason, I'd be against such a rule when cards such as Wider View are implementing such ideas already.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> KevinM wrote:
> I, too, appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is that VTES is a game that attempts to have all the "exceptions" on card text and not as "new" rules. Not to mention the slippery slope that your new rule, and rules like it, create. So, in that sense, without a damn good reason, I'd be against such a rule when cards such as Wider View are implementing such ideas already.
>
This proposal would be the rule, not the exception. In fact, because it uses fundamental concepts, it isn't really an exception as presented.
What form do you imagine this slippery slope would take? Sometimes it is unnecessary to add a new card to the game to achieve a desired effect. Dorrinal mentions Inconnu Tutelage, but that's a search function which is very powerful and ought to have a card which provides that capability.
As stated, Wider View does something different than this proposed rule. It facilitates searching quickly through your crypt for a new vampire to influence into play. The "crypt card into pool" rule just gives you a chance to either 1) Recoup your pool investment if the decrypt didn't work so well, and 2) Give "superstar" decks (or just tight crypts in general such as a 4x Black Hand Assamite crypt) a chance to squeeze a bit more use out of their uncontrolled region.
While I don't expect to see this rule in play for 2013, I hope others give it a shot in their playgroups too. It's very easy to implement and remember.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
@Jeff:
Dorrinal's suggestion of Iconnu Tutelage is purely to emphasise that people rarely use a card that allows you to burn vampires to gain a card of your choice. It is a powerful effect, gaining a card of your choice) and it is not enough incentive to make people use Iconnu Tutelage.
My point about Wider View is that Wider View is a more efficient crypt-search than your rule change. I am also unwilling to add another way to gain pool as a core rule into VTES. It means that for Effective Management + 4 Transfers = Ascendance (4 Transfers is a negligible cost in the mid-to-late game).
Paying 1 pool for a crypt card is a gamble. It has always been a gamble and I see no reason to take away the risk element of that card play.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Izaak wrote:
> I dunno, I kinda like the idea to be honest.
>
> I can't really see any obvious downsides at first glance and it's a decent way to recoup some decrypting cost when you're missing the guy you're looking for. The 4 transfer cost makes it not really abusable (if it already was) with cards like Effective Management. +1 from me.
>
The rule seems balanced indeed.
Now, what does it add to the game? Does it make something more balanced? Does it open new strategies? I'm afraid it doesn't.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> > I, too, appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is that VTES is a game that attempts to have all the "exceptions" on card text and not as "new" rules. Not to mention the slippery slope that your new rule, and rules like it, create. So, in that sense, without a damn good reason, I'd be against such a rule when cards such as Wider View are implementing such ideas already.
> >
> This proposal would be the rule, not the exception. In fact, because it uses fundamental concepts, it isn't really an exception as presented.
>
> What form do you imagine this slippery slope would take?
>
A potential avalanche of "new" rules suggestions, if not outright changes, based on card text, if yours got accepted. VTES doesn't need new rules, it needs the current rules (and card texts) more consistently, succinctly worded and grammatically adjusted.
> Jeff wrote:
> As stated, Wider View does something different than this proposed rule. It facilitates searching quickly through your crypt for a new vampire to influence into play. The "crypt card into pool" rule just gives you a chance to either 1) Recoup your pool investment if the decrypt didn't work so well, and 2) Give "superstar" decks (or just tight crypts in general such as a 4x Black Hand Assamite crypt) a chance to squeeze a bit more use out of their uncontrolled region.
>
> While I don't expect to see this rule in play for 2013, I hope others give it a shot in their playgroups too. It's very easy to implement and remember.
>
I neither feel that there is a need, perceived or otherwise, for implementation of such a rule -- on which I hope we'll just disagree in a friendly way -- nor do I believe that having the quality of being very easy to implement and remember gives a potential "new" rule any additional credibility.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Yeah, I think I'm changing my mind on this on the basis that we don't need to add more rules to the game, especially for marginal effects. If we were doing a Juggernaut-style reimagining of the rules, though, I'd be in favour of it.
Game doesn´t need more rules, agree on that.
Also this is way to slow to make a difference. You can redraw a vamp every 2nd turn without cost.
Wohoo, but the time you got the guy the game is over, I think B-) (because you pulled out a superstar and a support vamp before and the game only has 12-14 turns).
I don't neccesarily agree that VTES has too many actual rules.
What it does have is a ton of cards that create exceptions in those rules and the rulings to handle those cards in some (cornercase) scenario's are in many cases counterintuitive, if not downright contradicting.
The fact that we're even discussing how additional strikes actually work is utterly silly. It should be crystal clear from the rulebook, no matter how many wacky additional additional additional extra bonus free additional strikes are thrown in.
This new rule doesn't really fill a direct need, nor does it actually make a lot of sense from a fluff point of view. What it does do is make decrypting in hopes you get that 2-cap instead of another copy of Enkidu slightly less risky. This may or may not eventually lead to people building slightly more diverse crypts, which may or may not cause various 2-3-4 caps to see more play and eventually maybe even speed up games (wishful thinking, I know, but you never know).
In the end, I can't see how the new rule could possibly harm the game, so surely it wouldn't be too bad for playgroups to try it and see how it plays out.
I feel this is more of an idea for design space than a rule. wider view, I tutelage , and Malgrazata all have stuff to utilize part of what I see as a decent idea. uncontrolled minions and transfers are resources that should have more importance late game than mummies for spell of life. I'd like to see some cards that emphasize this. but not a rule that makes kindred intelligence, info highway, and that g2 gangrel a viable bloat strategy.
> Ankha wrote:
> The rule seems balanced indeed.
> Now, what does it add to the game? Does it make something more balanced? Does it open new strategies? I'm afraid it doesn't.
>
1) It adds a way to increase interaction between two fundamental building blocks of the game: crypt cards and pool.
2) It ever so slightly makes playing with more compact crypt selections, either with superstar vampires or limited choices, a touch better than they were before.
3) It lowers risk which therefore incentivizes risk-taking which would lead to more innovation with respect to deck design.
YES, on all three counts.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
With respect to everyone saying, "The game doesn't need more rules":
This rule actually has zero interaction with card texts. That's exactly what Izaak has been saying. It doesn't change how combat works. It just provides an option which in my opinion makes a lot of sense. There is no downside.
To those who think this will lead to bloat:
There are much more efficient ways to bloat. If someone found a way to turn this rule into a bloat machine with Kindred Intelligence, that is *GOOD* for the game. I find it exceedingly unlikely to happen however.
To those who think the change should have a substantial impact:
You are dead wrong on this count. Changes to the game should be subtle and not done with a sledgehammer. V:TES has been around as long as it has in part because it is a very stable gaming environment. Extremely high-powered cards which came out in KoT and HttB have significantly altered the game. The last thing we need is more of that.
And so, I propose a small rule addition. Try it and you may find you like it.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes