Way back in the early start of the century, 2003-2005, I always wanted to check what would happen to the discipline spread if you made one correction to VTES, DS, and AH Malkavians, by changing their Dominate to Dementation. Finally got around to starting this petition or poll for now.
Basically this is the outcome:
The only vampires who would have identical disciplines as any other vampire would be:
(6) Ozmo <-> (5) General Perfidio Dios
Note: Group 1 Group 3 (anti) btw totally different cap and abilities
separate groups perfectly, so no problem there
(4) Roland Bishop <-> (4) Claven <-> (4) Adelaide Davis <-> (4) Beauregard Krueller
Note: Group1 Group 2 (anti) Group 3 Group 4
separate groups perfectly, so no problem there
(2) Ohanna <-> (2) Boy Toy <-> (2) Cassandra Langely, The Waif
Note Group 2 Group 2 (anti) Group 4
separate groups also, so no problem there
Let’s fix the Malkavian Dominate Error
Basically,
Any VTES (set 1), Dark Sovereigns or Ancient Hearts, Malkavian with Dominate,
changes it to Dementation.
And that’s all completely fixed the clan
True all of the fun old things you could do with mainly the Group 1 Malks can’t be done anymore, but it’s really not that big of a deal, and then you get new ideas and some of those old decks you may have wanted to put together but didn't because of that stupid discipline problem.
I have heard stories of how, it was made this way for a reason, and that they didn't want to add the additional discipline in the beginning, but who cares really. This has just always bugged the hell out of me, because every other clan is perfectly laid out spread wise, and they have so many other errata I don't what the big problem would be at this point.
I know this is crazy…
I have no problem whatsoever with the DOM discipline in gr1 Malkavian. Changing it to DEM would not make them more interesting, but on the contrary would remove a good alternative to DEM Malkavians.
If you have a "discipline problem", just play another group. As you said, there are many comparable vampires in the other groups where DOM have been changed for DEM.
There's nothing to fix. You seem more to have a philosophical issue than a real game problem.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> rezwits wrote:
> I have heard stories of how, it was made this way for a reason,
>
The reason was that Auspex, Dominate, Obfuscate were the clan disciplines for the Camarilla Malkavians, when V:TES was created in 1994. In Second Edition Vampire: The Masquerade (published 1992), that's what the disciplines were. Later on, things changed, and the Dominate/Dementation split between the Malkavians and the Malkavian antitribu was 'resolved' with the Great Prank.
See also: group one and two Gangrel are Camarilla, but later Gangrel are mostly Independent, reflecting a WoD change.
> Ankha wrote:
> There's nothing to fix. You seem more to have a philosophical issue than a real game problem.
>
So yeah somewhat 95% the case, almost strictly purity ...
But I have had designs where I wanted to put Group 2's with Group 3's and I had to have my library fitted with DOM cards for half the vampires and DEM cards for the other half, which in all honesty was lame and just felt pathetic and weak, and never played the combined groups in any decks...
> rezwits wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > There's nothing to fix. You seem more to have a philosophical issue than a real game problem.
> >
> So yeah somewhat 95% the case, almost strictly purity ...
>
> But I have had designs where I wanted to put Group 2's with Group 1's and I had to have my library fitted with DOM cards for half the vampires and DEM cards for the other half, which in all honesty was lame and just felt pathetic and weak, and never played the combined groups in any decks...
>
I guess you mean group 2 and 3 (which is where the difference is made beetwen DOM and DEM malk.
But I would say : what the problem ?
Nohing say you HAVE to play vampires which don't go well together just because they are of the same clan.
A DEM/DOM deck is a bad idea so chose your crypt accordingly with DEM or DOM.
And as it have been said, DOM malk represent "old" malkavian...
Yeah it's almost just for the purity aspect, but in addition I find I want to create malk decks where I can freely rotate vampires as I see fit, say if I choose to play "the same deck" with Group 1 and 2 the dom cards are in there. If I just want to freely play group 2 and 3 or even 4 and 5, I have to swap out some dom cards and put in the dem cards, bummer for me I guess. It's just flexibility.
Example, You can have a brujah deck, and then as you see fit you can pick any brujah from some groups and play the deck. If you want to go further down the groups line you can grab those vampires and play them using the "same deck" cause they have what is called "Clan Disciplines"
So, in essence most clans have this beauty of having a "Clan Deck" based on their Clan disciplines, and you can pick any vampires (as long as they are in consecutive groups) and just play the deck.
Do you kinda see what I am saying here? With malkavians you have the Group 1 Malk decks that can't be played with further down the line groups. i.e. the group 1 malk decks are only used by those first gen vamps. Unless you want to rotate cards out etc etc blah blah,
Lame for Malkavians. I just think things would be pleasant if you could have a Malkavian Clan Deck (themed perhaps) and freely pick whatever groups you want to play with BUT YOU CAN'T without having to have 2 decks built or swap cards in and out, no other clan has this problem!
Lame
> rezwits wrote:
> Yeah it's almost just for the purity aspect, but in addition I find I want to create malk decks where I can freely rotate vampires as I see fit, say if I choose to play "the same deck" with Group 1 and 2 the dom cards are in there. If I just want to freely play group 2 and 3 or even 4 and 5, I have to swap out some dom cards and put in the dem cards, bummer for me I guess. It's just flexibility.
>
This is nonsense. You have to adapt to the game, not the reverse.
You can't just swap crypts and keep the same deck, otherwise V:TES would be a very poor game, and grouping would be nonsensical too.
Plus what you say is wrong for many clans: EuroBrujah don't have presence, gr. 4-5 Ventrue have more Auspex than their gr2-3 counterpart, gr 3+ gangrel can't play Camarilla cards, gr1-4 Baali don't have titles (except Maureen)...
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I srongly disagree on your assumption that you can swap crypt between decks of the same clan.
For example, if you play a brujah prince deck in group 1-2 you will play with cards and no cards.
And if you want to swap to playing a brujah prince deck in group 4-5 you will play with cards and because dmitra is so good, you will want to add some and/or .
On the same level, if you play Follower of Set, you will add or not some cards accordingly with your crypt choice.
There is something called "clan disciplines" but it is mostly some guidelines for card designers.
> rezwits wrote:
> Example, You can have a brujah deck, and then as you see fit you can pick any brujah from some groups and play the deck.
>
Erm, not really.
Good players craft the library and crypt for reasonable synergy. A good EuroBrujah deck makes use of the proliferation of midbie titles and offclan Dominate. Ventrue Law Firm (group 1-2) plays very differently to Obfuscate Ventrue (group 2 centred). A Hermana Blood Brothers deck plays quite differently from a Group 2 Blood Brothers deck, even though they have the same clan disciplines. A crypt selection for any clan that can access a reasonable amount of off-clan Dominate or Fortitude will play quite differently from a crypt selection that can't - Fortitude provides multi-acting capability, and Dominate provides Deflection, which can significantly alter your attitude to pool gain, defence and ousting. Group 1-2 Malkavians can put together a really quite terrifying (if somewhat fragile) Madness Network Rotschreck deck, due in part to a combination of Protean (easy agg damage, Homunculus) and titles (defence), not easily replicated elsewhere.
> rezwits wrote:
> If you want to go further down the groups line you can grab those vampires and play them using the "same deck" cause they have what is called "Clan Disciplines"
>
That's really missing the point of having different things available to you in a CCG.
If Group 1 Malkavians had been designed originally with Dementation, you would generally expect later groupings to have mixed things up a bit. This is the group pairing that focuses a bit more on Dementation with titles, this group pair has a smattering of more wall-y vampires, this group pair has less Obfuscate but a bit more Obtenebration etc.
There are few reasons to change stuff. Jyjad has several UNPLAYABLE vamps, and while theres been a push to remedy this long before even i started playing, its not been popular enough to happen.
Lets look at what you propose.
Change a set of crypt cards because you feel its violating a theme or two, and so you can build a decka little better .
Themes: when the malks joined the camarilla, Unmada, Tryphosa, Malk Content, and several other ancint as hell malks mystically changed thier primary in clan mental discipline from the scary-to-peers-at-the-time dementarion to the useful and acceptable dominate. Sabbat malks didnt do this. More recently, it was changed baxk, and as per most recent VTM stuff, vtm20, some malks still carry the latent trait of dominate as an inclan. They are a legal bloodline, its all canon. Period. Malk 94 is a staple deck. Archetype since day 1. You want it removed.
I really cant understand why. I started with cam edition malk starter, and its a mixed shitbag between dom and dem. You just rebuild it like most precons and get on with life.
I can only see a small amount of gain from this anyway. Basically nothing.
Anything you think should be a "thing" you fan submit as card ideas. Malk justicar with Dem OBF AUS cel tha? Not as cool as unmada or lucian, but sti could submit and exain logic. Prince of miamu who is 7 cap with DEM AUS OBF? not as cool as printing one of several things to work with eatablished themes and discipline spreads post CE for malks, but they need 2 princes in later groupings, so if you want to see it, design and post it. Do you want a Roxanne that plays the call instead of govern? Not better than Roxanne, but design and argue.
I could say more malks need flight and cel for so they can multiact with forced march, as the crow, and freak drive via madness network, but its thematically stupid and design wise unsafe and unbalacing.
Theres no support. Its in the same boat as "no grouping rule at all" you want to change the game so you can build one bad deck instead of a different good deck. This time though, as a malk expert, i can assure you its a setback not an advantage. Then BEST g2 malks are zoe and Victoria amd Watenda. Support vamps. With no mental discipline of either kind. 2 with underpowered cel at basic. Gregor is Googly Moogly support with a titlexand protean, Anatole is great, ohanna is a good dom weenie, and that leaves what? Leandro? He doesnt need dementartion as bad as fortitude or a built in sce/ secure haven, as hes a bigass rush target.
Note some things on this game need fixed, but this is miles away from needing anything other than MAYBE 3 remaining good archetypes in twda (for those keeping count, Troxel i believe won with toolbox madness network, so the remaining archtypes are Roxy madness grinder, malk 94 with flames of the netherworld amd rego motus for lucien and mariel to block and rush and punish, and of course mariel and lucien MOTS for textbook damnation, get concordance, and multiact with as the crow and cycle steatlth via madness network, which can also be done with Biltmore and reiner/crowley)
So, problem?
I can understand this if it's completely "canon" as you say. And I have no problem adhering to the way things are. I just had a quick thought and always wondered if it might be a big deal. So after I checked the vamps and what the outcome would have been I figured I would just post to see what other would think.
I had mentioned this once or twice in last decade to fellow players and heard some of these stories. I am just once again trying to become active and thought I would fire away.
All the points are valid. I am glad I made a poll before actually officially proposing such a change to the "VEKN Board"
But it's the only thing that ever bugged me about all of the vampires in the game.
And now that I understand this is completely part of the storyline per se I don't feel the need to worry about it. But I didn't feel like googling looking for stories about this and felt I wanted to make a poll.
But honestly now this doesn't bother me in the least, because it's official WoD doctrine!!
Thanks everyone...
oh but, to say Brujah's and Brujah anti's core disciplines are not simply pre cel pot, is crazy
> rezwits wrote:
> Thanks everyone...
>
You're welcome.
> rezwits wrote:
> oh but, to say Brujah's and Brujah anti's core disciplines are not simply pre cel pot, is crazy
>
Nobody said otherwise. But even core vtm, you could find some brujah with not all in clan discipline and other not in-clan discipline.
e. g., I found just looking 5 minutes the official sheet for Theo Bell in 1880 and he don't have any point in presence and points in dominate and fortitude :
(I only found it in french here :
bindusara.free.fr/web/affichage_fiche.php?IDENTIFIANT=2096&NOM=Bell&PRENOM=Theo)
he has :
CEL 3
POT 2
DOM 1
FOR 2
So there is no problem fluff wise to have vampire without all in-clan disciplines and having other disciplines.
And game wise, it is really more interesting to have multiple options available to build a crypt.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> I could say more malks need flight
>
Best idea ever(*). Kooky, slightly creepy vampires leaping off buildings and cackling and dive-bomcing people and cackling and getting in the way of hanggliders and cackling. This has literally no downsides.
(*) May not be best idea ever.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > ReverendRevolver wrote:
> > I could say more malks need flight
> >
> Best idea ever(*). Kooky, slightly creepy vampires leaping off buildings and cackling and dive-bomcing people and cackling and getting in the way of hanggliders and cackling. This has literally no downsides.
>
I keep wanting to design a Fortitude card called BASE Jumping. The artwork could be a vampire crawling out of a vampire-shaped crater.
> BenPeal wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> >
> > > ReverendRevolver wrote:
> > > I could say more malks need flight
> > >
> > >
> > Best idea ever(*). Kooky, slightly creepy vampires leaping off buildings and cackling and dive-bomcing people and cackling and getting in the way of hanggliders and cackling. This has literally no downsides.
> >
> I keep wanting to design a Fortitude card called BASE Jumping. The artwork could be a vampire crawling out of a vampire-shaped crater.
>
or coyote-shaped ?
> Timo wrote:
>
> > BenPeal wrote:
> > I keep wanting to design a Fortitude card called BASE Jumping. The artwork could be a vampire crawling out of a vampire-shaped crater.
> >
> or coyote-shaped ?
>
Base Jumping
Action Modifier
[for] Play when a minion controlled by your prey attempts to block this acting vampire. The action ends, and this acting vampire takes 4 damage. Put this card on the minion who was attempting to block. Each time this minion announces a bleed action, his controller may say "Beep beep" (once) to give him +1 stealth for the duration of the action, even if stealth is not needed.
[FOR] As above, but this acting vampire takes 6 damage (not 4).