Errata Kalis Fang??

I think Kalis Fang should cost only just 2 pool, instead of 3, like Femur of Toomler. Same thing, same requirements.

Assamite have better in-clan discipline (celerity) support for the Fang (dodge+additional strike with 2 agg or even counter 2 dodges, counter S:CE), than Tzsimisce for Femur. Seems balanced enough as it is now. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

Tzimisce also can counter combat ends, animalism and auspex is better support than celerity and obfuscate ....

Nothing balanced about Kali's Fang. It was printed before Femur of Toomler and they realized it cost too much. Also, all melee weapons should cost 1 less pool.

i know its an old card, and a lot of other card also has this handicap. I really like to use them, not just the fang, but the old versions need some errata, to make them playable at least. And for instance a lot of old card already got errata, for example acquired venture assets or gangrel revel

> Nictuku wrote: > Tzimisce also can counter combat ends > Psyche, hmmmm? Finnish Politics!

Guys. If Kali's Fang were free... it still wouldn't be an automatic inclusion for Assamite decks. (Close, sure, but not automatic.) Melee weapons are that bad.

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Nictuku wrote: > > Tzimisce also can counter combat ends > > > Psyche, hmmmm? > telepathic tracking

> Dorrinal wrote: > Guys. > > If Kali's Fang were free... it still wouldn't be an automatic inclusion for Assamite decks. (Close, sure, but not automatic.) Melee weapons are that bad. > i will be happy with 2 pool cost, thats seems ok. And melee weapons and not that bad, i believe an era of melee weapons are coming

> Nictuku wrote: > i believe an era of melee weapons are coming > Yes, there will be an era of melee weapons when there will be one which will cost 2 pools, have an include maneuver and deal 2 range damage...

> Timo wrote: > > > Nictuku wrote: > > i believe an era of melee weapons are coming > > > Yes, there will be an era of melee weapons when there will be one which will cost 2 pools, have an include maneuver and deal 2 range damage... > if its melee, its should damage strength

> Nictuku wrote: > i believe an era of melee weapons are coming > Vampires. With. Lightsabers.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Nictuku wrote: > > i believe an era of melee weapons are coming > > > Vampires. With. Lightsabers. > Imbued already got lightsaber....

> Dorrinal wrote: > Guys. > > If Kali's Fang were free... it still wouldn't be an automatic inclusion for Assamite decks. (Close, sure, but not automatic.) Melee weapons are that bad. > Question: is the issue that melee weapons are truly that bad? Or is the issue that a Celerity & guns combat package is always better? In the backround, guns do only bashing damage to vampires, which is also halved. A sword does lethal damage, is harder to soak, and often effectively does more damage. There's a good reason why swords and melee combat is the preferred method for vampires in cannon. For me it also strains credulity that supernatural speed increases the effectiveness and rate of fire of an assault rifle. How different would the game be if you couldn't use additional strikes with guns, or they only added 1 additional damage per additional strike?

> self wrote: > > > Dorrinal wrote: > > Guys. > > > > If Kali's Fang were free... it still wouldn't be an automatic inclusion for Assamite decks. (Close, sure, but not automatic.) Melee weapons are that bad. > > > Question: is the issue that melee weapons are truly that bad? Or is the issue that a Celerity & guns combat package is always better? In the backround, guns do only bashing damage to vampires, which is also halved. A sword does lethal damage, is harder to soak, and often effectively does more damage. There's a good reason why swords and melee combat is the preferred method for vampires in cannon. For me it also strains credulity that supernatural speed increases the effectiveness and rate of fire of an assault rifle. > > How different would the game be if you couldn't use additional strikes with guns, or they only added 1 additional damage per additional strike? > i like the idea, and the way you questioning the additional strike/ supernatural speed effectiveness of a gun. With super speed, how can u increase the speed of a mechanical thing?? But, with celerity, i can imagine u strike two/tree times with a sword. Personally i can support your idea above, to make the idea reality just a bit technical thing. I prefer the additional damage per additional strike version.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Nictuku wrote: > > i believe an era of melee weapons are coming > > > Vampires. With. Lightsabers. > If those come with crossguards, I think they should cost 1 pool more, shouldn't they? "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

> Nictuku wrote: > i like the idea, and the way you questioning the additional strike/ supernatural speed effectiveness of a gun. > thanks, i enjoy trying to challenge the status quo when it comes to how we think about the game. it should be mentioned that i usually find fluff justifications of game effects to be usually pretty lame, but the celerity/guns thing and how it works in vtes when compared to the source material truly baffles me.

maybe this forum and the posts in it can start a debate about the rulings, game balance and make the game better. id like to ask all of you to post what kind of singularity you have noticed in the game, such as this melee weapon issue. Maybe some other things come up, so the inner circle can think about some errata or slightly modifications about the rules, cards.

> Nictuku wrote: > maybe this forum and the posts in it can start a debate about the rulings, game balance and make the game better. id like to ask all of you to post what kind of singularity you have noticed in the game, such as this melee weapon issue. Maybe some other things come up, so the inner circle can think about some errata or slightly modifications about the rules, cards. > most of my ideas tend to get shot down in a chorus of "the game is just fine as it is!" or "we can't change anything, that will confuse new players!" for the most part, the community here is profoundly reticent to any kind of grand and sweeping change to the game. Granted, some changes would require a mass errata of many cards, so I completely understand and respect that viewpoint. However, with the game in a torpid state, I don't see how discussing ways to streamline some of the more unwieldy bits and doing some work on not only the engine of the game, but bringing the game in line with the more modern V20 background is a bad thing (holy sentence parsing, batman!). Indeed, having a plan for the future and a re-launch for the game may be beneficial to our efforts to get the game back in print. I've actually been slowly working on a plan of some ideas to revitalize the game, but my interest in working on it waxes and wanes

i know, its almost impossible to make those changes, but if u never try, or never ask, the answer is always no, thats my philosophy. I know this game has a future, and I'm happy to hear there a plans to make the game back in print. Probably that is most important goal we want to achieve.

> self wrote: > most of my ideas tend to get shot down in a chorus of "the game is just fine as it is!" or "we can't change anything, that will confuse new players!" > You want to streamline the game, but you object to people saying that things will confuse new players? The two are very, very strongly linked. The fact that V:TES has a truck of a rulebook with a multitude of mechanical cul-de-sacs in it is a huge disincentive for new players. Adding yet another special case for guns or melee weapons or whatever is another element to that. Additional to that, all changes have a cost in terms of impact on existing players and impact on returning players. At the extreme end, few people really want to ban cards just for the hell of it(*) because it disrupts things for existing players, potentially killing the favourite decks of various players - but it's sometimes necessary for the greater good. Neutering gun decks outright could have a similar effect. Similarly, for returning players, making significant disruptive changes raises the barrier for return - knowing that (at random) the scarce Bloodlines have been made a bit better, that Quietus can cope with S:CE, that Anarchs are great defensively etc. is a lot less to learn (and the sort of change endemic to all CCGs) than finding that fundamental mechanics have been rewritten all over the place. This is not "Everything is fine." But change has cost. Improving the environment for particular mechanics by creating new cards can be potentially disruptive to the environment without adding a truck of new rules for people to learn. Any player - new, returning, or forgetful - can pick up the card, read it, and understand, and not have to remember yet more cardless rules. Cardless rules are particularly annoying when they trigger off a little-used keyword and your opponent has to understand the difference. Knowing that a card is a "gun" is mostly irrelevant for game purposes, except for the person playing it - who can choose to use ammo cards that require a gun, or can use Suppressing Fire that requires a gun etc. Me having to know that gun has some weird corner case meanings regarding how much damage it can do in which circumstances is annoying as hell for many players. (*) There have been a few players who've suggested banning a clutch of cards as, essentially, a form of set rotation. These 20 cards (probably popular cards) have been banned, rebuild your decks. > self wrote: > However, with the game in a torpid state, I don't see how discussing ways to streamline some of the more unwieldy bits and doing some work on not only the engine of the game, > Suggesting that guns can't use additional strikes or that guns gain one extra damage per additional strike (rather than their full strike) is the exact opposite of streamlining - it's adding another rule. On a more general note: (most) melee weapons are bad. But several other combat strategies are fairly competitive with each other, such as Potence with Immortal Grapple vs Guns. Melee weapons largely aren't played because they're not as good. If you nerf guns via some new rule, you won't have done a single thing to make melee weapons more useful against Carrion Crows, weenie Fortitude, or whatever else. So there's a strong chance you'll make the game's rules appear more complicated while having the practical effect of simply eliminating gun decks from the game.

re: guns I am in no way suggesting that a rule be placed in the rulebook saying something to the effect of Guns can't use additional strikes. i probably wasn't clear as to how I would do it, but i'd change, say, Assault rifle to read: "Strike: 4R once each round. Strike: 1R each strike. Optional Maneuver." or something far more elegant when it comes to formatting and templating, and apply that Errata to ALL GUNS. I wholly concede that mass errata also isn't the greatest thing in the world, either. I also think that Cold Iron Vulnerability should go away. have Poker... and those three other cards that are Cold Iron be Errata'd to say they do Aggravated damage to Kyasid vampires, and just delete the relevant text from draeven softfoot. I have more to add, but we're going pretty far off topic here. I'll make another thread over the weekend and discuss things further.

> self wrote: > I also think that Cold Iron Vulnerability should go away. have Poker... and those three other cards that are Cold Iron be Errata'd to say they do Aggravated damage to Kyasid vampires, and just delete the relevant text from draeven softfoot. > Cold Iron Vulnerability is indeed not really a disadvantage at all. Then again, IF we ever get the game rolling again AND happen to get the Print on Demand IT WOULD be possible to change majority of Melee Weapons, such as Bastard Sword etc, to having the Cold iron keyword. IF the rule team deemed it necessary. Heck, no one uses such melee weapons (well, the !Salubri do butusually Walking Sticks are what they seem to use) so it wouldn't really change anything. Not holding my breath... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > self wrote: > > I also think that Cold Iron Vulnerability should go away. have Poker... and those three other cards that are Cold Iron be Errata'd to say they do Aggravated damage to Kyasid vampires, and just delete the relevant text from draeven softfoot. > > > Cold Iron Vulnerability is indeed not really a disadvantage at all. > Not to mention that it takes a lot of space in the cardtext for nothing... It was a fluffy, but a bad idea. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Can't we delete blood curse while we are at it ? It's not even fluffy like cold iron. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

I own 16 assamite decks. I use snipers, .44 magnuns, kerries, argent batons, nightsticks, blades of enoch, joulom's axes, sengir daggers, baseball bats, daggers, weighted walking stick, crimson sentinel, ivory bow, rowan ring, flamethrowers, and the wailing banshee. None of them uses kali's fang. 3 pool is crap. This card is a damn wallpaper. 1 pool would be good (1 less than sengirs), 2 pool would make it at least playable. I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

If we want some necro, than we still have unresolved issue of first strike beating SCE. At the time of thouse epic thread I was thinking that it will have zero effect on competitive play so was kind of not interested. But now we got bunch of new players who are annoed with confusing timing of strikes and cool first strike combat cards, which are really wallpaper. So in this point of view it'll be meaningfull change. NC Russia

Why not make a few more melee weapons hand strikes. Like the melee weapon "Bundi" ("This strike is both a hand strike and a melee weapon strike). If they want to limit the number to a few melee weapons, I can't see why brass knuckles & Bang Nakh" shouldn't be useable as a hand strike, if you're grappled or the doing the grappling. Fair enough melee like Chainsaws shouldn't be useable when being hugged(grappled). Personally I would like to put a Bastard Sword deck together, however I'd be foolish when I see Meat Hook cost nothing (vs 1 pool cost of B/Sword) AND has a possible built in press. Yes it can be destroyed by a vamp with potence (but who cares it cost nothing). As it is I rarely see melee weapons played, or play them myself. If you want weapons on your minions why would you use melee, when you can use guns for example and go to the safety of long range? Also do damage, and reduce the risk of hand strikes, Immortal grapples, nasty close range damage and melee strikes so on and so on. Melee weapons don't kill vampires, guns do! /Rant off

Yeah, melee weapons tend to get the, erm, short end of the stick Finnish Politics!

Attachment pun-dog-pun-husky-00.jpg not found

> Charles_Bronson wrote: > I own 16 assamite decks. > RESPECT. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."