Tariq and merging

I would like to know if it is possible to play a merged Tariq without ever having triggered the reduced capacity. Is it maybe possible to merge in uncontrolled or can I play a card that prevents a vampires effects from triggering that leaves as soon as I merge?

No. You need to get one version of him out first, only after that you have possibility to merge him. And remember that you can't influence out one version and merge on same turn. This is because uncontrolled vampires that have enough blood on them to come out, becomes controlled in the end of influence phase and merging (burn one pool and spend four transfers) has to happen during influence phase before that. > rulebook wrote: > At the end of your influence phase, any vampire in your uncontrolled region with a number of blood counters on him equal to (or more than) his capacity becomes controlled. The vampire is turned face up and moved to the ready region, untapped. The counters are kept on him to represent his blood (counters in excess of his capacity drain off immediately as usual). > > rulebook wrote: > if you already control the advancement or the associated regular "base" vampire and the other version of the vampire is in your uncontrolled region, then you can spend 4 transfers and 1 pool to move the vampire card from your uncontrolled region to the controlled vampire card > Marko, Prince of Helsinki

Thanks for clarifying that mass transfers (information highway, govern) also wouldn't be possible. I suppose the effect triggers at the end of the influence step as soon as he joins the ready region. Could I somehow inhibit the effect for a while until I can merge? Was this designers intent of the advancement? The advancement seems rather pointless like this.

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Thanks for clarifying that mass transfers (information highway, govern) also wouldn't be possible. > I suppose the effect triggers at the end of the influence step as soon as he joins the ready region. > Correct. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Could I somehow inhibit the effect for a while until I can merge? > None I know. > 2wayspeaker wrote: > Was this designers intent of the advancement? The advancement seems rather pointless like this. > It's not pointless as it allows Tariq to avoid a few unpleasant things based on the vampire capacity (such as Banishment, Obedience etc.) Tariq has always been a 3-cap when he gets out so he was designed to lose his blood when getting out. Merging him isn't suppose to avoid that lose of blood, but to give him more possibilities. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Thanks for clarifying that mass transfers (information highway, govern) also wouldn't be possible. > I suppose the effect triggers at the end of the influence step as soon as he joins the ready region. > Could I somehow inhibit the effect for a while until I can merge? > > Was this designers intent of the advancement? The advancement seems rather pointless like this. > Best thing you could do with Tariq is play a Tomb of Rameses III and influence 4 pool on him (making it 8). He'd still be out there with 3 blood, but you've won a turn of influence. And you've spent a grand total of 7 pool (same).

> Ankha wrote: > It's not pointless as it allows Tariq to avoid a few unpleasant things based on the vampire capacity (such as Banishment, Obedience etc.) > Also, that when Tariq is 3 capacity, he's a little more vulnerable to - for example - his opponent Concealing a gun into play and causing some upset with an unexpected amount of damage, or the .44 Magnum owner throwing down one of their two copies of Caseless Rounds, and that sort of thing. As a 7 cap, he may well be able to fill up with blood reasonably quickly (Taste of Vitae helps a lot), giving him a little more buffer space against such tricks.

Advancing vampires is one of the weakest new mechanics added, I cant think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it. The only weaker mechanic I can think of is the Research and Development thing which I've never even seen used. (Seen a lot of Shalmath but nobody ever tries to use that part of his special.)

> theEmperor wrote: > Advancing vampires is one of the weakest new mechanics added, I cant think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it. > No? Enzo Giovanni, Pentex Board of Directors: vekn.net/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/68535-twd-funeral-wake#68535 Also at TWDA several other decks with regular and advanced version of a vamp can be found: Dreams & Dementation by Kristian Willenbacher in Germany's ECQ 2008 (Quentin King III) Mark Loughman's Blind Squirrel in Columbus, Ohio in 2007 (Tariq) Jay Kristoff's Beef Chunks 'n' Gravy in NAC 2006's LCQ (Ferox, The Rock Lord) Hiramm Sanchez Gomez's Bugs Bunny in Mexico City in 2005 (Sebastian Goulet) Archibald Zimonyi's Brujahlicous in Gothenburg 2005 (Theo Bell) I thought that there wouldäve been more Sebastian Goulets... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > theEmperor wrote: > > Enzo Giovanni, Pentex Board of Directors: > > > One copy of basic and one of advanced! Yea, he totally embraced this mechanic! > NC Russia

> Lönkka wrote: > > > theEmperor wrote: > > Advancing vampires is one of the weakest new mechanics added, I cant think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it. > > > No? > > Enzo Giovanni, Pentex Board of Directors: > vekn.net/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/68535-twd-funeral-wake#68535 > > Also at TWDA several other decks with regular and advanced version of a vamp can be found: > > Dreams & Dementation by Kristian Willenbacher in Germany's ECQ 2008 (Quentin King III) > > Mark Loughman's Blind Squirrel in Columbus, Ohio in 2007 (Tariq) > > Jay Kristoff's Beef Chunks 'n' Gravy in NAC 2006's LCQ (Ferox, The Rock Lord) > > Hiramm Sanchez Gomez's Bugs Bunny in Mexico City in 2005 (Sebastian Goulet) > > Archibald Zimonyi's Brujahlicous in Gothenburg 2005 (Theo Bell) > > I thought that there wouldäve been more Sebastian Goulets... > This years Ropecon winning deck was heavy on advancing it key vampires (Sarrasine & Kemintiri) Marko, Prince of Helsinki

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=942634392455768&set=gm.901104729927981&type=1&theater NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > One copy of basic and one of advanced! Yea, he totally embraced this mechanic! > So what! The guy said that "I cant think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it." I showed him six examples. No one said that you need to have X or Y amount of advanced vamps... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > The guy said that "I cant think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it." > > I showed him six examples. > > No one said that you need to have X or Y amount of advanced vamps... > No. tE said "Advancing vampires is one of the weakest new mechanics added", everything else is not relevant, and your ansver is "there are 6 decks in twda with basic and adv vampires in the crypt". It's a bad argument. NC Russia

In my experience, merging vampires is quite easy. 5 of the base vamp and one of the Advanced vamp in your crypt, 8 copies of Epiphany, and 2 copies of Wider View and you're good to go. People either don't realize or keep forgetting that Epiphany is freely cyclable with your non-Advanceable vamps. I have a handful of decks that involve merging, and I find them fun. The unfortunate part is that Epiphany is a rare from Sword of Caine and you need a bunch of them. In my opinion, the real problem with Advanced vamps is the design of the vamps themselves. The base or un-merged Advanced versions are often not good enough to be useful on their own, and the merged specials are often not worth the effort. When working on the Create-A-Clan rules years ago, I talked with LSJ about adding rules for Advanced vamps. His recommendation was to give the base and Advanced versions their usual points to spend, but have the option to save some of those points and double them for the merged specials: www.tenerdo.org/cac.html#attributes It's possible that LSJ had the same approach when designing official Advanced vamps, but I never asked him about it. The V:EKN Design Team's approach is to create base and Advanced vamps that can stand on their own and be useful without merging and without saving any "points" for the merged specials. For merged specials, we go with something that feels appropriately worth merging for and adjust based on playtesting.

> BenPeal wrote: > 5 of the base vamp and one of the Advanced vamp in your crypt, 8 copies of Epiphany, and 2 copies of Wider View and you're good to go. > All of this, exept 2 WV, are not easy. You are polluting both your crypt and library with useless cards, mostly for a questionable gain (votes?). NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > 5 of the base vamp and one of the Advanced vamp in your crypt, 8 copies of Epiphany, and 2 copies of Wider View and you're good to go. > > > All of this, exept 2 WV, are not easy. You are polluting both your crypt and library with useless cards, mostly for a questionable gain (votes?). > 5-6 copies of a star vamp in your crypt is perfectly normal. There are plenty of decks in the TWDA built around star vamps. The Wider Views help clean up your uncontrolled region later in the game if you're looking for another support vamp. Most of the time the Advanced version is still in your crypt after your initial draw, so Epiphany fishes it out of there. Hardly polluting. As for whether the gain is questionable, that depends on the vampires. Like I said, some of them aren't good. However, with Epiphany you're talking about a +2 stealth action to gain something and untap. Getting, say, a 2-vote title at +2 stealth and untapping is remarkably good. But again, that gets back to the crypt cards in question. As for polluting your library with Epiphanies...They're freely cyclable. You have a support vamp take a +2 stealth action and untap and the card is gone from your hand.

> BenPeal wrote: > 5-6 copies of a star vamp in your crypt is perfectly normal. > I think 5 is max (even maybe tech "5 in 13") and it's still not good, but necessary if your deck can't function without it. But still keeping in mind that having star vampire is always a disadvantage (everything else equal). > BenPeal wrote: > Getting, say, a 2-vote title at +2 stealth and untapping is remarkably good. > Than we came to the second part of the question - +2 votes if cool if you got something like several 5 cap dorks playing fee stakes, but not so much for a star deck, where you can just put some voting powerhouse like Lutz or Arika. > BenPeal wrote: > You have a support vamp take a +2 stealth action and untap and the card is gone from your hand. > and replaced with other Epiphany They are not coming one at a time at the middle of your turn, they will be clogging your hand during important combat, or when you is in need of drawing bounce, or just when you haven't enough minions to discard them all. I think this is the only TWD which really used epiphanies: www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=19596 And it's because Kemintiri gaines +3 votes as vell as "justicarness" for merging, no combat in the meta and, presumably, in the fear of contesting Lutz/triphosa who still are better. NC Russia

Really got no mood for working, so the list of vampires which are fine for merging in "Ben Peal's way" (from 37 with merged abilities) Sarrasine - corruption counters are cool, but it's unnoing to put them Tegyrius - +3 votes and parity shift good for assamites Valerius Maior - you can save like 8 pool for not being infernal ... that's all? NC Russia

Nergal is also worth the effort to make him a nice bleeding machine. I never tried it though, because I don't like the idea of wasting 8 slots of library in a bleed stealth deck to make it work (just like I wouldn't play 8 Secure Haven to be sure to have one early). I'd rather have a crypt card that do the job (wink wink). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> elotar wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > 5-6 copies of a star vamp in your crypt is perfectly normal. > > > I think 5 is max (even maybe tech "5 in 13") and it's still not good, but necessary if your deck can't function without it. But still keeping in mind that having star vampire is always a disadvantage (everything else equal). > I repeat: There are plenty of examples of successful star vampire decks. > > BenPeal wrote: > > Getting, say, a 2-vote title at +2 stealth and untapping is remarkably good. > > > Than we came to the second part of the question - +2 votes if cool if you got something like several 5 cap dorks playing fee stakes, but not so much for a star deck, where you can just put some voting powerhouse like Lutz or Arika. > So, you're saying that the problem here is the quality of the vampires in question. I said the same thing. > > BenPeal wrote: > > You have a support vamp take a +2 stealth action and untap and the card is gone from your hand. > > > and replaced with other Epiphany They are not coming one at a time at the middle of your turn, they will be clogging your hand during important combat, or when you is in need of drawing bounce, or just when you haven't enough minions to discard them all. > This is hyperbole. They will not be clogging your hand only ever at the worst times possible. Take, for example, your "when you haven't enough minions to discard them all" scenario. Having three Epiphanies in your hand over the course of one turn after you've already merged (aka after the first time you've drawn one) is a very, very unlikely draw in an 80-90 card deck. > I think this is the only TWD which really used epiphanies: > www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=19596 > > And it's because Kemintiri gaines +3 votes as vell as "justicarness" for merging, no combat in the meta and, presumably, in the fear of contesting Lutz/triphosa who still are better. > So your example of how the merging mechanic isn't worth it is of a tournament-winning deck from 2015 that has two advanceable vampires in it? And the deck won because of the quality of the vampires in question? You're a weird man, sir.

> BenPeal wrote: > You're a weird man, sir. > One deck in 20 years - not a good track record for mechanic. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > You're a weird man, sir. > > > One deck in 20 years - not a good track record for mechanic. > We've already established that it's not the mechanic that's the problem - it's the Advanced crypt cards. And where are you getting 20 years from?

I would say the mechanic is a problem. I don't care to build star vampire decks. In decks where you run multiple copies of the same vampire just because you could merge them, you decrease the ability to get a more diversified crypt. I found my Pot/Dom deck with both Sutphens was just strictly better without both. Certainly, the gains for merging are nowhere near sufficient. But, part of the reason they aren't sufficient is that you are decreasing your number of minions in order to merge. Basic rules changes could be - if you merge a vampire, automatically decrypt the next crypt card. That's pretty weak. When you merge, filling up to full capacity with blood from the blood bank - that's kind of sexy. Weird incentives result, but whatever. And, a host of other ways to go that people have either thought of or not. But, really, if the idea is to merge, then the merged minion needs a power greater than that of the Jurai Royal Family. If the idea is that you can casually merge, both versions need to be worth playing, which is a problem with older vampires that have suck versions when creating advancies for them. Traveller Card Game

> elotar wrote: > Really got no mood for working, so the list of vampires which are fine for merging in "Ben Peal's way" (from 37 with merged abilities) > > Sarrasine - corruption counters are cool, but it's unnoing to put them > Tegyrius - +3 votes and parity shift good for assamites > Valerius Maior - you can save like 8 pool for not being infernal > > ... > > that's all? > I would say that Sebastian Goulet is definetily worth merging also.

> ICL wrote: > I would say the mechanic is a problem. I don't care to build star vampire decks. > There is plenty of empirical evidence of people having success with star vampire decks. Your valid personal preference doesn't invalidate the evidence. > In decks where you run multiple copies of the same vampire just because you could merge them, you decrease the ability to get a more diversified crypt. > Yes, that's one of the drawbacks, along with the risk taken of putting a lot of eggs in one basket. > I found my Pot/Dom deck with both Sutphens was just strictly better without both. > That doesn't invalidate merging a vamp or playing a star vampire deck. That just shows that particular crypt card was a poor choice for the deck you wanted to build. > But, really, if the idea is to merge, then the merged minion needs a power greater than that of the Jurai Royal Family. > So, really, the idea is to make something grossly overpowered? I think we can achieve something less hyperbolic and still suitable. > If the idea is that you can casually merge, both versions need to be worth playing, which is a problem with older vampires that have suck versions when creating advancies for them. > That raises the question of whether it's ok to wallpaper a card that was already functionally wallpapered from the start.

> elotar wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > You're a weird man, sir. > > > One deck in 20 years - not a good track record for mechanic. > First advanced vampires came out 2003 (Anarchs had few advanced vampires and Lambach (adv) was released as storyline promo) Marko, Prince of Helsinki

I second Klaital's comments on Sebastian Goulet, especially in today's Ally heavy environment. Also, stand by for this year's Ropecon's TWD list, features some Advanced vampires from PDF expansions. Finnish Politics!

> elotar wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > The guy said that "I cant think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it." > > > > I showed him six examples. > > > > No one said that you need to have X or Y amount of advanced vamps... > > > No. > > tE said "Advancing vampires is one of the weakest new mechanics added", everything else is not relevant, and your ansver is "there are 6 decks in twda with basic and adv vampires in the crypt". > Yes. I never contested the fact that the mechanic ain't one of the hottest one. I merely corrected his faulty supporting statement. Nice troll BTW... Finnish Politics!

> BenPeal wrote: > > > ICL wrote: > > If the idea is that you can casually merge, both versions need to be worth playing, which is a problem with older vampires that have suck versions when creating advancies for them. > > > That raises the question of whether it's ok to wallpaper a card that was already functionally wallpapered from the start. > Expanding on this thought a bit, if creating a new, Advanced version of a vampire that's good on its own would wallpaper the original base version, then that could be a case for having a strong merged special. You could still play the Advanced version on its own without merging, but you'd have the deck design option of merging if you wanted to, hopefully avoiding wallpapering the base version.

> elotar wrote: > I think this is the only TWD which really used epiphanies: > www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=19596 > There's also this one from Matti Palomäki, which also has 5 Epiphanies in the deck to merge Hannibal, its star vampire: www.veknfrance.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9mondaymayhemx And there's this one, ironically enough from Ian Lee (ICL): www.veknfrance.com/decks/twd.htm#2k7wonThursday Ian's deck, however, appears to be less invested in merging its two mergeable vamps. It looks like it's more of a toolbox option.

Personally I think merging is interesting idea, but the merged abilities need to be significant enough to be worth it. A title is not that. If advanced vampire is given a title improvement over the basic one, it shold imo be baseline on the advanced version, with a bit more interesting merged ability.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > > BenPeal wrote: > > > You're a weird man, sir. > > > > > > > > One deck in 20 years - not a good track record for mechanic. > > > We've already established that it's not the mechanic that's the problem - it's the Advanced crypt cards. > You can approach it from both angles. At the moment, we have a mechanic that requires a fairly serious amount of investment (5+ crypt cards, 8-10+ library cards, in your suggestion) to use with mostly not much pay-off. And in, say, a fast-paced combat deck which stands a decent chance of emptying its library in some games, 8-10 cards is quite a lot of deck space. If the mechanic was easier to invoke, merging could be justifiably weaker. For example, if there was a cardless way to merge yourself that was significantly easier than the current one, the benefits being more mediocre would be fine. +1 stealth cardless action costing some blood or a pool to get a cool extra special, or maybe a new discipline, or maybe a new title (i.e. the current sort of merged abilities)? Potentially doable - obviously, you want some effort, but there's potentially a sweet spot that could be hit with the current power level. This sort of thing might also mean that you didn't have to do it based on star vampire decks - it would be possible to just toss in two copies of Ramona into your Gangrel deck (one of each), and if you draw one, you can get the other out reasonably easily. It also gives a little more design freedom - if advanced vampires basically need to be capable of being star vampires, you can't really have a fun 3 cap who becomes a merged 4 cap Primogen, or whatever. That's not to discourage creating good advanced/merged stars, just that it could go wider than them too. The obvious alternative is to make merged vampires much stronger, so the current effort is worthwhile in more cases. That's also potentially fine, but does have the potential downside that the 'bad' merged vampires are still bad. You get a dozen new shiny advanced vampires to play with who will be worthwhile candidates for merging - but the existing ones are still terrible. Obviously, you could do a little of both.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > We've already established that it's not the mechanic that's the problem - it's the Advanced crypt cards. > > > You can approach it from both angles. At the moment, we have a mechanic that requires a fairly serious amount of investment (5+ crypt cards, 8-10+ library cards, in your suggestion) to use with mostly not much pay-off. And in, say, a fast-paced combat deck which stands a decent chance of emptying its library in some games, 8-10 cards is quite a lot of deck space. > A 5-6 crypt card investment is typical for a star vampire deck, though I agree with your following concern about helping non-star Advanced vamps. If you're going with my approach (8 Epiphany, 2 Wider View in a 90-card deck), you're still left with 80 cards for your deck, which is a very common amount. Matti Palomäki's deck used 5 Epiphany and 0 Wider View in an 81-card deck. Randal Rundstam's deck used 5 Epiphany and 2 Wider View in a 73-card deck. Neither were combat decks, so perhaps the card investment remains a concern for those or other card-intensive decks. As for the payoff, I still think that's well within the realm of the base/Advanced crypt cards typically not being good enough in the first place, be they stand-alone or merged. > If the mechanic was easier to invoke, merging could be justifiably weaker. For example, if there was a cardless way to merge yourself that was significantly easier than the current one, the benefits being more mediocre would be fine. > That's a potential option, though my job is to design cards, not change the rules. I'm strongly disinclined to change the rules with the game out of print, as I want existing players (both active and lapsed) to be confident in knowing that the rules remain as they know them. I'm also concerned about adequately disseminating rules changes, though adoption of VEKN expansions by the playerbase appears to be going well. Also given that my job is to design cards, I'm inclined to design cards in the attempt to address design space gaps. Despite a cardless become-Anarch action, LSJ still felt the need (and rightly so) to design more cards to help your vampires become Anarchs. Merging vampires didn't become viable until Epiphany was printed, and perhaps there are other merging cards that can be designed. That said, I agree that the existing influence phase mechanic for merging is unsatisfactory, and perhaps it could be sent for review. > Potentially doable - obviously, you want some effort, but there's potentially a sweet spot that could be hit with the current power level. This sort of thing might also mean that you didn't have to do it based on star vampire decks - it would be possible to just toss in two copies of Ramona into your Gangrel deck (one of each), and if you draw one, you can get the other out reasonably easily. > Yeah, I agree that "casual merging" for vamps like Ramona could use some help. > It also gives a little more design freedom - if advanced vampires basically need to be capable of being star vampires, you can't really have a fun 3 cap who becomes a merged 4 cap Primogen, or whatever. That's not to discourage creating good advanced/merged stars, just that it could go wider than them too. > Definitely. > The obvious alternative is to make merged vampires much stronger, so the current effort is worthwhile in more cases. That's also potentially fine, but does have the potential downside that the 'bad' merged vampires are still bad. You get a dozen new shiny advanced vampires to play with who will be worthwhile candidates for merging - but the existing ones are still terrible. > The plan is to design Advanced vamps that can stand alone on their own without merging, and in some/most cases provide a merging option for those who want to do so. For the "bad" vamps...well...they weren't designed properly in the first place. Perhaps there are cards that can be designed to be tailored to them.

There's a difference between bad vampires and wallpaper. Very few vampires are actually wallpaper (or close to wallpaper). Yet, there are many, many bad vampires. People still play bad vampires. I've merged Tusk - I'm not only playing bad vampires, I'm playing a worse deck than if I didn't merge Tusk. Seem to be contending that advanced vampires are intended to produce superstar decks, but that's clearly not how they were designed. Merged Ramona, as an older option, is clearly not intended to be a deck. My point is that playing both copies of vampires is a disadvantage, not a neutral proposition. Only when you get something mindblowing from merging do you actually net positive. For example, if version A is an archbishop and version B is an archbishop and all you gain from merging is being a cardinal, you are still at a net loss. Of course, there are all sorts of miscellaneous abilities that don't make that math that easy, but the math is largely on the "I'm just better playing one version of this guy rather than both". As for Goulet, I've played one or two decks in tournament play that could merge him, and I somehow managed not to win those tournaments. As to what I'd like to see. Rather than create a good version of a bad vampire, which will just mean the bad vampire sees less play, I'd rather see merging the vampire be helpful to winning and/or do highly amusing stuff that doesn't contribute heavily to losing. When I created a bunch of group 1 advancies, I did tend to make the new versions just flat out better, but that was more due to how much design space there is to do vampire abilities. It's fairly easy to have merged abilities be vastly stronger than individual abilities. Traveller Card Game

> BenPeal wrote: > The plan is to design Advanced vamps that can stand alone on their own without merging, and in some/most cases provide a merging option for those who want to do so. For the "bad" vamps...well...they weren't designed properly in the first place. Perhaps there are cards that can be designed to be tailored to them. > Or we could just errata every last one of them! Rebuild for Group 1!!! But on a slightly more serious note... regarding the alternative Merge Mechanic then a simple edit would be to adjust the current "Merge" to include a search. "You may spend 4 TPs and 1 pool to search your uncontrolled and crypt for an advanced or base vampire that has the same name as a vampire in play. Merge those two crypt cards and shuffle your crypt." Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > But on a slightly more serious note... regarding the alternative Merge Mechanic then a simple edit would be to adjust the current "Merge" to include a search. > > "You may spend 4 TPs and 1 pool to search your uncontrolled and crypt for an advanced or base vampire that has the same name as a vampire in play. Merge those two crypt cards and shuffle your crypt." > Same name as a vampire you control, unless you want the option to merge other players' vampires. But yeah, that very idea has been proposed before. It's still not super-hot, as you're still waiting a fair amount of time to get the benefit of merging (bring out the crypt card, go a whole round of turns into your next influence phase, then finally merge). That also assumes you're not wanting to bring out other vamps at that point. Still, as a cardless option it might be fine, and Epiphany would still be a faster option that doesn't get in the way of your transfers. Speaking of Epiphany, perhaps there could be a starting-as-Advanced version. Just noodling around: Legacy +2 stealth action. Requires an unmerged advanced vampire. Untap this acting vampire and search your crypt, uncontrolled region, or ash heap for his or her base version to move to him or her. Shuffle your crypt afterward. If this vampire merges, move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. It's not cyclable like Epiphany, so I gave it a crypt draw bonus. Probably not as good as Epiphany.

> BenPeal wrote: > Speaking of Epiphany, perhaps there could be a starting-as-Advanced version. Just noodling around: > > Legacy > > +2 stealth action. Requires an unmerged advanced vampire. > Untap this acting vampire and search your crypt, uncontrolled region, or ash heap for his or her base version to move to him or her. Shuffle your crypt afterward. If this vampire merges, move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. > > It's not cyclable like Epiphany, so I gave it a crypt draw bonus. Probably not as good as Epiphany. > Ah, could drop the crypt draw and give the card burn option instead to make it cyclable: Legacy +2 stealth action. Requires an unmerged advanced vampire. Untap this acting vampire and search your crypt, uncontrolled region, or ash heap for his or her base version to move to him or her. Shuffle your crypt afterward.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > Speaking of Epiphany, perhaps there could be a starting-as-Advanced version. Just noodling around: > > > > Legacy > > > > +2 stealth action. Requires an unmerged advanced vampire. > > Untap this acting vampire and search your crypt, uncontrolled region, or ash heap for his or her base version to move to him or her. Shuffle your crypt afterward. If this vampire merges, move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. > > > > It's not cyclable like Epiphany, so I gave it a crypt draw bonus. Probably not as good as Epiphany. > > > Ah, could drop the crypt draw and give the card burn option instead to make it cyclable: > > Legacy > > +2 stealth action. Requires an unmerged advanced vampire. > Untap this acting vampire and search your crypt, uncontrolled region, or ash heap for his or her base version to move to him or her. Shuffle your crypt afterward. > Burn option vastly increases the viability of decks that specialize in things like merging or going anarch. If I can't use the card, at least I don't have to choke on it. Generally these decks aren't so awesome that they need to be slowed down by making someone discard the extra copies and have a dead card during their turn. On the contrary, it opens up more possibilities if you can quickly cycle out redundant cards and get the deck doing what it is supposed to be doing. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

I think Ben got "Professional Illnes" of thinking, that any problem with the game can be solved by designing new cards. We got ~50 advansable vampires as well as a card, which makes merging "free". Near nobody are playing them in serious games. There is no hope in this mechanic. PS: everybody here, I hope, know what "parasitic mechanic" means? NC Russia

Not everything on the game must be for serious games. Have you ever thought what a nightmare could be playing against edward vignes, tupdogs and nocturnes over and over? Advancement is a nice way of integrating flavour in to proper game but seeking it to be TWD material may take as much cards as Anarchs did to be really viable and not just "woah, this feels like roleplaying anarchs"

How is my statement faulty? I said I can't think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it. I never claimed there were none my point was that there are very few successful uses of the mechanic.

> theEmperor wrote: > How is my statement faulty? I said I can't think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it. > I never claimed there were none my point was that there are very few successful uses of the mechanic. > It's not faulty, but of very little help since you gave your feeling, not facts. If I say "I can't think about any deck using Revolutionary Council" and then discover that there are dozens, how does it help? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> theEmperor wrote: > How is my statement faulty? I said I can't think of a single tournament winning deck that uses it. > I never claimed there were none my point was that there are very few successful uses of the mechanic. > I just did a search for "adv" in the TWDA. I got 228 hits. After filtering out "advice", "advantage", and tournaments named after Advanced vampires, there are still well over 100 decks in the TWDA that do one of the following: - use an Advanced version of a vampire but not its base - use a base version and an Advanced version of a vampire for casual merging - use a base or Advanced vampire as a star vampire, with the opposite version for merging There is also a wide variety of Advanced vampires represented, including Ramona and Tusk the Talebearer. I don't know what your version of "successful" is, but I'm seeing quite a lot of players getting use out of a lot of Advanced vampires.

> BenPeal wrote: > > I just did a search for "adv" in the TWDA. I got 228 hits. After filtering out "advice", "advantage", and tournaments named after Advanced vampires, there are still well over 100 decks in the TWDA that do one of the following: > > - use an Advanced version of a vampire but not its base > - use a base version and an Advanced version of a vampire for casual merging > - use a base or Advanced vampire as a star vampire, with the opposite version for merging > > There is also a wide variety of Advanced vampires represented, including Ramona and Tusk the Talebearer. > > I don't know what your version of "successful" is, but I'm seeing quite a lot of players getting use out of a lot of Advanced vampires. > I'm talking about the mechanic as a way to win not the advanced versions of a vampire or even the splashing of bas and advanced versions for casual use of the mechanic. In my opinion there are plenty of vampires that would be worth advancing of the mechanic was a little easier to use as plenty of people have pointed out right now its only useful or superstar decks (Tariq with atonement is fun for instance) or if the base and advanced version are about equally useful in the deck.

> BenPeal wrote: > That's a potential option, though my job is to design cards, not change the rules. I'm strongly disinclined to change the rules with the game out of print, as I want existing players (both active and lapsed) to be confident in knowing that the rules remain as they know them. > ... > Yeah, I agree that "casual merging" for vamps like Ramona could use some help. > So, I've had this rattling round in my head a little. I'm not totally averse to rules changes or rules additions, because - for example - I'd be potentially totally fine with a rules tweak that was needed for a new expansion, for a new title or keyword etc. So, I was thinking something along the lines of: Once per game, one of your minions may take a [some - 1?] stealth action that costs [some - 2?] blood to search your crypt for a copy of a minion with the same name. Shuffle the rest of your crypt, and place the found card (if any) on top. Note that the existing merge rule stays completely in tact. The idea would be that somewhere in the mid-game, a vampire could take an action, two turns, and two pool to advance itself. (One pool to flip the vampire out of your crypt. The second pool to merge.) Only one vampire can do this per game, per Methuselah. As written, if the action is blocked, it's gone forever - though that's obviously tweakable. Including a few good library based merge cards might therefore still be good as a backup, or for decks with minimal access to stealth/delivery, or if you have more than one mergeable minion in your deck (unlikely now, but possibly less unlikely in such a setup).

No new rules for Baal's sake! NC Russia

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > I'm not totally averse to rules changes or rules additions, because - for example - I'd be potentially totally fine with a rules tweak that was needed for a new expansion, for a new title or keyword etc. > I'm going to need a few weeks to process this sentence fully. In the meantime... What have you done with James? Why are you aliens impersonating James? Are you a secret double agent from Hasbro?!?! Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> BenPeal wrote: > I don't know what your version of "successful" is, but I'm seeing quite a lot of players getting use out of a lot of Advanced vampires. > Ben, you have been making a lot of sense so far, but arguing that having adv or base vampires CAPABLE of merging in a TWDA deck indicates that the MECHANIC of merging is fine, is a strawman. Getting use out of advanced vampires is one thing, getting use out of merging vampires is something completely else.

> Blooded wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > I don't know what your version of "successful" is, but I'm seeing quite a lot of players getting use out of a lot of Advanced vampires. > > > Ben, you have been making a lot of sense so far, but arguing that having adv or base vampires CAPABLE of merging in a TWDA deck indicates that the MECHANIC of merging is fine, is a strawman. > If you're gonna cherry-pick things I say, can we cherry-pick some other things, too? > BenPeal wrote: > That said, I agree that the existing influence phase mechanic for merging is unsatisfactory, and perhaps it could be sent for review. > > Yeah, I agree that "casual merging" for vamps like Ramona could use some help. > And don't put words in my mouth, either. I didn't say that the merging mechanic was fine. I was refuting the notion that there exist few to zero tournament-winning decks that involved Advanced vamps or decks that sought to merge vamps. That doesn't mean that the following don't need improvements: - the influence phase merging rule - non-influence-phase merging options - Advanced crypt cards > Blooded wrote: > Getting use out of advanced vampires is one thing, getting use out of merging vampires is something completely else. > I agree.

Ben, if you look at the context of what he said, he in no way said anything about advanced vampires. He said that there are zero TWDA decks that make use of merging. Now if you want to make "make use of" mean "have an incidental merging angle" rather than "explicitly focuses on merging vamps as a key mechanic" then your response holds water. I did not cherry pick, i responded to your exact post. Which did, in fact, comment on the set of advanced vampires in the TWDA and not the number of decks in the twda that use merging as a key mechanic.

> Blooded wrote: > Ben, if you look at the context of what he said, he in no way said anything about advanced vampires. He said that there are zero TWDA decks that make use of merging. > Which is factually incorrect.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Blooded wrote: > > Ben, if you look at the context of what he said, he in no way said anything about advanced vampires. He said that there are zero TWDA decks that make use of merging. > > > Which is factually incorrect. > Now who is cherry picking?