New Blog - Gaming with BS

Hello! As some of you know, I've recently been writing a few articles that have been posted on VTES ONE. It's been fantastic for a number of reasons, but I've decided that maybe (just maybe) I have enough ideas for articles that I can support my own gaming blog. Consequently, I've started my own blog - Gaming with BS . They're my initials, see. Pretty sure they don't stand for anything else.... So what can you expect from Gaming with BS ? My goal is to provide quality articles with deep analysis on whatever game has caught my fancy at the moment. For the foreseeable future, that will be VTES exclusively, but I may slip in an article on another game system at some point. Currently, the blog has copies of all my old articles - that includes the two I wrote for VTES ONE (which will also remain here), as well as links some old articles that I wrote about the Legend of the Five Rings CCG. Finally, it has a new article which I hope will be the start of a series of articles about how we can get people interested in VTES and what our community can do to lower the barriers to entry facing new and returning players! I hope you'll come and take a look! Maybe post a few comments - I would love to encourage some discussion in the community. And please let me know if you have any suggestions for the blog itself, or topics that you would be interested in reading about. Anyway, I hope you'll join me on this blogging journey! Brett Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Awesome abbreviated name for the blog! Fantasiapelit still has the following VTES in stock. All sets also available in smaller quantities and some odd starters from here and there still available but no full dispalys of sets not listed below are avaibalble any more. 3rd Edition Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Anarch Boosters (93 euros/dspl) Black Hand Boosters (93 euros/dspl) Ebony Kingdom Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Gehenna Boosters (93 euros/dspl) Kindred's Most Wanted Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Lords of the Night Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Nights of Reckoning Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Sword of Caine Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Twilight Rebellion Boosters (100 euros/dspl) Blood Shadowed Court Collector Deck (59.90 euros/dspl) Keepers of the Tradition Starters (50 euros/dspl) Legacies of Blood Starters (65 euros/dspl) VTES: Player's Guide 35 euros VTES Eternal Struggle Player's Guide 8.40 euros (LOL!) And the reason the site isn't also readily available in English is the fact that due to extremely high prices of Finnish postal services (to abroad) in most instances people tend to find products way cheaper elsewhere. So using very limited personnel resources to cater to the segment that makes up like 0.01% of the customer base isn't really viable... Postage for one display to europe is slightly under 20 euros and anywhere in the world double that. Someone wants to buy something I suggest emailing to: and working it out with the mail order trolls. Lönkka/Fantasiapelit Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Awesome abbreviated name for the blog! > Thank you! > Lönkka wrote: > Fantasiapelit still has the following VTES in stock: > Thanks again! I'll update my blog post with the availability! I'm amazed that you still have Third Edition, Anarch, and Twilight Rebellion boosters for sale. Pretty sure you are the only retailer who does. And thanks for clarifying the shipping situation. Between you and Walch & Nusser, it seems like Europe has pretty decent card availability. But that's a unique situation. New players from outside Europe are going to have a very hard time finding cards, and I think we need to consider ways to get cards into the hands of new players world-wide. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> brettscho wrote: > I'm amazed that you still have Third Edition, Anarch, and Twilight Rebellion boosters for sale. > Bought pretty heavily years ago... > brettscho wrote: > Between you and Walch & Nusser, it seems like Europe has pretty decent card availability. > AFAIK they bough pretty heavily, especially when WW ended the license (beat us to it). Finnish Politics!

Hello everybody - I just published a new article about online play, with some suggestions about how the VEKN can support and encourage more of it. I hope you enjoy it. Maybe people with more experience with online play can chime in! Meanwhile, I'm off to run a demo of the game for 6 potential new players - I'll be posting more about how it goes! gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/promoting-online-play/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I just published my first article in a series on running VTES demos. For now, I'm just looking at the demo decks that I currently use. Today's article is the guidelines that I used to create my demo decks. I'll start posting the decks themselves (along with piloting instructions for new players, playtest notes, and new player impressions) in the next few weeks. Hope you enjoy! gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/demo-deck-series-the-rules/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Well, this may not be as exciting as the official VEKN news released today, but I've published my first article in my demo / new player deck series, looking at Clan Brujah. More decks will be posted in the coming days! Comments and suggestions are very welcome. You can check it out here: gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/demo-deck-series-clan-brujah/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Nice article, thanks. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

Unfortunately, I'll be out of town this weekend, meaning that I won't be able to moderate comments, respond, or make the changes to the Brujah Demo deck that people suggested (I got some great feedback - thanks to everybody who commented) until next week. But I didn't want to leave everybody hanging, so the my second demo deck article covering my Ventrue Demo Deck just went live. Hope you enjoy! gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/demo-deck-series-clan-ventrue/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Sorry for the long silence - I was out of town for a bit, and then I returned home to a VTES collection that I recently purchased, meaning that all my VTES time has been spent sorting through this massive pile of cards. But I'm finally ready to return to my blog. You can expect regular content to start up next week. In the meantime, enjoy this latest installment of my demo deck series! gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/demo-deck-series-clan-malkavian/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

My demo deck series continues with Clan Nosferatu - check it out and let me know what you think! gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/demo-deck-series-clan-nosferatu/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Today I unveil the first part of the future VEKN beginner section on my site - it will only be there while it's in the draft stage partially for me to figure out how to put it together, and partially to solicit feedback from the community so we can make this the best possible section for new players, so please go check it out and comment! Currently the section consists of: A main beginner page with introduction and 8 questions (2 of which are done). An in-depth article on VTES sets, how good they would be for a beginner, and where each set can be purchased. Here are links to both pages and a place where you can leave comments. Enjoy, and please remember to leave feedback! Oh, and if you were expecting (or dare I say hoping...) for another demo deck article, I'll continue with them next week, I've just been working on this recently, and I wanted to show it off a bit. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I'm interested in the progress of this section: I've introduced the game to a guy in my board gaming group who is mildly interested. Anything pre-packaged that I can show him is wonderful. Since I can't find a place to comment on the new players' corner page, I am sharing my thoughts here re: "What kind of game VTES is". 1. It's a game of player elimination. 2. It's based on a modern, supernatural RPG setting. 3. It plays like a heavy strategy board game. 4. It shares similarities with Magic: the Gathering. In other words: If you don't want to be eliminated or to eliminate, you won't like this game. If you like the trappings of a modern, supernatural setting, you might like this game. If you like other games that involve multiple players, a long running time, and complex rules, you might like this game. And, inversely... If you already know how to play MTG, you can learn this game easily.

also, V:tes is very much a game of Resource management.

> AaronC wrote: > If you don't want to be eliminated or to eliminate, you won't like this game. > I think this bit is very interesting. The main objective of the game is of course to win (well, unless you play for fun, but winning is fun!), and to be able to win you have to make sure that you are not eliminated. Ie, you cannot jerk around with some durdle deck. You also need to influence your table allies to help you when you´re in a weak position. I think more people should try playing the game more competitivly, ie focus on not being eliminated. My playgroup play like that, and people seldom get eliminated early = more fun for everyone. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Many thanks for those who provided feedback. The Beginner's Section has been updated with two new sections - #1 What kind of game is VTES, and why would I want to play it? and #6 How do I build my first deck? For the later section, I used the wayback machine to find and revive some articles posted on The Lasombra's site, which I'm very excited about! Anyway, go check it out , and please post comments and feedback! Let's make this beginner's page awesome! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Well, I've finally returned to my demo deck series! Check out my latest article on my Toreador demo deck . Also, remember that I'm working on the beginner's page for this site, and it's currently up on my blog for comments and suggestions. It's not complete yet, but it's nearing completion, and I would love to get some feedback on it before it migrates to this site. So go check out my New Plyaers' Corner ! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I've just posted the final deck for my initial demo deck series as an after Thanksigiving treat (or just a normal treat for those outside the US). So come and check out what I've put together for Clan Gangrel ! Also, if you have any good ideas for a basic deck made from the group 1+2 Tremere, please post your ideas - I've really been stumped on what to do with the rather strange group 1 crypt! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Thanks for the kind words! Sorry that the VEKN site has been having such issues right at the time you're joining the game - bad timing. If you are looking for cards, feel free to PM or email me. I've been putting together the demo decks that I have up on my site, and I'm happy to ship for cheap. The same is true for VTES ONE's Reasonably Priced Deck series (if you live in Germany), and the Barbed Wire Project decks can be purchased individually or all at once off ebay. I've got links to all of them in the New Players' Corner on my site. Welcome to the game! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Hello all - sorry that this article is so late, the end of the semester is always a busy time for me, and this year has been particularly busy. Just know that the blog is still active and that the pace of content will pick back up soon. For now, enjoy my first article on one of my personal decks. It's a wonky deck filled with combos that support bad cards (exactly what I like!). Your task is to help me make it good enough to take to a tournament in January! gamingwithbs.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/deck-evolution-mummies/ Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I just read your blog. Good job. I like the demo deck section as well. I have 4 demo decks as well ,but I don't focus on Clan I focus on deck mechanic. Bleeding, Combat and Politics. I might borrow some of your builds though in my demos as well. James D Burns Prince of Dupont(wilkes Barre)PA

Very glad to hear that you've been finding the blog useful! I'd also love to see you demo decks! I've been thinking about posting other people's decks on the blog in an effort to create a little database of demo decks (and decks that new players might want to try). Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

well drop me a line. I will have to type all the cards up for you or use ARDB for a text file. James D Burns Prince of Dupont(wilkes Barre)PA

Hello - as a special just-after-Christmas treat, I've written a rather in-depth article about Clan Malkavian and the Malkavian Antitribu, and the differences between the clans that has lead to a great deal of deck diversity for one, and nothing but weenie bleed for the other. I wrap things up with a discussion on how to construct new types of decks for the Malkavian Antitribu, and how I think the VEKN designers can help the process along in the future. I hope you enjoy! Sect Insanity Article Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Hello all! I've just published a quick article for the New Year where I take a dive into the deep recesses of the Internet Archives to retrieve articles of old. They're quite excellent resources, and I hope you enjoy them! Recovered Resources Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I liked the recovered resources page. Interesting the crocodile's tongue piece Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

Yes, the Crocodile's tongue piece was very interesting - I sense a HoSk deck build happening at the weekend. I've only ever lightly used it in !Ventrue and Toreader political decks before. Keep up the good work!

It's kind of a shame that the Croc Tongue article doesn't mention its fantastic synergy with Banishment, Francois Villon and Gabrielle di Righetti.

I totally agree that blood denial + banishment is interesting, but I think that the article was written when Gehenna was released, so well before Gabrielle di Righetti. But that would be a very cool deck idea! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I've just published my first tournament report. It is the first of two such reports (since I played in two events on the same day), the other should be up later this week. Come and see how my Mummy deck was changed thanks to your comments, and see how I managed to do! Stop Calling My Mummy: A Tournament Report Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Sorry for the delay, but my second tournament report is finally up. As a sneak peek at what I have planned for the coming weeks, I'm working on writing up my Tremere Demo Deck, describing my adventures on Ebay (and how I'll never sell VTES there again), and an article about the Nosferatu Antitribu and their horrible track record. Enjoy! Business as Usual: Corrupt Politicians - a Tournament Report Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I was going to wait until Monday to release this (since that's when I usually publish articles), but I was so excited by my review of the Anarchs Unbound Crypt that I just couldn't wait. Plus, I'd like to give people something to read that isn't another argument about the newly banned cards. So sit back and enjoy my review of all the Anarch Unbound Crypt cards. Let me know if you agree with my assessment or if you think I've missed something! Anarchs Unbound Crypt Review Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Nice review. I have to admit though, that I like seeing vampires so pale that they look blue - kind of a throwback to the classic nosferatu look! My thoughts regarding the mid cap vampires with loads of basics - I suspect that is a deliberate design tactic to get players to use the anarch specific multidiscipline cards. As those cards only require a default basic version, having superior levels of anything is kinda wasted - so it's better to have more options than superfluous higher levels of disciplines. Anyway, love your blog. Ive only got back into the game this last year after a 15yr break - so have found your "set information" article to be super useful while Ive been trying top track down cards to buy to fill the gaps in my collection! Thanks!

Just pasted here my comment from your blog for easier access: Nice article! That’s probably the most detailed cards’ art review in VTES history I fully agree that VEKN produced pdf sets are of much better quality when it comes to cards’ art than WW ones. I like most of the graphics, some of them are really great. In crypt I especially like Carmen Cornet’s ones. Some of the others are not really my style or doesn’t suit vtes theme well in my opinion but it’s still more than we couldhope for. One more time great job of artists! It’s much much worse when it comes to actual playing potential of those cards. They all seem very … flat. Just a bunch of crypt fillers. Don’t get me wrong, they’re well balanced and probably will find their ways into some decks. Maybe they were even needed for some particular anarch builds to come to live. I’ve even built a deck with two of them (you can check it here – vekn.net/forum/deck-clinic/74637-anarchs-jack-s-guardians), but vampires were not a reason for it. The deck would be fine without them too. New vampires are just not inspiring. Two of them worth mentioning, because of the specials, are Salvador Garcia and Javier Montoya ADV. Just compare new ones with crypt from Danse Macabre or The Unaligned. Those vampires were begging to make decks with them! It’s not the case this time. I just hope that they have some hidden deck building potentiall that is not visible from the beggining and requires some carefull analysis of old and new anarchs cards.

I've just published my thoughts on the first half of the library cards from Anarchs Unbound. I ended up with so much to say about each card that it just made sense to split the review into two groups - the 3 way discipline cards and those that don't require disciplines. Expect my review of the latter soon! Hope you enjoy. Let me know if I've missing something or under/over valued a card - I would love to hear more opinions on these cards! Anarchs Unbound Library Review, Part I Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Wikipedia's glossary of anarchism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_anarchism Adhocracy: A form of organic organization according to which different parts of an organization are temporarily assembled to meet the requirements of that particular point in time. Illegalism: A doctrine which rejects all moral obligations and governmental law in favour of the satisfaction of one's own desires. Pioneered by the Bonnot Gang in France and heavily influenced by the individualist anarchist philosophy of Max Stirner. Netwar: Low-intensity social conflict employing a network structure for organisational control and communication. Notes on other card names... Memory Rift: Canon combo discipline from Guide to the Anarchs (p160-161). It's an Obfuscate-Presence ability, but we decided to add Dementation to turn it into a 3-way card. Guardian Vigil: Canon Anarch 3-way ability from Guide to the Anarchs and Anarchs Unbound. Make the Misere: Cajun slang meaning "cause trouble".

Hello all - I've just published my review of the second half of the Anarchs Unbound cards along with a few thoughts on the set as a whole. Hope you enjoy! Let me know if I've missed some cool combo or use for a card! Anarchs Unbound Library Review, Part II Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

This is a somewhat offtopic and stupid remark, but: Is it possible to change the Subject-line for this thread? I mean, to change "Gamging" to "Gaming"? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Whoops! Sometimes my fingers go faster than my brain. Consider it done. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I dig the reviews, few add ons: Carfax Abby is the second best hunting ground in the game for a deck with several mid cap vamps, first being Papilion, which can be used with Abby if you run Barons. Both means 3 vamps get blood. Since the Owain anarch decks are probably going to regain popularity (you used to see them once or twice a year awhile ago) blood gain for anarch decks will be easy to come by. Seems solid. Hackerspace theme feels like "we are siphoning funds and resources via Internet" and the one guy is soldering something. Its been awhile since IT stuff needed soldering or special components made via making it (commodore 64 game cloning setups to get around copyrighted stuff comes to mind from the 80s) but it fits anarch ideals. And is non unique, as mentioned. Protection racket makes sense to me. Anarch theme is keeping cam off the backs of the masses. Stopping princes, primogen, etc from doing things makes more sense. And since anarch has the punk rock high school kid ideal of "f#$%k the establishment" anything they see related to the oppressors machinations needs stopped, the more proof the more it needs stopped. I strongly agree with your view on theme and art. Old vtes had a very mid 90s alt/punk/metal feel. Fit well. Society has migrated from this, so anarch are where the vibe fits best, along with brujah and some antitribbu. Also daughters, but you get the idea. I like there being a reason for it being a "thing" again.

Sorry that this article is late - I spent the weekend at a local gaming convention demoing the game, and passing out business cards to the many people who dropped by to reminisce about the good old days of Jyhad. Don't know yet if anything will come of it, but maybe one or two new embraces will stick around. In the meantime, enjoy my latest article about the Nosferatu Antitribu! Clans at the Bottom: Nosferatu Antitribu Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I've finally finished my initial demo deck series! Come and check out my demo deck for Clan Tremere. Demo Deck Series - Clan Tremere Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

How about adding to the list on vtesone.wordpress.com and the blog roll on extrala.blogspot.com? Traveller Card Game

It would also be nice if VEKN had it's own list of VTES blogs and other sites that didn't just include a bunch of dead links. I mean the link page hasn't existed since the site broke, but before that I did a clean sweep of each and every link for my beginner section - almost all of them either no longer exist, or they haven't been updated in years. The former should be booted, the later should be moved to an "Inactive site" category (in my humble opinion). Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I really like your blog (and the one from Ralph). The Nosf Anti post has inspired me. I see potential in the DM Enticement card.

Me too. Just built a 90 card deck with 6 of them. I'm looking froward to testing it! Keep up the good work Brett!

The recent VEKN poll inspired me to write up a short perspective on the future of the game that people might find interesting. I hope you enjoy, and please comment - what do you think about the future? Is a simple reprint (currently the favored option in the poll) really the best for the long term viability and health of our game, or should we be pressing for something more? Discussing the Furture of VTES Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Last one is good, but I think - wrong. No offense I'll explain: Obviously reboot of the game with simplified rules, reduced card pool and two player focus will be much more accesible. But I don't really think that this accesibility will transform into grouth of playerbase. Why? Becouse market by now are overcrouded with accesible two-player CCG and any effort to compete with them is totally pointless even if the game really will be much better. And VtES, really, got nothing interesting to provide in two player format. Deep cardpool, multiplayer dynamics and long history with all sort of oddities are the main props of our game. If we lose them then there'll be nothing left to invite new players too. More clear rules and, maybe, some 3-players variant will be usefull, obviously cards must be made available again. NC Russia

I'm not sure your assessment mirrors the successes of Fantasy Flights LCGs. I'm not saying that any card game will be that successful, but they keep bringing out new games, and they all sell well. They might not stick around forever (see warhammer invasion), but they do extremely well despite the saturation of the market. FFG even just bought L5R, so they expect to be making even more LCGs. Rumor had it that they were interested in a multiplayer WoD LCG with some very familiar mechanics, which I think could have been very interesting. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

In light of the poll about the future of VTES, I've been doing a lot of thinking about how the rules and structure of the game could be changed to make it better. But today's article is about how the addition of 1 card could change the entire game. No rule changes, no bans, just the printing of a single card. Very interested to hear what people think about this one. Hope you enjoy! Musing on the Dominance of Dominate Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

First of all, thx for regular articles on your blog. I found most of them interesting. As for the new article, while I agree that dominate is a single most powerfull discipline in the game and that the card proposed by you would change VTES I don't like proposed card(s). Here is why: 1. Disciplines should have their flavor and more or less unique effects. Bounce effect is quiette unique and should have unique requirements. When pursuing balance between clans/ disciplines, etc. we should remember about keeping clear differences between them. If we won't every discipline would be the same, every clan would have access to same effects and tools. While it would lead to perfect balance and the same time it would lead to perfect boredom. Another question is: is it bad that some disciplines are better than others? In WoD rpg setting it was the case. 2. Bounce effect on non-discipline card would cause bleed strategy to be much worse. Is this the effect you want to achieve? 3. Bounce effect on non-discipline card would cause cards like Perfect Clarity or Touch of Clarity to be much worse. Is this the effect you want to achieve? For those reasons I would love to see new good and interesting effects requiring disciplines (clans/ sects) other than dominate (it doesn't need any new tools ). This aproach speaks to me much stronger than giving same effects for everyone. Few more thoughts about your text. 1. You don't always need proper defense to be succesfull in VTES. There is a number of veeery succesfull strategies in VTES that don't care about defense at all but rather go in opposite direction - full offense. This include most weenie decks, most s&b decks and a big part of political decks. 2. Defense options are not only intercept or bounce. Rush, political and master decks have a lot of different defence options. 3. Lost in translation is not that bad. It actually found its way to a number of TWDA decks.

> alek wrote: > First of all, thx for regular articles on your blog. I found most of them interesting. > Thank you for saying so! That's exactly the point of the articles - to get people to read and think about VTES. Even if what I'm saying it totally wrong, and even if we never see another disciplineless bounce card, the fact that people are talking about it is a win for me. > alek wrote: > 1. Disciplines should have their flavor... > Oh I completely agree! The color pie / discipline pie is absolutely essential to making the game interesting. I actually wish a little more thought that gone into this at the beginning. Most of VTES design seems to be based directly off the RPG powers, rather than a design document which talks about the types of effects a certain discipline should have. All that having been said, there are certain effects that we think all vampires should be able to do: bleed at +1 bleed, wake, dodge, maneuver, press, +2 intercept v bleeds, etc. So why not bleed bounce? Elder vampires have mysterious powers, why not influencing the minds of other vampires? > alek wrote: > 2. Bounce effect on non-discipline card would cause bleed strategy to be much worse. Is this the effect you want to achieve? > While I see where you are coming from here, I'm not really sure I agree with you. From my own experience, I estimate that 3-4 players at a standard 5 player game (and at least this at tournaments!) have decks which include auspex or dominate. This already means that the majority of decks on the table have bounce, yet bleeding remains the dominant ousting mechanism. I'm not at all sure that giving the other 1-2 players access to bounce will destroy the ability of a stealth bleed deck to win. And let's face it, those archetypes are incredibly powerful... maybe knocking them down a peg is a good thing. > alek wrote: > 3. Bounce effect on non-discipline card would cause cards like Perfect Clarity or Touch of Clarity to be much worse. Is this the effect you want to achieve? > Any efforts to reduce the power of dominate will have this effect. Personally, the usefulness of two Dominate hosers (who have failed in their mission to keep Dominate in line) would not enter into my mind if I was thinking about whether to ban Deflection, so I don't see why it should be important here. Niche cards like this are never really played in VTES. The only reason these cards see any play is because they attempt to counter the most over powered and most dominant discipline in the game. I don't see anybody crying about Shape Mastery (which cancels obtenebration, protean, and vicissitude cards). > alek wrote: > 1. You don't always need proper defense to be succesfull in VTES. > You are correct that full offense is effective, but this is accomplished either through the use of Dominate (or another powerful bleeding discipline like Dementation), or with a weenie hoard. In either case, giving decks some measure of defense against decks like these is a big plus for me. Also, I think weenies have had their day in the sun. They've been a dominant archetype since 1994. Maybe it's time to give mid cap vampire the tools they need to not be completely overwhelmed by the weenie onslaught while also not playing Dominate. > alek wrote: > 2. Defense options are not only intercept or bounce. Rush, political and master decks have a lot of different defence options. > Well, rush is it's own story. I'm currently writing an article about combat, but in short, the basic problem with it in VTES is that it either does nothing (you rush only to run into S:CE, and now you've wasted your action), or it moves to prevent somebody else from winning. Neither extreme is desirable, and the game is at it's most fun when combat manages to do something, but not reduce a player to impotence. Watching somebody sit there with all their minions in torpor just discarding a card each turn and waiting to be bleed out turn after turn is one of the most depressing things I've ever encountered in my gaming career. But you are correct, there are other forms of defense. I outline what I consider to be the other two viable candidates in my article - block and bleed reduction/bloating. I don't see how Master cards provide a reliable defense. Even the mighty Pentex will do nothing more than waste an action if you aren't backing it up. Politics does admittedly have access to a few interesting cards like Banishment, but I have yet to see any deck rely on that for defense. Most political decks that I see include OTQV and Deflection or Telepathic Misdirection. > alek wrote: > 3. Lost in translation is not that bad. It actually found its way to a number of TWDA decks. > Those decks include 1 or 2 copies as a surprise. Much the same reason that a deck might include 1 or 2 copies of Archon Investigation. It's not the basis of your defense, it's the occasional surprise punch you can throw that nobody is expecting. Personally, I keep including LiT in my decks, but I have a predilection for bad cards, and I don't see anybody else interested in spending two blood to bounce a bleed with a ton of restrictions. At 1 blood it might be playable, although it would only help fatty decks, not mid-caps. Hope I addressed all your points! Thanks for the comment and the continuation of the discussion. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Reply on two posts. First: about succes of FFG's LGC - on what information this is based? Obviously FFG got great distribution channels and high quality standards, so they can move large number of products using their formula "geek friendly setting + fine rules", but I seriously doubt the real economy under all this. Production and distribution costs money, support cost money, and it's LCG, so there are no rare chase bulk buys. It was said by somebody from WW several (10?) years ago that on starters company looses money and boosters are needed for profitability. And their actions confirm this - discontinuing CoC, introduction of rotation to other LCG ets. And any publisher of new VtES not only will got all the same problems, but also will need to solve them without FFG's resourses. NC Russia

Second: Deflection to all of them. I don't like this idea at all. Yea, dominate is better then celerity and clans without it are not so competitive. But is it a problem? No! You yourself mentioned - if somebody really want to play "very competitive" gangrel they got crypt with dominate, if you really in need you can add it to blood brothers with skill cards. But are you really in need? Not really. TWDA clearly shows that you can win nearly with any deck, maybe not so often, but it's impossible to got absolute equallity. VtES I think by now got the widest diversity of winning decks from all ccg. The other problem - criteria of diversity itself. We can easily get GtU, Conditioning and deflection to all disciplines, as vell as Vignes, Arika e t.s. Will get more diversity in clans (maybe) in TWDA. But will it be real diversity if all the decks will be generally the same with different variants of the same cards? Lack of bounce is the feature of the "lesser clans", the game will be less fun without it. NC Russia

Hi Elotar, thanks for contributing. I appreciate your posts, but I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you are trying to say here. It seems that you are suggesting that its not only ok that some clans aren't competitive, but desirable. That players should be forced to play Dominate if they want to be competitive (so anybody playing Gangrel without Stanislava is purposely choosing to have a less competitive deck. And thats ok. Please feel free to correct me, but if that is your point, I'm honestly not entirely sure how to respond to that. I have to admit that this idea is rather contradictory to everything I think should be true in game design. Why even bother printing cards or clans or disciplines if they have no way to win or meaningfully interact with the game? If your best option is to slap Dominate skill cards onto your Salubri Antitribu, then why are there Salubri Antitribu in the first place? For that matter, if we want to have weak clans, why print anything to help them? Should the VEKN design team simply stop designing cards for those clans? If this imbalance of power is so desirable, maybe we should focus on printing better Dominate cards! Looking at the TWDA, we indeed see that almost every clan is represented (save for Abombination and Nagarasa, but they basically aren't clans), but the numbers of representation simply aren't the same. Looking at the decks that I've separated into clan (2008 to prsent) major clans (so no bloodlines, no liabon) with Dominate got, on average 70.8 wins. Compare this to an average of 34.5 win for clans without Dominate. And that figure includes clans like Malkavian and Gangrel where a majority of the wins are coming from those crypts that have access to Dominate. If we remove those, the disparity becomes much worse. And then we get to the truly pathetic clans like Nosferatu Antitribu. In those 8 years, they've managed to scape together a total of 5 wins. Without doing something to help that clan, we effectively say that they don't exist outside of "for fun" games. I agree that not every clan needs to be equally competitive, but saying that it's ok for a clan to have fewer than one victory every year (or claiming that this fact is desirable) is... well again, I don't know what to say. The idea that the only way you should play Blood Brothers is to add Dominate skill cards to them is again... odd to me. As a quick aside, I think it is impossible to compare VTES to other card games to see which game has more "diversity" in their winning decks. It's really not a metric that gains us anything, and it's really impossible to say. But to suggest that VTES with it's 3667 has produced more distinct winning decks than Magic with it's 15625 cards is... statistically improbable. Hell, every year when they release a new set of cards, the same basic winning deck would change because some cards rotate out, while new ones become available. Finally, I'd like to address this comment because it brings up a very good point: > > elotar wrote: > Lack of bounce is the feature of the "lesser clans", the game will be less fun without it. > Well, it could also be said that not winning very much is a feature, and we should rigorously defend that "feature." But perhaps the more important question is why? Why is bleed bounce something given to Dominate and Auspex? Because Richard Garfield decided to give that ability to those disciplines. Really, all we're going on here is precedent. Jyhad gave those discipline bounce, and we've never thought to change that equation. Given how horrible the game balance was in Jyhad and the vast number of errata that the set sparked, I would suggest that it's a rather poor precedent to be following. And if nothing but precedent will sway you - look to Lost in Crowds. Even LSJ saw that confining bleed bounce to those discipline was causing problems. Even he wanted to extend that defense to other clans. He did so in a very tentative way, and it's failed to have any impact on the game. All I'm suggesting is that we take the next step, and make Lost in Crowds playable. I'll leave you with this last thought. If we accept that that the best way to make a deck viable is to add dominate to it and that we should do nothing to help the unsuccessful clans, then I submit that tournaments should ban decks without Dominate. That would be in accordance with the rule that you must attempt to win. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

It's more challenging and in-turn satisfying to win with a deck that does not play GTU and Deflections (or bounce in general). Add "Deflections" to all deck types and that challenge disappears. Yes, many decks will be greatly improved with access to bounce. But if everything is essentially dominate then why bother playing something other than dominate? The disciplines dominance is quite fitting given it's name and I believe having a clear "benchmark" discipline has probably helped a lot in terms of balancing the game. When you're predator's first minion pops out with DOM you know you that any miss play could cost you 6 - 7 pool which raises the stakes, intensity and definitely adds to the game. If all decks had the same power level you wouldn't have that reaction. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Very reasonable points, but let's be clear. The proposal is to provide all clans with a bleed bounce card that is strictly inferior in every possible way to Deflection. I'd argue that it's strictly inferior to every existing bleed bounce card with the exception of Lost in Translation. Nobody (not even somebody as crazy as am I) is suggesting giving Deflection or Govern or Conditioning to all disciplines. Also, if you like challenging yourself, I think that's great. And there are a plethora of tools available to you: play a atypical clan strategies, play with powerful disciplines but not their most powerful cards (we have a local player who has a personal ban list), make unique combinations of disciplines, try to make a thematic deck (all primgoen!), etc. The list really just goes on and on. I happen to really like making cards that heavily feature bad cards. That's my own personal challenge. But the question is - should there always be horrible clans so that you can feel challenged? Or put another way, should the VEKN sets specifically include bad cards so that I can feel challenged? Well, I'd say no to both. It's not worth telling a player "Oh, you like Clan X... yeah, we designed them to lose, so that other people could be challenged. Here's a Malk 94 deck." I assume that many players were introduced to the game from the RPG, and I assume that this remains one of our best sources for new players. Imagine if you wanted to play Legend of the Five Rings (another card game based around clans), and you read the theme & lore on one clan and really fell in love with it, and you wanted to go and play it. You'd be pretty devestated if you found out that clan had been designed as a "hard mode" for players who had already won with everything else. Also, allow me to comment on benchmarks. What's the point of having a benchmark that is better than anything else? I think that it would be rather easy to create cards that are simply better than any. A more important benchmark (to my convoluted mind) is a middle of the road situation. Or a guideline for how powerful an "average" discipline should be for a specific aspect of the game. That way you can have some disciplines that surpass the benchmark (or average power) in one area, but fall short in another. As an example, let's say that Obtenebration is our benchmark for stealth (4 total cards, 3 cost blood, can get up to 5 stealth). Now we can start talking about disciplines that are worse at stealth, but better at something else like bleeding (like Vicissitude), or disciplines that are worse at stealth, but have a stronger focus on combat (like Celerity). To me this is useful. But having a benchmark which is superior to everything else ever provides no useful information. Imagine creating a free card that says "Bleed with +100 bleed and +100 stealth, this cannot be bleed bounced." That would certainly be better but I have no idea what it means if we set that as the benchmark. Now obviously this is a ridiculous example, but if that benchmark is useless, why is a benchmark that is just a little bit better than everything else useful? > Ke. wrote: > Yes, many decks will be greatly improved with access to bounce. But if everything is essentially dominate then why bother playing something other than dominate? > Forgive me, but I don't see how giving bleed bounce to other clans make everybody play Dominate. This seems akin to saying that Weighted Walking Stick or Target Vitals are similar to Potence cards and once they were released, everybody stopped playing other forms of combat and just used Potence. I don't know about your Meta, but I see WWS and Target Vitals a lot more than pure Potence combat. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Brett, I do agree with your thinking that Lost In Translation is not good enough for its cost. I've almost included it in several decks but always cut it out before playing. It would be nice to have a slightly better version, and I do like your suggestions. It'd be a great tool for any deck to have. However, my worry would be that it would then suddenly appears in almost every deck. Y'see, I hate playing against someone with bounce - it's just so damn frustrating! Ive seen bleeds get passed back and forth around the table like a tennis ball many times as it is - I dont like the prospect of that becoming even more common! ...or maybe I just need to find better strategies to deal with bounce?

> brettscho wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > Yes, many decks will be greatly improved with access to bounce. But if everything is essentially dominate then why bother playing something other than dominate? > > > Forgive me, but I don't see how giving bleed bounce to other clans make everybody play Dominate. This seems akin to saying that Weighted Walking Stick or Target Vitals are similar to Potence cards and once they were released, everybody stopped playing other forms of combat and just used Potence. I don't know about your Meta, but I see WWS and Target Vitals a lot more than pure Potence combat. > Let me flip my comment, both apply: "But if everything is essentially dominate then why bother playing dominate?". Diversity is good. Target Vitals is a good example of a highly effective low cost (not monetary) card weakening the appeal of a discipline. It's a great card — but why bother playing potence when you can just play TV + whatever ousting mechanic. I'm not convinced it's added to the game; if anything it's decreased diversity — the fact that it's commonly played doesn't negate that. If every deck could bounce then that may lead to more diversity in terms of the types of decks played; however it I don't think that would necessarily increase diversity in terms of gameplay as by definition every deck could and most likely would bounce. The end result is less diversity in terms of game play. I think it's a difficult thing to theorise — probably best to test it. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Well, I think we both agree that giving bounce to everybody would make it so that nearly all decks included bounce. That statement implies that it decreases the number of defenses, but I actually don't think that's the case. Right now I the defenses of decks appear (from my perspective) to fall into a few categories: bleed bounce, block, bloat, and hope-that-my-predator-is-slow (I suppose rush could be a fifth category). A lot of clans like Brujah and Nosferatu and their Sabbat counterparts fall into this last category - they have ways of ousting, but they usually don't have the defenses to keep themselves alive long enough to allow their non-optimized ousting strategies to move them forward. But even if bleed bounce was more readily available, would it actually stop people from blocking or bloating? Well, let's look at Auspex, the best blocking discipline and it also includes bounce. There are plenty of decks that choose to block as their defense even though they have access to all the bleed bounce they could ever want. And let me make one thing clear - the majority of TWDA decks come from clans with access to bounce. All but two of the clans with better than average wins have bounce. Zero of the underperforming clans have it. Providing a proper defense for these clans means that you might actually see Nosferatu Antitribu again (other than Beast rush decks), it means you might see Assamites again (who won 0 tournaments last year), and the poor, poor Ravnos might actually get some tournament wins that don't rely on pure weenies. At this point, I'm just repeating my article, so I'll leave it at this: if currently weak clans just had a better way to defend themselves, they could compete much better. And more clans get decks into the TWDA, which I count as more diversity. The fact that bleed bounce is just better than any other form of defense that the game has invented either means that it should be severely limited, or more widely available. Ultimate, I agree that it needs to be tested. Lots of testing. VEKN playtest team? Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

You mean Lost in Translation, not Lost in Crowds.

Oops! Yes, that is what I meant. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

You are continuing to repeat one idea - "we need to get equal representation of all clan decks in TWDA". With your definition of "clan deck" on top of it. And to reach this goal you are suggesting the solution, which will make the game worse overall. Explaining with points to easy reference: 1) There are no real basis under this idea - "clan competition" is artificial race, invented by several old time players, 99% of which use it to chalenge themselves by restrictions. Clans in competitive game of VtES are just keywords, allowing to play some cards or having no perpose whatsoever if this vampire is in the crypt just for the disciplines/special. Whining, that you can't seriously compete with assamites is like whining that the team of just tuklers can't win superbowl. Competitive play and "fluff play" are greatly antagonistic approaches, and, again, VtES by now is one of ... just the one ccg in which "waky" deck can win a tournament. 2) Some small minority(!) of players really comes to the game from RPG, got a favorite clan there and are frustrated trying to play "clan deck". But it's totally fault of thouse, who introduced them to the game and doesn't stop development of this rediculous idea. It's very rare in the rpg, that there are hordes of single clan vampires, achiving something without other clans support. You got your favourite VTM assamite char and want to play deck with him? Here it is - www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=21862. Your 13-th generation neonate even got chanse to collaborate with baali elder - what may be cooler? 3) Making any big conclusions from TWDA is not very relaible either. The sample size is too small, there are great many of other influensing factors - most importantly seating and skill level of players (mostly very weak). Try to analize EC day 2 meta. There are, i think, still be not so many assamites and !nos, but "dominate gegemony" will be much less either (Hugh got a win with dominate and thats all as I remember). For some straw man example - if I got predator with like malks94 and grand pred with gangrels toolbox, I, in most situations, will just back oust. So which deck is more competitive here? 4) LiT is a fine card. If you are playing high caps without dom and aus, then it's restrictions doesn't metter - other bleeders are younger, you got means to get blood and you got means to deal with IC. If it's not the case than what point is in your high cap "low clan" deck? 5) Bounce to all is making the game worse, because of reducing real (not artificial "more clans") diversity - diversity of game strategies. Obviously it's more effective than any other bleed defence, so all of it (for example cards with +intercept ageinst ) will be totally wallpapered. And it'll be mandatory, because the hope "I'll be not bled heavily" will be totally lost now - even if is you predator will be not "bleedy", he still will redirect other bleeds into you. Having 12-16 card "fixed" for bounce/wakes in all decks we got less slots for other cards as well as justifications for bleeders to include more redirection defence, or, which is very worrisome, to drop bleed strategy whatsoever (kinda quite present effect already), so we got even more timeouts. VtES is in a very "tight" position with balance of strategies - if we shake it to far, then whole game may quickly degenerate into something like "5 combat decks doing nothing for 2 hours". NC Russia

Elotar, I think it's apparent that we think about game design differently. That's no problem, but I think this basic difference in opinion is the root of our disagreement. I see each clan and their unique set of normal clan disciplines as representing something akin to a color in magic - each has a unique philosophy that should translate to a unique set of mechanics that clan X has access to which provides them with unique and viable strategies. I don't know if you have any experience with Magic, but that game would have completely and utterly flopped if they just told people "Oh, green was designed to lose. Sorry, kids." While I can respect your Clans don't matter, and disciplines don't have to be balanced philosophy, I think that's the way the game has been for 23 years, so I'd vote for a shift to my philosophy for the next 23 years. After that, we can switch back P.S. I'd love to hear your definition for a clan deck - I'd be happy to update to another definition that made sense to me. I'm just using what logic tells me is appropriate, and it's a system that prevents one deck from being classified in two categories (which is fine if you are just listing decks, but I'm running statics on them like totaling participants, and having one event show up on the list twice would be a major problem). Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

I agree with both of you. Clans don't have to be designed to lose. But there's also no need to design a clan to win. Disciplineless bounce will cause serious balance issues. On a new bounce card I'd like to see clan/discipline/trait/sect restrictions on it. Yes Brett did set out what a clan deck is and what successful is. His assumptions aren't unreasonable: the goal of vtes is to score Victory Points. Achieving the most VP's at the table should be the goal of your deck. No you don't have to make a clan deck to win, that's why he added an extra column with decks that didn't fit the categorisation at all. More important are the results that dominate/bounce are so prevalent. Point 1: Diversity of viable ousting methods Why is bounce so common? Because dominate bleed is the most card efficient way to deal pool damage. Pool damage translates into VP in the most direct way. Placing temptation counters for 7 turns isn't directly forwarding your goal as much as bleeding for 6 during 7 turns. So, over 50% of decks rely on bleeds to get VP's. This benefits decks that play bounce. Imagine if 50% of decks at a tournament played Choir/Harmony. That deflection sure looks pretty useless now. That is what the game needs: more unique and VIABLE strategies. These strategies need to be interacted with (votes can be voted upon by the table, Harmony can be intercepted, Smiling Jack can be removed, bleeds can be intercepted/reduced/bounced/archoned) Point 2: Card efficiency - Combo cards/card draw. As Brett has found out: 3 common successful strategies are Bleed, Vote and Intercept Combat. Rush combat isn't viable because of the incredible hand jam you suffer and you are being met with *Cancel combat *SCE *Prevention *Something that hits harder. My proposition is to develop way more combo cards: A discipline rush that serves as a rush and as a maneuver. A +1 bleed modifier that serves as a +2 strength in combat. Stuff like that. Combat cards are very hard to play without sacrificing the entire deck to it. And even if you do, the sequencing of combat makes it so you jam on your hand (Bums rush + Torn signpost + maneuver + Slam + grapple + prevention + taste) you have to play those in that exact order. Without hand size/combo cards/card draw(infernal pursuit) it's nearly impossible to pull of. You have no space for defense and no spafe for an actual pool damaging system. Meanwhile some dude named Anson just gets a .44, runs away from you and shoots you. All combat disciplines need to receive combo cards. A rush that gives you +1 strength and a maneuver if it isn't blocked (make the misere) is still a crap card. It will jam your hand anyway. Without it you can't get in combat, but if you draw it during combat your whole plan fals through and you wasted an action. Now if the rush would double as a combat card, that'd actually be useful.

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Rush combat isn't viable because of the incredible hand jam you suffer and you are being met with *Cancel combat *SCE *Prevention *Something that hits harder. > That's a bit of a shortcut. Enkidu does win games. Weenie animalism rush also. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Aha, and why? Card efficiency: Enkidu has a rush and a torn signpost built in. Card efficiency: Nana and Nangila give you a hand size of 9, a rush and a master phase. If you play a combat deck that is absolutely vital. Nana wouldn't win without ashur, even with a hand size of 9 the permanents need to be put in play before the deck can refocus on combat. Vtes (and especially combat decks) need to be able to run smoother decks. While the opponent relies on that single get out of jail free card with some maneuvers, the combat deck needs things like drawing out, terror frenzy, tracking, psyche in addition to the 4-5-6 combat cards they need to play in sequence. Meanwhile deep song is bleed 2 or rush (aka 2 different effects on a single card) deep song is a combo card in my book.

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Aha, and why? > > Card efficiency: Enkidu has a rush and a torn signpost built in. > > Card efficiency: Nana and Nangila give you a hand size of 9, a rush and a master phase. > Nothing new here: combat decks are better with vampires that have a special related to combat. It's the same for political decks too, it's easier to use titled vampires. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> brettscho wrote: > I see each clan and their unique set of normal clan disciplines as representing something akin to a color in magic... > Yea, you are totally right in defining the root cause of our dissagriment. You're trying to compare clans to mtg colors and using borrowed color wheel philosophy make some conclusions about VtES. And in this you are totally wrong. Just because there are really nothing common in this two elements from two different games. By the way in most of the MTG history green was a "color to lose" and the game was still quite fine (I even would say much better than the present state). NC Russia

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > the combat deck needs... > Rush combat strategy must not be viable at all - it's bad for the game. Main philosophy of VtES is to kill your prey faster than your predator kills you. Rush combat ruins it completely - it attacks it's predator making him in a position of defence against two opponents (unvinnable), at the same time making it's prey play without predator. And when the predator-prey relationship is ruined the game completely falls apart - instead of playing it you have to partisipate in the degraded diplomasy discussion about cross-table resque, just sitting with no ready vampires for two hours, kingmaking for the lulz e.t.s. And this is the staff which makes players to abandon the game. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Rush combat strategy must not be viable at all - it's bad for the game. > Combat focussed decks (rush) are actually what adds an unique dimension to the game, without it VTES would've probably died out a decade ago... Playing game after game with just bleed and vote gets stale really fast, the disruptive nature of combat decks really creates mind twisters and cross table politics more than any other kind of deck, IF played exceptionally well. The bad side of combat decks, when not played exceptionally, is it's mostly slow ousting power making it a painful experience for the player receiving the savagery, with the rest of the table simply not caring since it will be a while before the combat deck reaches them. Add more ousting power to combat focussed decks would make the whole table rear into action not really to safe the poor sod in direct line of fire, but to safe their own hides since now the brute will be within striking distance if not contained. It would actually make the game a lot more interactive... I purposely make a distinction between playing exceptionally well and not playing exceptionally well, since with current options the skill level required to play a combat deck and win is a lot higher than with an average bleed or vote deck. Opposing a combat deck hurts when you didn't account for it, but not many players actually carry it through and win... My best games with combat decks where not the ones where my decks totally ravaged the table, my best games with combat decks where the games where I made the most deals... And I have to make a lot less deals with vote or bleed decks. Being a pacifist with a combat deck is usually the best strategy, unless you have a player at the table that knows your power is gone after a handful of combats and makes better deals... Don't get me wrong, combat rush decks ARE powerful, but only a few strategies last long enough to actually be able to win with without making victims suffer too long, the rest are just a sheer nuisance. So if it's not celerity guns or animalism combat, it probably needs some help. Seems to me like a daunting but interesting task. -1 Strength

> elotar wrote: > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > the combat deck needs... > > > Rush combat strategy must not be viable at all - it's bad for the game. > O_o Finnish Politics!

> GreyB wrote: > Playing game after game with just bleed and vote > No rush combat doesn't meen just bleed and vote. Generally your text shows lack of understanding of the game in your group. Playing with rush combat is simple - if you are his prey just don't bring out minions, if you are his predator deal as much pool damage as you could and then transfer out. Crappy dealing with combat aka "fooling bad players" works only if there are bad players and is totally not fun. You can make rush part of some adequate strategy, like in eurobrujas, weenies bleeding for 2 with deep song e t.s, but it's, as was said already, already works just fine. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Generally your text shows lack of understanding of the game in your group. > I'll be sure to mention it to my group(s), they'll have a few giggles I wager > elotar wrote: > Rush combat strategy must not be viable at all - it's bad for the game. > Just repeating this sentence since it's such a gem of a statement. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > > ... > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > > > ... > > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > I googled "people who always reply with insults to feel superior wiki" www.google.nl/search?q=people+who+always+reply+with+insults+to+feel+superior&oq=people+who+always+reply+with+insults+to+feel+superior&aqs=chrome..69i57.8886j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=people+who+always+reply+with+insults+to+feel+superior+wiki Yup, nr. 1 on the search results -1 Strength

> Ankha wrote: > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > Aha, and why? > > > > Card efficiency: Enkidu has a rush and a torn signpost built in. > > > > Card efficiency: Nana and Nangila give you a hand size of 9, a rush and a master phase. > > > Nothing new here: combat decks are better with vampires that have a special related to combat. > It's the same for political decks too, it's easier to use titled vampires. > I don't agree with this at all, Vincent. It is the same as saying "Commercial Jets need their engines working to travel. Nothing new there. Cars do as well". If one's engine stops mid-travel, I think the airplane's failure is more catastrophic. Combat as a strategy is farther from the win condition of the game than politics and bleed. If any of these 3 strategies are working well and unopposed in a table by themselves, politics and bleed are winning. That is not the case necessarily with combat. Why to people put Beast in EuroBrujah? Why was Fatima or Tariq the only viable real Assamite combat decks (on a supposed combat clan!)? Combat needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes. Because it is farther from the win condition. Because it creates craters in the place of players, but not necessarily wins VPs (for the player doing the craters). Combat does not have enough winning rewards. This is a system issue, not clan or disciplines. So clan or discipline cards will not solve the problem.

> GreyB wrote: > I googled "people who always reply with insults to feel superior wiki" > Yea, I've already understand that you got nothing meaningful to say. NC Russia

> Brum wrote: > Combat needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes. > Because it is farther from the win condition. > Hunting needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes. Because it is farther from the win condition. Combat is not a strategy in VtES, it just a mean to other, real winning strategies, like bleeding, voting or ... Smiling Jacking NC Russia

That enforces my point even more. Stealth is better than combat in a means to real winning strategies. You are in combat because either your action of your winning strategy was blocked (bad) or because you are removing a blocker or a voter by using an action (bad action effectiveness).

> Brum wrote: > That enforces my point even more. > You are in combat because either your action of your winning strategy was blocked (bad) or because you are removing a blocker or a voter by using an action (bad action effectiveness). > Or if you are rushing backwards because you are bad player with a bad deck NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Brum wrote: > > That enforces my point even more. > > You are in combat because either your action of your winning strategy was blocked (bad) or because you are removing a blocker or a voter by using an action (bad action effectiveness). > > > Or if you are rushing backwards because you are bad player with a bad deck > Stop agreeing with my point. Combat sucks. We get it.

> Brum wrote: > Combat does not have enough winning rewards. > This is a system issue, not clan or disciplines. So clan or discipline cards will not solve the problem. > Don't think this is true, read on. > Elotar wrote: > Combat is not a strategy in VtES, it just a mean to other, real winning strategies, like bleeding, voting or ... Smiling Jacking > The means to land your bleeds, votes or smiling jack, is a strategy. > Brum wrote: > Stealth is better than combat in a means to real winning strategies. > Depends: Lean combat (ranged) is alive and well, easy to add ousting cards. With lean combat I mean 2 or 3 card strategies like Animalism combat or Celerity guns. These strategies work well as an alternative for stealth and is in fact more powerful in my opinion. Your combat package can be around 20 cards. Complex combat (close range) has issues, mainly in the amount of cards required per round and S:CE counters, damage mitigation and becomes even worse when you have to rely on strike cards. Your combat package MUST be at 40 cards minimum, leaving less room for an ousting strategy and still have a big chance of depleting your deck before you reach your grand prey. Average combat (close range) is where you forfeit one aspect and go with more expendable minions like weenie potence, protean aggro poke or fortitude stick men. Watering down combat complexity to add an ousting strategy or just swarm. @Brum, so I don't think it's a system issue, but more a clan/discipline issue and a lack of sustainable plausible variety. Some clans (or discipline combinations if you will) require inexpensive cards that are multi functional in combat (like aid of bats and deep song). Assamite for example host a range of very attractive combat cards, until you realise you have to play up to 5-6 cards a round to be effective, with a 40 card combat package, thats only 8 combats tops. Unless you opt for lean or average combat strategies, which simply works better with other clans... This is why this is a crap topic to discuss, combat is fine, yes, but certain combat variations are not, I think we have to be more specific. -1 Strength

> Brum wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > > Aha, and why? > > > > > > Card efficiency: Enkidu has a rush and a torn signpost built in. > > > > > > Card efficiency: Nana and Nangila give you a hand size of 9, a rush and a master phase. > > > > > Nothing new here: combat decks are better with vampires that have a special related to combat. > > It's the same for political decks too, it's easier to use titled vampires. > > > I don't agree with this at all, Vincent. > It is the same as saying "Commercial Jets need their engines working to travel. Nothing new there. Cars do as well". > If one's engine stops mid-travel, I think the airplane's failure is more catastrophic. > > Combat as a strategy is farther from the win condition of the game than politics and bleed. > If any of these 3 strategies are working well and unopposed in a table by themselves, politics and bleed are winning. > That is not the case necessarily with combat. > Having vampires while the other players have no vampires is a winning condition. It's pretty impossible to achieve though. Playing Anarch Revolts and continually torporizing the anarch vampires of your prey is also a win condition. I understand that combat have more moving parts than vote or bleed, that's why it's more efficient to play combat with Enkidu (having an enter combat action and a strength bonus) rather than KoKo. It's also more efficient to call votes with Arika rather than with Gideon Fontaine. The only difference is that Gideon Fontaine could successfully call a dozen votes quite easily whereas KoKo would have big trouble "winning" a dozen combats. On the other hand, combat does plenty of things that a vote deck won't be able to do, such as totally shutting down any strategy based on minions. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I would like to emphasize the real game design problem with combat (rush combat!) - it's unjustified removing of some player's ability to play the game. Wall decks do in too, but in not so degenerate fashion - you still can play action cards, modifiers and generally even if you are blocked you lose like 2 blood and can continue. But rush combat need his prey not to do mostly anything. It may be reached with torporizing their minions, "threats" ("if you bleed I'll rush") or by some "clever" cross-table deal, but the result is the same - there will be player(s), who sits with hand of cards and is doing nothing for two hours. The same problem was in MTG with land destruction and mass counter stratagies and after long and deep analisis they came to the conclusion that for the health of the game thouse strategies must not be present (you can, I think, find several good articles by Rosewater and Ko about it) - it's one of the big reasons for players to leave the game in frustration. And in MTG average game length is just like 15 minutes! NC Russia

> Ankha wrote: > Having vampires while the other players have no vampires is a winning condition. It's pretty impossible to achieve though. > Playing Anarch Revolts and continually torporizing the anarch vampires of your prey is also a win condition. > I understand that combat have more moving parts than vote or bleed, that's why it's more efficient to play combat with Enkidu (having an enter combat action and a strength bonus) rather than KoKo. > It's also more efficient to call votes with Arika rather than with Gideon Fontaine. The only difference is that Gideon Fontaine could successfully call a dozen votes quite easily whereas > KoKo would have big trouble "winning" a dozen combats. > > On the other hand, combat does plenty of things that a vote deck won't be able to do, such as totally shutting down any strategy based on minions. > There are 3 or 4 good combat decks, I grant you. Your comparison between Arika and Gideon Fontaine is on a higher level than what I'm trying to point out. I'm saying a Kine is a Kine. 4 damage on pool. A good combat: 1. requires more cards (even if opponent doesn't play any cards) and 2. without extra help or cards it is not useful for your win. That is what I mean by Combat being too far from the Win Condition of the Game. If you count 2 hour games, that is. I say this since the ban of Protect Thine Own: my favorite combat card is Banishment.

> elotar wrote: > I would like to emphasize the real game design problem with combat (rush combat!) - it's unjustified removing of some player's ability to play the game. > i understand what you're saying, but this is also a game of player elimination: removing a player's ability to play the game is how you win.

> self wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > I would like to emphasize the real game design problem with combat (rush combat!) - it's unjustified removing of some player's ability to play the game. > > > i understand what you're saying, but this is also a game of player elimination: removing a player's ability to play the game is how you win. > Removing a player and removing the players ability to play the game but forsing him to still sit at the table is completely different beasts. NC Russia

> self wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > I would like to emphasize the real game design problem with combat (rush combat!) - it's unjustified removing of some player's ability to play the game. > > > i understand what you're saying, but this is also a game of player elimination: removing a player's ability to play the game is how you win. > I really hate to agree with Elotar because I think he's shown himself to be an incredibly rude individual, but I think he's right in this case. Player elimination is (at best) a necessary evil. If I could conjure a way to meaningfully play VTES without player elimination, I would be pushing it hard. The game is supposed to be about having fun, but when you sit for an hour watching your buddies play, how much fun are you having? Maybe some, but certainly less than if you were still playing. But while being ousted is bad, being rendered helpless is far, far worse. I personally wince when I see another player have nothing to do on their turn other than discard because their minions are all in torpor, but their predator can't oust them with their all combat deck. It's painful for me even when I'm not the one with no minions. That simply isn't a fun situation, and if it's not fun, it has no place in a game. I'm writing an article about combat as we speak, but essentially I think that combat is a very swingy mechanic - when you take an action to rush, you might accomplish nothing, or you might utterly destroy another player's game. You won't win, you'll just make sure another player stops loses and likely stops having fun. Both from a single action! If possible, combat should be nudged into the center of this spectrum, where entering combat accomplishes something, but doesn't make other another player instantly lose. Games should (in my opinion) focus on having you win, rather than making everybody else lose. While combat does sort of do both in VTES, it seems to err much more on the side of making others lose. But maybe that's just my weird and wacky perspective. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> brettscho wrote: > I really hate to agree with Elotar because I think he's shown himself to be an incredibly rude individual, but I think he's right in this case. > I'll promise to work on my attitude, in a few years you will not recognize me! I'll even maybe will build rush combat deck NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > brettscho wrote: > > I really hate to agree with Elotar because I think he's shown himself to be an incredibly rude individual, but I think he's right in this case. > > > I'll promise to work on my attitude, in a few years you will not recognize me! > > I'll even maybe will build rush combat deck > We disagree on some topics and agree on others. I honestly have no problem with your ideas. But you've shown a lack of respect for the opinions of others on this forum, and I don't like that. But then again it's hard to interpret tone over text, so perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements as being rude. If so, I offer my apologies. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

not to mention trying to communicate in a language that's not your native tongue. I don't hold any grudges for stuff said online. We all have strong opinions on things at times. It's all good.

> self wrote: > not to mention trying to communicate in a language that's not your native tongue. I don't hold any grudges for stuff said online. We all have strong opinions on things at times. It's all good. > As one having been suggestively attributed a psychological affliction by Elotar because I didn't agree with him or see things in a different light, we can safely say he's just plain rude. Him not being natively english has nothing to do with it His attitude and sheer lack of respect towards other's opinions and views also works against him, because he does have some good points and arguments, but they get lost after he starts raining insults. > self wrote: > It's all good > It really should not be, anything said here is representative of this community and right now 2 or 3 people make ALL of you look like a self elected inner circle shunning newcomers and shooing them away. Great job promoting this game, hope they do a better job in real life My apologies for going hippy, but I really do hope you get the point. -1 Strength

OK, OK, My sincire apologies for all affected, was really unreasonably rough . NC Russia

> Brum wrote: > Combat needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes. > Because it is farther from the win condition. > Because it creates craters in the place of players, but not necessarily wins VPs (for the player doing the craters). > > Combat does not have enough winning rewards. > But if rush combat is given enough new tools to be good at ousting as well as destroying minions, you end up with a metagame comprised of nothing but different rush combat decks attempting to trump one another.

Combat is a vital part of the game. But building more or less a pure combat deck that also works well is extremely hard. Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either. But (un)life of a vampire ain't no piknik... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Combat is a vital part of the game. > But building more or less a pure combat deck that also works well is extremely hard. > > Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either. > > But (un)life of a vampire ain't no piknik... > YES Thank you for providing the right angle! Being bled/voted to death in 2-3 turns would be no better or worse than being bashed to death in 2-3 turns. Fact is however, that's currently not really possible and thats the exact problem with rush combat decks. I would like to see more cards that double as rush and bleed (deep song) or burn pool when you bash a vamp into torpor, perhaps combine the latter with a strike card. Strike: Deal 2 damage, if the opposing minion is burned or goes to torpor this combat, it's owner burns 2 pool. So a rush (action) can be used as an alternative +bleed action. And a strike (combat) can have a burn pool effect. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Combat is a vital part of the game. > > But building more or less a pure combat deck that also works well is extremely hard. > > > > Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either. > > > > But (un)life of a vampire ain't no piknik... > > > YES Thank you for providing the right angle! Being bled/voted to death in 2-3 turns would be no better or worse than being bashed to death in 2-3 turns. Fact is however, that's currently not really possible and thats the exact problem with rush combat decks. > > I would like to see more cards that double as rush and bleed (deep song) or burn pool when you bash a vamp into torpor, perhaps combine the latter with a strike card. > > Strike: Deal 2 damage, if the opposing minion is burned or goes to torpor this combat, it's owner burns 2 pool. > > So a rush (action) can be used as an alternative +bleed action. > And a strike (combat) can have a burn pool effect. > I disagree with both of you, because you guys are assuming that the combat deck actually ousts its prey or wins the table. My dislike of combat stems from the fact that is not so very often. They strike minions down and give the table to a 3rd players. All they do is stop a player from playing and them, themselves, don't win anything with that. It borders on not playing to win. I have no problem being ousted in 3 turns by any Predator. He's deck was good at ousting me, he did good choices in deckmaking or he was incredibly lucky. It happens. That's the game. A game I love.

> Brum wrote: > My dislike of combat stems from the fact that is not so very often. > They strike minions down and give the table to a 3rd players. All they do is stop a player from playing and them, themselves, don't win anything with that. > It borders on not playing to win. > Yes, and that problem is what we seek to remedy... I made a distinction between lean, complex and average combat earlier. The problem you describe lies in complex combat, one where 5+ combat cards per round are required, leaving little room to stack an ousting strategy in the deck. You don't see this problem much with lean or average combat decks, where it's easier to stack an ousting strategy in the deck. Whether or not complex combat decks should be viable is a moot point, the cards exist and new cards are designed for complex combat each set, people want to play them and do play them, stagnating the table and generally creating a bad mood. So there is a problem that needs fixing and abolishing complex combat is simply not a realistic option, since it would require removing combat from the game entirely. If for example there are only 5 combat cards in the entire game, there will be players who cram those 5 cards in a deck creating a complex combat deck that can do nothing but combat and will leave 1 player having a crap game while the table does not move forward. Now if you change rush cards to double as a D bleed or burn pool when said target goes to torpor or is burnt, you mitigate this problem partially if not entirely (a combat lusting player must be quite stubborn not to stack such cards in their decks). As far as I see it, to solve the problem you describe, the only 2 options we have is to remove combat from the game (not realistic nor desired) or give rush combat a viable ousting strategy. Since the problem lies not in the game, but in players opting to create decks that do nothing well but combat. I hope you think more about this angle a bit. -1 Strength

> brettscho wrote: > The game is supposed to be about having fun, but when you sit for an hour watching your buddies play, how much fun are you having? Maybe some, but certainly less than if you were still playing. > > But while being ousted is bad, being rendered helpless is far, far worse. I personally wince when I see another player have nothing to do on their turn other than discard because their minions are all in torpor, but their predator can't oust them with their all combat deck. It's painful for me even when I'm not the one with no minions. That simply isn't a fun situation, and if it's not fun, it has no place in a game. > How being ousted is bad for the game? If it's not a problem, what is the difference between being ousted and having a sandwich while watching the end of the game as a spectator, or simply sitting down discarding because you can't do anything that make you feel worse? (Note that in the latter case, there's still a chance that something brings you back in the game) I'm writing an article about combat as we speak, but essentially I think that combat is a very swingy mechanic - when you take an action to rush, you might accomplish nothing, or you might utterly destroy another player's game. You won't win, you'll just make sure another player stops loses and likely stops having fun. Both from a single action! If possible, combat should be nudged into the center of this spectrum, where entering combat accomplishes something, but doesn't make other another player instantly lose. Games should (in my opinion) focus on having you win, rather than making everybody else lose. While combat does sort of do both in VTES, it seems to err much more on the side of making others lose. But maybe that's just my weird and wacky perspective.[/quote] Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Lönkka wrote: > Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either. > The whole point is that to be bled is actually better. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either. > > > The whole point is that to be bled is actually better. > i conditionally agree. But i'd phrase it as being ousted is better than being hamstrung with no minions, and no options but to discard and maybe play a spiteful sudden reversal or DI.

I think we're all saying the same thing at this point. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Surely, the idea of a combat deck is to deny resources and THEN go in for the kill. I do agree that combat decks need to build in tactics to deplete pool (army of rats, fame, tension in the ranks) to be effective in doing this. However if a combat deck immobilises a player, and in doing so hands the game to somebody else - this is poor deckbuilding &resource management on the part of the combat deck - which they will hopefully learn from and improve the ousting ability of their next deck. If combat is causing a power void during a game, then maybe this should be addressed by other decks including more combat defence. Or introducing new card effects that interfere with combat such as: Preventing minion damage by burning pool, discarding cards, or assets Avoid a rush attack by redirecting the action as an unblocked bleed against yourself. Using influence/tranfsers to heal or get torporised minions back into play if you have no ready minions in play.

The only problem with combat decks is that they are harder to play very well than other archetypes. When builded and played by good player they are as good as other decks or better. Between anarch revolts, fame, tension, dragonbound, codex or weenie swarm there is more than enough ousting power for combat decks. Not to mention discipline cards for decks that packs something more than only combat cards: deep songs, presence bleeds for brujah, dominate for lasombra, hell for leather, etc.

Hello! So with all the talk about the possibility of VTES 2.0, I decided to write an article about some of the problems I perceive with the game, as well as some potential solutions. But I promise that this will be a one-of article. Next week I'll get back to talking about the game will all know and love. Please feel free to disagree with me and voice your disagreement! I've just been enjoying the conversation, and I'd like it to continue. The forums just feel so alive these days! Excitement is good for our game. Anyways, I hope that you enjoy: Vtes Problems and Potential Solutions Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

A good article highlighting the key problems very well. When Trophy: Revered (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1857) came out, I thought I could design a combat deck to make my prey's minions Red List (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1456) and then gain larger bleeds through offing their minions and gaining substantial permanent bleeds (Votes required to protect my minions during the Blood Hunt), bridging one of the big problems of combat decks and avoiding pool burn if my minions go to torpor. Unfortunately you need stealth to get the Red List cards out so you're essentially left with Assamites over other combat decks using Toreador and Brujah. Maybe one possibility is a 'Bleed at +X bleed as a D action, where X is the number of these cards' that can be added to vamps who have torpored/burnt other vamps for the first time, or would that unbalance the game further? (While useful for Brujah, perhaps overgenerous for Stealth/Bleed Lasombra decks with a few Arms of the Abyss and Entombments?).

> brettscho wrote: > Hello! So with all the talk about the possibility of VTES 2.0, I decided to write an article about some of the problems I perceive with the game, as well as some potential solutions. But I promise that this will be a one-of article. Next week I'll get back to talking about the game will all know and love. Please feel free to disagree with me and voice your disagreement! I've just been enjoying the conversation, and I'd like it to continue. The forums just feel so alive these days! Excitement is good for our game. Anyways, I hope that you enjoy: > > Vtes Problems and Potential Solutions > Great article, but... Blood Management: Not so sure this is a "problem". I mean some decks can work really well without a single blood management card, I believe there are even some TWD's without blood management and overall, most TWD's don't even see more than 5 cards tops dedicated to blood management. The worry about blood/pool is also a quite important aspect of the game, if you take it away, the threat is watered down. Transfers might seem like a problem, but if you theorycraft on it long enough, taking into account new problems that arise if you replace it, you'll see that the current implementation is actually quite well though of. You simply can't adres this without a significant redesign of the game. Card Limits That quickly turned around into card distribution So not a real problem with the game mechanics. -1 Strength

Nice article. The funny thing is that while most current vtes players agree that Vtes has some mechanical problems everyone sees them differently For the three areas that you've mentioned (combat, blood management, card limits) I see problems only in combat and I see them differently than you. Going into details: The Problem with Combat I agree that combat can be swingy, but bleed for 7, well played banishment, parity shift, ancilla, sensory deprivation or a lot of other actions are swingy too. Also if the deck is really build to put vampires into torpor it usually does. You've mentioned that cards that are counters to other effects are problematic because the winner takes all. Is it a problem? Almost all vtes mechanics are based on counters: stealth vs. intercept, damage vs. prevent, vote vs. vote, increase bleed vs. bleed reduction, etc. In many of those the winner "takes all" (action is succesfull or is blocked, referendum passes or fails). It all works really well. Next you've said that combat needs cards that advance it's position toward prey elimination. I say there are such cards, Fame is the best example. The only thing to consider is do we need more such cards. IMO, yes, but only clan or discipline specific ones to further distinguish different strategies. Also, when everyone plays villeins/ blood dolls, etc. reducing blood on minions is advancing position toward player elimination. More on it in blood management section. The Problem with Blood Management There is no problem with blood management. But ... with small rule change we can do something really interesting. I really like the idea to use transfers not only to influence new vampires but also to move blood to/ from controlled ones. I think we can have very easy rule change that would solve a lot of issues: Increase number of transfers to 5. You can use transfers to move pool to/ from uncontrolled minions (1 transfer per 1 pool, direction does not matter) or blood to/ from your pool to/ from controlled vampires (2 transfer per 1 blood). Thx to this: 1. Transfers are important whole game and managing them becomes important part of the game. 2. There is a lot more space in master slots which can be used for deck design. 3. Getting blood off vampires is significantly slower with reduces bloat. 4. Number of blood on vampires becomes more important (you don't need special cards to take it back to your pool) so burning it from minions is more direct way toward player elimination than now. This makes playing combat more efficient. The Problem with Card Limits There is no problem with card limit. It's the opposite. Lack of card limit is one of the strongest merits of VTES. The only thing that card limit do is limiting creativity. It's not increasing diversity it's limiting it. F.e. you want to have 8 guns in your deck and there are only two gun cards (let's say it's .44 and sniper rifle). To make things easier let's assume there is 4 card limit. With this every deck that needs 8 guns will play exacly the same package - 4 of each gun. Great diversity! Without card limit you can choose if you want to play 4-4, 8-0, 2-6 or any other combination dependenging on what effect you want to achieve. You want to be 100% defensive you will go for only sniper rifles. You want to be more active -> you will put more .44. And ... quess what. You can play more than 8 guns in your deck! Next thing is distibution. I see no problem here. In LCG model it's only matter of how you design your final product. No one said that you need to put 1/2/3/4 of every card in the box. You can put only one ventrue HQ or Ancient Influence but 5,6 or more governs, kines, etc. Than you can design expansions for different strategies/ disciplines/ clans. Depending on what strategies the players want to explore they will buy such expansion. F.e. expansion "Masters of Diplomacy" will include some non-basic vote cards which are not part of basic set and even more KRCs. If you want to build a deck with 10 KRCs and there is "only" 5 in basic set you will buy this and your problem is solved. This way you can have no limits in deck design (which is HUUUGE advantage and very strong distinguish factor on the market) and no problems with distribution.

Some very nice thoughts here! The only comment I'd make is that I think we should be cautious with making it cost 2 transfers to move a blood back from a minion if we also get rid of cards like Blood Doll and Minion Tap. Imagine spending an entire turn of transfers to get 2 blood back. I'd expect that this would shift the game away from high cap vampires just because it would take so much time to transfer back your investment. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> alek wrote: > You've mentioned that cards that are counters to other effects are problematic because the winner takes all. Is it a problem? Almost all vtes mechanics are based on counters: stealth vs. intercept, damage vs. prevent, vote vs. vote, increase bleed vs. bleed reduction, etc. In many of those the winner "takes all" (action is succesfull or is blocked, referendum passes or fails). It all works really well. > I agree with everything quoted here. I’d like to add that the “winner take all” scenario the author of the blog post describes leaves out one crucial element: the “trumps” need to be drawn at the opportune time for the winner to take all. S:CE is a wasted card slot when Immortal Grapple is played, and Immortal Grapple is a wasted card slot when S:CE is not played. The ability to draw into “trump” cards that can swing an outcome at opportune times is usually considered a feature in most card games, not a problem. Counter cards help V:TES to function as a card game should: with "swingy" outcomes determined randomly by the cards drawn. By arguing that this scenario is “unhealthy,” the author might as well argue that V:TES should be a board game instead of a card game.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Counter cards help V:TES to function as a card game should: with "swingy" outcomes determined randomly by the cards drawn. By arguing that this scenario is “unhealthy,” the author might as well argue that V:TES should be a board game instead of a card game. > While you are certainly correct, the cards themselves also set the boundaries of how much swing is possible. For instance, there is no card that says "Stirke: Deal 1000 damage." Now that is a swingy effect! Either you counter it or you're dead. Similarly, there are no cards that say "Bleed for 1000" - counter or your dead. So if the cards set the limits on how far the pendulum can swing, all I'm suggesting we do is narrow how far combat can swing. I'm not seeking zero variance (that would be boring!)l, but surely having combat result in nothing or destroying another player's ability to play the game are undesirable outcomes. If you agree that having your action result in absolutely no effect, or if you agree that a single action taken by another player shouldn't remove you from the game, then surely you'll agree with me that these extremes should be discouraged. If you do like wasting successful actions or watching a single action remove your ability to play the game while forcing you to stay at the table and do nothing... well... I guess we look for different things from our games Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> brettscho wrote: > If you do like wasting successful actions or watching a single action remove your ability to play the game while forcing you to stay at the table and do nothing... well... I guess we look for different things from our games > It's not clear if you find the part I put in bold worse than being ousted. For my part, I prefer NOT being ousted and sit down watching AND playing. I remember games where it happened, and ultimately I won the game because someone rescued me at some point. Even when you don't have vampires left, you still have the ability to talk in the game and try to turn things to your advantage. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > S:CE is a wasted card slot when Immortal Grapple is played, and Immortal Grapple is a wasted card slot when S:CE is not played. > Obviously Immortal Grapple is A Mighty Fine ThingTM to play when opponent doesn't pack S:CE, but uses other shenanigans like Ivory Bow, Dodge, Steal Blood, Assault Rifle or whathaveyou... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > S:CE is a wasted card slot when Immortal Grapple is played, and Immortal Grapple is a wasted card slot when S:CE is not played. > > > Obviously Immortal Grapple is A Mighty Fine ThingTM to play when opponent doesn't pack S:CE, but uses other shenanigans like Ivory Bow, Dodge, Steal Blood, Assault Rifle or whathaveyou... > ...and doesn't also pack maneuvers.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > S:CE is a wasted card slot when Immortal Grapple is played, and Immortal Grapple is a wasted card slot when S:CE is not played. > > > > > Obviously Immortal Grapple is A Mighty Fine ThingTM to play when opponent doesn't pack S:CE, but uses other shenanigans like Ivory Bow, Dodge, Steal Blood, Assault Rifle or whathaveyou... > > > ...and doesn't also pack maneuvers. > You can keep going on like this indefinitely... There are several ways to counter IG and there are 3 ways to counter S:CE. IG counters 1 card S:CE counters 0-5 cards. etc etc etc. Sounds like balance to me **edit Correction, IG prevents 1 card from being played, S:CE cancels 0-5 played cards. -1 Strength

> brettscho wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Counter cards help V:TES to function as a card game should: with "swingy" outcomes determined randomly by the cards drawn. By arguing that this scenario is “unhealthy,” the author might as well argue that V:TES should be a board game instead of a card game. > > > While you are certainly correct, the cards themselves also set the boundaries of how much swing is possible. For instance, there is no card that says "Stirke: Deal 1000 damage." Now that is a swingy effect! Either you counter it or you're dead. Similarly, there are no cards that say "Bleed for 1000" - counter or your dead. > > So if the cards set the limits on how far the pendulum can swing, all I'm suggesting we do is narrow how far combat can swing. I'm not seeking zero variance (that would be boring!)l, but surely having combat result in nothing or destroying another player's ability to play the game are undesirable outcomes. If you agree that having your action result in absolutely no effect, or if you agree that a single action taken by another player shouldn't remove you from the game, then surely you'll agree with me that these extremes should be discouraged. > > If you do like wasting successful actions or watching a single action remove your ability to play the game while forcing you to stay at the table and do nothing... well... I guess we look for different things from our games > You are arguing this form a black and white perspective. It's not black and white. Having an action result in no effect and having a single action remove one's ability to play the game aren't the only two outcomes. Those are the extremes. A lot of things need to go right for those extremes to happen, and there is a lot of middle ground before reaching those extremes. One could include 12 Majesty in a 90-card deck but not draw any until it is too late. On can include 10 Bum's Rush, 12 Immortal Grapple and 12 Torn Signpost in a 90-card deck and not draw all three cards at the most opportune time. That's where the middle ground lies, and there is a lot more of it in the game than you seem to suggest with your argument.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > You are arguing this form a black and white perspective. It's not black and white. Having an action result in no effect and having a single action remove one's ability to play the game aren't the only two outcomes. Those are the extremes. A lot of things need to go right for those extremes to happen, and there is a lot of middle ground before reaching those extremes. One could include 12 Majesty in a 90-card deck but not draw any until it is too late. On can include 10 Bum's Rush, 12 Immortal Grapple and 12 Torn Signpost in a 90-card deck and not draw all three cards at the most opportune time. That's where the middle ground lies, and there is a lot more of it in the game than you seem to suggest with your argument. > Oh, I completely agree with you! Perhaps I didn't do a good job of explaining that I'm seeking to nudge combat more into the grey. The grey (cards played back and forth, moderate damage being dealt to one or both combatants) is what I consider to be ideal. I'm trying to suggest that the black and white ends of the spectrum are undesirable, and yet very much a reality. Let's not kid ourselves - the extremes are not "possibilities" that nobody ever sees in games. They happen, with regularity. They likely don't comprise the majority of combats, but they happen in a significant minority of combats. So my suggestions are aimed (don't know if they accomplish this or not...) at keeping and encouraging the grey while decreasing the frequency the black and white. And I think one way to do this is to eliminate or drastically reduce the number of S:CE cards, and get rid of counters like Immortal Grapple. As a side benefit, just imagine how happy the !Salubri would be without that single card. Melee weapons could once again be played in our game! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> Oh, I completely agree with you! Perhaps I didn't do a good job of explaining that I'm seeking to nudge combat more into the grey. > You're being clear enough. I just have a hard time understanding the stance that the extreme ends of the combat spectrum (S:CE/IG) are something to be fixed. And you're not the only one arguing this. It's a popular stance. I just don't get it. Returning to my perception that those types of extremes are features and not problems in card games: when a player plays a rush deck and the deck does what it's supposed to do, the player playing the rush deck probably finds that outcome enjoyable. Why do you want to remove this enjoyment from the game? I understand that it's not enjoyable for the recipient of the rush deck's combat. But losing is losing. It doesn't matter if you are ousted in 10 turns by a rush deck, or ousted in 3 turns by sneak and bleed. They're both losing, and losing is not fun. > So my suggestions are aimed (don't know if they accomplish this or not...) at keeping and encouraging the grey while decreasing the frequency the black and white. And I think one way to do this is to eliminate or drastically reduce the number of S:CE cards, and get rid of counters like Immortal Grapple. As a side benefit, just imagine how happy the !Salubri would be without that single card. Melee weapons could once again be played in our game! > Melee weapons may not work in a highly competitive environment like a tournament. But they certainly can work in casual environments where players have limited card pools, or in environments where players don't have knowledge of how to use S:CE/IG effectively, or in environments where players intentionally play sub-tournament-level decks. I don't think the game should change based on what works and doesn't work in a highly competitive environment.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I don't think the game should change based on what works and doesn't work in a highly competitive environment. > Some interesting thoughts - thanks for posting them. But this caught my eye. It sounds like you are advocating for no changes to VTES of any kind. Does that include a ban on new cards? Should we stop printing cards that attempt to shore up strategies or clans that aren't doing well? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you mean by this. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> brettscho wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > I don't think the game should change based on what works and doesn't work in a highly competitive environment. > > > Some interesting thoughts - thanks for posting them. But this caught my eye. It sounds like you are advocating for no changes to VTES of any kind. Does that include a ban on new cards? Should we stop printing cards that attempt to shore up strategies or clans that aren't doing well? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you mean by this. > No and no. For example, I have no problem with Jumulon's Axe (equipment that cancels grapple cards such as Immortal Grapple), or if a similar type of card were printed in the future. I prefer the approach of printing counter cards to existing counter cards instead of fundamentally changing how S:CE or Immortal Grapple work. I believe the concept of counters canceling counters works well in card games, which is where our opinions differ.

My next article has just be released. I'm going to start offering demo decks and new player kits directly through my blog. Check it out, and feel free to spread the word to new players! Adventures in Ebay Land & Supporting New Players Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Interesting market distortions we got on ebay NC Russia

Yes I distinctly remember Rickstock buying out Lasombra. Not nice. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/