Vampire reboot more likely than new sets?

With the news of the new White Wolf ownership, I have a feeling that an entirely new, rebooted Vampire card game might be a more likely scenario than the printing of new Vtes expansions. While vtes suffered from some unfortunate ownerships problems, the source of those problems is that the game didn't sell enough to make it a priority for it's owners. I think the reason for this is that V:tes is too complicated (and too long to play) a game to appeal to a wide enough market. I love the game and it still has a small but loyal fanbase keeping it going, but at this point, if I had the choice to choose between having new Vtes expansions or an entirely new, streamlined version I'd go with the later. Why resurrect a game that suffers from a steep learning curve and overly complicated rules when you could have the excitement of an entirely new game that old players would be intrested in and would also be accessible to hordes of new players? I think any new vtes reboot needn't be as tethered to WOD lore than it has to. For instance, while White Wolf fans love the Sabbat vs Camarilla vs Independents vs Laibon vs Anarchs vs Imbued thing; -for a card game, having multiple Sects is just needlessly cumbersome. Having 13+ Clans is variety enough, introducing new Sects adds a lot of needless terminology and superflous rules to an already complicated game. Combat is another area that would have to be streamlined. It has way too many moving parts to make combat as satisfying a strategy as it could be. Perhaps a version that got rid of maneuvers, presses and combat ends? It's fun to at least consider what a more streamlined combat system might look like. As I said, I love Vtes, but I think something new would be more intresting at this point than resurrecting the old.

I would love to see some streamlining in vtes but at this point in time I think that new vampire game wouldn't be as welcomed to current players as new expansions to old vtes. There is a lot of players that want to play vtes not any WoD based game. If it would be up to me I would keep making new expansions but ban some mechanics and cards to make it less rules heavy f.e. whole hunters concept, research area, new card text for rotchreck, etc

I second the OP completely. VTES is far too convoluted now, with too many inherited design flaws, superfluous rules etc. We veteran players maybe got used to that, but its a stark realization if you try to explain VTES to a newbie... I made a count using FELDB: there are: -35 different disciplines, including Imbued ones - cca 50 (hard to count here) special rules and abilities (scarce, flight, cold iron vulnerability, burn option etc. etc.) -12 different library card types. -46 clans, including Imbued and separate tribu and antitribu last two statistics further aggravated by the card layout, icons and colors, which were changing like every other edition... I won't go that far to count how many pages of rules and card rulings there are. Heck it feels more like a PARODY of some super-nerdy game. If I were a new player and someone throws this at me, I will probably say something like "umm I think I spend that time to get a law degree instead"

No eBay APP ID défined in Kunena configuration > > alek wrote: > There is a lot of players that want to play vtes > Is there, really? I am not so sure. The announcement of WW being bought by Paradox attracted about 3500 non-unique views. I don't know into how many unique views it translates, but judging by myself, I clicked on that topic 10 times or so, which would mean about 300 similar people worldwide? I don't see any heated discussion about the recent news, anticipation... - just a few people discussing IP technicalities. Judging by TWDA, there are about 4 tournaments a month worldwide (and by worldwide, I mean "in Brazil" )), with average attendance of 10 players. Lackey as the only serious way of playing VTES online attracts about 8-10 (same) players each evening, on a good day. I mean yeah, there are people which probably still take VTES seriously, like this guy: but...

I have been working on a system that would feel familiar but different to VTES players, and while I have a draft... I wouldn't want to sabotage VTES's chances by putting it out there if the Inner Circle think such an idea would be detrimental. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

No. No. And no. At least not now. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

No eBay APP ID défined in Kunena configuration > > pivokrevnik wrote: > > > alek wrote: > > There is a lot of players that want to play vtes > > > Is there, really? > I am not so sure. > The announcement of WW being bought by Paradox attracted about 3500 non-unique views. I don't know into how many unique views it translates, but judging by myself, I clicked on that topic 10 times or so, which would mean about 300 similar people worldwide? > I don't see any heated discussion about the recent news, anticipation... - just a few people discussing IP technicalities. > Judging by TWDA, there are about 4 tournaments a month worldwide (and by worldwide, I mean "in Brazil" )), with average attendance of 10 players. > Lackey as the only serious way of playing VTES online attracts about 8-10 (same) players each evening, on a good day. > > I mean yeah, there are people which probably still take VTES seriously, like this guy: > > but... > All of those are true but internet sources that you mentioned give very partial data. F.e.: 1. TWDA - in 2014 in Poland 11 tournaments were organized, only one was raported in TWDA. In 2015 9 tournaments were organized so far (apart from EC) - only 4 were reported in TWDA. 2. There is not a lot to discuss about Paradox yet, as there is nothing concrete appointed which concerns precisely vtes. WoD fans and vtes fans are not exacly same people (some are both of course) so it's not that big of a news for vtes players. 3. Majority of vtes players are not active on this forum. 4. Majority of vtes players don't want to play it online. It's very possible that new WoD game would have a bigger audience than old vtes thanx to new players. At the same time a lot of old time vtes players would just stop playing as they wouldn't be interested in new game at all. That's at least what a lot of players are saying.

I strongly disagree with this. On the contrary, I am surprised with VTES durability as a "dead" game. It has been 6 years, and the hardcore players are still as dedicated as ever. EC attendance is down just a bit (vtesec2015.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/attendance-of-vtes-european-championships-2008-to-2015/) Also prices for cards on Ebay and otherwise are very, very high. Maybe you should quit bashing this game and instead post something more constructive? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Maybe you should quit bashing this game and instead post something more constructive? > Well I consider my stance constructive. I would love to be proven otherwise and I am sorry you don't like it. I have seen player base dwindle even before WW abandoned the game - that's why they abandoned it in the first place... Absence of players is a problem, not shortage of cards or absence of a publisher. Yes, there a sought after singles selling for a lot on eBay. But then again sometime somewhere someone will buy pretty much anything on eBay. Like a signed air guitar or whatnot. There are also people giving up collections for free or almost for free. 6 years after going out of print there are many VTES packed products which are not even sold out - this also doesn't look too well for a potential publisher you know. Yeah, a small set full of reprints of Deep Song, Enkil Cog, Eyes of Argus etc. would probably sell well. Would that spark a long-term VTES ressurection though? In fact in our community we had problems finding newbies willing to play even for FREE - myself I gifted almost my whole card collection to the "comunnity" to make decks for beginners, with little avail. There are many people like me who would happily gift or long-term lend whole decks to anybody, if it helped influx of players, but there is simply no demand. I repeat once more, I would love to be proven otherwise. I don't want to troll, I love VTES. I appreciate VEKN effort. But I cannot help it, I feel many of the local posts to be completely delusional about the game potential and atractiveness to a potential publisher. Even as a very niche game. If you like being constructive, find a way how in year 2015 attract new players to an almost strictly offline (sic!) game, which has a strong kingmaker syndrome, needs 2+ hours of time for a single game and 4-5 very dedicated and experienced gamers of very similar skill (see the kingmaker syndrome part).

> Ashur wrote: > I strongly disagree with this. On the contrary, I am surprised with VTES durability as a "dead" game. It has been 6 years, and the hardcore players are still as dedicated as ever. EC attendance is down just a bit (vtesec2015.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/attendance-of-vtes-european-championships-2008-to-2015/) > > Also prices for cards on Ebay and otherwise are very, very high. > > Maybe you should quit bashing this game and instead post something more constructive? > I don't think it's bashing the game to discuss the problems with V:TES. I'm of the opinion that V:TES does have a bunch of problems. I'm also of the opinion that the list of what is right about V:TES is considerably longer than what's wrong with it, which has led to the longevity you mention. If Paradox/Swedish White Wolf does end up developing concrete plans for V:TES - and I've had no discussions with them, so this is purly speculation on my part - I think one of two things will happen: - White Wolf relaunches the World of Darkness in their "One World of Darkness" mold and relaunches V:TES with the updated setting. V:TES ends up getting some amount of an overhaul or renovation in terms of rules, mechanics, and card base, but ultimately is still V:TES as we know it. - White Wolf relaunches the World of Darkness in their "One World of Darkness" mold and makes a brand new CCG that is better able to incorporate all of the WOD games, allowing for Garou and Mages (and possibly others) as playable factions. It is clearly not V:TES as we know it, and hopefully it is good. White Wolf could just continue on with V:TES as it currently exists. It might even be the easiest thing for them. I just get the feeling - and again, this is purely speculation - that it won't fit their vision of "One World of Darkness".

> pivokrevnik wrote: > But I cannot help it, I feel many of the local posts to be completely delusional about the game potential and atractiveness to a potential publisher. Even as a very niche game. > At the request of a publisher, OneBookShelf.com, I contracted a graphic designer to create a product mock-up for the publisher's business proposal to Wizards of the Coast to acquire the rights to publish V:TES. OneBookShelf.com also fully prepared a Kickstarter campaign such that If the rights from Wizards and CCP were acquired, the Kickstarter for V:TES would have begun the very next day. This isn't delusion. This isn't rumor. This is first-hand experience and activity as a result of a publisher's interest in V:TES. OneBookShelf.com didn't walk away from it. Wizards said no. Now the ball's in Paradox's hands.

First: This whole discussion disturbs me. I have no problem discussing alternations in VTES, or even a totally new game based on its greatness, without the weaker parts, but I think we should focus on what we have at this moment, and hope not FFG swoops in and make some stupid Pokemon version of WoD. > pivokrevnik wrote: > Well I consider my stance constructive. I would love to be proven otherwise and I am sorry you don't like it. > Constructive would be to construct a game, a complete, great game that is better than VTES. Post it here. > pivokrevnik wrote: > I have seen player base dwindle even before WW abandoned the game - that's why they abandoned it in the first place... Absence of players is a problem, not shortage of cards or absence of a publisher. > I disagree. The main reason we have had problem recruiting players is that they can no longer buy starters and boosters. Also some people won´t even consider playing a “dead” game. > pivokrevnik wrote: > Yes, there a sought after singles selling for a lot on eBay. But then again sometime somewhere someone will buy pretty much anything on eBay. Like a signed air guitar or whatnot. > Have you tried buying cards on Ebay recently? I feel that even not really great rares are sold for 1-2 euro. That´s pretty weird. > pivokrevnik wrote: > There are also people giving up collections for free or almost for free. > 6 years after going out of print there are many VTES packed products which are not even sold out - this also doesn't look too well for a potential publisher you know. > Are you surprised that NoR or KoEK are not completely sold out? Those sets sucked. And the next time someone wants to give a way a (decent) collection for free, please PM me. > pivokrevnik wrote: > Yeah, a small set full of reprints of Deep Song, Enkil Cog, Eyes of Argus etc. would probably sell well. Would that spark a long-term VTES ressurection though? > This is exactly what would be a great way to start. The 5-deck set in a kickstarter, with some “chase cards” (1 Enkil Cog, some Villeins and so on) would sell shitloads. That _would_ spark the resurrection. I would also like to see the VEKN-created sets in physical form. After that we can discuss the future. > pivokrevnik wrote: > In fact in our community we had problems finding newbies willing to play even for FREE - myself I gifted almost my whole card collection to the "comunnity" to make decks for beginners, with little avail. There are many people like me who would happily gift or long-term lend whole decks to anybody, if it helped influx of players, but there is simply no demand. > Maybe we should not judge the world by your meta? > pivokrevnik wrote: > I repeat once more, I would love to be proven otherwise. I don't want to troll, I love VTES. I appreciate VEKN effort. > But I cannot help it, I feel many of the local posts to be completely delusional about the game potential and atractiveness to a potential publisher. Even as a very niche game. > Paradox have outed that they want to listen to current communities. > pivokrevnik wrote: > If you like being constructive, find a way how in year 2015 attract new players to an almost strictly offline (sic!) game, which has a strong kingmaker syndrome, needs 2+ hours of time for a single game and 4-5 very dedicated and experienced gamers of very similar skill (see the kingmaker syndrome part). > Yes, I have no problem with promoting this game. I´ve played it for 21 years and every single person I´ve explayed it to has instantly understood it´s charm. Hell, lots and lots of people play complex games like Twilight Struggle (boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle) with no problem. Not every game has to sell like crack cocaine, I am confident Paradox understands that. Also, they have the whole IP to worry about. Doing stuff without thinking twice will disturb the IP. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Constructive would be to construct a game, a complete, great game that is better than VTES. Post it here. > no need for such demagogy. > Ashur wrote: > Have you tried buying cards on Ebay recently? I feel that even not really great rares are sold for 1-2 euro. That´s pretty weird. > as I said, eBay is pretty weird as a whole. I have no answer for this, only that I would be very cautious taking it as a proof of popularity. There are collectors buying weird shit for big money all the time. > Ashur wrote: > Maybe we should not judge the world by your meta? > I have no reason to believe my meta is any different than any other meta around the world. Maybe except Brazil, according to rumors? If there is still a large potential playbase, they surely try hard to hide as much as possible. Where are they, why there are so little players on this site, on Lackey, why are tournaments in TWDA few, far between and with attendance of 10-12 players average? I understand the concept of Masquerade but anyway. > Ashur wrote: > every single person I´ve explayed it to has instantly understood it´s charm. > I suspect this is an overstatement, but hey, good for you, you are probably much better at explaining than I am. > Ashur wrote: > Hell, lots and lots of people play complex games like Twilight Struggle (boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle) with no problem. > This. Its very fitting you mention this. By chance, I play Twilight Struggle as well. And I think it's everything VTES is not. It's very easy to learn (but hard to master). It requires only two players to play. Even though game is also long, its not that hard to write down game state, put back into box and resume later. And even though there are also some rulings and explanations needed, rules are very streamlined and clear cut compared to most "adult" board games. Its a typical example of difference between a game being sophisticated and just complicated and convoluted. Chess is simple, yet much more sophisticated than, say, wargames with hundreds of different counters, cards, mechanics etc. Simplier does not equal "stupid Pokemon version". Having to remember 50 different superfluous mechanics does not equal some highly intellectual gaming experience per se. Anyway, lets agree to disagree. If you are right, good for you, good for me. I'd love playing existing VTES. I'd love playing a new game more. All I can say, I will not hold my breath, that is for sure.

If the vekn sets were physical cards, or if sealed product hadn't stopped existing in local shops, my local meta wouldn't have evaporated. In 2010/2011 we had CRAZY amounts of turnout for votes in Newark OH. 5+ tournaments a month sometimes. For at least a whole summer we averaged 3-5 tables each Friday. Since vtes takes so long, fnm tourneys showed up at the shop while we were playing, had to use extra tables to play MTG, and were done before we left each night. A few MTG players started playing vtes before and after MTG. All the die hards kept playing, but we got back from new Orleans and confirmed the news and everything dwindled to 1-2 tables every Friday, then eventually to that every other week. People couldn't impulse buy packs, couldn't buy right then and there their own cards when they saw us playing, and the boom went bust when the cards stopped showing up and new players slowed. Now, i have to imagine noone has the free time they once did, but there are at least as many casual vtes players who just dont play as there were before and after we had a small army of players. Thats not even columbus, which has vaguely active playgroups, thats small Newark, which has 2 hobby shops now instead of one. Hypothesis being that players, even new ones, can always be had for a niche game. It being a real, tangible set of cards will help immensely. Appeal lies in strategy, customization, and dynamics. Card pool (if reprinted) can be handled by "they only reprinted good stuff, the other 7000 cards aren't that important" and I believe slightly streamlining will help our learning curve. Not that paradox can't market something else, but I've lived through easy recruiting and see most of Europe and certainly Brazil will find it easier than we will. There's an audience, and players trump all other advertisement.

I don't think it's unconstructive to acknowledge the fact that vtes has lost most of it's players over the years. Everytime I come to this forum I see threads of people trying to sell all thier cards for cheap. My own meta has dwindled to nothing and Lackey apparently has a handful of committed players keeping it going. For fans of the game like myself, i think it's very constructive to consider weather or not an entirely new reboot of the game would make more sense than simply trying to eek out a few more sets for it's die hard, but small fan base. I think the idea of a new, greatly streamlined verison of the game is a tremendously exciting prospect to consider. A streamlined verison with the basics of what makes vtes unique is probably going to be the most profitable way to sell cards, generate enthusiasm and attract new players. Any new, hypothetical business model for anything remotely vtes related will have to put attracting new players as it's primary focus in order to survive.

> CalibanX wrote: > I don't think it's unconstructive to acknowledge the fact that vtes has lost most of it's players over the years. Everytime I come to this forum I see threads of people trying to sell all thier cards for cheap. My own meta has dwindled to nothing and Lackey apparently has a handful of committed players keeping it going. For fans of the game like myself, i think it's very constructive to consider weather or not an entirely new reboot of the game would make more sense than simply trying to eek out a few more sets for it's die hard, but small fan base. > I think it´s wrong to draw any conclusions based on the experience of just a couple of ... fans? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

My answer to all this blablabla is clear: The new publisher can do what it wants (continue with existing V:TES, hopefully with the VEKN expansions, reboot V:TES or do nothing at all). I will continue playing existing V:TES as long as there are players existing to play. I will probably not play a rebooted V:TES CCG, 100% sure I'm not playing an LCG.

I'm not arguing for my own prefrences as much as I'm trying to imagine myself in the shoes of the new owner and trying to think of what will sell. That being said, I can't imagine any vtes player today having the impression that there's a large, active fan base of current vtes players. There's a die hard group of fans who have taken heroic efforts to keep the game alive. I have nothing but gratitude for those wonderful people, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we fancy the current vtes fanbase as a the preffered market for any new vtes themed product. There's simply not enough of us for that. In addition, it's not as if a new, rebooted vtes game would prohibt fans from playing the older version amongst themselves. WOD has been rebooted before. Why not vtes?

> CalibanX wrote: > I'm not arguing for my own prefrences as much as I'm trying to imagine myself in the shoes of the new owner and trying to think of what will sell. > Please stop doing this. If someone wants to earn money, they sure as hell won´t put their efforts in anything close to VTES. Period. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Constructive would be to construct a game, a complete, great game that is better than VTES. Post it here. > Here is a reasonably complete draft of a set of game rules. Vampire the Card Game (aka The Bloodless Edition) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ashur wrote: > Constructive would be to construct a game, a complete, great game that is better than VTES. Post it here. > Even more constructive would be to construct a complete, great game that is better than V:TES, patent the mechanics, and find a publisher.

> cordovader wrote: > I will probably not play a rebooted V:TES CCG, 100% sure I'm not playing an LCG. > so, you're saying that the only way you'd continue to play is if the game were distributed in the manner it always has? you do realize that without the relentless set rotation that Magic has, V:tes is effectively an LCG, right? Vtes was originally envisioned as a Card Game that thought it was a board game [citation needed]. Think about how much more fun it would be to not have to worry about buying shitloads of cards, most of them wallpaper, to get decent stuff! the alternating Camarilla/Independent/Sabbat/Bloodlines distribution cycle is mind-blowingly cumbersome and awful. I think the game would be better without it.

> cordovader wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > > > > CalibanX wrote: > > > If someone wants to earn money, they sure as hell won´t put their efforts in anything close to VTES. Period. > > > > > > > > Depends on what the word "money" means to you. Profit can be made, mainly when a big part of the work (new expansions, motivated artists, official rulings, tournament support...) has been already done by the V:EKN and a group of volunteers. > > > > In fact you don't need too much effort to keep the game alive. A lot of the stuff is done and will continue to be done by the playerbase. > > > I agree with this. With "earn money" I meant "earn BIG money" But I see great potential for VTES, the game is extremely underrated. > "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> self wrote: > > > cordovader wrote: > > I will probably not play a rebooted V:TES CCG, 100% sure I'm not playing an LCG. > > > so, you're saying that the only way you'd continue to play is if the game were distributed in the manner it always has? > > you do realize that without the relentless set rotation that Magic has, V:tes is effectively an LCG, right? Vtes was originally envisioned as a Card Game that thought it was a board game [citation needed]. Think about how much more fun it would be to not have to worry about buying shitloads of cards, most of them wallpaper, to get decent stuff! the alternating Camarilla/Independent/Sabbat/Bloodlines distribution cycle is mind-blowingly cumbersome and awful. I think the game would be better without it. > Well, opinions are like butts, everyone has one. It's the same as the fact that I never wanted to play nWoD after reading a bit Vampire: The Requiem. I don't want to play Pokemon: the Eternal Struggle, i like to play V:TES.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that you would refuse to play exactly the same game with the same rules and cards, just because it's been packaged and distributed as an LCG? Are you saying that you enjoy spending moderate to large sums of money chasing down rare and adding large quantities wallpaper cards to the your collection?

> cordovader wrote: > > > self wrote: > > > > > cordovader wrote: > > > I will probably not play a rebooted V:TES CCG, 100% sure I'm not playing an LCG. > > > > > > > > so, you're saying that the only way you'd continue to play is if the game were distributed in the manner it always has? > > > > you do realize that without the relentless set rotation that Magic has, V:tes is effectively an LCG, right? Vtes was originally envisioned as a Card Game that thought it was a board game [citation needed]. Think about how much more fun it would be to not have to worry about buying shitloads of cards, most of them wallpaper, to get decent stuff! the alternating Camarilla/Independent/Sabbat/Bloodlines distribution cycle is mind-blowingly cumbersome and awful. I think the game would be better without it. > > > Well, opinions are like butts, everyone has one. > > It's the same as the fact that I never wanted to play nWoD after reading a bit Vampire: The Requiem. > > I don't want to play Pokemon: the Eternal Struggle, i like to play V:TES. > If vtes were relaunched as set of reprinted cards , then new sets came out as starters only, containing the same whole new set, it wouldn't hurt us. It would help immensely, and they could call it a lcg, CCG, tcg, or granny gurts donkey show, and who cares. Its back in print. "Pokemon the eternal struggle" reminds me of magi nation duel, which reminded me of pokemon- age target audience playing psuedo vtes in an MTG setting. It lasted a few sets. Pokemon is the best selling tcg globally and is mechanically and blanace/meta wise terrible. Better than when 10 year old me opened my first packs in 1998, but still not great. We are sell able. Being back in print needs to happen before squabbling about what its to be called.

For me it's rather hard to call a game dead, when it has annual European Championships and still gets 100+ participatns each year all over the Europe and some even from America, at times. Then there are now arranged annual weekend in budapest, that also gathers 50sh people, or did last year and I think it will next year as well. In Finland we still get about 50sh player to our ECQ, granted we used to get 90+, but 50 is still plenty. Another thing to say it's not dead and has lots of potential is VEKN, already two sets have been made and third is on way, do that sound a dead game? Yeah, I know it's a bit off the topic, but just to say my opinion, a new reboot, would have to be something extraordinary to sell among old player base, who loves VTES and have played it 10-20 years. To be honest it would be shame to end. Baron of Vantaa

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Here is a reasonably complete draft of a set of game rules. > Don't quite get it - it's VtES with renamed terms? I got my own version of a "better vtes" - remove annoying crap (imbueds, events, some cards which should not be named e t.s), make set of 4-6 starters, playable and ballanced "from the box" against each other as well as containing "chase rares" and do something to stop pointless table-talk (like, for example, a rule, that the player, whose turn it is now, can't partisipate in discussions of a deals). "Deepnes" of the game is one of the most important VtES properties, any reboot will destroy not only old mistakes, but also all good, accumulated in 20 years. NC Russia

Elotar, I guess you didn't read it carefully then. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Elotar, > I guess you didn't read it carefully then. > Obviously. Rulebook is not a good way of presenting the game. Do you have some brief description of it? What changes do you make to VtES and why do you think they are needed? NC Russia

Easy summary: - Gain VPs by methods other than Ousting - Central Deck of cards which would include many of the traditional 'masters' and 'events' - No blood - Disciplines from 1 to 6 - [DISC] 5 lets you play 5 [DISC] cards during any action - Combat is not restricted to 1v1 but can be many v many - No master cards - Changed methods for getting out Vampires - Changed layout of cards (mockups are included) - Antitribbu are divided by Sect while remaining in clan - Only Justicar, IC, Regent and Kholo are contested titles - Each sect has a 'Domain Level' title (Prince, Archbishop, Baron, Lord) - General overhaul of combat and damage ... That's a short list. So I'm pretty sure you didn't read it. Card design changes would be included as well. Cards would have usually one play option, or maybe 2 based on the Vampire's Age. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I've tinkered with a redone version of vtes too. In my version, Torpor is limited to the mechanics of aggravated damage. So if a vampire is at 0 blood and takes any damage, it would be Burned. Only aggravated damage would send vamps to torpor. Rescuing and Diablerie rules would be the same as normal. This one change would, I think, greatly shorten games and make combat scary and deadly as it should be. Then, to balance this change, I buffed the Hunting Grounds to make them clan specific and easier to refill vamps' blood with. The text would be something like: "Tap X Brujah vampires you control on your Master phase. Each tapped vampire gains 1 blood from the blood bank". This would make Hunting grounds a safe way for your vamps to get blood without having to do it the riskier way as a blockable action. This would make Hunting grounds super important to help vamps survive combat and also make stealth decks more fearsome as they would easily be able to arson them. I haven't tested these ideas to know if they'd work or not, but there's no reason to think that it's simply impossible to improve upon vtes. These are all just ideas for different ways things might be done in a rebooted game. I don't think vtes fans should feel threatened by them or assume that no other possible manifestation of the game could ever be as enjoyable as it's current form. No one wants a Pokemon version of vtes, but a streamlined version of the game could, if done properly, be just as fun as vtes and have the benefit of being sold at games stores, easier to learn, and shorter to play. All of which would probably attract more new players than just releasing more sets for us old players.

> Easy summary: > > - Gain VPs by methods other than Ousting > - Central Deck of cards which would include many of the traditional 'masters' and 'events' > - No blood > - Disciplines from 1 to 6 > - [DISC] 5 lets you play 5 [DISC] cards during any action > - Combat is not restricted to 1v1 but can be many v many > - No master cards > - Changed methods for getting out Vampires > - Changed layout of cards (mockups are included) > - Antitribbu are divided by Sect while remaining in clan > - Only Justicar, IC, Regent and Kholo are contested titles > - Each sect has a 'Domain Level' title (Prince, Archbishop, Baron, Lord) > - General overhaul of combat and damage > ... > to me it sounds like more complicated version instead of streamlined. Has it 2-player variant?

Only things I would change are: - Ditch research area - Ditch aye/orun or tokenize it (no more cards representing aye/orun but counters) - Fix card wording on trouble cards - a.) 1 health system for vampires/imbued/allies no distinction between blood/life - b.) Ditch imbueds alltogether... - Fix Dominate by adding a bit more power to other disciplines., maybe not deflection/bleed type cards but alternatives, be creative. The VTES game system is not hard, it's a bit more complex than MtG and needs no changing. Complexity is added through cards, most complexity complaints are mostly about how cards interact with the rules. When/if VTES ever sees a reprint, more care should be taken to see if cards add more unneeded complexity to the game as should've been done with the Imbued and Laibon sets (and KMW to an extend, ie. redlist). Even though it was not bad with Anarchs, designers need to prevent adding rules to the rulebook to support a set. Added complexity should be limited and only done through cards as the cards are an extension to the rules and provide at hand clarification. Anarchs rule addition was an exception, not the rule as following sets proved. VTES needs to be pruned of obsolete useless rules and complexity added by sets, not changed. Go back to basics, which was the success factor of VTES. -1 Strength

And please no reboot... stop talking about it... A reboot with simpler rules is a NEW GAME. I don't mind a new game, but it's a waste to make a weaker version of VTES. If paradox makes a new WoD card game, go all out, include all elements: (werewolf, vampires, mages, wraiths, mummies) with simple rules and lots of intrigue. Just don't aim for a VTES lite... -1 Strength

> alek wrote: > to me it sounds like more complicated version instead of streamlined. Has it 2-player variant? > Read it or just pontificating? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> GreyB wrote: > And please no reboot... stop talking about it... A reboot with simpler rules is a NEW GAME. > I don't mind a new game, but it's a waste to make a weaker version of VTES. > If paradox makes a new WoD card game, go all out, include all elements: (werewolf, vampires, mages, wraiths, mummies) with simple rules and lots of intrigue. Just don't aim for a VTES lite... > Probably is... and that may be what gets a VTES-like game in print. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > alek wrote: > > to me it sounds like more complicated version instead of streamlined. Has it 2-player variant? > > > Read it or just pontificating? > Didn't read your rules but read your changes summary and it seems more complicated than vtes currently is (f.e. more levels of disciplines). Also couldn't find answers for current vtes issues that it would solve (like no 2-player variant)

Only things I would change are: - Ditch research area - Ditch aye/orun or tokenize it (no more cards representing aye/orun but counters) - Fix card wording on trouble cards - a.) 1 health system for vampires/imbued/allies no distinction between blood/life - b.) Ditch imbueds alltogether... - Fix Dominate by adding a bit more power to other disciplines., maybe not deflection/bleed type cards but alternatives, be creative. The VTES game system is not hard, it's a bit more complex than MtG and needs no changing. Complexity is added through cards, most complexity complaints are mostly about how cards interact with the rules. When/if VTES ever sees a reprint, more care should be taken to see if cards add more unneeded complexity to the game as should've been done with the Imbued and Laibon sets (and KMW to an extend, ie. redlist). Even though it was not bad with Anarchs, designers need to prevent adding rules to the rulebook to support a set. Added complexity should be limited and only done through cards as the cards are an extension to the rules and provide at hand clarification. Anarchs rule addition was an exception, not the rule as following sets proved. VTES needs to be pruned of obsolete useless rules and complexity added by sets, not changed. Go back to basics, which was the success factor of VTES.

> GreyB wrote: > Only things I would change are: > - Ditch research area > - Ditch aye/orun or tokenize it (no more cards representing aye/orun but counters) > - Fix card wording on trouble cards > - a.) 1 health system for vampires/imbued/allies no distinction between blood/life > - b.) Ditch imbueds alltogether... > - Fix Dominate by adding a bit more power to other disciplines., maybe not deflection/bleed type cards but alternatives, be creative. > > The VTES game system is not hard, it's a bit more complex than MtG and needs no changing. > Complexity is added through cards, most complexity complaints are mostly about how cards interact with the rules. When/if VTES ever sees a reprint, more care should be taken to see if cards add more unneeded complexity to the game as should've been done with the Imbued and Laibon sets (and KMW to an extend, ie. redlist). > > Even though it was not bad with Anarchs, designers need to prevent adding rules to the rulebook to support a set. Added complexity should be limited and only done through cards as the cards are an extension to the rules and provide at hand clarification. Anarchs rule addition was an exception, not the rule as following sets proved. > > VTES needs to be pruned of obsolete useless rules and complexity added by sets, not changed. > Go back to basics, which was the success factor of VTES. > 90% agree. This 10% is my feelings toward anarchs. While I like playing them and generally enjoy their mechanics I think it's example of bad design decision. It needlessly added a lot of complication. It would be much better if it follows earlier mechanics, which means no 3-way, just some cards require you to be an anarch. Exacly the same way like in case of sabbat/ camarilla, etc. I would also remove some other niche mechanics like slave, cold iron, etc.

> alek wrote: > Didn't read your rules but read your changes summary and it seems more complicated than vtes currently is (f.e. more levels of disciplines). Also couldn't find answers for current vtes issues that it would solve (like no 2-player variant) > So how about you stop talking out your ear about it and read it then. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> GreyB wrote: > - Ditch aye/orun or tokenize it (no more cards representing aye/orun but counters) > that would require orun and aye to be hard-coded into the rules. It might be easier to just leave them on the cards. > VTES needs to be pruned of obsolete useless rules and complexity added by sets, not changed. > Go back to basics, which was the success factor of VTES. > while I largely agree with this sentiment, I wonder if the Imbued mechanics were as well supported as Black Hand or Anarch tech if the community's opinion would be different. That being said, I'm profoundly strongly in favor of pretending Nights of Reckoning never happened.

> self wrote: > > that would require orun and aye to be hard-coded into the rules. It might be easier to just leave them on the cards. > Take a look at corruption counters, there are no rules other than those on cards. Same could be done with aye/orun. Counters in game but useless until you have a card that interacts with the counters. -1 Strength

> self wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > - Ditch aye/orun or tokenize it (no more cards representing aye/orun but counters) > > > that would require orun and aye to be hard-coded into the rules. It might be easier to just leave them on the cards. > > > VTES needs to be pruned of obsolete useless rules and complexity added by sets, not changed. > > Go back to basics, which was the success factor of VTES. > > > while I largely agree with this sentiment, I wonder if the Imbued mechanics were as well supported as Black Hand or Anarch tech if the community's opinion would be different. That being said, I'm profoundly strongly in favor of pretending Nights of Reckoning never happened. > I feel like imbued should forget reworked , ditto to oddball rules. Imbued need 0 powers, 0 creeds. They are allies, count as "mortal" and "imbued", get basic level disciplines, and can have at most one of each conviction. Special text can do what library cards do, you get conviction from deck when you get flipped, from discard or hand during untap. Also, if we reprint cool named cards as playable cards, it would help. Orgy of Blood being useful? Yes please. This is tricky, but doable if we get printed again. We can even do variants of certain vamps if we want. This would be an alternative rather than a reprint. Do I play original Faruq or the new anarch one with superior everything? Do I play origional Appalonious with the adv or the new one that has -3 stealth but a cool ability? You get the idea. Just there as an option. Events arent my beef anymore, but useless keywords need rethought. Why is "cannot commit diablery" a keyword but not "may enter combat with as an action"?

Thanks for all of the constructive feedback folks. Reading all of your comments has helped me refine my thoughts about this. So, when I think of a rebooted, vtes lite game, I'm essentially thinking of a game that looks more like Jyhad. Expansions that added new clans and disciplines to the game increased the strategic depth to the game, but many of the new rules additions did not or only added a very weak level of depth to the game at the expense of accumulating rules bloat and more wallpaper cards. Any new expansions should operate within the existing rules of the game to avoid unnecessary quantitative complexity and redundancy. Example: Do we really NEED all the different Sects with their redundant terminologies? Consider titles: the 3 titles introduced in Jyhad was simple and easy to work with. Does it really increase the depth of the game to add new names for the same title (Prince, Arch Bishop, Baron, Magaji, Independent)? In my view, all of the sect-specific cards could have a similar strategic purpose if simply applied to existing clans, titles, and generation level. I freaking love the idea of having multiple versions of the same vampire to choose from (forget merging though), if such a mechanic were liberally applied to a reboot, you might not even need the Grouping rule.

Yea, grooping rule is idiotic. NC Russia

I like grouping, as it allows increases balance for most situations. Its how we can go for so long without having set rotations. Some vamps hang out together, others don't. Obviously g2 and 4 got a shit ton of everything that matters, but its still balance. I'm more for reprints/ reissues of staples followed by what's relevant followed by the game rolling again. We can look at what to edit as it goes from there to make wallpaper playable and new again, etc.

> alek wrote: > - Fix Dominate by adding a bit more power to other disciplines., maybe not deflection/bleed type cards but alternatives, be creative. > That is the easiest of all: just make Govern a Presence card as it should always have been. Don't put bloat and bounce in the same discipline.

> CalibanX wrote: > Example: Do we really NEED all the different Sects with their redundant terminologies? Consider titles: the 3 titles introduced in Jyhad was simple and easy to work with. Does it really increase the depth of the game to add new names for the same title (Prince, Arch Bishop, Baron, Magaji, Independent)? In my view, all of the sect-specific cards could have a similar strategic purpose if simply applied to existing clans, titles, and generation level. > This is not complex at all, and it is to work with the theme of World of Darkness. I have more problems with various timing windows, broken cards (Temptation of Greater Power) and boring solitaire-style deck formats (Turbo-decks, MMPA-decks etc). I love VTES. Love it. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> CalibanX wrote: > Example: Do we really NEED all the different Sects with their redundant terminologies? Consider titles: the 3 titles introduced in Jyhad was simple and easy to work with. Does it really increase the depth of the game to add new names for the same title (Prince, Arch Bishop, Baron, Magaji, Independent)? In my view, all of the sect-specific cards could have a similar strategic purpose if simply applied to existing clans, titles, and generation level. > Titles aren't hard or too complex. - A title is worth X votes, look it up a few times and you memorised it. - Some titles are unique, look it up a few times and you memorised it. - Some cards require a specific title, it says so on the card. done. Titles also tell a story and gives the game body, would be a shame to lose that. If you replace it with "X votes" it becomes too abstract, no story, no body, no charm. One could separate it from votes however, add a box with a number that represents a vamp's vote count and turn the title into a keyword for card interaction. Title uniqueness is harder to solve without it taking a lot of space... Keyword/card interaction is quite common in VTES and also easy to comprehend (ie. grapple, frenzy etc), no problem there. It's a great example of how cards can add more depth without rule additions. More depth is not bad if it translates well on the cards. -1 Strength

> elotar wrote: > Yea, grooping rule is idiotic. > Care to elaborate as to why you feel this way? I personally think it's a genius idea. It gives the developers a way to limit the card pool without completely invalidating older cards for play. V:tes is the only [citation needed] CCG that didn't move to set blocks as a means for card pool rotation, it works really well.

> GreyB wrote: > Titles also tell a story and gives the game body, would be a shame to lose that. > If you replace it with "X votes" it becomes too abstract, no story, no body, no charm. > I half agree with you here. We currently have both "Titles" and "X Votes" on vampires. The inconsistency really bothers me, and i'd much rather see "X Votes" go away in favor of genuine titles for everyone. I mentioned this on the forums in the past, but everyone else here had some kind of bizarre hard-on for the status quo because they felt that this was a better way of representing 'unique' titles. > One could separate it from votes however, add a box with a number that represents a vamp's vote count and turn the title into a keyword for card interaction. Title uniqueness is harder to solve without it taking a lot of space... > I like this idea.

> self wrote: > Care to elaborate as to why you feel this way? > Because having small numbers on cards, limiting comparability of vampires, vithout any meaningful reason, is idiotic. Somehow we don't need it for expanding library cards pool, but for vampires it's suddenly nessesary. Unfortunately it's probably hard to do something about it now. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Because having small numbers on cards, limiting comparability of vampires, vithout any meaningful reason, is idiotic. > The point is to be able to create variety, but not making too strong crypt options. Example: In group 7 you could have two 5-cap vamps with POT & CEL & ani, and in group 9 you could have two 5-cap vamps with POT & CEL & obf. Without the grouping rule there would be too many 5-cap vamps with POT & CEL. Do you understand? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> elotar wrote: > Because having small numbers on cards, limiting comparability of vampires, vithout any meaningful reason, is idiotic. > Two words: Presence Weenies. > Somehow we don't need it for expanding library cards pool, but for vampires it's suddenly nessesary. > I'd actually be super in favor of adding grouping to library cards. The problem that i've seen is basically endemic to any game that no matter what the social contract is, when the question is asked: "Well why on Earth would anyone play the game like that?" someone pipes up and says: "The rules don't say that I can't!" Most famously to my mind was when Alessio Cavatore was surprised people were taking Twin Lash Princes during the CHaos 3.5 codex era of Warhammer 40k. Limiting the card pool is good for the game, because it encourages people to buy the new cards, too.

I'd rather see card pool stay as is, with distinction for new players. Anything too powerful needs reworded. Every Anson, Parthenon, Cybele, etc needs "you can only gain an additional master phase from one non-trifle source each turn" Or put it in the rulebook. Actual card pool is overwhelming so we should sort it for new players or have a junk/wallpaper designation, a corner case designation, a playable designation, and a good card designation. So, in order, eyes of the dead, keep it simple, telepathic counter, deflection. For ranged weapons spike thrower/stars hell, improve flamethrower/deagle, Saturday night special/flamethrower, 44 magnum/ivory bow. Every function of cards has this hierchy, if we tell hat to people between them learning stealth bleed and building decks, would it not help? Deflection>murmur>redirection. Pursuit/blur/psyche/sideslip/flash> anything else that's celerity and combat. You get the idea.....

> Ashur wrote: > The point is to be able to create variety, but not making too strong crypt options. > The reasoning, that if we just left it alone, some crypt options may be too good is obvious, but the solution "this vampires can't be played with each other just becouse" is still dumb. It's even more dumb when we remember, that disciplines and specials are totally not equal, so there are still much better crypt options with grooping rule (any with dom?, MMA ets) than any number of POT CEL 5-caps. NC Russia

i feel like this is a 'can't see the forest for trees' moment (do you have that idiom in Russia, elotar?). I think the grouping rule is more about the overall health of the card pool, and less about individual vampires.

> elotar wrote: > but the solution "this vampires can't be played with each other just becouse" is still dumb. > It's been done this way "by design". You may not like the rule, but it's not "dumb", it's been there on purpose, and crypt cards were designed according to this grouping rule. James also had a nice analysis back in 2002: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/_jvnIfLxJm4/IqMkL9zCWFoJ > James wrote: > >I fully agree with you on this. Dial-a-vamp will lead to broken situations, > >unless (perhaps) all clans have access to a Dial-a-vamp crypt. > No, you still miss the point. > > The point (with regards) is not whether a *clan* has access to dial-a- > vamp. This is *NOT* related to clans. > > As LSJ has pointed out, the crypt has *always* been designed as a > restriction on what you can do. (Hence, uniqueness, contesting with > other Methuselahs, minimum sizes, the slowness of sucking blood back > (this wasn't actually in some drafts) and so on.) > > It is not hard to imagine a V:TES where you took (say) six pretty, but > blank, vampire cards and 24 discipline master cards and built your own > crypt. > > By contrast, the crypt is a powerful limiting agent. > > If you can't find a vampire with daimonon/dominate/thanatosis (Ian > Forestal notwithstanding[0], the time and effort required to simulate > that and the random chance of deck shuffling (will you only get your > Samedi popping up? So put in a Recruitment, a Coroner's Contract etc.) > limit the overall effectiveness such a discipline combination could > have. > > I think at some point (dai/dom/than aside), we've all sat down and said > "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if...." and then come up with a really cool > combo, involving some great cards. Then when you look at the vampires > available, it's a lot of work. No-one in that clan has the stealth, no- > one in that clan is really big enough to afford it, so it'll be a lot of > work to pull it off. Oh, there is that vampire over there, but it's a > bit expensive for just those inferior disciplines. > > Thus the potential power of such combinations is limited, by careful > design relative to the card set. > > LSJ has, repeatedly, pointed out that simply allocating X points of > disciplines, using the system most people see in Jyhad/V:TES, is not > enough. A card that said "4 capacity, pot cel for pro, Default bleed is > 0" would be pretty balanced along most such costing schemes. > > The combos they facilitate are also a hugely important balancing factor. > > As dial-a-vamp becomes possible (in a non-grouping environment), the > balance that has been constructed over *years* becomes - piece by piece > - taken down. Whereas, previously, attempts were made so that with a > small, focused set of vampires, e.g. my Gangrel deck, which I've > constructed with a small investment of two to three hundred cards and > some trading, could succeed, dial-a-vamp practically demands clan > transparency. > > You wouldn't be limited by discipline matches - those would be entirely > set aside, with the foundation of dial-a-vamp. Currently, you would > have to limit your use of the 'good' cards to the disciplines you can > find to bring out, or put in a lot of work to bring out. With dial-a- > vamp, you just go and pick and choose all the best cards from all the > best disciplines. Well, let's take Skin of Steel, Claws of the Dead, > Torn Signpost, Blood of Acid and Shadow Strike. A few Rewind Times can > knock around in the deck. > > The *frightening* point with dial-a-vamp is not whether you keep the > clans balanced with regards one another, or the sects, or the > bloodlines. The major point is whether you keep the game balanced > *within itself*. Dial-a-vamp requires a standard escalation of power > levels to compensate and rewards the current suitcase players who will > be able to make all the outlandish combos that are, currently, > restricted. > > Sure, you want to keep the Gangrel balanced next to the Lasombra next to > the Tzimisce. But, more important than whether one clan is more > powerful than another, you want to keep the *game* balanced. > > Clan decks get the benefits of some interesting clan cards and a tight > focus of discipline. Out of clan decks get the benefits of some > interesting combos, at a cost, with less tight focus of vampires - > expensive, fewer of them, more fragile, more likely to "self-contest" in > the uncontrolled region, jam on skill cards etc. > > When all combos are available easily, the out-of-clan decks lose a > strong balancing factor - that of difficulty - and the power level ups. > > That's why it's not a clan thing, or even a sect thing, but a game > thing. > > As more vamps become available, it'll become even more important to keep > the game balanced. > > [0] The above is also one of the reasons why, in the past, I have argued > strongly against replicating Ian Forestal's ability on any vampire, when > it came up in a Damnan's hosted card. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Crazier thought... If we get a 'rebuild' rather than a 'reboot'... Do we need to have the cards remain the same size? Could we for instance have 'crypt cards' (or their equivalent) 2.5"x3.5". Could they become 3.5"x3.5" or a similar larger format that would allow for more 'art' or incorporating icons of various sorts. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Crazier thought... > If we get a 'rebuild' rather than a 'reboot'... > Do we need to have the cards remain the same size? Could we for instance have 'crypt cards' (or their equivalent) 2.5"x3.5". Could they become 3.5"x3.5" or a similar larger format that would allow for more 'art' or incorporating icons of various sorts. > From a player's perspective, I'd guess there'd be a preference for keeping the card sizes the same for the convenience of not having to buy differently-sized card sleeves. From a publisher's perspective, it means being able to put crypt cards and library cards in the same print run, resulting in lower printing costs.

This is some good work here! I like what I see and look forward to a finished product. Here is hoping that we can revitalize the game and bring in some new blood. “I don’t have cross table buddies. I have a prey I haven’t gotten around to yet.” — Shockwave (English VtES Player).

> Thin_Blood wrote: > This is some good work here! I like what I see and look forward to a finished product. Here is hoping that we can revitalize the game and bring in some new blood. > Thanks, at the moment I'm not doing heaps of extra work on things like cards, purely because doing so while engaging for me mentally... may just a big pile of sweet FA especially if Paradox just plough on with VTES. So, the sentiments are appreciated, but it's mostly in a 'tinkering' stage at the moment. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418