How I would re-launch V:TES. (audience participation is encouraged)

With the possibility of V:TES seeing print after it's second torpor, I've begun to collect my thoughts on how to best re-launch the game. I have a few specific axes to grind, and not a lot of time to do it with, so let's go. First and foremost, I'd ditch the CCG sales model. I would use a sales model more similar to LCGs. To mollify collectors, there would be multiple artwork for some cards, and modest numbers of 'chase' cards distributed randomly. I would do a total redesign of all of the card templates to showcase the 'New and Improved' version of the game, and keep the visual appeal new and fresh. It's been thirteen years since we've had an overhaul. L5R went through several iterations with regard to design; we can too. Ruleswise, I would eliminate the following: Imbued, Red List, Research Area, and Vulnerability. None of these really add any appreciable depth and complexity to the game. We can all just agree that Nights of Reckoning never happened, we could probably keep Red List as a keyword and get some some non-shitty tech designed for it. Black Hand has done reasonably well for itself. As for Research Area and Vulnerability, consider the following sentence: “I was super happy to have a Poker stashed in my Research Area, I'd have lost the game otherwise.*” I'd eliminate Anti-Tribu clans. Just smoosh all those motherfuckers right in with their Camarilla, Independent, and Laibon counterparts. I've got a long-standing grudge with the concept of Anti-Tribu dating back to when I first discovered they were a thing back in '96. Clan-specific cards can largely be put together on both sides of the fence and it eliminates some weirdness when vampires switch clans. There might be a handful of really gross things going on, but I don't think that bricks will be shat over having access to two Hunting Ground master cards. Scarce will have to be slightly modified to read “When a Methuselah moves a scarce vampire from her uncontrolled region to her ready region during her influence phase, she must burn 3 pool for every other Scarce vampire of the same clan already in play.” The change to Scarce also may open up some other design avenues by allowing 'Scarce' versions of common vampire clans. Reflex gets its own card type and isn't just used to cancel other cards. The card template would be the inverse of the Reaction card, just like how Action Modifiers are the photo inverse of Action cards. Wake With Evening's Freshness and its ilk become Reflex cards. We get to throw out pages of rulings when we do this. Seriously, I read that thread in its entirety and I hated myself afterward for making my brain hurt that much. Independent Vampires would get their own titles. Sorry fans of the novels, it's more consistent with the rules for them to just have their own titles. It's also less confusing to new players, which is a trope I loathe to invoke, but I had recently had the pleasure of explaining to a new player why Xaviar had a title, and that title bumps up Gerald Windham's ability, but Gerald didn't actually have a title. They can lose their titles like everyone else when they change sect, or not, I don't really give a shit, but I also have no emotional attachment to these characters outside of what happens during a game of V:TES. Maybe I'd include a way to indicate whether a title was contestable or not, while I'm at it (Actually, that sounds like something the design team should get on, anyway). I would add 'Skills' or something else like that to the game so we can eliminate the weirdness of “Striga is not a discipline, but it totally does the same thing!” maybe they could have Flight over for brunch on the weekend where they could yearn for the days when they will have some worthwhile cards to use. I think that's it. I'll check the thread to answer questions and respond to other people's equally brilliant ideas, and the delightfully florid critiques of my own. * Taken from a list of things that have never been said by anyone, ever.

Sorry, I replied on another thread to this issue here. The votes (and other card text) could be like this: Arika Camarilla: 4 Votes (Ventrue Inner Cirlce). +2 Bleed. If Arika is ready during your prey's untap phase, your prey chooses which locations he or she keeps in play. For each location he or she controls, your prey burns 1 pool or burns the location. Hardestadt Camarilla: 4 Votes (Ventrue Inner Cirlce). +2 Strength. +1 Bleed Any vampire contesting Hardestadt's title must yield during his or her untap phase. Montano Independent: 2 Votes. +1 Bleed. Cards requiring Obtenebration [obt] cost Montano 1 less blood. Once each action, he can burn 1 blood to give an acting minion you control +1 stealth. Tyler: Camarilla: 1 Vote. When Tyler diablerizes a vampire, she untaps and gains a blood from the blood bank. Once per turn, she may burn a blood to get +1 bleed or an additional vote. (I would drop Primogen, Priscus and Bishops from the rules - only complicates things). Gerald Windham Camarilla. +1 Stealth. If Gerald has no title, he gets an additional vote for each ready titled vampire controlled by other Methuselahs. Might not be optimal, put makes things a bit better. What do you think?

Personally I would ditch the whole concept of contesting votes entirely. I'd also change princes/archbishops to either (eg) Ladislas Toth Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled) or Ladislas Toth Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled, Archbishop) The former option would also suggest changing all cards that say 'requires a Prince' to 'requires a titled Camarilla vampire'. So it may have balance issues with the current card pool. On a similar note, if the game was to be relaunched as an LCG or with a limited card pool, I'd also ditch the concept of vampires contesting. Change uniqueness to instead be something that only applies per player. So two different players could have Nergal in play, but one player could not have two copies of Nergal in play. Even if the game was relaunching with the full card pool, I'd consider this change. I don't really think that contesting cards adds anything to the game, other than sometimes meaning one person loses before his game even gets started.

I forgot to put an example of a city title. François Vilon Camarilla: 2 Votes (Prince of Paris). +1 Bleed. François may steal up to 2 blood from a younger vampire as a +1 stealth action.

> Mael wrote: > or > Ladislas Toth > Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled, Archbishop) > Problem is that you want to keep these as short as possible. Sometimes there is some other text in the textbox too. Sometimes a LOT... Finnish Politics!

I agree on some points: 1) card layout should be redone entirely Currently, the cards are hard to distinguish (similar colors), making it harder to recognize cards and learn the game. The border are too thick, wasting space for card text and making the card look overburdened. Clans suffers the same indistinguish-ness: considered !Malkavian and !Nosferatu for instance 2) text should displayed differently. The bold / non bold usage for superior / inferior effects is a legacy of Jyhad. Text box should be simply be split by horizontal lines between effects. Bold would be reserved for requirements for instance 3) votes should appear in a special area on the vampire card. I would keep the titles as they are though 4) I'm not totally against merging clans and their antitribu counterpart, provided Camarilla, Sabbat, Independant and Laibon sect is clearly identified by a graphical, colored element (a wax seal of different colors for instance). This would reduce the number of different crypt layouts Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Mael wrote: > Personally I would ditch the whole concept of contesting votes entirely. > > I'd also change princes/archbishops to either (eg) > Ladislas Toth > Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled) > > or > Ladislas Toth > Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled, Archbishop) > > The former option would also suggest changing all cards that say 'requires a Prince' to 'requires a titled Camarilla vampire'. So it may have balance issues with the current card pool. > > On a similar note, if the game was to be relaunched as an LCG or with a limited card pool, I'd also ditch the concept of vampires contesting. Change uniqueness to instead be something that only applies per player. So two different players could have Nergal in play, but one player could not have two copies of Nergal in play. > Even if the game was relaunching with the full card pool, I'd consider this change. > I don't really think that contesting cards adds anything to the game, other than sometimes meaning one person loses before his game even gets started. > I don't want to see titles go away. I also don't want to totally homogenize all of the titles across all sects. I also think it would be a grand idea if it were easier to tell at a glance if a title is unique. Also, the contest mechanic becomes more important the smaller the card pool is.

Imo contesting unique library cards and titles is good part of the game while contesting vampires is really bad and should be dropped

Contesting is a very important part of vtes game balance ans should not be dropped at all. Not for anything. Vampires should be contested. If the game suddenly creates a master card "Put this card on Nergal, in the end of your turn you burn X pool and your prey burns 2X pool, this card can not be cancelled" then the only thing keeping that deck in check is contesting Nergal. All opportunists will face a sour game and lose. As soon as any strategy becomes too strong and successful contesting unique vampires is the thing that will keep it in check. It prevents boring Netdecks from becoming rampant. Are you mad that Lutz got contested? Sucks to go for such a "safe" netdeck. Are you mad you can't play Nana and your ashurs? Be more imaginative. In a game where there are 2000+ vampires contesting should never happen. The fact that the one you want to play because it's proven tried and true is not coincidence, it was a lame choice to start with and the fact that you have to contest it proves this.

Contesting should remain, but made milder to balance the entire table. Currently if 2 players contest a key card for their chosen strategy, the rest of the table have an advantage until either one concedes and basically give up being a contender. A simple solution would be: - Don't put contested cards out of play. Players still pay 1 pool for each contested card and have an option to concede. But they can still use their unique card or title and their game is not ruined, just made more expensive. -1 Strength

Pentex for everyone! I've seen pentex be contested for 8 turns. Not sure having several pentex simultaneously on the table is better than putting them out of play.

A local player made an excellent suggestion related to vampire contests - each player keep the vampire, but wipes their text book except for their sect. So two Ansons simply become generic 8 cap vampires with the same disciplines, who both belong to the Camarilla. But neither is a Prince or has the special text. Once one player stops the contest, they keep their generic vampire, and the other regains all of it's special text. That allows contests to still be a balancing factor without totally destroying both player's ability to play 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:

Filling out the 2nd poll, I had an idea about releasing sets. - Anually release just clan starters with a well evaluated selection (from all existing cards) of cards. No boosters. All clans should always be available. (perhaps mix bloodlines with other clans in a starter like HTTB). - Release 4 small flavour sets each year with up to 20 new card designs and up to 20 reprints from past flavour sets. No starters. - Keep the starter release clean and void from sect specific cards. - Expand on sect only in flavour sets, keep the flavour sets small and lean. - Flavour sets don't need to be clan specific and should tempt new players to pick up a starter for another clan, because it contained a super card that works well for a clan they don't play yet (but isn't clan specific). - When adding a new clan to the cardgame, start the year with a new starter for that clan and add 1 to 3 cards for that clan's strategy in each flavour set. New players can pick up a starter of the clan that sparks their interest and be ready to play competitively. The quality of the starter needs to be good though, no strategy of filling it with wallpaper cards and sell the better cards in boosters (also containing a lot of wallpaper cards). In the course of a few years all fun cards get reprinted often enough not to make a single card super rare (Ashur's, enkilcog etc) unless they where deemed either too powerful or too crap for a reprint during evaluation. I feel a proper release strategy is important to keep VTES succesful and the old release strategy was too restrictive or sets too huge. I'd rather have small sets with good card than huge sets with mostly wallpaper. **edit** I am describing a living card game aren't I? -1 Strength

> 2wayspeaker wrote: > Pentex for everyone! I've seen pentex be contested for 8 turns. Not sure having several pentex simultaneously on the table is better than putting them out of play. > Sure! If 3 Pentex's are on the table, each contesting player pays 2 pool each turn to keep it on the table -1 Strength

> Ankha wrote: > I agree on some points: > > 1) card layout should be redone entirely > Currently, the cards are hard to distinguish (similar colors), making it harder to recognize cards and learn the game. > The border are too thick, wasting space for card text and making the card look overburdened. > Clans suffers the same indistinguish-ness: considered !Malkavian and !Nosferatu for instance > Having a large green bar go up the side of all of the cards doesn't help either, i'm sure. Though I don't know what you mean by the Borders being too thick. > 2) text should displayed differently. The bold / non bold usage for superior / inferior effects is a legacy of Jyhad. Text box should be simply be split by horizontal lines between effects. Bold would be reserved for requirements for instance > V:tes is basically a collection of unfortunate legacy issues, because if we change anything to make it clearer, it'll only make it confusing for veteran new players and hamper their learning the game! I'd also add "keywords" to the list of things that should be bold text. > 3) votes should appear in a special area on the vampire card. I would keep the titles as they are though > I don't disagree in either point. I do think that it should be easier to tell that a title is unique (so i don't have to look up in the book because my mind is like a sieve) at a glance. I'd advocate pretty strongly to replace "Grundlesniffer has 2 votes (titled)" on independent vampires with a title. this would also save precious real estate in the tiny text box. > 4) I'm not totally against merging clans and their antitribu counterpart, provided Camarilla, Sabbat, Independant and Laibon sect is clearly identified by a graphical, colored element (a wax seal of different colors for instance). This would reduce the number of different crypt layouts > I think it would be better if there was just an icon for it rather than the color of the wax splat. We've got four sects right now, but what if the design team wanted to add the Inconnu, or some other sect? An icon would be much clearer and easier to see from across the table.

> GreyB wrote: > **edit** I am describing a living card game aren't I? > it's okay. part of the awful thing about V:tes is the unwieldy way it's been distributed over the years. the alternating base sets, with bloodlines and independents mixed in here and there... That being said, i really like what you've outlined.

Like GreyB and Brum, I had some discussion on this topic in the other thread. First, the contesting mechanic should not be dropped. It correctly punishes a lack of originality and could ultimately lead to very large problems. Multiple Arika; Multiple Millicent Smith; Multiple Smiling Jack, I think that we can all agree that such a scenario would be crazy. As for elimination of mechanics that had been mentioned, I am inclined to defer here as well. Honestly, when the Black Hand mechanic was introduced I did not make much use of it. However, I think that 3rd edition, Danse Macabre, and especially Sword of Caine really built on it and made it useful. I am not thinking that great things will come of Red List, Research Area, or Vulnerability, but I did not initially think that much would come of Black Hand either. Although I might be in the minority, I did and continue to enjoy the Imbued. I realize of course that this is VAMPIRE the Eternal Struggle, but I would not be adverse to including wraiths, changelings, and/or werewolves as mini-expansions like the hunters were (given the survey results it is clear that this is a minority opinion) assuming that vampires are always the major focus of the game. Ultimately, should the Imbued be eliminated and never spoken of again, it would not break my heart. They provide an interesting twist, decks that were very quick to start, but generally ran out of steam in the mid game; generally good for a VP or two and a lot of table hate, but not a game win. Back to the topic of the thread, I think it may be instructive to learn from Magic the Gathering. Keep a base set in print that is only reprints and use expansions to expand the game. The base set could even be rotated on a yearly basis so that new players constantly have exposure to even the most ancient of crypt cards. Also, old players do not have to accumulate new wall paper to obtain the most recent minions. VtES has a particular challenge in that all vampires are eligible for tournament play, so the only other real possibility compared to a rotating base set would be a print on demand system for blood shadowed court, 10th, and new other similarly based sets for the accumulation of legacy vampires (Sabbat, Keepers of Tradition, or even Final Nights). New players will need eventual access to these minions. Like GreyB, I detest the starters. Nothing is worse than putting starter only vampires in them. This essentially just acts to fuel the secondary market because I can either buy them from the secondary market or collect more wall paper. GreyB also hits it right on the head: > > I feel a proper release strategy is important to keep VTES succesful and the old release strategy was too restrictive or sets too huge. I'd rather have small sets with good card than huge sets with mostly wallpaper > Anyway, just some thoughts.

I posted this elsewhere, so I'll copy it here, with a few extra notes: First a big set like Jyhad or Third Edition with old cards, new cards. I would use the opportunity to streamline the rules (like dropping Triffle, Events, Priscus, etc..) Start the game anew like in 1994, but allowing for your old Lost in Crowds or Governs to still work. This goes i line with Vincent's threads of "cleaning up disciplines". 7 clans with X preconstructed decks (depending on marketing). Some Antitribu vampires in boosters (or LCG packs, or print on demand). Preconstructed decks are important for new players. Then continue from there with expansions, being careful on keeping the rules streamlined and the power curve steady. The first 2 years should be focused on getting new players, so we should not have funky new effects. Organised play would have two formats: -Legendary:old cards and new cards legal. -Standard: only new cards (and their old copies) are legal. From a certain point on, the main format should be Standard to boost sales. As time goes by more cards from Legendary will be legal in Standard, while some never will, due to rules, balance and marketing (I'm looking at you Imbued). And they can re-introduce certain concepts like Priscus, on the correct thematic expansions. By choosing a limited set of cards, rewriting card texts and tweaking the main rules, I believe we can solve most of the issues with VtES. And for 1 or 2 years we would still have 100% of the old flavor for the old players, with added toys.

When two players are contesting star vampires/important cards, we are not only screwing game for them (which is not so good either, cause it happens not only with Lutz, but also with, i don't know - Bakr, if two players on the table desided to be "creative"), but also for other three players, cause somebody will be playing without predator, somebody will got undeserved VP and pool and somebody will got crippled cross-table buddies. For a game of 2+ hours such effect of some random draw at the beginning of the game is terrible. Degenerated strategies like pooting aranthebes into weenie deck to contest, or pentex or smth like it are olso kinda not so fun. Idea of paying pool for contest but not loosing the ability to use contested cards looks kind of good. But in general I think we'll have as much opinions as we have active members, so this discussion is not very meaningful. NC Russia

i don't really understand the hate for contest rules. in the last fifteen games i've played, i've seen exactly one contest of a library card, and I can't say that I have a memory where I've seen vampires contest. Does it really come up that often? if it does, what's your local meta like? Sometimes, you get Rochambeau'd by table seating; your prey has a deck that is perfectly designed to handle everything that you can throw at it.

I agree that Vampire contests almost never happen, but that doesn't mean we should allow a rule that ruins games in the rare cases that it does. Imagine a rule that at the beginning of every game, each player had to roll a 1000 sided die, and if it come up 1, you weren't allowed to play the game, but you were forced to sit there for 2 hours. That is an extreme example, but if that rule is bad, why is the vampire contest rule ok? Also, this will become of greater concern if the relaunch of the game is not completely compatible with the current game. If we start with a Jyhad sized set, I'd expect to see many more contests of vampires. Personally, I would advocate to leave contests in, but (as I mentioned before) simply have it blank out the rules box of that vampire - no special rule, no titles, no downsides. The box is treated as empty. But once somebody stops paying 1 pool per turn, the other vampire regains their text (either instantly or during their untap phase). That allows you to still check the power of vampires like Anson without totally screwing over the contesting 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:

I like the random element caused by contestations. It causes you to adapt. If another player brings out a vampire that you were about to bring out, you can use that to your advantage by contesting the vampire at a more strategic point. Yes, it may cost you pool in terms of defence, and pace in terms of influence — however I've seen it used to great effect mid game. It's a mechanic that rewards diversity and also increases diversity in terms of game play. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> brettscho wrote: > Imagine a rule that at the beginning of every game, each player had to roll a 1000 sided die, and if it come up 1, you weren't allowed to play the game, but you were forced to sit there for 2 hours. > This analogy is very good. NC Russia

> Ankha wrote: > 2) text should displayed differently. The bold / non bold usage for superior / inferior effects is a legacy of Jyhad. Text box should be simply be split by horizontal lines between effects. Bold would be reserved for requirements for instance > I was thinking about something like this (full bleed layout courtesy to self biaised): Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Soooo much better without the frame! Forgive me while I wipe my droll off the screen 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 agree that Vampire contests almost never happen, but that doesn't mean we should allow a rule that ruins games in the rare cases that it does. Imagine a rule that at the beginning of every game, each player had to roll a 1000 sided die, and if it come up 1, you weren't allowed to play the game, but you were forced to sit there for 2 hours. That is an extreme example, but if that rule is bad, why is the vampire contest rule ok? > I don't disagree that's a terrible thing, but does that actually happen? I've heard a lot, A LOT of complaints that it could happen, but so far (and i could have totally missed this) but nobody has stepped up and said "I've seen this happen." or "This has happened to me." Maybe I should make a surveymonkey thing to get some data. Ankha: Picking a nit, the pic is off-center. Believe me, I know it's hard to find the best way for some portraits. also, I feel that the numbers in the orbs should be the same color: edit: Vincent, if you could also email me the fonts for the numbers, that'd be awesome. I don't think I have them.

While vampire contest is very seldom in friendly games - usually you know what your firends are going to play and choose not to play the deck with same/ very similar crypt - it's quiete frequent in tournaments, especially in big ones like EC. I've seen this a lot of times and it happened to me at least few times.

Please excuse the formatting errors. I wasn't planning on spending my morning doing this, but I did. I'm not sure if losing the real estate on the right hand side of the text box is worth what we gain by eliminating sect from the text of the card.

Coming back to the topic (How would I re-launch vtes). When relaunching vtes I would keep in mind few things that are, IMO, vital to VTES and its community. Those are: 1. Keep compatibility with old cards. Not with every one card (see below) but with substantial part of current card pool. This will make old players happy, keep their interest and will encourage players in torpor to come back to the game. It's very motivating to come back to the game if you can use some of your old cards. It was always one of the great advantages of playing vtes. 2. Streamline the rules. To make VTES more accesible for new players we need to remove all those "one million rules that almost never see play", etc. KISS (keep it simple stupid) approach is top priority in game design. List of rules that I would remove/ change is below. This would cause some (actually a lot) of old cards to be illegal but it's almost a must if we want some fresh blood in our ranks. 3. Change release model. Seems like CCG is no more good model of releasing a card game. LCG, print on demand or something along the lines seems much better suited for the market. 4. Refresh layout. This may not be crucial but it's very welcome and would help in selling reprints to old players that would like to have their old cards in new, better layout. Full bleed cards are good example Below is a list of rules that I would change/ remove. First few points are a must, later points concern some small changes or things that add something good to the game but are using added mechanics so could be dropped just to make things easier. 1. Remove hunters (imbued) and all related things. That was easy. The worst design in history of card games' expansions. Completely different set of rules. It's like separate game! 2. Remove Red list and Trophy mechanics. Too complicated! 3. Remove Research Area and Cold Iron Vulnerability Niche rules. Don't bring anything interesting to the game. 4. Remove Aye, Orun and Reflex. Extra mechanics, don't bring anything interesting to the game. Maybe even remove all Laibon - don't really suite WoD background. 5. Remove Slave rule. Too complicated, not needed. 6. Remove contesting vampires between players. Cause a lot of bad, frustrating games. 7. Make Prisci ordinary title (worth f.e. 2 votes). Remove Prisci subreferendum and ballots. Not needed, too complicated. 8. Make combat easier by reducing number of steps, making easier rules about burning vampires, things like rotschreck, etc. 9. Remove disciplines which are not disciplines (maleficia, striga) 10. Remove advanced vampire mechanics. 11. Remove trifle 12. Remove events. 13. Remove flight/ change it to trait like f.e. black hand. 14. Remove infernal, scarce, sterile, burn option, draft, 15. Remove anarchs or change their mechanics. Becoming anarch mechanics is bad and three way cards are used in different way than other cards. Much better way is to make it work like black hand (it's a trait that some minons have from the start. Some cards just require black hand).

[quote="self biased" post=75748I don't disagree that's a terrible thing, but does that actually happen? I've heard a lot, A LOT of complaints that it could happen, but so far (and i could have totally missed this) but nobody has stepped up and said "I've seen this happen." or "This has happened to me." Maybe I should make a surveymonkey thing to get some data.[/quote] Two weeks ago I was playing an experimental malk/anti-malk ally + babble deck. My prey was a relatively new player playing mid-cap malks. His opening crypt contained two copies of two different vampires (Florentina Lengauer and Gem Ghastly). Because I got out Gem before he could, the game was half over before he could get out a second vampire. Had I played more aggressively, he would have barely been able to afford that second vampire. A lot of my more fun decks focus on one or two key vampires who have the correct (non-standard) discipline spread (eg Nergal for his Aus in a Diabolic Lure deck, Gerald Windham for his For and stealth in a Skin Eaters deck, Conrad Adoula for playing every level on Hell-for-Leather, etc). Regardless of how effective these decks may be, I would never bring them to a tournament because of the contesting rule. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. So I see the contesting rule as stifling creativity in competitive play. Which I don't believe is the rules intent. That's with the rule in the current environment. If the game relaunches (which is what we are discussing) it would be much worse. If the game relaunches, old cards will either be legal or not. Consider first the scenario where they are not legal. Everyone is selecting vampires from within the same pool of maybe about 50 cards. At any given table, if two players are playing the same clan and the other three are playing different clans, the two players are at a massive disadvantage from the start (see my anecdote about the game two weeks ago and imagine this being a regular occurrence). Now consider the scenario where old cards are legal. Now only the new players are under this restriction because they can't readily get old cards for an alternate crypt but old players have an abundance of choices. This is not same situation as an established game publishing a new expansion. The last time a base set was launched you could still easily get starters from four previous sets, and there was enough of an existing scene that after launch you could sit down at a table and would not be surprised if there was no deck using primarily the latest set. The first of those statements is demonstrably untrue now. The second one we won't be able to judge until after a launch, but if it were to prove true then the relaunch would have to be viewed as having failed. Anyway, that's the argument for getting rid of the contest rule for vampires. For titles it's simpler. I don't think it adds anything to the game except a niche rule that's very rarely relevant and doesn't in any way improve the game. It doesn't actually detract from the game in the same way that the vampire contesting rule does. It is just one more rule for new players to have to learn and then forget about until the one game in a thousand where both Anson and Casion Reeds (for example) are on the same table. For library cards; I agree that with the current cardbase the best answer to some cards sometimes is to contest them. I don't think any cards should exist in the game where this is true. And as I think the game should relaunch with a complete fresh slate, I think that cards of that variety should not be included in the new edition. If a card is so powerful that having two of them on the same table would ruin the game, then either make it easy to get rid of the card or review the cards design. If the game was to relaunch with the existing cardbase and the contest rule, I would be in favour of a severe errata to certain cards.

> Mael wrote: > If the game relaunches (which is what we are discussing) it would be much worse. > > If the game relaunches, old cards will either be legal or not. > > Consider first the scenario where they are not legal. Everyone is selecting vampires from within the same pool of maybe about 50 cards. > so... what did we do in the antediluvian days of the first three sets?

> self wrote: > > > Mael wrote: > > If the game relaunches (which is what we are discussing) it would be much worse. > > > > If the game relaunches, old cards will either be legal or not. > > > > Consider first the scenario where they are not legal. Everyone is selecting vampires from within the same pool of maybe about 50 cards. > > > so... what did we do in the antediluvian days of the first three sets? > Exactly, back when ccg's were a new idea and the market wasn't full of dozens of alternatives you could get away with that. Everyone did just play a different clan within their group of friends. There weren't any tournaments (around here anyway) so I can only imagine the lottery that one would have been. You couldn't play with the contents of a single starter (unless you got very lucky with the random distribution). I hope you're not suggesting that because it worked 20 years ago it would work today. It wouldn't.

I was genuinely asking and looking for feedback. with the pool of vampires being more than a thousand cards deep at this point, contesting vampires seems to be a thing that occasionally happens and sometimes ruins someone's day. I'm not usually a fan of risk versus reward mechanics (Do I roll with a popular star vampire, or do I look to more obscure ones when building my crypt), but i'm pretty okay with the Contesting rule.

> self wrote: > I was genuinely asking and looking for feedback. > Sorry, I guess I was reading a dismissive tone of voice into that where it wasn't intended. I just think it's a rule we've all gotten used to and build decks in ways to mitigate it, but it doesn't add anything positive to the game. Star vampire decks are already very fragile. At risk to combat, banishment, pentex, etc. But these are all things that you can design counters for in your deck if you think you'll be vulnerable to them. Randomly being at a table where someone else likes the same vampires isn't, unless you consider playing a different deck.