What is missing from VtES?

What do you think is lacking in vtes, from a game design OR thematic standpoint? Is there a particular mechanic you wish was implimented added or changed, or maybe a rare clan or even a mummy? Have you ever mused about a new card type? Or a new way to do influence or crypt management, I want to hear your ideas! Prince of Lodi, Ca Everyone must ride with Charon, by and by. We merely wish to know what to ask him before we step onto his boat.

Whole Hunters idea with their different than rest of the game mechanics are the biggest design mistake. Also players elimination with long playing time is a big problem. There is as well a little too much niche mechanics (like slave, red list, etc.) that make it needlessly rules haevy.

The very last thing V:TES needs is more card types, more mechanics used only on nine cards, and yet more corner case rules. What's missing? - making a variety of strategies useful - making corner-case mechanics actually useful, interesting, and usable in solid decks (e.g. Red List, Slave) - better ways of facilitating interaction and friction between decks without the need for silver bullets (e.g. MMPA vs lots of events vs Imbued vs a combat deck that says "vampire" on most of its cards is a bit of a painful table).

^^ agreed. there's probably more that will benefit the game by tightening up things rather than adding more things.

Thinking way outside the box here.... VP system rework to speed things up. Example idea: 1vp for every minion of another methuselah YOU burn. 2vp when your prey is ousted. 1vp when ousting any methuselah. (so you get 3 vp total when you oust your own prey and 2vp when someone else ousts your prey, the other person gets 1vp for the oust) First to reach X vps wins where X is twice the amount of players. Something like that. More VP gaining ideas can be added to the game. Current VP system is simpler, but takes a long time and reaches timeout quite often since it's directly tied to ousting players. There are some benefits for awarding VPs for burning minions. - Weenies are at a disadvantage (risk for speed) - Ally decks are at a disadvantage (risk for speed) - Most aspects of the game become equally relevant (combat, diablerie, bleed, etc) -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > Example idea: > 1vp for every minion of another methuselah YOU burn. > > First to reach X vps wins where X is twice the amount of players. > > Something like that. > I'm not at all sure why a combat deck should be able to win the game on turn 3 or 4, by eating more or less everyone's first and second vampire. Pick a solid multi-rush deck and boom. I'm also unsure why a terrible player doing something stupid like putting out a bunch of terrible weenie minions should make the game just end after twenty minutes. > GreyB wrote: > Current VP system is simpler, but takes a long time and reaches timeout quite often since it's directly tied to ousting players. > That the VP system is tied to ousting players is largely orthogonal to it taking a long time and/or timing out. The circle-of-death/predator-prey ousting format can work towards a pretty rapid game without much bother - you saw people do it in Magic and other two-player card games, when they made hacks for multi-player formats, for example, and it worked tolerably well. (Obviously, Magic wasn't designed for it, so it's very mushy.) V:TES has a variety of issues that cause it to take a long time, including: - the ease with which blood can be regained by some strategies, such as Voter Captivation - the ease with which blood can be turned into pool, such as Villein - the ease with which pool can be gained in other fashions (e.g. breed-boon decks) - the way in which multi-player politics can require an inordinate amount of time, whether through actual V:TES politics (two or three political decks on a table, plus two other players with a hunk of titles), or just general multi-player shenanigans, wheeling and dealing - the ease with which a player can build a deck that's highly resilient to being ousted, but is otherwise a terrible deck (e.g. a horrific wall deck with next to no aggression), which does horrifying things to the dynamics of the rest of the table - the large number of strategies that players would like to be able to use which are much worse than the Tier 1 strategies in terms of ability to oust You could have an oust-based format where aggression was easier across a wide variety of decks, where defence and pool gain were weaker, where opportunities for cross-table shenanigans were harder to pull-off or where the incentives for doing so were massively reduced, and so on. > GreyB wrote: > There are some benefits for awarding VPs for burning minions. > Completely undermining the predator-prey mechanic, the push-pull of spending pool and defending pool, and just turning the table into a free-for-all punch fest should weigh heavily on the "not so beneficial" side of the equation.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > I'm not at all sure why a combat deck should be able to win the game on turn 3 or 4, by eating more or less everyone's first and second vampire. Pick a solid multi-rush deck and boom. > > I'm also unsure why a terrible player doing something stupid like putting out a bunch of terrible weenie minions should make the game just end after twenty minutes. > A deck that can pull off 10 rushes and 10 guaranteed burned vamps in 3-4 turns would surely currently dominate the TWD archive. So I respectfully call bullshit on that If anything; if a player can get VP's for burning minions, it WILL become harder to burn minions as people will adapt their decks to that. Realistically, I suspect this will just give combat decks a little boost. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Completely undermining the predator-prey mechanic, the push-pull of spending pool and defending pool, and just turning the table into a free-for-all punch fest should weigh heavily on the "not so beneficial" side of the equation. > True, so award VP's for burning your prey or predator's minions only, check As for your other comments, that's exactly what I want to offset. I would like to see 4-8 (1-1.5 hours) round games, not 8-12 (2 hours or timeout) round games. I also suspect game length is a major factor for a dwindling player base. There are two ways to do that, drastically change the cards in the game (painful and hard) or change the victory conditions (cheap and easy). I'm gonna work on this idea some more and propose it to my playgroup(s) in at least trying it out, it might be something worthwhile or totally crap. Best way to find out is to playtest and ignore doomsaying -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > True, so award VP's for burning your prey or predator's minions only, check > So you get a VP for stopping another player playing? great — that sounds like so much fun (not). As it stands, it's not in the combat decks interest to crater their prey. It make's it harder to oust them (on 20+ pool) and their next prey will receive no pressure. In a 5 player game that means the combat deck then receives a lot of pressure. You can will with combat decks; but they're a challenge to win with and that's not a bad thing. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Ke. wrote: > So you get a VP for stopping another player playing? great — that sounds like so much fun (not). > So we should stop awarding VP for ousting players? I've said it before, I see no difference between receiving a world of hurt from a bleed/vote or rush deck. If I can't defend against a certain deck, my game is ruined anyways. If I know I am going to be bled or voted to death, moving forward will only help my predator, result "I CANT PLAY". The "not being able to play" argument is and always was a bullshit argument. > Ke. wrote: > As it stands, it's not in the combat decks interest to crater their prey. It make's it harder to oust them (on 20+ pool) and their next prey will receive no pressure. In a 5 player game that means the combat deck then receives a lot of pressure. > So the 1 VP for demolishing your prey/predator's vamps will make combat decks a bit more viable, check. > Ke. wrote: > You can will with combat decks; but they're a challenge to win with and that's not a bad thing. > Exactly, it's much harder to win with a combat strategy than with any other strategy, therefor combat needs some help. Not proposing to make combat more painful, but give it a VP option. The main purpose for a VP system change is to speed the game up however. Play around with objectives until we reach an average play time of 1 to 1.5 hours. I just gave an example. Don't like what I propose? Put in your own suggestions, work with the idea or simply abolish the idea. The 2 hour average play time IS a problem. You reach a mexican standoff nearly every game, thats nearly an hour every game just sitting around waiting for an opportunity with only trivial actions to perform. With a VP system change, you can make that 1 waisted hour more interactive and shorten the game time. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > So you get a VP for stopping another player playing? great — that sounds like so much fun (not). > > > So we should stop awarding VP for ousting players? > > I've said it before, I see no difference between receiving a world of hurt from a bleed/vote or rush deck. If I can't defend against a certain deck, my game is ruined anyways. If I know I am going to be bled or voted to death, moving forward will only help my predator, result "I CANT PLAY". > > The "not being able to play" argument is and always was a bullshit argument. > Allow me to point out the elephant in the room: VTES includes strategies that make it a shitty game. Combat decks and wall decks that don't bleed/remove pool and make the game not fun to play? That makes VTES a shitty game that is not fun to play. This is true at least for constructed multi-player games. There is no reliable way to always mitigate "not fun" strategies in constructed play, hence all the hand-wringing about timeouts and how much "not fun" these strategies are. So what's missing from VTES in my opinion is the existence of preconstructed decks that will interact well in a two-player game. This is a different way to play than constructed multi-player games, and it may not be for everybody, but I've had fun playing using preconstructed decks in two-player games. And it has the benefit of completely removing the shitty parts of the game.

Other games also have this issue. It's not exclusive to VtES. Ever played against a pure counterspell deck in magic? No one ever said it was fun, but it's totally a legit strategy. Vtes 2 player, the way our group does it: Don't include bounce library cards. (Telepathic Misdirection, ect.) Start with 4 transfers. We didn't try and muddy it up with this or that. Just make simple changes and move on. Prince of Lodi, Ca Everyone must ride with Charon, by and by. We merely wish to know what to ask him before we step onto his boat.

> GreyB wrote: > So we should stop awarding VP for ousting players? > No, it's one thing to oust players quickly and a completely different thing to deny them a chance to even act. Preventing a player from taking or blocking a single action only does their prey good, it completely unbalances the table and typically means your grand prey will win. A combat deck that destroys it's preys minions without a viable ousting strategy is counter productive — the quicker players learn this, the better. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> xXLazarusXx wrote: > Other games also have this issue. It's not exclusive to VtES. Ever played against a pure counterspell deck in magic? No one ever said it was fun, but it's totally a legit strategy. > Right. VTES and Magic (and any other game that include "not fun" but viable strategies) are shitty games under my definition. For VTES, I find two player games with decks constructed to interact well with each other to be lots of fun. An official format along these lines is what's missing from VTES.

Well, do you have suggestions? I play many, many games, and a "hard counter" exists in every one of them, and very game ever for that matter. Saying a game is shitty because of this is a weak arguement, imho. I'll spend 4+ hours on a game of vtes/40k/Netrunner because I love the game, though I knew I was loosing. Winning isn't everything. Sometimes loosing gracefully can be just as fun. I play Vtes because I love the lore, the world and the pnp. Not always to win. Prince of Lodi, Ca Everyone must ride with Charon, by and by. We merely wish to know what to ask him before we step onto his boat.

> xXLazarusXx wrote: > Well, do you have suggestions? > I think I've provided a suggestion previously, haven't I? The whole two-player format with preconstructed decks? Was I not clear or something? > I play many, many games, and a "hard counter" exists in every one of them, and very game ever for that matter. Saying a game is shitty because of this is a weak arguement, imho. > I am stating my opinion that I personally do not like VTES the way it is usually played and that an alternate format should exist. I am not trying to argue or persuade anyone to agree with my viewpoint. You asked what is missing, and I am providing my opinion. That's fine that you feel differently or disagree. I like hearing opinions on the game that are different than mine, such as yours, and that is why I am posting and reading. > I'll spend 4+ hours on a game of vtes/40k/Netrunner because I love the game, though I knew I was loosing. > Winning isn't everything. Sometimes loosing gracefully can be just as fun. I play Vtes because I love the lore, the world and the pnp. Not always to win. > You're talking about something different here: winning and losing. I don't care about winning or losing either. I just think that games with strategies that make the game feel like a chore rather than an a fun past time are shitty. And that is how I feel about VTES. I have an alternative way of playing for this reason.

> xXLazarusXx wrote: > I'll spend 4+ hours on a game of vtes/40k/Netrunner because I love the game, though I knew I was loosing > 4 hours on a game of VTES — that's just wrong. Put in place 2 hour time limits on games and the dynamics change. Pretty soon dull decks drop off the radar. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I was making an example with the times (yes 4 hours on 1 game of vtes is crazy, 2 games not so much, but oh well,) also I, and you, misinterpreted what you, and I, had to say. It felt like you just disliked the fact that one deck type will always stomp another to dust. That's unavoidable unless you make every Clan do everything. No, please, no. (Thematically, though, a hard counter to your plans is a very real reality and you would enlist aid from another Methuselah, then eat him if all goes as planned...) What I ment to say was for you to elaborate on your matched play idea. I agree sometimes it gets frustrating to play in a locked up game, to loose before you start or to just take automatic, sad actions in your shitty turn, I also agree a "matched decks" approach is an awesome way to do things. I think this approach, paired with a storyline type format would be awesome. Maybe a ladder style format with multi-decks? That could have some potential, but then it changes from a matched game to a ladder tourney. I'm just trying to think of a way that this wouldn't become dull after playing each "matched set" of decks after 3 or 4 sets? Maybe a rotation of decks? I disagree with a few of the points here, but that comes from personal experience and, I guess in the end, each of our personal preference. In the end, this game is what we make it. If it's not an event, nothing is keeping you from anything. Have fun with it and remember were all on the same team here. (But this is the webber-nets, so something will get misconstrued ) Prince of Lodi, Ca Everyone must ride with Charon, by and by. We merely wish to know what to ask him before we step onto his boat.

Make VTES an LCG in the model of Game of Thrones: Roll out many of the existing cards under the new rules and more easily understood timing windows. Card limits would be good under a new game, much like they are in GoT (I.e. less rock, scissors, paper and more toolboxing, generally speaking) Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> GreyB wrote: > 1vp for every minion of another methuselah YOU burn. > NO NO NO! This game should NOT be about burning minions! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ke. wrote: > No, it's one thing to oust players quickly and a completely different thing to deny them a chance to even act. Preventing a player from taking or blocking a single action only does their prey good, it completely unbalances the table and typically means your grand prey will win. > > A combat deck that destroys it's preys minions without a viable ousting strategy is counter productive — the quicker players learn this, the better. > I totally agree. Not understanding this is just strange. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > No, it's one thing to oust players quickly and a completely different thing to deny them a chance to even act. Preventing a player from taking or blocking a single action only does their prey good, it completely unbalances the table and typically means your grand prey will win. > > > > A combat deck that destroys it's preys minions without a viable ousting strategy is counter productive — the quicker players learn this, the better. > > > I totally agree. Not understanding this is just strange. > Everyone understands it. I wholeheartedly agree with what Ke said as well... We all do, suggesting people do not understand it is quite condescending. > Ashur wrote: > NO NO NO! This game should NOT be about burning minions! > This game should also not be about a mexican standoff for ± an hour each game. The VP for burning minions was just an example on how VP's can be awarded for other things than ousting. The main proposition (before it got cluttered with the usual anti-combat propaganda we all heard over and over again) was to change VP mechanics to promote speed and instigate (inter)action. The VP for burning minions was just an example (one that would also make combat strategies more viable removing the situation that the game is going nowhere as is currently usually the case). If we change the VP system, designers gain a tool to regulate game lengths more easily, design new objectives based on storylines and basically enrich victory conditions. All that, without a legacy of cards being an eyesore. Some current wallpaper cards could actually be revived as well if it aids certain VP award objectives, the legacy of cards suddenly becomes a treasure trove for creative ideas. Imo. the game would get more fun depth as well. Now untangle your panties, stop spewing the usual combat angst garbage and give this idea some more thought. Reminder: ITS ABOUT A VP SYSTEM CHANGE... -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > I'm not at all sure why a combat deck should be able to win the game on turn 3 or 4, by eating more or less everyone's first and second vampire. Pick a solid multi-rush deck and boom. > > > > I'm also unsure why a terrible player doing something stupid like putting out a bunch of terrible weenie minions should make the game just end after twenty minutes. > > > A deck that can pull off 10 rushes and 10 guaranteed burned vamps in 3-4 turns would surely currently dominate the TWD archive. So I respectfully call bullshit on that If anything; if a player can get VP's for burning minions, it WILL become harder to burn minions as people will adapt their decks to that. > I disrespectfully would point out that "being able" to do something is not the same as something being guaranteed. I disrespectfully would point out that demolishing an argument that wasn't being made is a sign that you aren't willing to engage with criticism of your obviously completely perfect proposal. Constructing strawmen is just bullshit. Happy smiley face! I disrespectfully would point out that there's a reason people don't build successful decks that do that at the moment - because it doesn't get them VPs. Changing the game changes their incentives. I disrespectfully point out that if changing the VP structure to change player's behaviour is what you're trying to do, pointing out that their behaviour is different now is just bullshit. Happy smiley face! Let's try breaking this down. At the moment, cross-table rushing your grand-predator on turn 2 or turn 3 gets you very little. There's no reason to do it. So no-one really plans to do it. Sure, you might find yourself on a table with Turbo-Arika, but no-one is sitting down thinking "Hey, I can win by rushing cross-table upstream!" Now, they can. Next, the rush deck currently is exceedingly slow to oust, in the case where it demolishes its prey by being full of rushes and able to crush its prey ruthlessly. Weenie Immortal Grapple tech was incredibly good at tearing down decks back in 1995 - but it was poor at getting ousts, because weenies with obf/pot (popular back in the day) and cel/pot weren't good at bleeding. But putting bleeding tech in the deck changed its timbre a lot, because instead of rushing all the time, you suddenly found yourself with Computer Hacking and a laptop in hand, causing issues. Generally, decks evolved away from doing this because, broadly, hyper-efficient mono-combat that can tear down tables but can't oust is bad. With that change, not so much. Next, consider that currently you might get a good player as your prey. Or you might get a bad player as your prey. Or an average player as your prey. Luck of the draw, to a great extent, because of random seating outside of the final. So you might have a player as your prey who is good at defending against your rushes. But if cross-table rushing can get you VP, it simply doesn't matter who your actual prey is. Pick the worst players on the table, pile in, and potentially get several VPs. So one or two players suddenly get a double-predator, out of nowhere - and it's the bad players. (Even Kindred Spirits back-ousting is somewhat subject to randomness on this point!) Next, consider that Immortal Grapple is really good. Against a deck exploiting it ruthlessly, it is very hard to defend against. There are defences, no doubt, but some of them are quite specialist or require a reasonable amount of investment. If hyper-efficient Immortal Grapple can include quite a bit of trump-combat tech, without the need to worry about little things like bleeding, those avenues become potentially narrower still. States of the game pushing people into playing specific tech or specific anti-tech has been one of the hallmarks of seriously bad situations for the game.

Wait for EC statistics. There was crap load of combat. I don't think anybody needs more. NC Russia

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > I'm not at all sure why a combat deck should be able to win the game on turn 3 or 4, by eating more or less everyone's first and second vampire. Pick a solid multi-rush deck and boom. > > > > > > I'm also unsure why a terrible player doing something stupid like putting out a bunch of terrible weenie minions should make the game just end after twenty minutes. > > > > > > > > A deck that can pull off 10 rushes and 10 guaranteed burned vamps in 3-4 turns would surely currently dominate the TWD archive. So I respectfully call bullshit on that If anything; if a player can get VP's for burning minions, it WILL become harder to burn minions as people will adapt their decks to that. > > > I disrespectfully would point out that "being able" to do something is not the same as something being guaranteed. > > I disrespectfully would point out that demolishing an argument that wasn't being made is a sign that you aren't willing to engage with criticism of your obviously completely perfect proposal. Constructing strawmen is just bullshit. Happy smiley face! > > I disrespectfully would point out that there's a reason people don't build successful decks that do that at the moment - because it doesn't get them VPs. Changing the game changes their incentives. I disrespectfully point out that if changing the VP structure to change player's behaviour is what you're trying to do, pointing out that their behaviour is different now is just bullshit. Happy smiley face! > Well... no need to be disrespectfull. First of, pulling of 10 rushes (possible) and burning 10 minions (exceptionally hard) in 3-4 turns (wowsers) is near impossible, feel free to prove me wrong and I would congratulate you on that. You (and others) keep rehashing what we all agree on, "combat as a strategy currently sucks". What annoys the crap out of me (and many others) is that it's used as an argument against any attempt to fix it. The attempt gets beaten to death with a broken record. Beating down any attempt to make combat as a strategy viable won't make the problem go away. People will keep playing shitty combat decks because it's challenging, intensly interactive and fun. That fact alone merits the subject requiring serious attention from a designers perspective whether you like combat decks or not. There are only 2 solutions possible, ban tons and tons of combat cards or make combat viable as a strategy. You simply cannot expect players to not try and love playing combat decks. I for one like to tackle this problem instead of just complaining about it. Also I really regret writing down the "VP for minion burn" example making me receive this shitstorm. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of gaining VP's for objectives rather than just ousting. Would've been fun to at least have theorycrafted on it before it got discarded. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > At the moment, cross-table rushing your grand-predator on turn 2 or turn 3 gets you very little. There's no reason to do it. So no-one really plans to do it. Sure, you might find yourself on a table with Turbo-Arika, but no-one is sitting down thinking "Hey, I can win by rushing cross-table upstream!" Now, they can. > Yeah, I saw one that as well, obviously no VP's for crosstable rushing... I said that a few posts back. Perhaps no VP's for burning minions at all, perhaps a Trophy that grants a VP, or an expensive contract. The main idea was alternative ways of earning VP's and game ends when X VPs have been reached. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > [Beating down any attempt to make combat as a strategy viable won't make the problem go away. People will keep playing shitty combat decks because it's challenging, intensly interactive and fun. > No, it´s not fun. It´s boring. Predictable and often destroying 2 hours of potential fun for several people. A major flaw in the game design. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

'tis is a boring conversation. Let's not go there. I'm all for playing combat but it is very hard to do properly. What you are suggesting is to completely rework the VP awarding the game and let nincompoops who don't know how to properly play combat decks have a field day in getting VPs while wrecking havoc on the table just for shit and giggles. No, no and no. Finnish Politics!

I am missing better players in VTES and Anthelios. The rest is fine.

Better tournament judge and more new cards. I have no interest in a 2 players variant or 1h game with a new VP system. Maxime Socroun, 3200321

> Ezra wrote: > Better tournament judge ... > Any specific bad experience? Or what are you missing? National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

In print cards? Finnish Politics!

Really, I want to know about the "better judge" aspect. National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

What has always been missing? Missing now? Or, something in between? What has always been missing is a clear two-player version. There are various rules sets available, but I don't know what they are because I've never seen a standard for two-player play. This would have opened up the game to lots of additional players, though it could undermine the idea of producing a superior multiplayer product. What is missing now involves some obvious things, like cards being printed, cards being sold through widely available channels, more players, but this doesn't seem to be what you are getting at, at all. From a design/development perspective, I'd like to see a lot of stuff removed, rather than added, but that's not because I want the game to be more boardgamelike or think that some limit on cardpool size is going to be perfection. There's just a lot of unnecessary complexity, cards that play poorly (for a variety of reasons), and something that actually gets to answering your question. The game started out with just the Camarilla. It added major indies, then Sabbat. The oWoD was far more appealing to some of us because of the sect dynamics and clan memberships in sects. To an extent, that transferred to the CCG. Over time, as more and more esoteric stuff was added, I felt the absence of the focus on the Cam v. non-Cam and Cam v Sabbat more strongly. Something that is very much missing today, for reasons I can try to articulate but I don't think are justified, is developing the Camarilla. Because of the power of traditions and Cam vampires/crypts and Cam titles, we don't see a lot of variety of Cam/Cam clan cards that we could see. Well, that and supporting a host of other clans and disciplines and trying to have indies be competitive, etc. The number of Cam allies is woefully short. Having things to do that are Cammy but not Royaltyly - that's something I'd push for getting the game refocused. The amount of design space open in the game seems vast. Using sect more often is one possibility. Another is using capacity more often. Mix the two. Don't want to make Pander winnie more threatening, create Pander cards that require capacity above ... whatever. Two inferior discipline cards. Numerous multidiscipline cards. Clans having more out of clans to produce the Tzimisce with Necromancy or Lasombra with Serpentis decks or whatever. Cards that can be played by multiple clans or like Baltimore Purge and Mozambique Allure, call out additional benefits for certain clans. Cards that can be cycled more easily a la burn cards or trifles. For instance, a political action card that can be discarded for a combat effect. Speaking of politics, more things should interact with it. It was really designed with Jyhad level titles and effects in mind. Where combat has likely become far more interesting than the old days, I find politics to be highly unbalanced and uninteresting. Deflection level disciplineless bounce, but I have a hard time imagining this ever happening. I may hate events, but developing government into something relevant is a direction that can be gone without adding yet more disciplines and clans to the game. In many ways, go back and think about what resources Cam and Sabbat have access to and how they use them, especially the former. Group 1. If you aren't going to cut Laibon and bloodlines from the game, make group 1 cards to balance groupings better. And, so on. I haven't been spending much time thinking about the game this year, but there have been many, many ideas over the years, where few of what comes to mind get used. Like, Salubri ally ... Traveller Card Game

> ICL wrote: > Having things to do that are Cammy but not Royaltyly - that's something I'd push for getting the game refocused. > Quite many good thoughts there but this is something I've been saying for a long time. Compare the number of usable by any Sabbat vampire and any Camarilla vampire... People used to say that belonging to Camarilla protected you from PTO, but PTO has been banned since so now there is not even that... Finnish Politics!

> ICL wrote: > The number of Cam allies is woefully short. Having things to do that are Cammy but not Royaltyly - that's something I'd push for getting the game refocused. The amount of design space open in the game seems vast. Using sect more often is one possibility. > What becomes slightly tricky in this area is creating things that are worthwhile, but don't encourage the already good Camarilla title decks to include them - if it's a solid toy for a currently poor deck, it might well be a solid extra to scatter lightly into an already good deck. In the case of a good deck using fortitude (Ventrue being the obvious possibility), multi-acting potential means that it's not necessarily stopping them doing the normal thing they want to do that turn - bleed, untap, Parity Shift, untap, recruit this neat new ally, assuming that the ally is playable by a titled vampire (which I'm about to come onto). You can potentially go the route of "requires an untitled Camarilla vampire", but that has two glitches to it. A mild theme glitch is that you might think that's the route of Anarch-y - untitled vampires getting together to do stuff. A secondary glitch is that some good title-oriented decks do include non-titled vampires - either in the crypt themselves or, for decks like breed boon, through vampire creation. So do you go down the rabbit hole of tacking on extra requirements? "Unique vampire" can work for weenies from breed boon, but less so for crypt vampires - Ventrue law firm isn't entirely immune to the attractions of vampires like Gideon Fontaine, for example. You can potentially go the more tricksy design route of making the card invalidate other plays / be invalidated by other plays. If I'm potentially worried about a titled vampire using it after Parity Shift, you can use the fact that each vampire can call only one political action a turn to your advantage by making such a toy a political action. Ditto, a bleed action. But also, making a political action that's attractive for untitled Camarilla vampires that's a political action is somewhat weird - and making a bleed action that's better is also annoying, because untitled Camarilla vampires can still play Govern the Unaligned (or any other very good bleed card). This sort of invalidation isn't altogether impossible if you want an out-and-out ally card, but it does make life weirder for you > ICL wrote: > Two inferior discipline cards. Numerous multidiscipline cards. > I'm quite pro having more multi-discipline cards that don't necessarily go from "nec pot" to "NEC POT" (or whatever disciplines), because requiring two superior disciplines can be quite confining - particularly when you're potentially playing with vampires who are quite niche themselves. "CEL PRE" turns up on quite a lot of vampires in more or less any group pair, because it's found on four big, normal clans (Bru, !Bru, Tor, !Tor), but it's potentially quite a bit annoying if you're messing around with Ishtarri - you typically have fewer vampires to choose from for greater synergy. This generally gets worse if you pick discipline combinations that appeal to bloodlines, like - say - Nec/For. Even if you pick, say, For/Pre, which in theory works well for the Daughters' in-clan disciplines, there are so few of them that it can get icky, and you don't really want to be dragging Ventrue (or whoever) into the deck, messing up your Melpominee. So I'd like to see quite a bunch more cards that take the Elemental Stoicism route of having one superior plus an inferior. So "cel pro" + "CEL pro", or "obf" + "OBF for", or whatever. It potentially lets you use it with a more cohesive crypt of midbies. For vampires from the "wrong" clan who have an interesting out of clan discipline or two, it potentially lets you do something weird and interesting. Say, that "CEL pro" suggestion is obviously aimed at City Gangrel Antitribu, but potentially enables something semi-interesting with a few random Brujah or Toreador antitribu, or whatever. > ICL wrote: > Deflection level disciplineless bounce, but I have a hard time imagining this ever happening. > I wouldn't want this. I would like more, and more diverse, bleed defence, potentially (and probably) including more availability of bleed bounce to other clans/traits/disciplines etc., but I wouldn't really want it to be disciplineless and on the level of Deflection. It potentially makes decks a lot more homogenous, if they can all toss in six of this new card. Obviously it would depend on the design somewhat, but if your aim is "Deflection level" power, you probably can't muck about with the design too much. Say, you could do something like "one per vampire per turn" or something - but in the world where it's disciplineless, that's less of a problem than it might be now. Obviously, you do have decks (lots of decks!) with Dominate on every vampire, or almost every vampire, but you also have decks where there are a few vampires with Dominate who are there to bounce. (Say, something like Domi-Ravnos, where there are some Ravnos with Dominate but not all of them.) In the world where something of similar power is available in a disciplineless fashion, potentially all those vampires can play it. Going back to the Camarilla breed boon deck I mentioned earlier, do I want all the weenies to be able to play "Deflection level" disciplineless bounce, even if they came out with Embrace (no discipline)? But I would be potentially quite happy to see close-to-Deflection level bounce handed out to some other traits/disciplines etc. Magaji bounce, PRO+ani bounce, "tap an [ally type] you control" bounce, Black Hand bounce, or whatever. It's much easier to give a boost to weaker strategies in a reasonably controllable fashion, without having to think about the effect on basically every deck ever. I would also be very happy to see other bleed defence options - better bleed reduction, anti-bleed, permanents etc. Say, bleed reduction that's playable by a tapped vampire (but limited in scope somehow) for card and blood efficiency, some permanent card that's anti-bleed along the lines of Aranthebes (but not the same).

> ICL wrote: > Deflection level disciplineless bounce, but I have a hard time imagining this ever happening. > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > I wouldn't want this. I would like more, and more diverse, bleed defence, potentially (and probably) including more availability of bleed bounce to other clans/traits/disciplines etc., but I wouldn't really want it to be disciplineless and on the level of Deflection. It potentially makes decks a lot more homogenous, if they can all toss in six of this new card. > If I understand correctly, you believe the status quo of including dominate in a deck solely for Deflection is better than the potential alternative of decks including six disciplineless bounce cards. How do you feel about wakes? Many decks include six of those because they're disciplinless and crucial to the deck's success. Why does something so crucial to a deck's success as wakes not have to require disciplines while something else as equally crucial such as bounce has to? > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Going back to the Camarilla breed boon deck I mentioned earlier, do I want all the weenies to be able to play "Deflection level" disciplineless bounce, even if they came out with Embrace (no discipline)? > The Embraces would be limited by the1-blood cost. It's either bounce and hunt next turn or don't bounce and not hunt next turn. This seems like a fair trade off. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > But I would be potentially quite happy to see close-to-Deflection level bounce handed out to some other traits/disciplines etc. Magaji bounce, PRO+ani bounce, "tap an [ally type] you control" bounce, Black Hand bounce, or whatever. It's much easier to give a boost to weaker strategies in a reasonably controllable fashion, without having to think about the effect on basically every deck ever. > I think this would all end up as wallpaper. Adding bounce to weak strategies will not boost those strategies enough to compete with Deflection, which is attached to the best strategy in the game (bleeding/Governing with dominate). > jamesatzephyr wrote: > I would also be very happy to see other bleed defence options - better bleed reduction, anti-bleed, permanents etc. Say, bleed reduction that's playable by a tapped vampire (but limited in scope somehow) for card and blood efficiency, some permanent card that's anti-bleed along the lines of Aranthebes (but not the same). > I think that introducing more bleed reduction would have the unintended effect of lengthening the time it takes to play a game. A disciplineless inferior Deflection is what's needed. Deflection would still be strictly better because of the superior effect. I just don't see disciplineless bounce like this being all that unbalancing.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > I wouldn't want this. I would like more, and more diverse, bleed defence, potentially (and probably) including more availability of bleed bounce to other clans/traits/disciplines etc., but I wouldn't really want it to be disciplineless and on the level of Deflection. It potentially makes decks a lot more homogenous, if they can all toss in six of this new card. > > > If I understand correctly, you believe the status quo of including dominate in a deck solely for Deflection is better than the potential alternative of decks including six disciplineless bounce cards. > No, I believe this is fundamentally the wrong question. The aim is to make the game better, I assume - so the question is what is the right way to make the game better? And I think that choosing between the status quo and an option I believe is bad is fundamentally the wrong discussion to be having. Going the disciplineless route for "Deflection level" tech: - homogenizes deck types that could be vigorous and vibrant in their own different ways, so that they don't feel different. It's nice that, say, Brujah Potence combat feels very different to Toreador gun combat. It's something of a design crutch/flaw that so much politics devolves to playing Presence + KRC or Parity Shift, rather than there being interesting and meaningful differences between Ventrue politics and !Toreador politics, or whatever. It is nice for players to have meaningful choices that appeal to their playstyles: I find intercept wall control decks the very epitome of throat-slitting dullness, but other players love them. So it is nice when different decks feel very different, rather than further homogenized. (There is already a strong tendency towards homogenization from a variety of master cards - Dreams, Pentex, pick your preferred blood gain etc. - and to a lesser extent wakes, which I'll discuss later.) - creates a design hazard for the future. If essentially every deck ever can play it, you have to avoid tripping over yourself when accidental synergy can occur. (Imbued might not be able to play it if it has a blood cost, which is fine. If you start wandering into heavy blood costs, or capacity restrictions etc., or other tomfoolery, you're not really designing something that is "Deflection level" bleed bounce, which was the stated goal.) > TwoRazorReign wrote: > How do you feel about wakes? > They're not, in general, Deflection level tech. Of course, at the right point of the game, a Wake can be a life-saver - but the point about Deflection is that you save yourself from being bled for 4 and aim 4 bleed at your prey, which is in general a much stronger outcome than merely being able to attempt a block as if untapped. (Also of course, you can play a Wake and then bounce.) On a point of design principle, including Wakes should - so far as possible - be a choice you make. You might make a meaningful choice not to include Wakes, or many Wakes. Choosing between Wake and Forced and Qui Vive and nothing at all should be a meaningful choice. Perhaps you intend to just bleed/vote really quickly so don't really care to be untapped, or you feel you have a better/more versatile option from Animalism untap or Auspex Eyes of Argus, or whatever. When designing Jyhad, Richard Garfield indicated that he regarded one of the 'mistakes' in Magic as being the use of "land" cards, which he didn't want in V:TES. Having to stuff your deck with essentially mandatory cards is dull for everyone. Now, Wakes and bounces aren't resources in the way that land are, but having a bunch of cards that you essentially just have to include to compete is dull for the deck designer. And Deflection-level disciplineless bounce is probably pretty likely to hit that point. That's not to say there's no space for disciplineless cards - the bleed cards are a good example of how to do it reasonably well. Computer Hacking vs Laptop Computer vs Cameraphone vs JS Simmons/Tasha Morgan, vs finding something in your own clan or disciplines - those are potentially meaningful choices. (From a design perspective, I wish Computer Hacking was a fraction weaker - say, Do Not Replace - simply so that disciplined cards that were a " Bleed at +1" were an upgrade over it. But that's a minor niggle.) You don't have to include disciplineless bleed, but you can if you want to, and it's largely not terrible if you use it, but there are better tools out there. Deflection level disciplineless bounce is unlikely to hit a sweet spot of being okay but not brilliant (it's explicitly intended to be "Deflection level"). And it's likely to be stuffed reflexively into a lot of decks. And then if you want to give decks back some of their diversity, you have to think about how to convince them to move away from Deflection level disciplineless bounce - and that's likely to involve a shift up the power curve, and Deflection level defence is already really, really good. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Many decks include six of those because they're disciplinless and crucial to the deck's success. Why does something so crucial to a deck's success as wakes not have to require disciplines while something else as equally crucial such as bounce has to? > There are better/more versatile "discipline"d versions, and meaningful choices to be made. Deflection-level disciplineless bounce is highly unlikely to be a meaningful choice, in the way that Black Sunrise or No Secrets from the Magaji are meaningful choices vs a Wake, or as a complement to a Wake. Wakes are also, as I said, weaker than Deflection-level bounce - you have to do something (risk a vampire in a block, get some intercept, play some cards) to get the real use of it. Not so with Deflection-level bounce. Additionally, much of the point of V:TES's design is that stronger abilities should require more resources - whether that's bigger vampires, more levels of a discipline(s), more blood, a title, a more expensive card play (e.g. master vs minion) or whatever. Many decks include a lot of Dominate bleed modifiers to oust. Why should something so crucial to their ability to oust require a discipline? Why shouldn't a Conditioning-level bleed modifier be available to all vampires for no discipline? Parity Shift is crucial to many decks - so there should be a version of the same power level that doesn't require a title. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Going back to the Camarilla breed boon deck I mentioned earlier, do I want all the weenies to be able to play "Deflection level" disciplineless bounce, even if they came out with Embrace (no discipline)? > > > The Embraces would be limited by the1-blood cost. It's either bounce and hunt next turn or don't bounce and not hunt next turn. This seems like a fair trade off. > Breed-boon decks can easily have many, many weenies out, so there's often not much of a trade-off going on - you've used up one of your seven weenies to bounce a bleed. The good decks also get use out of the weenies even when tapped. Breed-boon itself obviously can do so from Consanguineous Boon - get a pool, whether it's tapped or untapped. Eldest are Kholo, in some of the viciously horrible (i.e. good) Tsunda decks gives them two votes to cast, even though they're tapped, if you're using Tumnimos (the Chimerstry you get is fairly useless as a bounce discipline), or just being a Lasombra is fine for Power Structure, or !Tor for Foundation Exhibit. Additionally, in the given that it's a one-cap vampire with no discipline card on bounce duty, it probably can't bleed for much - at least, not without a reasonable amount of effort. If that weenie bounces that bleed for 3 and hunts next turn, it's still potentially a six pool swing - three saved, three aimed at my prey, which is potentially better than the bleed potential it had from, say, two Computer Hacking actions. That seems like an unfair trade. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > But I would be potentially quite happy to see close-to-Deflection level bounce handed out to some other traits/disciplines etc. Magaji bounce, PRO+ani bounce, "tap an [ally type] you control" bounce, Black Hand bounce, or whatever. It's much easier to give a boost to weaker strategies in a reasonably controllable fashion, without having to think about the effect on basically every deck ever. > > > I think this would all end up as wallpaper. Adding bounce to weak strategies will not boost those strategies enough to compete with Deflection, which is attached to the best strategy in the game (bleeding/Governing with dominate). > So you have all these decks you want to give disciplineless bounce, because decks shouldn't have to invest in disciplines for their defence (for some reason). But if you think that won't make any weaker strategies better, what on earth is the point at all? If you're just making good decks better, because now weenie Legacy of Pander can bounce as well, you're just pushing the power curve pointlessly, and making the game even more narrow. I go back to what I said at the start: the point is to make the game better. Good decks are already good and don't really need the help, whereas the player struggling to make a weaker clan work probably does need the help. Doing so would make the game more fun for that player. That would make the game better. On the other hand, if the end result of Deflection-level disciplineless bounce is to make already good decks better and further increase the gulf between the top tier of decks and other strategies, that just makes life even harder for anyone who wants to experiment with something else, play a clan they find fun, or otherwise not play a Dominate bleed machine. That is bad for the game. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > I think that introducing more bleed reduction would have the unintended effect of lengthening the time it takes to play a game. > Very much depends on how you implement it. There have been many suggestions over the years of bleed reduction that turns into a bleed modifier, for example, giving you a sort-of mini-bounce. You can obviously have a variety of costs, upsides, downsides. Note that on a pool cost analysis, Archon Investigation is a 'bleed reduction' card of a sort - you lose three pool, instead of the 4 or more you were going to lose. Nor does a card have to be only about bleed reduction. Give it an alternative use that's more overtly offensive - a bleed action, non-Presence vote push, a bleed modifier, capitalizing on some woe and dismay on the table, or whatever. Plenty of options to enliven a currently poor strategy, hopefully giving it real ousting potential, while also giving them a bit of defence. So you can potentially offset any time issues, by also providing options for greater aggression. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > A disciplineless inferior Deflection is what's needed. Deflection would still be strictly better because of the superior effect. I just don't see disciplineless bounce like this being all that unbalancing. > You've just said that giving weaker strategies bounce won't help them: Adding bounce to weak strategies will not boost those strategies enough to compete with Deflection So, assuming that you're right, the only thing this can be doing is helping the better strategies. Making better strategies even stronger is pretty much the essence of unbalancing - you're pushing the top end of the power curve further, and leaving strategies players would like to play even further behind.

A good marketing and new players strategy. This game is nothing without players and I think we all agree that our numbers are not increasing but decreasing. And I believe we all agree, too, that this game is already awesome. Is not like it lacks something regarding mechanics. But we do need more people. And given the complexity of this game and lack of good tools to learn it the new players won't likely ask for a second round.

> And given the complexity of this game and lack of good tools to learn it the new players won't likely ask for a second round. > Does the tools comment encompass online play? Naturally virtual play loses some of the more interesting aspects of face-to-face interaction, but are plans afoot to improve existing software for the purposes of teaching new players to engage with the game? I'm thinking of the 'advisers' in Sid Meier's Civilization, explanatory help text, card art, preloaded taster decks and automatic managing of blood/pool? With large-screen phones and tablets now common, are there any apps developed or in development (a quick look of my phone suggests not*) that would give new players another avenue in or to practice with? I apologise in advance if such a thing exists and it has completely passed me by. Thinking about this, wasn't there a WW survey that probed a VTES app a few months/years ago? *I really like the new VampiDroid, btw

> Ashur wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > [Beating down any attempt to make combat as a strategy viable won't make the problem go away. People will keep playing shitty combat decks because it's challenging, intensly interactive and fun. > > > No, it´s not fun. It´s boring. Predictable and often destroying 2 hours of potential fun for several people. A major flaw in the game design. > But watching 2 anal retentive twits flail their insanely fucking boring wall decks that do NOTHING is fun? Combat in VtES involves tons of interaction, fast pacing, little la de dah french style bullshit negotiations, and is insanely fun. More fun than just about any combat mechanic in card game I have ever played. Combat? Fun. Sneak Bleed? Boring. Walls? Boring. Is sneak bleed and walls more technically challenging? Yes. More complex strategically? Yes. More fun? Not a chance.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > he Embraces would be limited by the1-blood cost. It's either bounce and hunt next turn or don't bounce and not hunt next turn. This seems like a fair trade off. > "Well let's see, do I take the bleed for 5 at 3 stealth, or do i have a 1 cap weenie hunt next turn? Hmmmmmmmmmmm..."

> Blooded wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > > > > GreyB wrote: > > > [Beating down any attempt to make combat as a strategy viable won't make the problem go away. People will keep playing shitty combat decks because it's challenging, intensly interactive and fun. > > > > > No, it´s not fun. It´s boring. Predictable and often destroying 2 hours of potential fun for several people. A major flaw in the game design. > > > But watching 2 anal retentive twits flail their insanely fucking boring wall decks that do NOTHING is fun? > Combat in VtES involves tons of interaction, fast pacing, little la de dah french style bullshit negotiations, and is insanely fun. More fun than just about any combat mechanic in card game I have ever played. > > Combat? Fun. Sneak Bleed? Boring. Walls? Boring. > Is sneak bleed and walls more technically challenging? Yes. More complex strategically? Yes. More fun? Not a chance. > I think negotiation is fun. Intrigue is fun. Just hitting peoples vamps into torpor, building a crater, usually not being able to oust, just destroying other players possibilities for action, isn´t my idea of fun. If i´d redesign VTES I would construct the combat bit entirely different. But I guess it´s a matter of taste. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Blooded wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > he Embraces would be limited by the1-blood cost. It's either bounce and hunt next turn or don't bounce and not hunt next turn. This seems like a fair trade off. > > > "Well let's see, do I take the bleed for 5 at 3 stealth, or do i have a 1 cap weenie hunt next turn? Hmmmmmmmmmmm..." > "Well lets see, do I stuff my library with disciplineless bounce cards and embraces so the weenies can bounce or do I just include vamps with dominate and Deflection? Hmmmmmmmmmm..."

> Blooded wrote: > Combat? Fun. Sneak Bleed? Boring. Walls? Boring. > Fun for you does not mean it's fun for everybody else. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Fun for you does not mean it's fun for everybody else. > I can't agree more. Some people intensely hate bleed decks, some intensely hate wall decks, well you can see where I am going with this. There's always someone that hates a certain aspect of the game and thats why the game is so interesting. Decks are destroyed by combat decks without players being able to play. Decks are destroyed by bleed decks without players being able to play. Decks are destroyed by vote decks without players being able to play. Usual argument: "But when you are destroyed by a bleed or vote deck, at least you have minions you can act with". Oh you mean I can help my predator and soften up his next prey? Yeah I can see how that brings me more joy... Fact is, if you're beat by a deck you can't defend properly against, you're beat, any further actions are futile. And currently there are a lot more means to defend against combat decks for all clans than there are to defend against bleed decks for example (see bounce discussions). > ashur wrote: > I think negotiation is fun. Intrigue is fun. > Combat decks don't exclude that from the game, far from it, in fact you get more negotiation and intrigue, those rushes can go anywhere! Rush decks also get table aggro early on, turning it into a 4 vs 1 game where the rush deck usually doesn't survive. > ashur wrote: > Just hitting peoples vamps into torpor, building a crater, usually not being able to oust, just destroying other players possibilities for action, isn´t my idea of fun. > I agree with this sentence as a whole. > ashur wrote: > ...usually not being able to oust... > And this is where every discussion goes wrong imo. As I see it, combat decks are not able to oust that well because of 2 major reasons: 1.) They usually NEED to rush their aggressive predator in order to survive, wasting their combat going backward. 2.) A rush deck requires so much cards dedicated to rush combat, there's no room in the deck for a proper oust strategy. This turns nearly every rush combat deck into an annoying frustrating experience. Everyone champions this as the main reason why combat should not be made viable. So the problem rush decks have is why it's should never be made viable? No not really, the real reason is preference. People don't like the rock in this rock/scissors/paper game, lets keep the rock weak. > ashur wrote: > If i´d redesign VTES I would construct the combat bit entirely different. But I guess it´s a matter of taste. > If my neighbour would redesign VTES it would surely be different than how I would redesign VTES. Yes it is a matter of taste, so I would rather discuss options with peers on how to improve what we have and would REALLY REALLY love it if ALL aspects of the game get a fair treatment. Right now every slightest hint of a suggestion in making combat viable is met with extreme hostility on this forum, for in my opinion, the wrong reasons. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > People don't like the rock in this rock/scissors/paper game, lets keep the rock weak. > > ... > > Yes it is a matter of taste, so I would rather discuss options with peers on how to improve what we have and would REALLY REALLY love it if ALL aspects of the game get a fair treatment. > You misunderstanding the part, combat plays in VtES. It's not r/p/s with bleed and vote, so it shouldn't be made "fair" to give this strategy same ousting power. It's supporting mechanizm, like a stealth or, even a better example - hunt. "I think hunt is a fundamental action of a vampire game. Hunt is fun. Nobody dislikes hunt. Why I can't win a game with the hunt deck?" NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > People don't like the rock in this rock/scissors/paper game, lets keep the rock weak. > > > > ... > > > > Yes it is a matter of taste, so I would rather discuss options with peers on how to improve what we have and would REALLY REALLY love it if ALL aspects of the game get a fair treatment. > > > You misunderstanding the part, combat plays in VtES. It's not r/p/s with bleed and vote, so it shouldn't be made "fair" to give this strategy same ousting power. > > It's supporting mechanizm, like a stealth or, even a better example - hunt. > > "I think hunt is a fundamental action of a vampire game. Hunt is fun. Nobody dislikes hunt. Why I can't win a game with the hunt deck?" > In fact you can win a game with a hunt deck.

> cordovader wrote: > In fact you can win a game with a hunt deck. > NC Russia

In what way is combat not viable? NCQ Marseille Dutch ECQ Brazilian NC 2016 Brazilian CCQ English EQC [sic] etc. Seem to be making arguments for how the game was maybe 10 years ago or so. Combat, even of the rush sort, has been a major factor for some time now. Sure, it's usually intercept combat because intercept combat is just a better archetype than rush, but whether it's Animalism rush or multirush or whatever, the wins exist. Can even argue that Deep Song has really made rush and bleed bruise into one archetype, solving the problem of older bruise and bleed decks being often awful. Ally beats, sticks, .44s, Alastor, and, uh, Crows are rather common. The game has a ton of cards. It's not that strategies aren't viable, it's that some strategies are far harder to accomplish. Animalism has the best offensive combat because it's so efficient, including some defense, and because the game isn't like how it was 20 years ago where 20 Majestys wouldn't be considered unusual or Earth Meld/Form of Mist was far more common because there were simply fewer cards to build decks out of. To make Cel/Pot combat, a highly redundant discipline combination that is also extremely common, more tournament viable does require something, but so does making Cel/Pot bleed or Cel/Pot vote. The argument that elite disciplineless bounce makes every deck alike is not something I buy because what makes decks alike is fitting Dominate into Brujah+D, Gangrel+D, Nos+D, Toreador+D, !Gangrel+D, !Nos+D, Tzimisce+D (not as common as once was, perhaps), Ass+D, FoS+D, Ravnos+D, superstar+D, pick a discipline+D. Just because every deck can play wakes doesn't mean every deck does. And, I've posted multiple times what disciplineless bounce card I'd do and Embraces couldn't play it. My concern, along this axis, with the game isn't winnies or fatties, it's the decline of the midcaps. Having a deck of 5-7 caps that doesn't get run over seems far more difficult, though I don't know if that's actually true. Winnies don't need bounce and fatties will in all likelihood either have it or have Parity Shift and Second Tradition or Villein + Golconda or something "quality" to do besides bounce. It's the midcaps who may or may not have Dom or AUS, yet who will need it. Traveller Card Game

So to the op; Speed up the game. The opening turn(s). There is a format where each player draws his hand and uncon region and then simultaneouslly selects up to 10 pool worth of cards, and places them facedown to be revealed and paid for all at once, and then may discard any of his remaining cards in hand and draws a whole new hand. Perhaps even allow one undirected action card to be attached to each minion (cost paid by minion). This allows people a mulligan to a certain degree and get out the minion they want right off the bat. Contesting. Change the damn rule so that the contest is an immediate auction and the loser gets his pool on the lost minion back. Still a blow to his game but neither player has to linger on indefinitely and cripple the game. More trifles (and unwallpapering some cards). This hedges towards hated erratta, but I keep looking at the mediocre to bad cards and think to myself 'if only this were a trifle' or 'if only it didnt cost that much' or 'if only the effect was....'. Erratta is bad unless you can reprint the card with updated text, but a simple rule of making all archeytpes (but perfectionist) and skill cards trifles for instance, along with a short list of other never used master cards (when's the last time you saw secret passage played?) would inject some new life to the game. Kill the golden bullets. This is my pet peeve. I hate Sudden Reversal, Wash and DI. I almost never use them. I come to the game to play my cards and watch others play theirs, and match mine against theirs. Not to drop golden bullets to make others plays disapear. You must match theirs with intercept, or greater speed or combat, or bloat, etc. I would like to see SR become limited, once per player per game. Or only effect non trifle non location cards (as there are plenty of steal/destroy location cards already) and Wash only effect trifles (being a trifle itself, which made the golden bullet effect far too accessible). DI I would make limited as well, or make it apply to action cards only, or have an increasing pool cost based on DIs played by the player. So, those are the 4 areas for change off the top of my head. Another area is how to speed up the game after the initial turns and prevent timeouts or ousted players sitting around bored, but a hard 2 hour limit should in theory help with that, I just dont know that it actually works...

I was not going to go further but.... Having something for the sabbat to do politically might be fun. KRC is getting old... Having more useful cards for the Laibon...their set of laibon only cards is weak (with a few notable exceptions), and compare their clan only cards to others...yuck. Weak. Laibon are underdeveloped. Fix Aye and Orun. I have never really made those cards work, I think the three or more threshold is too high, perhaps two or more might help as a start. The strategy on the whole right now is just weak....play 3 cards so that this one card will work? Terrible. Just play 4 copies of a card that works first. Screw SCE. Combat tends to be full on combat or just SCE. Make players put some hitback or variety into their deck for combat defence. The current extremes need to have more variation between them somehow. Maybe a card like narrow minds to punish the pure SCE decks? Only thing that comes to mind right now.

Advocating for killing golden bullets and in the next post advocating for one to kill SCE Problem is that if you have a deck containing a golden bullet and the deck it was designed to work against the original deck will most likely win. The golden bullet deck ain't gonna pack so many copies of the said gold bullet that it'll certainly do its own thing well. If your strategy is a counter-strategy you are going to lose. Many different golden bullets exist, do you pack them all in the deck in case you ran across a deck using them? Finnish Politics!

Talonz's ideas are generally strange, but removing ScE is not so bad, actually. This mechanics is kind of non-intuitive. NC Russia

I've actually had a few moments where my opponent didn't pack any S:CE and I punched his vampire for 1 because my hand was jammed with S:CE cancel cards... -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > I've actually had a few moments where my opponent didn't pack any S:CE and I punched his vampire for 1 because my hand was jammed with S:CE cancel cards... > Is the problem that S:CE is flawed game design or is the problem that you built a shitty deck? I'm thinking the latter...

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > I've actually had a few moments where my opponent didn't pack any S:CE and I punched his vampire for 1 because my hand was jammed with S:CE cancel cards... > > > Is the problem that S:CE is flawed game design or is the problem that you built a shitty deck? I'm thinking the latter... > Ofcourse I built a shitty deck, it needed S:CE counters! -1 Strength

> Lönkka wrote: > > Problem is that if you have a deck containing a golden bullet and the deck it was designed to work against the original deck will most likely win. The golden bullet deck ain't gonna pack so many copies of the said gold bullet that it'll certainly do its own thing well. > If I understand you correctly...and its a stretch...packing counter strategy cards is meant to protect your deck against its weakness. Silver bullets could hurt you if you pack enough to hurt the decks ability to deliver its threat. Packing a measure of golden bullets hurts much less because their opportunity cost is so low. That's the difference between golden and silver bullets, if you know the term.

Problem with SCE is that they make ~80% of combat cards irrelevant/useless, and when we add most popular counters against them, percentage of useless combat cards rises to, like 95%. It will be interesting to hear from somebody in the know, but I always got a feeling, that SCE in their present form (resolving "before" all other strikes) as well as IG and Psyche was last-minute additions to the Jyhad basic set - all of them works by breaking basic combat structure. I'm not sure that it all was thoroughly playtested. My conservative solution would be to allow first strike damage to land before SCE. My radical solution will be to make all initial strike damage land before combat ends + banning of IG, Psyche, Deep Song (and maybe some other cards) + remove of diablerie action (it will be still possible to do it by cards or by blocking leave torpor action). I think Ambush is a good example of a right implementation of combat in VtES - target has to reveal himself (usually do some action to tap) so it can be rushed. NC Russia

What makes combat cards irrelevant is the fact that combat is irrelevant. Too. Far. From. Win. Condition(ing). If you destroy in a better way the decks that actually play ViTESS (meaning the ones that actually oust their prey), you're just creating craters for no good reason other than making combat more effective in creating nothing.

> elotar wrote: > Problem with SCE is that they make ~80% of combat cards irrelevant/useless, and when we add most popular counters against them, percentage of useless combat cards rises to, like 95%. > S:CE makes ~80% of combat cards useless...when you draw into S:CE. That's a very important part of the equation you are leaving out. If you put S:CE cards in a deck, there's no guarantee you'll draw them when faced with the ~80% of combat cards they make useless. > It will be interesting to hear from somebody in the know, but I always got a feeling, that SCE in their present form (resolving "before" all other strikes) as well as IG and Psyche was last-minute additions to the Jyhad basic set - all of them works by breaking basic combat structure. > Why wouldn't a Gangrel with protean be able to meld into the earth before any punches are thrown? Why wouldn't a Brujah with potence be able to grapple a Toreador with presence before using majesty to flee the fight? > I'm not sure that it all was thoroughly playtested. > Why? Because S:CE trumps most forms of combat? Because Immortal Grapple and Psyche! trump S:CE? Because presses to continue trump presses to end? Because maneuvers to close trump maneuvers to long? Because Deflection trumps Conditioning? Because Delaying Tactics trumps Kine Resources Contested? > My conservative solution would be to allow first strike damage to land before SCE. > > My radical solution will be to make all initial strike damage land before combat ends + banning of IG, Psyche, Deep Song (and maybe some other cards) + remove of diablerie action (it will be still possible to do it by cards or by blocking leave torpor action). > Maybe your solution is to not play a card game. Card games by nature are situational and random. It seems like VTES is too situational and random for you. > I think Ambush is a good example of a right implementation of combat in VtES - target has to reveal himself (usually do some action to tap) so it can be rushed. > And if you bum's rush a target who does not reveal himself, your options are limited (do not replace directive).

> elotar wrote: > Problem with SCE is that they make ~80% of combat cards irrelevant/useless, and when we add most popular counters against them, percentage of useless combat cards rises to, like 95%. > I used to think that too. Lets just say first, most combat cards are useless to begin with due to there being better options or the card being absolute rubish So using the 80% number ain't even relevant. As for S:CE, well it actually makes combat more viable, hear me out, it's the only thing you have to counter most of the time. Take S:CE out of the equation, and now you need more cards to counter dodges, maneuvers and presses. So yeah, it would make some combat cards more relevant, but wrecks your combat strategy even more. So I would go as far as say that S:CE offers a false sense of security and makes people often not add maneuvers and presses as they rely entirely on S:CE. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > As for S:CE, well it actually makes combat more viable, hear me out, it's the only thing you have to counter most of the time. Take S:CE out of the equation, and now you need more cards to counter dodges, maneuvers and presses. So yeah, it would make some combat cards more relevant, but wrecks your combat strategy even more. > Obviously, this is the whole point of my idea - by making more combat cards viable we make combat as a strategy actually worse and move it further into the supporting position, where it belongs. NC Russia

The only point I have with SCE is that it trumps First Strike. Gamewise it makes First Strike rather crappy and the evidence for that is that First Strike -cards do not really appear in any decks, let alone TWDA decks (didn't check though...) Backgroundwise: If someone is using Majesty, which basically is on all the time, you ain't gonna be hitting them much, no matter how quick you are... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > The only point I have with SCE is that it trumps First Strike. > > Gamewise it makes First Strike rather crappy and the evidence for that is that First Strike -cards do not really appear in any decks, let alone TWDA decks (didn't check though...) > Canine Horde? > Backgroundwise: If someone is using Majesty, which basically is on all the time, you ain't gonna be hitting them much, no matter how quick you are... > Majesty can definitely fail. That's why you roll dice in V:TM.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Backgroundwise: If someone is using Majesty, which basically is on all the time, you ain't gonna be hitting them much, no matter how quick you are... > > > Majesty can definitely fail. That's why you roll dice in V:TM. > As I remember, in most editions you can burn willpower to ignore presence for a round, then you hit with your 4+ strikes, so actually majesty does not really work in combat at all. If we return to the VtES logic it's generally strange that you get time to grapple opponent before he plays SCE, but you got no time to shoot him. Also First Strike in VtES is not only "being faster", but also striking when other vampire is not ready to defend (Muddled Vampire Hunter, Backstab, Silence of Death ets), so logic of "you got no time" not really works here. NC Russia

Statistics of Secret Library 15+ TWD from the beginning of 2010 "Real" First strike: Muddled Vampire Hunter - 21 decks Quick Jab - 2 (!) Backstab - 0 Collapse the Arches - 0 Shadow Feint - 0 Silence of Death - 0 Veil of Silence - 0 Destroy/Steal Equipment with first strike Canine Horde - 80 (!) Fast Hands - 9 Blessing of Durga Syn - 0 Shattering Blow - 0 Other Effect with some first strike option Anesthetic Touch - 9 decks Meat Hook - 3 Forearm Block - 0 Haymaker - 0 Talith - 0 So actually there are two ways of action - remove First Strike from the rulebook and just add text with its effect to 4-6 real cards with it, or make it more useful (and logical) by allowing it to resolve before SCE. The second option, as I see it, will also have effect of making dodge/SCE comparison more interesting as well as will add a little to Assamite combat. Total win! NC Russia

Eh. First strike has a niche at the tournament level, and it's to destroy equipment. It's very effective against gun decks. Also consider that first strike has its place in casual decks. I don't think there's a need to change mechanics that have existed since 1994 because it's not logical or has limited use at the tournament level.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I don't think there's a need to change... > You can add any proposed changes here and it will be the motto of many. Reason to change FS is that it will make the game better. You can argue that it will not be the case, but the argument "it was there from 94" don't look decisive to me. Many things from 94 are no longer in the game and many new things are added each year (new cards, rule interpretations e t.s.). It's the natural way of the living game. Actually leaving things as it is, even not as dysfunctional as FS, are just bad for the game - it became repetitive and boring. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Actually leaving things as it is, even not as dysfunctional as FS, are just bad for the game - it became repetitive and boring. > I've been playing the game for 15 years, I still don't find it repetitive nor boring. I see a lot of comments in some threads about removing this or that (S:CE, conditioning etc.) but if you do all those changes, we won't be playing the same game at all. S:CE trumps a lot of bad combat tactics, but that's the way the game is. Players should adapt rather than trying to adapt the game to their playstyle. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I've been playing the game for 15 years, I still don't find it repetitive nor boring. > Your experience is not a universal one. Actually quite the opposite - player numbers are shrinking mostly everywhere. So most players found something in the game boring. > Ankha wrote: > I see a lot of comments in some threads about removing this or that (S:CE, conditioning etc.) but if you do all those changes, we won't be playing the same game at all. > Why you are playing with new cards, new rulings and without banned cards? It's not "the same game at all"! > Ankha wrote: > S:CE trumps a lot of bad combat tactics... > Reread the previous posts. S:CE relationship with combat strategies is much more complicated that that. PS: one of the proposed changes was to remove FS from rulebook to the text of cards. Even this will make the game better (a little bit). NC Russia

> Ankha wrote: > Players should adapt rather than trying to adapt the game to their playstyle. > +1 The game is just fine, no need for dumb change like banning card or removing mechanics. Maxime Socroun, 3200321

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > I don't think there's a need to change... > > > You can add any proposed changes here and it will be the motto of many. > It will be the opinion of many. Opinions are like assholes--everyone's got one and they all stink. Who's to say you, I, or anybody is correct? The discussion is what's important. > Reason to change FS is that it will make the game better. You can argue that it will not be the case, but the argument "it was there from 94" don't look decisive to me. > You are trying to fix something that is not broken with the nebulous premise that it will "make the game better." I fail to see how overhauling the mechanics of first strike will make the game better. At best, it won't make much of a difference. It's a minor combat mechanic after all. > Many things from 94 are no longer in the game and many new things are added each year (new cards, rule interpretations e t.s.). It's the natural way of the living game. > The things that were in the game on day 1 in 1994 that have been removed were broken. First strike is nowhere near broken. > Actually leaving things as it is, even not as dysfunctional as FS, are just bad for the game - it became repetitive and boring. > Really, have you considered playing another game? The appeal of VTES for many is that it's the same game and cards that were around in 1994. Sure, there have been things added, but the 1994-era stuff is still the backbone. If this does not appeal to you, I don't know what to tell you.

Guys, this thread is called "what is missing from VtES". If you think, that the answer is "nothing" than we get your opinion long time ago, no need to write it again and again. Go find another thread where you can contribute. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Guys, this thread is called "what is missing from VtES". If you think, that the answer is "nothing" than we get your opinion long time ago, no need to write it again and again. Go find another thread where you can contribute. > Are you the internet police? Isn't the point of a thread to have a discussion? Your ideas merit discussion. Take it as a compliment.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > Guys, this thread is called "what is missing from VtES". If you think, that the answer is "nothing" than we get your opinion long time ago, no need to write it again and again. Go find another thread where you can contribute. > > > Are you the internet police? Isn't the point of a thread to have a discussion? Your ideas merit discussion. Take it as a compliment. > It was an answer to your proposal "to play another game" NC Russia

I post 8 different things and the last one, an almost throway comment on SCE generates 3 pages of posts? !@#% My ideas for speeding up the game, ending or discouraging timeouts, or dealing with the current contesting rules merited more discussion I thought, at least in principle.

> talonz wrote: > I post 8 different things and the last one, an almost throway comment on SCE generates 3 pages of posts? !@#% > Range, rounds, first strike, dodge - it's common gaming terms with universal meaning. S:CE and all connected with it(IG, Psyche ets) break "the narrative". So it's bothersome. FS uselessness is just small sad side story. Big concepts are complicated and discussion of them in general is purely abstract - nobody going to change the game in such scale. To fix FS we need like 5 minutes with rulebook. NC Russia

> talonz wrote: > I post 8 different things and the last one, an almost throway comment on SCE generates 3 pages of posts? !@#% > > My ideas for speeding up the game, ending or discouraging timeouts, or dealing with the current contesting rules merited more discussion I thought, at least in principle. > This forum hasn't been a place for productive discussion for quite some time now. Every attempt gets swatted to death by people who discussed everything there is to discuss in the last 15 years. I confess, most of the time quite justified and unfortunately often viciously. Have to say, vekn.net is not a place to enthusiastically and passionately post your ideas, you will be disappointed. Threads like these are traps. Just read through all the popular threads, you'll encounter loads of insults, condescendance proposals to play another game instead and just sheer rudeness. I'll probably get a lot of bile thrown over me after posting this, but it's the truth and it's a shame. Maybe something will be done about it... -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > Just read through all the popular threads, you'll encounter loads of insults, condescendance proposals to play another game instead and just sheer rudeness. > I guess many fans of the game play it because they like it as it is. Many (not all) ideas on how to change the game seem to come from people who haven´t really thought it over. I say this without trying to be rude. It´s a complex game, with many levels. Many people who would like drastic changes might really need to look up another game, or maybe make their own, from scratch? I love to read those ideas too, but maybe in another forum. Again: I don´t want to be rude! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

People are caring about their game. NC Russia

A melting pot of ideas without any serious study of each one leads nowhere. A says Combat Ends are boring, B says no it isn't. If A really wants to prove combat ends are boring, A should create a topic giving concrete examples about why it's "boring" (a vague notion) and how changing it would make the game better. It's hard work, that's why people prefer to toss ideas around. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > elotar wrote: > > > Guys, this thread is called "what is missing from VtES". If you think, that the answer is "nothing" than we get your opinion long time ago, no need to write it again and again. Go find another thread where you can contribute. > > > > > > > > Are you the internet police? Isn't the point of a thread to have a discussion? Your ideas merit discussion. Take it as a compliment. > > > It was an answer to your proposal "to play another game" > Well, I mean, have you thought about it? You are throwing out tons of strange ideas to "fix" the game. Do you actually like playing a game you think needs so much fixing? Not trying to be rude, I really am curious.

> GreyB wrote: > This forum hasn't been a place for productive discussion for quite some time now. > > Every attempt gets swatted to death by people who discussed everything there is to discuss in the last 15 years. I confess, most of the time quite justified and unfortunately often viciously. > Is "viciously" true? Or are people just having an argument on the internet? There's a difference between someone having a different viewpoint and someone being vicious. I've seen lots of arguments, but haven't seen much viciousness. > Have to say, vekn.net is not a place to enthusiastically and passionately post your ideas, you will be disappointed. Threads like these are traps. > Is this something inherent to vekn.net, or is this something inherent to all internet forums? I think getting backlash to ideas is par for the course when posting on the internet in general. > Just read through all the popular threads, you'll encounter loads of insults, condescendance proposals to play another game instead and just sheer rudeness. > Again, par for the course on the internet. If you don't make compelling arguments for changing something, people are going to disagree and sometimes be condescending. > I'll probably get a lot of bile thrown over me after posting this, but it's the truth and it's a shame. > If you perceive this response to be "bile" thrown your way, I assure you it's not meant that way. It's just a different viewpoint. Your viewpoint merits discussion in my mind, and I mean that as a compliment. > Maybe something will be done about it... > Or you could, you know, just ignore the bile. That's what I usually do.

> elotar wrote: > > > talonz wrote: > > I post 8 different things and the last one, an almost throway comment on SCE generates 3 pages of posts? !@#% > > > Range, rounds, first strike, dodge - it's common gaming terms with universal meaning. > S:CE and all connected with it(IG, Psyche ets) break "the narrative". > So it's bothersome. > > FS uselessness is just small sad side story. > > Big concepts are complicated and discussion of them in general is purely abstract - nobody going to change the game in such scale. > > To fix FS we need like 5 minutes with rulebook. > Your argument seems to be "S:CE and FS are illogical, so lets change it". Lots of things are illogical in VTES. Unless you can point to a real flaw in game mechanics, I'm not sure you are going to get much support for your ideas.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Well, I mean, have you thought about it? You are throwing out tons of strange ideas to "fix" the game. Do you actually like playing a game you think needs so much fixing? Not trying to be rude, I really am curious. > It's like saying to the guy, who spends most of his time with his chopper tuning and upgrading it, that he actually don't like motorcycles and should ride, i don't know, bus instead. Actually I think the opposite is in order - the guys who "like the game as it is" don't really care about the game. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > Well, I mean, have you thought about it? You are throwing out tons of strange ideas to "fix" the game. Do you actually like playing a game you think needs so much fixing? Not trying to be rude, I really am curious. > > > It's like saying to the guy, who spends most of his time with his chopper tuning and upgrading it, that he actually don't like motorcycles and should ride, i don't know, bus instead. > > Actually I think the opposite is in order - the guys who "like the game as it is" don't really care about the game. > Maybe we just agree with Ankha's point of view or we think there's still much to deckbuild with the existing card pool and the actual rules to give a complete overhaul to the game. Usuallt in multiplayer games good players tend to adapt to the game state instead of changing the game state. This post reminds me sooo much to wow forums...

Gold rule of rules making is "Keep it simple". If anything should be done with first strike it's removing this mechanic from the game. It's one of the examples of unneeded, niche mechanic that doesn't bring anything to the game but makes it a little more rules heavy. Such things (among many others) keep new players from starting their adventure with vtes

> alek wrote: > Gold rule of rules making is "Keep it simple". > If anything should be done with first strike it's removing this mechanic from the game. It's one of the examples of unneeded, niche mechanic that doesn't bring anything to the game but makes it a little more rules heavy. Such things (among many others) keep new players from starting their adventure with vtes > I agree with you, but is first strike THAT complicated ? vtesone.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/vtes-rules-first-strike-qa/ Maxime Socroun, 3200321

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > Well, I mean, have you thought about it? You are throwing out tons of strange ideas to "fix" the game. Do you actually like playing a game you think needs so much fixing? Not trying to be rude, I really am curious. > > > It's like saying to the guy, who spends most of his time with his chopper tuning and upgrading it, that he actually don't like motorcycles and should ride, i don't know, bus instead. > > Actually I think the opposite is in order - the guys who "like the game as it is" don't really care about the game. > I get what you are saying. But, to use your bike analogy, when you throw ideas out like banning Conditioning and overhauling a minor combat mechanic like FS, you're doing the equivalent of saying "red motorcycles go faster, so everybody paint their motorcycle red." If you think that, why don't you just go find a red motorcycle to ride instead of spending so much time here trying to convince the powers that be to change things?

Look, I totally get why people say "leave the game alone, it's fine". We've been enjoying it for years, so why mess with it? I also get why people want to talk about improving the game. What's wrong with making it better? As I've said a few times before, I think there's a lot more right with V:TES than wrong with it, but there's a lot that's wrong with V:TES. White Wolf (new White Wolf) has also told us (the VEKN ICs) that there are a bunch of issues they have with V:TES, particularly the length and complexity of the rules and the massive card base. Over the past few years, the Rules Team (Vincent and Pascal) have been working on overhauling the card text templating as well as overhauling the rules. Their work has been in the context of keeping the game as we know it, just with much less duct tape and twine. With something like First Strike, I can see the merit in eliminating it from the rulebook and changing the text of the cards that use it. Sure, it's not a complex rule, but it sees game use in very few instances (in practice, almost exclusively Canine Horde). The effect could be moved out of the rulebook and onto the cards. Perhaps we (the Design Team) could instead make more use of First Strike. At any rate, there's no need to snipe at each other. We all want to enjoy the game and discussing ideas and thought experiments are nothing to get personally upset over.

(It's nearly 5am here, so I hope my english isn't too broken) I have no problem with trying to improve the game, but right now it's mostly peoples throwing crazy ideas like "4 cards limit" or "removing S:CE" or "ban Villein" because they don't like it, without thinking how it would globally affect the game. If the game is back to print, then yes it might be worth it to change few thing. I don't think anyone would mind if first strike is removed from the rulebook and Canine Horde/Quick Jab (yes, I play quick jab, works great with Chiropteran Marauder) get a similar effect on text. But don't simplify too much. My friend and I started playing few years ago, and that "complexity" is what made us fall in love with the game. And I really don't believe in reducing the length of the game without killing the very thing that make VTES. And 2 hours game is not that long for a 5 players games. They (WW) might try to make a 2 players variants if they want short game. I won't be interested, and I now most of my playgroup won't be. Be it might be a good option to draw new players. And if the game doesn't go back to print, no need to make big changes. You won't have more new players, and older ones will just quit the game. Maxime Socroun, 3200321

Please note that I am not in favour of removing either SCE or first strike. I just would like to see the cost of SCE increased somehow, and the binary gap of SCE/full combat filled in a bit somehow.

> cordovader wrote: > > Maybe we just agree with Ankha's point of view... > He still haven't answered my question, why he is playing with the new sets if he "likes the game as is". Let's put it that way: making FS "faster" than S:CE = new mini-set of 6-8 cards which will add options for assamite, !gangrel and blocking gargoyles combat. What not to like here? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Let's put it that way: making FS "faster" than S:CE = new mini-set of 6-8 cards which will add options for assamite, !gangrel and blocking gargoyles combat. > > What not to like here? > Thing is, this can be solved with designing "Weatherstorm" like cards. Effects that trigger before/during the maneuver phase. If you want it to cost a strike, then simply state "this minion cannot strike this round" on the card. Changing FS in the rulebook kinda makes cards like "Canine Horde" and even "Fast Hands" a bit too powerful. I agree, logic wise FS in current form is weird, but legacy creates problems in game balance for it to change. -1 Strength

> Ezra wrote: > > > alek wrote: > > Gold rule of rules making is "Keep it simple". > > If anything should be done with first strike it's removing this mechanic from the game. It's one of the examples of unneeded, niche mechanic that doesn't bring anything to the game but makes it a little more rules heavy. Such things (among many others) keep new players from starting their adventure with vtes > > > I agree with you, but is first strike THAT complicated ? > vtesone.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/vtes-rules-first-strike-qa/ > it's not complicated, but it's small stone that, together with all the other small, rarely used rules (f.e. cold iron vulnerability, slave, reserach area and many others), creates a big avalanche which makes this game new player-unfriendly

> GreyB wrote: > Changing FS in the rulebook kinda makes cards like "Canine Horde" and even "Fast Hands" a bit too powerful. > In what world Canine Horde will be too powerful against deck, playing S:CE? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > Changing FS in the rulebook kinda makes cards like "Canine Horde" and even "Fast Hands" a bit too powerful. > > > In what world Canine Horde will be too powerful against deck, playing S:CE? > Destroy equipment without any means to avoid it if FS would be resolved before dodge/S:CE? You don't see a problem with guaranteed cheap destruction of equipment? Ps. just had a visual of a pack of wolves chewing on a learjet... >.< -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > You don't see a problem with guaranteed cheap destruction of equipment? > It still not guaranteed - you can dodge, which is a basic effect of many S:CE cards. Personnaly If ANI deck will rush me and then play CH to kill Learjet instead of CC+AfB I would laugh and obviously not play S:CE. And, I think, in general destroying of equipment by spending two cards is not what we are calling "too good" in VtES. NC Russia

> BenPeal wrote: > With something like First Strike, I can see the merit in eliminating it from the rulebook and changing the text of the cards that use it. Sure, it's not a complex rule, but it sees game use in very few instances (in practice, almost exclusively Canine Horde). The effect could be moved out of the rulebook and onto the cards. Perhaps we (the Design Team) could instead make more use of First Strike. > I assume you are someone who has played the game for a very long time. Take a step back for a moment. Pretend you know nothing about the game. You are playing with a group that is very far from tournament level, with new players being brought in constantly. You build a deck around first strike. Your deck does well because nobody in the playgroup is in the mindset of stuffing their decks with S:CE or other things that work better than first strike. My point is: should proposed fix really be made on the basis of first strike having limited application at the tournament level?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > You build a deck around first strike. > > Your deck does well... > Lol By the way I don't get what your "point" has to do with what Ben has said. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > You build a deck around first strike. > > > > Your deck does well... > > > Lol > > By the way your point has absolutely nothing to do with what Ben has said. > Lol! I knew that'd get a laugh! So, he was saying that perhaps first strike could be removed because it "sees game use in very few instances" and cited Canine Horde. That's only true at the tournament level. It could see more use in less competitive environments. That's my rationale for not changing first strike.

What is missing.... I was always intrested in magic and other ccgs as well and they had a rotation system. I always expected group 1 and 2 to rotate out. Same goes for all cards from start till the first set that released group 3 camarilla vampires. Limitations in deck options give oppertunities to clans and groups you were not previously expecting to be strong. Its worth exploring I think. Obscure cards. I enjoyed the weirder cards that were released that seemed wallpaper. Most were not usefull yes, but some of them encouraged to think outside the box. Take a balefull doll for example. It has a mediocre effect, but the timing is unique, so it makes you seache for the most exploitable effect. Combined with form of corruption, it becomes a lot stronger. So although i like thebrelease of the new sets, the didnt trigger me to really brainstorm for any exploitations, the use seems so obvious. So thats about it. For now. Have a cold long night, Jeroen van Oort Dutch National Coördinator

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > So, he was saying that perhaps first strike could be removed because it "sees game use in very few instances" and cited Canine Horde. > > BenPeal wrote: > With something like First Strike, I can see the merit in eliminating it from the rulebook and changing the text of the cards that use it. ... The effect could be moved out of the rulebook and onto the cards. > I think maybe one of the reason of many "heated arguments" is that people doesn't read what is proposed carefully. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > So, he was saying that perhaps first strike could be removed because it "sees game use in very few instances" and cited Canine Horde. > > > > BenPeal wrote: > > With something like First Strike, I can see the merit in eliminating it from the rulebook and changing the text of the cards that use it. ... The effect could be moved out of the rulebook and onto the cards. > > > I think maybe one of the reason of many "heated arguments" is that people doesn't read what is proposed carefully. > I understood that part of it. "Remove" in my previous post means "remove from the rulebook." My point is why remove the first strike effect from the rulebook and move it to the cards on the basis of the effect having a limited use at the tournament level? I think that mechanics shouldn't be moved/removed/change solely because the tournament scene doesn't have much use for it. Also, I don't think this argument is "heated." I think it's a fun discussion!

> Ezra wrote: > I have no problem with trying to improve the game, but right now it's mostly peoples throwing crazy ideas like "4 cards limit" or "removing S:CE" or "ban Villein" because they don't like it, without thinking how it would globally affect the game. > Not peoples (that is, several people), basically almost all, if not all of these have come from the one and the same person... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Not peoples... > NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I understood that part of it. > So you understand, that nothing will change in a game but you are still got problems with it? "Baba Yaga is against" is a saying in Russia for situations, when something is rejected with no reason (very common situation in life here). I think we could use it for VtES related questions either. NC Russia

I understand that a concept will be removed from the rulebook and new card text will be produced as a result because some tournament-level players decided the concept didn't fit their play style, yes. That's maybe a different kind of change than you were thinking of, but it's still a change.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I understand that a concept will be removed from the rulebook and new card text will be produced as a result because some tournament-level players decided the concept didn't fit their play style, yes. That's maybe a different kind of change than you were thinking of, but it's still a change. > I think that's a mischaracterization of the motives, intentions, and behavior of the people you're describing. For my part, yes, I've been playing the game since it launched and I have an extensive tournament history. However, I'm not trying to bend the game to my style of play, either as a player or as a designer. There are many styles of play in V:TES - some of which I'm not good at - and the game is richer for it. I would also not give my personal thumbs-up to a change to First Strike at this time, as it hasn't been discussed and explored thoroughly here among the community or by the Rules Team. As I said earlier in this thread, perhaps the right approach is to try to do more with First Strike. I think it's unlikely that it's the right approach, but that line of thought should be explored. As for eliminating First Strike from the rulebook and moving the appropriate text to cards, the impact of this would have to be explored first: how many cards are affected, what the text should be on each card, what the proper templating for the text should be, if this results in too much text space used, etc. I also respect the concept of "exploration space" in a game. Part of the fun of a game is trying out the options and strategies and mechanics for one's self, especially when discovering them for the first time. Eliminating a mechanic would involve eliminating some amount of exploration space. I'm not of the opinion that First Strike has much to offer in the way of exploration space, and this opinion is based on both tournament decklist data and on my personal experience of playing V:TES casually and in tournaments over the past 21 years. I'm of the opinion that in this case, less is more and the rulebook - and a new player's experience with learning the game - would be improved by eliminating First Strike. And Imbued. And Red List. And Events. And possibly some other stuff. None of this is scheduled to happen at this time, if at all. Just my opinions.

Fair enough, and very well stated. My only response is that the previous designers seemingly had a different opinion than yours because there are many, many first strike cards that were released over many sets. My guess is they thought the design space was robust enough to merit printing more cards using the effect. And I tend to agree with this mindset. Canine Horde does have a niche even at the highest level of competition, and perhaps a future niche could be created.

> BenPeal wrote: > ....experience ... - would be improved by eliminating First Strike. And Imbued. And Red List. And Events. And possibly some other stuff. > ! NC Russia

> alek wrote: > it's not complicated, but it's small stone that, together with all the other small, rarely used rules (f.e. cold iron vulnerability, slave, reserach area and many others), creates a big avalanche which makes this game new player-unfriendly > I can´t really agree with this. These minor rules isn´t the main problems with teaching people VTES. Most isn´t even complicated at all. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> GreyB wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > Let's put it that way: making FS "faster" than S:CE = new mini-set of 6-8 cards which will add options for assamite, !gangrel and blocking gargoyles combat. > > > > What not to like here? > > > Thing is, this can be solved with designing "Weatherstorm" like cards. Effects that trigger before/during the maneuver phase. If you want it to cost a strike, then simply state "this minion cannot strike this round" on the card. > > Changing FS in the rulebook kinda makes cards like "Canine Horde" and even "Fast Hands" a bit too powerful. > > I agree, logic wise FS in current form is weird, but legacy creates problems in game balance for it to change. > Going back to this old thread, I didn't realize until now what the fuss is over first strike. Unbeknownst to me, the term "first strike" is used in another very popular game that I don't play. I think, when people see first strike in VTES, they expect for it to behave the same way it does in the other game. It does not behave that way, so people don't think it's logical and want to change it so it behaves that way. I believe changing the mechanic of first strike is not necessary at all. But the name of the mechanic should be changed. Instead of first strike, call it "sucker strike," kind of like a sucker punch. This way, the idea behind the mechanic is conveyed properly (it's not actually first, just a fortuitous strike in certain combat situations). Perhaps with the name change, people will generally accept the mechanic as a staple part of VTES instead of getting stuck on trying to modify it.

i'm a little late in the party, but as a long time Assamite player, who has moved on to other strategies... what is so hard to understand about first strike? i've read the whole thread, and the only thing that makes it hard to understand is the ruling that SCE and Dodge defeats FS. ask a 5 year old (i exaggerate). what does "first strike" mean? first to strike. so enter combat-> before range-> maneuvers-> first strikes -> strikes -> end of round (presses/etc) i don't really think it'll make combat overpowered. also. canine hordes could probably jump onto the lear jet's engine and incapacitate it.

First Strike is confusing because Strike: Combat Ends resolves before it.

> self wrote: > First Strike is confusing because Strike: Combat Ends resolves before it. > Indeed... and a dodge still cancels the effects of a strike done with first strike. I sort of understand why someone using Majesty etc could escape the First Strike with Combat End, but any old slowpoke using Dodge is able to thwart someone who is quicker than a speeding bullet!? :/ Finnish Politics!

Below is how first strike works in Magic: The Gathering: "This creature deals combat damage before creatures without first strike" My theory is the confusion stems from this definition of first strike. Most people learned to play Magic before V:TES. First strike not actually being "first" doesn't sit well with some people because of this preconceived notion of first strike. First strike should be called something else in V:TES.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > First strike should be called something else in V:TES. > Sure, something like "Fast strike" or "Quick strike" Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I'm "confused" about it and I certainly am missing theMtG baggage... Finnish Politics!

because the same term in two different games obviously should work the same way? I mean, I don't get it either.

> self wrote: > because the same term in two different games obviously should work the same way? > > I mean, I don't get it either. > Who's arguing that they should work the same way? I'm arguing that calling it "first strike" makes sense in MtG (because it is first) but doesn't make sense in VTES (because it is not first). So call it something else.

> xXLazarusXx wrote: > What do you think is lacking in vtes, from a game design OR thematic standpoint? > Is there a particular mechanic you wish was implimented added or changed, or maybe a rare clan or even a mummy? > Late to the party but: Mulligan rule. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I'm curious how a mulligan rule would be implemented and why one is needed. I'm of the opinion a mulligan rule should not be official, but can be used in casual games among friends.

Definitely NO mulligan! Finnish Politics!

So like a few people here I’m a little late to the party. I’m a neonate V/tes player (actually I bought cards since the Jyhad days but I’ve had only few occasions to play, but a longtime Mtg player. On page 6 of the thread I read a post by a chap dubbed ICL, and I thought “I totally agree with that” and I decided to offer my input as a new V:tes player coming from another game. It’s true a lot of the complexity of the game seems a bit redundant now (note here that at the Time V:tes was created a lot of Mtg cards had a complex wording and design as well, but Wizards of the coasts over the years has worked on streamlining the card design. Something White wolf had less resources for. I think streamlining things would do the game good. Regarding the design space : I think the game needs streamlining in deck mechanics. I think more draw cards, a bit more tutoring (especially in a game that uses a lot of unique cards), and a few more graveyard… sorry, ash heap, shenanigans could be thought about. I totally think that politics could be more fun. Actually, when I first read the Rules for Jyhad, and tried to play with a friend, I thought each Methuselah had a voice. I was disappointed several years latter during my first multiplayer experience when I learned that that was not the case. And yet I still feel it could be better. Imagine you play a vote deck in a 5 player game. Well as the game is played now, it’s easy because, you certainly have all the necessary votes in you hand. But if each other player had a vote, well, things would REALLY be political, because you may, from the start have to bargain your way to pass your vote, and that’s what I call politics. And of course the cards regarding politics should be more than just “add more votes” I think Clan lore should be more used for creative design. For example, I’ve always been disappointed by the specials of the Nosferatu, these guys are supposed to know everything and meddle with information, they should be able, not only to look at someone’s hand, the should be able to rearrange the library, discard (without, the target being able to re-draw before end of turn and let you draw all that information. That’s just an example. The sect should be more important for deck building as well as the relations between the sects. Seriously, in real ‘life’ can you imagine a Cam vamp fighting alongside a Sabbat vampire ? no way. “Cheat into play effects” could be fun. It would be possible to keep it balanced by making the effect just for a turn, then burn, the ally, vamp, etc. In Mtg it’s a strong mechanic, but it is fun to play. “Come into play effects” (dubbed 187 in Mtg) Those two last items are design spaces that don’t seem to have been tapped and require no new mechanic. They can be strong but are simple to grasp for a newer player. More group 1 vamps yeah ! And it’s frustrating to always see new groups. Because and you can have those new vamps interact with the vamps you already have.

> mathusalem wrote: > and a few more graveyard… sorry, ash heap, shenanigans could be thought about. > Please no. Meddling with ash heap used to be something that more or less just Giovanni could do. With Ashurs it is anyone's game. And they totally changed how the game can be played (I do see some good in that too though). > mathusalem wrote: > Imagine you play a vote deck in a 5 player game. Well as the game is played now, it’s easy because, you certainly have all the necessary votes in you hand. But if each other player had a vote, well, things would REALLY be political, because you may, from the start have to bargain your way to pass your vote, and that’s what I call politics. > Uh, when there are titled vampires all over the table that is REALLY political as no matter what you have in your hand it is likely not to be enough by itself. At least that is how it feels when I play votecentric decks.... > mathusalem wrote: > Seriously, in real ‘life’ can you imagine a Cam vamp fighting alongside a Sabbat vampire ? no way. > Seriously in real life dead people stay dead... Besides players are metuselah's who are orchestrating the moves of Cainites from all sects, all over the world. They do not fight together as one group. > mathusalem wrote: > More group 1 vamps yeah ! > And it’s frustrating to always see new groups. Because and you can have those new vamps interact with the vamps you already have. > New groups are a necessity if we are to have new vamps. But I'm all for getting Advanced copies of crappy Group 1 vampires (and other groups too) to make them more playable. Finnish Politics!

> mathusalem wrote: > I think the game needs streamlining in deck mechanics. I think more draw cards, a bit more tutoring (especially in a game that uses a lot of unique cards), and a few more graveyard… sorry, ash heap, shenanigans could be thought about. > There's already plenty ash heap recursion in VTES (Ashur's Tablets). Also, a card was banned recently (Anthelios, the Red Star) because ash heap manipulation and recursion were viewed by some as being too big a part of the game. > I totally think that politics could be more fun. > Actually, when I first read the Rules for Jyhad, and tried to play with a friend, I thought each Methuselah had a voice. I was disappointed several years latter during my first multiplayer experience when I learned that that was not the case. And yet I still feel it could be better. > Imagine you play a vote deck in a 5 player game. Well as the game is played now, it’s easy because, you certainly have all the necessary votes in you hand. But if each other player had a vote, well, things would REALLY be political, because you may, from the start have to bargain your way to pass your vote, and that’s what I call politics. > The problem here is not "as the game is played now", it's how your metagame is now. If you feel nobody else plays political decks enough, start playing lots of Parity Shift, Banishment, and KRC. Include some Deflections/Telepathic Misdirections to thwart bleed decks and fortitude damage prevention/Strike: Combat Ends to shut down combat. You should start seeing more votes at the table in response.

> Lönkka wrote: > > > mathusalem wrote: > > More group 1 vamps yeah ! > > And it’s frustrating to always see new groups. Because and you can have those new vamps interact with the vamps you already have. > > > New groups are a necessity if we are to have new vamps. > But I'm all for getting Advanced copies of crappy Group 1 vampires (and other groups too) to make them more playable. > Group 1 vampires have only one group to pair with, and they are weaker than vampires from other groups (globally speaking). More advanced versions could help, maybe. Or we continue to expand the groups. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > > > > mathusalem wrote: > > > More group 1 vamps yeah ! > > > And it’s frustrating to always see new groups. Because and you can have those new vamps interact with the vamps you already have. > > > > > New groups are a necessity if we are to have new vamps. > > But I'm all for getting Advanced copies of crappy Group 1 vampires (and other groups too) to make them more playable. > > > Group 1 vampires have only one group to pair with, and they are weaker than vampires from other groups (globally speaking). More advanced versions could help, maybe. Or we continue to expand the groups. > Or both. Say, every 10 new vampires, one group 1 ADV. Or legalize round robin - group 6/1

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > The problem here is not "as the game is played now", it's how your metagame is now. If you feel nobody else plays political decks enough, start playing lots of Parity Shift, Banishment, and KRC. Include some Deflections/Telepathic Misdirections to thwart bleed decks and fortitude damage prevention/Strike: Combat Ends to shut down combat. You should start seeing more votes at the table in response. > That is not what I meant at all. I was not speaking of my metagame (I would have used the term metagame) . I was speaking about the rules and how I interpreted them at first read vs. how they actualyy are. please re-read my post carefully. the number of vote decks has nothing to do with what I was speaking about.

> Lönkka wrote: > > > mathusalem wrote: > > and a few more graveyard… sorry, ash heap, shenanigans could be thought about. > > > Please no. > Meddling with ash heap used to be something that more or less just Giovanni could do. With Ashurs it is anyone's game. And they totally changed how the game can be played (I do see some good in that too though). > > > mathusalem wrote: > > Imagine you play a vote deck in a 5 player game. Well as the game is played now, it’s easy because, you certainly have all the necessary votes in you hand. But if each other player had a vote, well, things would REALLY be political, because you may, from the start have to bargain your way to pass your vote, and that’s what I call politics. > > > Uh, when there are titled vampires all over the table that is REALLY political as no matter what you have in your hand it is likely not to be enough by itself. At least that is how it feels when I play votecentric decks.... > > > mathusalem wrote: > > Seriously, in real ‘life’ can you imagine a Cam vamp fighting alongside a Sabbat vampire ? no way. > > > Seriously in real life dead people stay dead... > Besides players are metuselah's who are orchestrating the moves of Cainites from all sects, all over the world. They do not fight together as one group. > > > mathusalem wrote: > > More group 1 vamps yeah ! > > And it’s frustrating to always see new groups. Because and you can have those new vamps interact with the vamps you already have. > > > New groups are a necessity if we are to have new vamps. > But I'm all for getting Advanced copies of crappy Group 1 vampires (and other groups too) to make them more playable. > well, from my point of view, you seem very reluctant to novelty. Which is fit for an antedeluvian. I won't debate on most of your rebutals because you certainly know the game more than I do. However, from the thread's title I got the impression some were trying to consider fresh design ideas. therefore if you say no to every thing new that you see, you won't get a lot of fresh ideas. I would like to make a specific retort regarding Ashur's tablets however. You say, nay to graveyard tricks because we already have plenty of that : Ashur's tablets. Well that's only One card. and it's only been in KoT (or in the anthology set, which is totally impossible to get, oh pardon me, some guy on this forum today wanted to sell one to me for 120 $. LOL who did he think he was speaking to ? I've been playing Mtg for more than 20 years, I know a shark when I see one -hope you're reading this, pal), so to come back to our subject, one card and when I read that card, I see A nice trick, but.... I mean, it's a bit of a bother to play. so you can hardly say the game is overwhelmed by graveyard tricks. I'm sure you can print something that has a lesser, Yet simpler effect. which in term would be better. and come back to my first issue : make cards simpler.

"Imagine you play a vote deck in a 5 player game. Well as the game is played now, it’s easy because, you certainly have all the necessary votes in you hand." I guess I misinterpreted what are you trying to say here. I took this to mean you can simply pass votes by playing enough cards to get votes through. This is really not the case in VTES at all, unless there were no other vote decks at the table. Hence the assumption that you are speaking in terms of a metagame where there are few vote decks, not the game itself. Really, if you're going to post here, make sure you are super clear about what you mean. And if someone misinterprets your post, try to clarify instead of assuming the person didn't read your post carefully. The fact is, it's not a well-written post and it was misinterpreted.

What I'm smelling, is some smoke in the air - this rhetoric is getting more and more flammable! Please keep it civil mates. Not that my word makes a difference or has any authority, but it probably doesn't have to. I just like reading posts with more smilies than edge! About the graveyard thing, it's a widely agreed upon that Ashur Tablets doesn't exactly make for the most Vampirish experience, or more enjoyable at that. That said, I'm not sure it was the correct choice for the Anthology Set, as it really seems to divide opinions on if it should be errated, banned or left as is. I would be really careful about adding magicesque cards or effects to the game. The graveyard synergy is really volatile, and could explode easily (as it already did with Ashurs). Most of what makes Vampire Vampire is your ability to keep up with fatique and hand cycle, and nothing tweaks that mechanism around more than graveyard effects. I do share your opinion in that some more viable ash heap shenanigans could be introduced to the game. You can see my more recent card suggestions for more on that, named Ghosts in a Shell (work name). About tricking things into play - Summon History is there for that, and it's borderline super abusable. The fact that we're lacking in tutor effects mostly is one of the main drives for me in this game. You really can't base your strategy on a single card and its tutors in Vampire, or if you do, you'll have to really commit to it. And we have plenty of tutors as it is, even though most of them are for equipments: Vast Wealth, Magic of the Smith, Arms Dealer... We even have some for Allies and Retainers, and some for Vampires (Recruitment, Evil Jensen, clan spesifics...). So, to be honest, I'd be loath to say that Vampire is lacking in tutoring effects. Both tutors and graveyard effects are something that mess up the skill requirement of hand cycle and deck management in-game, and turns the focus more on deck building. That is, quite frankly, not something that I would enjoy in Vampire emphasized even further. Ashur Tablets already does this. And rest assured, it IS an oppressive card, or at least seen as such by many. Good discussion! Keep it up! Tone down the flames, is all. Please? Krausedit\\ Oh, and I wouldn't mind having another G1 vampire to, let's say, one for each of the main clans! And what about Sabbat and Independent in there... I really wouldn't mind. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Hey, Mathusalem, I'm seeing your enthusiasm and it's hecking great. It takes a lot for the V:tes community to get behind new ideas, sometimes to the point of showing along a long line that the ideas are viable (just look for the full bleed thread). There's also a lot of room for improvement, so don't get discouraged when you get shut down. I don't expect you to go through and read through the archives to see if your ideas were already mentioned in a thirty page thread where there was some lively discussion involved. That being said, V:TES ain't Magic. V:TES at its core is a game of resource management, with the two basic resources being your Pool, and your Deck. You mentioned wanting to see more Tutoring effects, but with the way the game plays and moves, Tutoring is generally inferior to just playing the cards to cycle them out of your hand. This is also why Ash Heap shenanigans are probably best limited and why Ashur Tablets are so polarizing. Remember: there is no per card limit in V:TES; just a hard cap on deck size for the number of players in a game. Because in many cases, if you play more cards in an interaction with another player, you'll come out on top. A player in my group has a 200+ card * Enkidu deck that can throw twenty cards an action if there's a combat, and it's fucking awful. With regard to Politics, you're 20% right, but it feels like you're missing the point, and i'm going to guess that you've only played a few dozen games. I get that you misread the rules initially, but there's still no less politicking in any of the games I've played. Seek out new players and enjoy how their meta is different from yours. I used to be of your camp when it came to sect, until i realized that a Methuselah of any sect will use whatever tools** at its disposal to thwart its competitors. In my mind, when we sit down at the table we're five Methuselahs who've agreed upon rules to a game. Being ousted isn't death for us, just we're out of this game of violence that we've agreed to play with an arbitrary set of resources, which is SUPER Vampire-y. I'm against more G1 vamps, but for Advanced versions that aren't awful. There's weird legal reasons they haven't been reprinted, but I am a huge fan of the grouping rule, and think it should be expanded into the library. _____ * my playgroup had some preposterously stupid house rules when I joined. I've worked hard to get them to play as close to the tournament standard. In fifteen years, I'm still not quite there. ** whatever that methuselah can get its hands on, be it Vampire, Werewolf, or Mage. Side note: Why aren't Formori a thing in VTES?

> Ankha wrote: > Group 1 vampires have only one group to pair with, and they are weaker than vampires from other groups (globally speaking). More advanced versions could help, maybe. Or we continue to expand the groups. > So, if we're effectively just going to pretend G1 Vampires don't exist, can we also just pretend Imbued don't exist... Permanently? I'm asking for a friend.

> Brum wrote: > Or legalize round robin - group 6/1 > This option is awkward, as when group 7 will come out, decks using g1-6 crypts won't be legal anymore. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Well I hadn't realized my flamethrower was on. I'll turn it off.... there. safety on. Thanks Kraus and Self biased for your replies. I'll think about those considerations. I'll try Ashur's tablets, (i've got a few copies) because at the moment I can't grasp the problem with them. the system seems quite cumbersome to lay out. of course thirteen cards is a bit of a big deal. But, the Mtg player in me feels that if they had made a card that had been simpler but was less overwhelming, it would have been stronger and yet less oppressive. so I think it is still a design space that is open.

Try slotting 9 of them in basically any deck with either: Anson Cybele Nana Buruku Huitzilopotchli The Parthenon Liquidation ...or a selection of the above of your choice. Have fun. Remember that you can always proxy them with colour prints, and even have the decks be tournament legal in anything less than championships. No worries about that! "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

thanks ! Will do ! (here I'm quoting Barabus in the famous Bloodlines video game) 9 of them ! I was happy because I had 4 ! no wonder their price went off the roof !

> mathusalem wrote: > well, from my point of view, you seem very reluctant to novelty. Which is fit for an antedeluvian. I won't debate on most of your rebutals because you certainly know the game more than I do. However, from the thread's title I got the impression some were trying to consider fresh design ideas. therefore if you say no to every thing new that you see, you won't get a lot of fresh ideas. > Presenting novel ideas after a few games with probably one and the same play group probably leads to not so thoroughly considered ideas. Ones that might also have been presented several times before. And shot down as many a times. > mathusalem wrote: > I would like to make a specific retort regarding Ashur's tablets however. > Like already said, proxy them. It is perfectly legal in VTES nowadays! > mathusalem wrote: > (or in the anthology set, which is totally impossible to get, oh pardon me, some guy on this forum today wanted to sell one to me for 120 $. LOL who did he think he was speaking to ? I've been playing Mtg for more than 20 years, I know a shark when I see one -hope you're reading this, pal), > Probably he was thinking about the fact that you needed to pay for the attendance for the Berlin event, trip to Berlin, accommodation and food in order to get those. Still pretty steep to increase the price by 600% after a month or so... :/ Finnish Politics!

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > There's already plenty ash heap recursion in VTES (Ashur's Tablets). Also, a card was banned recently (Anthelios, the Red Star) because ash heap manipulation and recursion were viewed by some as being too big a part of the game. > I feel like the main issue with Anthelios and Ashur's Tablets is the way that they skirt around/break what has been a fundamental design objective of VtES from the start - that each mechanic should have a counter. Recursion makes several counter-mechanics less effective, since you can recover any countered card from the ash-heap and overwhelm the defenses that your target is using. Ashur adds insult to injury by being fairly hard to counter - if the only feasible counter is using the same card, that usually points to a balance issue.

> skimflux wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > There's already plenty ash heap recursion in VTES (Ashur's Tablets). Also, a card was banned recently (Anthelios, the Red Star) because ash heap manipulation and recursion were viewed by some as being too big a part of the game. > > > I feel like the main issue with Anthelios and Ashur's Tablets is the way that they skirt around/break what has been a fundamental design objective of VtES from the start - that each mechanic should have a counter. > Recursion makes several counter-mechanics less effective, since you can recover any countered card from the ash-heap and overwhelm the defenses that your target is using. > Ashur adds insult to injury by being fairly hard to counter - if the only feasible counter is using the same card, that usually points to a balance issue. > Anthelios permitted recursion of silver bullets. One might consider that bad. That's debatable, because one of the consequences was that killing some decks that needed silver bullets to survive, created a bigger focus on DOM decks or AUS decks. One might consider that bad as well. To put Anthelios and Ashur Tablets in the same bag is nor correct. Having played extensively with both, Ashurs imply a big commitment during deck building and game play. Anthelios got the silver bullet to your hand at once. Ashurs are much less effective in this. Also, without Anthelios, Ashurs are much weaker. On the other hand, Ashurs brought new types of decks that simply cannot exist without them and created interesting and strong archetypes. I advise you all to try them. VEKN lost an opportunity with the pdf sets to make VtES an LCG. It was on purpose and I understand there are reasons for this. But on the other hand, without using design space, the only other way to change things is by either by bans or errata. And that is bad, imo. To anyone that hates Ashurs, Imbued or any other degenerate way to play VtES: adapt your decks and play better. VEKN should not be asked to do your work for you. PS: breaking "fundamental design" (whatever that is) is what all card games do. That is one of the things that separates a good deck from a bland one. Vampires are fundamentally designed to bleed for one. Bleeding for 6 or 9 takes a price in deck design and play. We are fundamentally designed to have one mpa. 4 transfers, etc.. Its easier to level things from the lowest common denominator. But that kills the game. PPS: Nobody has a problem with Villein + Giant«s Blood?

> Brum wrote: > > > skimflux wrote: > > > > I feel like the main issue with Anthelios and Ashur's Tablets is the way that they skirt around/break what has been a fundamental design objective of VtES from the start - that each mechanic should have a counter. > > Recursion makes several counter-mechanics less effective, since you can recover any countered card from the ash-heap and overwhelm the defenses that your target is using. > > Ashur adds insult to injury by being fairly hard to counter - if the only feasible counter is using the same card, that usually points to a balance issue. > > > Anthelios permitted recursion of silver bullets. One might consider that bad. > That's debatable, because one of the consequences was that killing some decks that needed silver bullets to survive, created a bigger focus on DOM decks or AUS decks. > One might consider that bad as well. > > On the other hand, Ashurs brought new types of decks that simply cannot exist without them and created interesting and strong archetypes. I advise you all to try them. > That's a fair point - variety should be encouraged. > To anyone that hates Ashurs, Imbued or any other degenerate way to play VtES: adapt your decks and play better. > VEKN should not be asked to do your work for you. > That only goes so far - if a mechanic is so broken that the only way to win is to play it (or it's counter, if available), then variety suffers, and the game designers should step in to fix the balance. I'm not arguing we're at that point, though unavailability of some cards has confounded the issue. Printing cards and the Anthology sets go a long way to help disprove it. > PS: breaking "fundamental design" (whatever that is) is what all card games do. That is one of the things that separates a good deck from a bland one. > Vampires are fundamentally designed to bleed for one. > Bleeding for 6 or 9 takes a price in deck design and play. > We are fundamentally designed to have one mpa. 4 transfers, etc.. > Its easier to level things from the lowest common denominator. But that kills the game. > That's not what I'm discussing at all. A 'fundamental design objective' is a stated purpose of the game by its designers. I'm fairly sure I've read Richard Garfield state that he intended to increase interactivity between players when designing VtES, and having effective counters for each mechanic is the main way to do it - otherwise you are just throwing cards on the table until one player reaches the win condition. > PPS: Nobody has a problem with Villein + Giant«s Blood? > [raises hand] Oh, Oh, I do! To be more exact (and using this opportunity to get back on topic) I have a problem with random events having a big effect on the game state, of which drawing a Giant's Blood first is a big example. The major instance of that is the seating order - no matter how good is the deck or the playstyle, seating is still a major part of how well any player will do in a specific game. It's the main reason why we all want 3-round tournaments, Archon has suggested seating orders, and finals are not random seating. I would love to hear any suggestions to reduce the influence of random seating on game outcome.

Just a last thought about ashur's tablets. I think the main issue with them is that in order to make them work you have to put a lot of them in your deck and therefore build your deck around that mechanic. and then, it becomes oppressive. I think the designers didn't imagine people would break the card that way and make it oppressive. The many limitations written on the card indicate that thy really intended to make a minor card (I may be wrong, but I think so) That means that you can still make a graveyard card that is less cumbersome to use, has a more limited effect (I.E grab one card of certain kind) and remains what it should be : a tool card of which you can toss one or two copy in your deck but doesn't warp the whole game.

> mathusalem wrote: > Just a last thought about ashur's tablets. > I think the main issue with them is that in order to make them work you have to put a lot of them in your deck and therefore build your deck around that mechanic. and then, it becomes oppressive. > I think the designers didn't imagine people would break the card that way and make it oppressive. The many limitations written on the card indicate that thy really intended to make a minor card (I may be wrong, but I think so) > You are probably right, but the problem is really multiple master phase actions, not Ashur's. Normally, to make the Liquidation + Ashurs combo work, you'd need a minimum of 4 turns. With Anson or Nana Buruku in play, this goes down to 2 turns. That's the issue. Multiple master phase actions has been at the top of the power curve since day one (See this great article ). > That means that you can still make a graveyard card that is less cumbersome to use, has a more limited effect (I.E grab one card of certain kind) and remains what it should be : a tool card of which you can toss one or two copy in your deck but doesn't warp the whole game. > Sure, but it probably shouldn't be a master card. And Necromancy already has plenty of this. I'm of the opinion that ash heap manipulation is perfectly fine to stay married to Necromancy for thematic reasons.