Vampire: Elder Kindred Network Newsletter November 2017

Vampire: Elder Kindred Network Newsletter November 2017 Contents: RULES CHANGES UNDER CONSIDERATION ANTHOLOGY STILL FOR SALE PLAYER INTERVIEW OF THE MONTH: KARI HYLL CALENDAR Read the newsletter here: www.vekn.net/2-uncategorised/385-vampire-elder-kindred-network-newsletter-november-2017 "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

My first feedback a HUGE THANK YOU for effectively banning imbued, since the new rules only allow for pool to be put onto Vampires in the Uncontrolled Region. Brave and much-needed leadership. Congrats

> Brum wrote: > My first feedback a HUGE THANK YOU for effectively banning imbued, since the new rules only allow for pool to be put onto Vampires in the Uncontrolled Region. > Brave and much-needed leadership. > > Congrats > Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Imbued rules are moved to the end of the rulebook (not described here). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I think 5 transfers idea (when putting vampire into play costs 1 transfer) should be mentioned. By removing mandatory move into play at the end of a phase part of the rule we also remove one of the main problem mentioned in the discussion of that idea. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > I think 5 transfers idea (when putting vampire into play costs 1 transfer) should be mentioned. > This idea has a greater impact on the game (being able to transfer 5 per turn on large vampires, and slowing down weenies), and hasn't been playtested. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I love the new " Timing during the influence phase" rules. You have all my support. On the other hand, you want to convert Anarchs into a sect to be congruents with 5ed. but to treat Caitiff as a clan, incongruent with 5ed. These rules are a litle bit contradictory. Related to the game, I can see the consistency about the Caitiff, but not on the Anarch. The part of the Recruit region do not affect to the game, I think.

Hello out there, my first quick "gut feeling" feedback re the proposed rule changes: Proposed change #1: Timing during the influence phase I do agree to this proposal, and the rationale behind it. Proposed change #2: Anarch as a sect First reaction is that this would create messy side effects - namely, the need to effectively change card text of the cards that now require an Independent vampire. I am, right now, not sure if I see all the possible implications of this one, and if I see any VTES need to change anything with the rule (note that for me, aligning VTES with the role-playing game is not a reason...) Proposed change #3: Caitiff as a clan Agreed. Proposed change #4: Recruit region This would not change anything in real life, I guess. But it will make the rules somewaht clearer. So, agreed. Best regards, Hardy "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

"This month we keep the letter short and sweet, because there are no real news about that stuff you really want to hear about"... Damn it, White Wolf, you're killing me!

Abd still nothing on the storyline! "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

Proposed change #1: Timing during the influence phase AGREED Proposed change #2: Anarch as a sect Don't like, there is a lot of decks that use Independent cards to support Anarchs in game, this kind of new rule will reduce the possibilities of creating decks. Proposed change #3: Caitiff as a clan Weenie Caitiff decks are already boring to deal with, givin to him a possibility to use a Consanguineous Boon will make them worse. Proposed change #4: Recruit region AGREED Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer Prince of Rio de Janeiro Powerbase Rio de Janeiro

#1: Agreed. #2: Fine with the concept, but the execution looks a bit messy. Could anarchs be defined as a sub-sect of Independent so that we do not have to change all existing Independent cards? EDIT: there is a grand total of 6 cards for independents, So I guess rewriting them would not be such a big effort. Besides, it opens some design space, as not all of those cards feel right for anarchs. Banner of Neutrality: Independent only (and find a way to make it suck less.) Community Justice: Independent only (see above.) Exclusion Principle: Independent/Anarch. Free States Rant: Anarch only (the only reason it is not is that it was printed before Anarchs were introduced.) Reckless Agitation: Independent/Anarch. Rise of the Nephtali: Independent only, because IIUC Nephtali is its own mini-sect. #3: Agreed. #4: No need for a special region, just as placing the ally in the Uncontrolled has always been a waste of time. Just state the rule that allies can't act the turn they are recruited, then let players track the game state in any way they see fit. Most of the time it is very easy to remember, and there is no reason to impose additional bookkeeping on everyone just for the occasional Mata Hari Recruits the World deck.

So vlad tepes will be able to play anarch cards with his special..neat =)

> Non-existant user wrote: > #4: No need for a special region, just as placing the ally in the Uncontrolled has always been a waste of time. Just state the rule that allies can't act the turn they are recruited, then let players track the game state in any way they see fit. Most of the time it is very easy to remember, and there is no reason to impose additional bookkeeping on everyone just for the occasional Mata Hari Recruits the World deck. > Remembering that an ally can't act or putting it in the recruit region requires the same energy. Either way, you have to track that state. The slight difference is that with your suggestion, the ally can block a minion controlled by another Methuselah acting the turn where the ally has been recruited (Enkil Cog, Madness Network). This is currently not the case. Also, your suggestion affects allies that a War Ghoul can burn or not, or a Cry Wolf that could be turned into an Abomination. But it's a suggestion worth considering. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I do not think anyone I've ever played with has played recruiting Allies correctly, that is putting them to Uncontrolled Region after a successful recruitment... Calling (essentially) part of that region with a different name doesn't really change anything. Other than add a teeny tiny new clunkiness to the game (also perhaps by removing similarily small bit of old clunkiness). Finnish Politics!

My take on this: > Non-existant user wrote: > EDIT: there is a grand total of 6 cards for independents, So I guess rewriting them would not be such a big effort. Besides, it opens some design space, as not all of those cards feel right for anarchs. > Banner of Neutrality: Independent only (and change "camarilla or sabbat" to "non-independent") Community Justice: Independent only Exclusion Principle: Independent only Free States Rant: Anarch only Reckless Agitation: Independent/Anarch, I would even suggest to add sabbat here to answer the question "why should we play sabbat politics". Rise of the Nephtali: remove independent clause. With Anthelious banned it's kind of unplayable as is, as well as against the lore (Jan Pieterzoon and Vikos was members of it?). NC Russia

Have discussed proposed changes with russian players. 1) Totally supported. 2) Also supported, but we got like 50/50 split on idea to make "more creative" errata to independent cards. 3) 50/50 between "for" and "do not care" options. 4) here we got confusion, because some players was even unaware that allies should be played into uncontrolled region. After discussion consensus, I think, is that something should be done, but proposed solution is not the best one. NC Russia

I do not like the rule change proposal #1. With the rules as they are now, you need to carefully consider how to bloat with a deck that generates lots of counters in the uncontrolled region (Thing, Little Mountain Cemetery, Unwholesome Bond and the likes). If moving a vampire to the ready region ceases to be mandatory those decks simply do not have to be careful any more. Prince of Bonn, Germany

> elotar wrote: > > Rise of the Nephtali: With Anthelious banned it's kind of unplayable as is... > What?

> Ankha wrote: > Also, your suggestion affects allies that a War Ghoul can burn or not, or a Cry Wolf that could be turned into an Abomination. > The War Ghoul can already burn allies played that turn, that is the reason why it burns itself if there is no other target.

> Non-existant user wrote: > #2: Fine with the concept, but the execution looks a bit messy. Could anarchs be defined as a sub-sect of Independent so that we do not have to change all existing Independent cards? > > EDIT: there is a grand total of 6 cards for independents, So I guess rewriting them would not be such a big effort. Besides, it opens some design space, as not all of those cards feel right for anarchs. > > Banner of Neutrality: Independent only (and find a way to make it suck less.) > Community Justice: Independent only (see above.) > Exclusion Principle: Independent/Anarch. > Free States Rant: Anarch only (the only reason it is not is that it was printed before Anarchs were introduced.) > Reckless Agitation: Independent/Anarch. > Rise of the Nephtali: Independent only, because IIUC Nephtali is its own mini-sect. > Haqim's law: judgment requires independent assamite(s) Reckless agitation seems like a major card for anarchs currently. Making it so that Anarchs couldn't call it would be a huge blow to anarch vote decks. Because the card is so strong, I'm tentatively ok with this. The change would be effectively nerfing Anarchs. However, overall I am not a fan of this change, because there are so many cards that have 'independent anarch' in their card text. This change would confuse things once again. > Ankha wrote: > Remembering that an ally can't act or putting it in the recruit region requires the same energy. > Either way, you have to track that state. > Not really, since some things are more intuitive than others. I'm pretty sure I've never, during the couple years that I've played VTES, put an ally to uncontrolled region. The current rule seems like unnecessary clutter to an already unnecessarily complex game. You also have a delayed thing to remember (first putting ally to play to uncontrolled region, then moving it to controlled region). Instead of just putting it to play and considering whether it can or can't block when the situation arises. The latter allows shortcutting without endangering game state, the former requires you to do something largely superfluous EVERY TIME you play an ally. Adding obligatory things for player to do and remember that are largely irrelevant to how the game proceeds should be avoided. > The slight difference is that with your suggestion, the ally can block a minion controlled by another Methuselah acting the turn where the ally has been recruited (Enkil Cog, Madness Network). This is currently not the case. > But it's a suggestion worth considering. > This sounds like a corner case scenario. I would personally be fine in allowing allies to block in such a case. Its intuitive for allies to block since they are already in the game. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Kushiel wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > Rise of the Nephtali: With Anthelious banned it's kind of unplayable as is... > > > What? > Only decks I've seen which played it was some MMA with Cybele. Without Anthelious it's better to remove Gehenna cards from them altogether. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Only decks I've seen which played it was some MMA with Cybele. Without Anthelious it's better to remove Gehenna cards from them altogether. > I don't think this has anything to do with anthelios. Anthelios makes master card-intensive decks simply better. You can still play Rise of the nepthali without Anthelios if you want titles. There are other non-disruptive gehenna cards to play to satisfy Rise. Blood trade for example.(all boons are burned, woop woop!) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Also, your suggestion affects allies that a War Ghoul can burn or not, or a Cry Wolf that could be turned into an Abomination. > > > The War Ghoul can already burn allies played that turn, that is the reason why it burns itself if there is no other target. > Indeed, Cry Wolf is the only good example here. > Yomyael wrote: > I do not like the rule change proposal #1. > > With the rules as they are now, you need to carefully consider how to bloat with a deck that generates lots of counters in the uncontrolled region (Thing, Little Mountain Cemetery, Unwholesome Bond and the likes). If moving a vampire to the ready region ceases to be mandatory those decks simply do not have to be careful any more. > What do you do with these counters that you couldn't do before? You could already stack 8+ counters on a vampire big enough before, and it has never been a problem in terms of balance. You will probably don't care as much as before in some very special cases (such as a double Govern down on a 5 cap vampire that for some reasons you don't want to bring out), but I don't see it as a noticeable change in the game. Unless you have some ideas about how to abuse it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > Only decks I've seen which played it was some MMA with Cybele. Without Anthelious it's better to remove Gehenna cards from them altogether. > > > I don't think this has anything to do with anthelios. Anthelios makes master card-intensive decks simply better. You can still play Rise of the nepthali without Anthelios if you want titles. There are other non-disruptive gehenna cards to play to satisfy Rise. Blood trade for example.(all boons are burned, woop woop!) > You obviously can play RotN without Anthelious, but generally you should not. Logic behind it in decks I've seen was that you are counting of having Anthelios in play anyway (by having several copies as well as maybe liquidation - ashurs module to cycle to it) so it's easy to add RotN for some vote angle. If you gameplan does not involve gehenna cards than adding several of them (one copy of Blood Trade will not be enough, obviously, to not be stuck with RotN in hand) for quite questionable gain is extremely not optimal. Actually after some thought I'm not sure that removing independent clause will solve this problem anyway, so it'll be fine and easier to left it as it is. Anarchs got much more reliable Fee Stakes for the votes anyway. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > 4) here we got confusion, because some players was even unaware that allies should be played into uncontrolled region. After discussion consensus, I think, is that something should be done, but proposed solution is not the best one. > I don't think I've ever seen anyone recruit Allies properly. Everyone always places them to controlled region. If you play them correctly it doesn't matter if the region is called uncontrolled or something else, but do play them somewhere else than the ready region please (granted having the Allies in uncontrolled region is somewhat confusing). > Yomyael wrote: > I do not like the rule change proposal #1. > > With the rules as they are now, you need to carefully consider how to bloat with a deck that generates lots of counters in the uncontrolled region (Thing, Little Mountain Cemetery, Unwholesome Bond and the likes). If moving a vampire to the ready region ceases to be mandatory those decks simply do not have to be careful any more. > Yeah, bloating becomes somewhat more easy which indeed is somewhat of a drawback in this. But otherwise it is a good idea -putting the influence phase on the same level as all the other phases (do stuff in the order you like) and making it all less possible to fumble with transfers and putting minions out, is long overdue. Finnish Politics!

Everyone just puts allies into ready region as is, so why not make the rule "allies cannot act the turn they were recruited"? We are already looking to rework a rule, we are trying to remove redundant things (which can help expand player base by helping the learning curve). End of the day, cry wolf/abomination combo is better. Doesn't more viable options without theme getting diluted universally improve things?

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Everyone just puts allies into ready region as is, so why not make the rule "allies cannot act the turn they were recruited"? > We are already looking to rework a rule, we are trying to remove redundant things (which can help expand player base by helping the learning curve). > End of the day, cry wolf/abomination combo is better. Doesn't more viable options without theme getting diluted universally improve things? > As I said, it's an interesting option. It would require errating a few cards though, such as Nocturn ("Move Nocturn to the ready region when recruited.") and Infernal Servitor Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director