Can we talk about removing the rule for the Scarce keyword from the rulebook, and just leaving it as a keyword that interacts with (a very few) other cards?
It's a really stupid rule for deckbuilding (scarce bloodlines already have so few vampires per group that they'll still be scarce even if you "only" pay for their capacity like any other vampire) and in play, where it can screw over people even more randomly than vampire contestation.
I'm against this stupid idea that says that Scarce is stupid. (Does it sound Trump enough?) The main concern is about Salubri and True Brujah that have access to slightly overpowered cards. The design space for such cards is openened because the clan is Scarce (it works the same with infernal vampires). Scarce basically prevents from playing more than 2 vampires from the same clan (because 6 more pool is a lot). I'm really concerned by decks with 4 True Brujah for instance. The game is full of limitation (what's next? removing the Prince or Justicar requirement from Second Tradition?), it's part of the game. The only thing I dislike is that luck is involved if someone else plays Scarce vampires of the same clan too. So that random part could be dropped.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Lönkka wrote:
> Make it only about your own minions. So no need to pay because someone else is using the same clan.
>
I agree with this. Randomly screwing up other players who happen to be playing same clan is not cool in my books.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Lönkka's suggestion is a valid one. On the other hand choice of crypt is already a meta call, due to contesting rules, but on the other hand Scarce punishes players in tournaments further kinda randomly. That choice definitely adds to the scarcity of the clans, as no one wants to pay 3 pool for their minions just because others made a deck building choice, but could possibly be redacted with a rule update.
You'll most definitely have to keep the 3 pool rule for each of YOUR scarce vampires though. It's a very important balance factor.
"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
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> > Make it only about your own minions. So no need to pay because someone else is using the same clan.
> >
> I agree with this. Randomly screwing up other players who happen to be playing same clan is not cool in my books.
>
I once saw a g4 salubri from my prey, brought up my own Matthias. Then had grand predator flip Serena the white.
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> > Make it only about your own minions. So no need to pay because someone else is using the same clan.
> >
> I agree with this. Randomly screwing up other players who happen to be playing same clan is not cool in my books.
>
I do agree too. If to maintain the scarce rule the ideal would to restrict that to only your minions.
Priest of Rio de Janeiro
My blog: Portal Distant Kingdoms
Facebook: Distant Kingdoms
Youtube: Distant Shore
> Kraus wrote:
> Lönkka's suggestion is a valid one.
>
Actually it was Vincent (Anhka) or someone else (too?) who already suggested it previously in Facebook...
Finnish Politics!
> Kraus wrote:
> You'll most definitely have to keep the 3 pool rule for each of YOUR scarce vampires though. It's a very important balance factor.
>
Is there any evidence to suggest that it is an important balance factor?
We played the bloodlines storyline with no scarce rule and the only thing bad about that environment was Lilith's Blessing, well, and that Mistrust was tech in the environment.
Trujah become that much more common and you get even more of "take 2 agg at the beginning of the round" and "play this card from your discard pile that you don't meet the requirements for". Salubri start Renewing each other like crazy somewhat more than paying 3 extra pool causes (well, more, when you get Banished). Neither sounds like a more appealing game; on the other hand, it's easy to overreact to what's possible rather than what's likely to actually matter. In both cases, still playing particular decks that can be metagamed against, if so desired, or that don't necessarily cause more annoyances than what's already possible in the game.
Meanwhile, Nagaraja, which have nothing going for them of consequence as a clan at this time may become something that someone plays as a clan. Where scarce enforces massive constraints on deck possibilities that are viable, limiting what gets played competitively, without it, can open variety of possibilities that aren't played currently.
Maybe just limiting scarce to yourself is the better answer today, but what's sad is that scarce existing also led to highly unbalanced effects within the scarcie disciplines and made Nagaraja indistinct as a clan.
Traveller Card Game
> talonz wrote:
> Is this really an issue? OP is worried that someone might play the same scarce clan as him? Really? Pfft.
>
No. OP doesn't like bad, unnecessary rules that are only in the game as an artifact of halfheartedly trying to evoke its source IP.
Pfft.