Archeology: Jyhad combat as it can be reconstructed from present time

Dunno where it belongs, so I'm putting it into off-topic. Generally it's continuation of one of the subpoints of a SCE thread. So first, which can be seen observing Jyhad cards, is prevalence of "with optional maneuver" clauses. Most other "additional effects" usually are in the cards when you need to justify superior discipline and don't want to add just +1 to the basic, but most (all?) of the optional maneuver cards are different - they got no basic effect without the maneuver. I've managed to come to only one possible explanation - default range of combat in VtES was long (which is extremely logical idea), but then it was set to close and all ranged cards got mentioned clause. When we understand it, than basic combat structure of Jyhad becomes to unveil quite easily: When two vampires who do not want to fight met, than the range is long, hands strikes deal no damage, so they actually do not need to bother. Most basic combat card was Thrown Gate 1R 2R Around this other cards are balanced. First thing comes to mind - Continuation combat: Aid from Bats 1R as above, with an optional press Or better one, but with a drawback: Thrown Sewer Lid Only usable at long range 2R as above, with an optional press With, I think, most popular (in PR terms) combat card from Jyhad: Well-Aimed Car Strike: 4R (3R) damage; only usable at long range. Not usable first round of combat. As above, with an optional press. It looks that the logic was second round = 1 round * 2 So basic "hooligan" combat vs defenseless old lady was quite easy - you are throwing stuff until you are out of stuff or lady goes to torpor. As nobody was really expecting 7+ vampires outside of casual games (this knowledge was also lost during the time passed), 3 cards should be kind of enough to do the job. From here basic defense appeared - press to end combat, which was given to all noncombat disciplines at basic as well as to just anybody with Open Grate. Their superior effects: Movement of the Mind Maneuver. Read Intentions dodge Vanish from the Mind's Eye Press - They was thinking about combat at the time Majesty As above, and burn one blood to untap ... interesting - as other disciplines has no "as above" clause it may be Majesty untap [if you are the active vampire] Guns was an equalizer, level of discipline cost 1 capacity/pool, so: Saturday-Night Special 1 pool 1R .44 Magnum 2 pool 2R Deer Rifle 2 pool 1R with an optional maneuver Sawed-Off Shotgun 2 pool 3R only usable once each combat They forget to add "optional maneuver" to this when they moved to default close combat range Why this was decided to cost 1 pool more I do not know by now. Because the damage was bigger than the and "equalizer" theme stopped working? Or maybe it can be attributed to the same wave of stupidity, and actual stats should be: Submachine Gun 3 pool 3R Assault Rifle 4 pool 4R Flamethrower 4 pool 2R aggravated Having 4R costing more than 2R aggravated looks quite stupid or, and cool one: RPG Launcher 2 pool 6R damage each strike; only usable after the first round of combat; only usable at long range. I think it was not changed at all so it understandingly suck now, but looks quite formidable in the old logic By the way - about Zip Gun. As design logic was to include disciplineless effect for each common free basic discipline effect, it was like that: Do not replace until after combat. strike: 1R And then some "roleplayer" started to argue that it's a gun, so lets add drawback but make it a real weapon... Have been asked why I'm so sure about thoughts of the people quarter of century ago. I'm "so sure" not about all thoughts - clever ideas are hard to come by, but stupid ones are easy - they lie on the very surface, so all idiots are totally predictable - presented with the problem they all with choose the same solution. So if you see dumb solution you can reverse engineer the problem they was trying to solve About ammo: Manstopper Rounds +1 very basic Glaser Rounds +2, but after the first use So for 2 uses they are equal, for more it's better to use glaser. As it looks like that nobody involved with gaming at the time got any experience with real weapons we will not try to think about real-life logic here. Dragon Breath This was, obviously, a royal fuck up. To be continued... NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > I've managed to come to only one possible explanation - default range of combat in VtES was long (which is extremely logical idea), but then it was set to close and all ranged cards got mentioned clause. > > When we understand it, than basic combat structure of Jyhad becomes to unveil quite easily: > Nah. The most incredible yet simple explanation is that Jyhad was designed by a technologically advanced alien race. They have reached a state of harmony and peace we can only dream of. They sent one of them under the disguised of a man called Richard Garfield in order to promote peace. Hence was created the combat ends. > elotar wrote: > And then some "roleplayer" started to argue that it's a gun, so lets add drawback but make it a real weapon... > Clearly, you were there at that time, and so was I. IIRC I think it was the bartender who argued, while the roleplayer was puking in the toilets. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

*Yawn* Who cares. Such things can be pondered from here to infinity and unless we include Garfield etc to the discussion none will be any wiser. And it is entirely possible that even Garfield would not remember all the whys and wherefores involved in the designing. So it all is just talk for talk's sake. I think everyone has better things to do. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > *Yawn* > I think everyone has better things to do. > "I have better things to do then then commenting, so I would post a comment about it" NC Russia

Srsly though, if you REALLY want to know what was going on, there's no harm done in trying to get a short interview (even email) from Garfield. That way you'll actually get answers instead of guess-work. Constructing an interview also helps in refining the questions and most important points of interest. "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

> Kraus wrote: > Srsly though, if you REALLY want to know what was going on, there's no harm done in trying to get a short interview (even email) from Garfield. That way you'll actually get answers instead of guess-work. Constructing an interview also helps in refining the questions and most important points of interest. > Great idea! Do it! NC Russia

Has anyone read the book written about the R&D phase of VtES?

So, let's continue: I think DBR is a "place, where crap started" so it should be looked in a context. Here was some thought process, but as nobody really cares I would went directly to the results (text of cards). First - aggravated damage was "burn blood for each, if enough go to torpor, if not - burn". Dragon's Breath Rounds +1 aggravated, only usable at close range Theft of Vitae Only usable at long range ... Ivory Bow Only usable at long range Or actually not - uniqueness was priced like "-1 pool", agg as regular*2, so in was "fair" in the logic given ... Walk of Flame Cost: 1 blood ... So, what do we have as a logic in continuation of a hooligan vs press to end combat from the first example: - Vampiric Speed shuts this combat, so is kind of ultimate defense (untill attacker plays press) - You can have gun + ammo, and be kind of equal spending equal amount of cards (including concealed W) - Tremere or anybody with a bow fucks both of them - Then should go to close and break weapon, or use - can prevent bow and deal massive damage with additional strikes, or dodge and again additional strikes - but can combine with - needs second round, so it should try to stay long vs to use Taste, but better be close vs to stop weapons with Blood Fury/Rage. And there are gangrels, who can beat anybody but by spending more blood, that they will need to go out of torpor. In all of this, I think, there was no place to both Pulled Fangs and Taste of Vitae. Do not know, can this combat be solved, maybe some /guns variants, who dodges initial strike, then go with blur + ammo, having flash as backup plan to stay at long or press. Except Skin of Steel + Indomitability beats all this pile of cards. And others have Illegal Search and Seizure and Peace Treaty. Looks quite fine to me for a game, in which combat is not so importand. Do anybody see problems? NC Russia

> Brum wrote: > Has anyone read the book written about the R&D phase of VtES? > NC Russia

I want to know why some cards like Concealed Weapon had a Discipline requirement but then that requirement was dropped. Other cards, which clearly should've had a Discipline requirement, don't, e.g. Aura of Invincibility should've been . The people at WotC say that the 5-Color mana system Richard Garfield made for Magic was brilliant and one of the greatest innovations that could've happened, etc, etc. I think the Discipline requirements for cards was just as, if not even more interesting and cooler than Magic's 5-Color system, but there are so many cards in VTES that are basically "colorless" (requiring no Discipline.) There is in Magic's 5-Color system certain effects specific to each color (just like VTES' Disciplines) but then Magic has a certain amount of overlap between the colors. VTES has less of this it appears, I'm still counting the number of different types of effects per Discipline, but I think it would be good for the game if certain disciplines (like Potence and Fortitude ) branched out a little for unique and cool effects. Also, this game should've adopted the multiple Discipline model from the start, had 3 levels / tiers per Discipline, and split Dominate into Dominate and Seduction , and not be so tightly wed to the VTM lore and mechanics. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> Brum wrote: > Has anyone read the book written about the R&D phase of VtES? > The two forewords in the Jyhad/V:TES books, yes. I've tried pointing out the facts we know about V:TES's playtesting from them, but for reasons that are not clear to anyone, elotar instead insists on inventing scenarios where rules he doesn't like were created by managers as revenge for someone beating them, or pandering to the whims of roleplayers, rather than - you know - a team of professional game designers doing their job.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I want to know why some cards like Concealed Weapon had a Discipline requirement but then that requirement was dropped. > All the evidence suggested it was a misprint in Jyhad - it only has a single level which was rare on disciplined cards, and because of the restrictions it was strictly worse than Disguised Weapon, which was created at the same time. Based on the Jyhad text, there was literally no reason ever to play Concealed Weapon instead of Disguised Weapon.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I want to know why some cards like Concealed Weapon had a Discipline requirement but then that requirement was dropped. Other cards, which clearly should've had a Discipline requirement, don't, e.g. Aura of Invincibility should've been . > > The people at WotC say that the 5-Color mana system Richard Garfield made for Magic was brilliant and one of the greatest innovations that could've happened, etc, etc. I think the Discipline requirements for cards was just as, if not even more interesting and cooler than Magic's 5-Color system, but there are so many cards in VTES that are basically "colorless" (requiring no Discipline.) There is in Magic's 5-Color system certain effects specific to each color (just like VTES' Disciplines) but then Magic has a certain amount of overlap between the colors. VTES has less of this it appears, I'm still counting the number of different types of effects per Discipline, but I think it would be good for the game if certain disciplines (like Potence and Fortitude ) branched out a little for unique and cool effects. > > Also, this game should've adopted the multiple Discipline model from the start, had 3 levels / tiers per Discipline, and split Dominate into Dominate > > and Seduction > > , and not be so tightly wed to the VTM lore and mechanics. > Obviously concealed weapon was initially a disciplinless card and obf was added as either a misprint or in vein of the wave of stupidity, which gave as the rest of the strange combat cards. Can say nothing about AoI - other era of development. As I've written at SCE thread - to be close to WoD lore was one of the key goals, so no changes to the disciplines. What may be gained by splitting disciplines into 3 levels I don't know - even two levels system is still mostly unexplored, as we have crap load of "as above" and +1. Idea of discipline pie was obviously sort of design intent, but... (this worth additional thread) NC Russia

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Brum wrote: > > Has anyone read the book written about the R&D phase of VtES? > > > The two forewords in the Jyhad/V:TES books, yes. > Can you link to these or link to where you've quoted from them in the past? I would be interested in reading them. I can't find the PDFs online. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > The two forewords in the Jyhad/V:TES books, yes. > They have written there, how it was a professional game design to make 75% of combat cards useless and not in anyway fix it in the reprint (or actually make it worse with new agg rules and hand damage additions)? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > They have written there, how it was a professional game design to make 75% of combat cards useless and not in anyway fix it in the reprint (or actually make it worse with new agg rules and hand damage additions)? > That you dislike the rules changes doesn't mean that they were made in an unprofessional manner, by throwing rules into the air and snatching them however they fell. You are woefully confused about the difference between "professional" and "omniscient". Jyhad in its original implementation, and V:TES after that, made some mistakes. Mistakes do not mean that people are unprofessional, it means that they made a decision which turned out - in the fullness of time - to not be the best one for the game. Please, please, please for the love of God, stop conflating 'wrong' and 'unprofessional'. They are not the same thing.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Can you link to these or link to where you've quoted from them in the past? I would be interested in reading them. I can't find the PDFs online. > To the best of my knowledge, there aren't PDFs of them. In www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/76627-sce?start=6#87172 , I allude to some of the information that's presented in them. For example, the fact that their combat decks in Jyhad playtest were not like any sort of rush deck that was put together on the release of Jyhad seems pretty clear. Intimidating people into not blocking is one of the things that marks out combat decks, in the text. There's also, from memory, a mention of the fact that they found that Gangrel were the best combat decks, because of the Brujah's Presence (i.e. the Brujah had a wasted discipline) - which impliedly suggests that large amounts of S:CE was never or rarely playtested, because the Gangrel don't have a good answer to that, whereas the Brujah at least have two different answers to it in Jyhad (Psyche! and IG).

> elotar wrote: > What may be gained by splitting disciplines into 3 levels I don't know - even two levels system is still mostly unexplored, as we have crap load of "as above" and +1. > They could print more variety of Discipline combinations (one of the reasons the grouping rule was necessary was to avoid reprinted the same discipline combos over and over.) With Basic, Advanced, and Expert levels to each Discipline, the effects could be more easily balanced. With the Inferior / Superior levels, effects get concentrated into one or the other. With 3 tiers they could have stronger effects (S:CE for example) as Advanced / Expert level discipline effect. And as a general rule Low-caps get Basic, Mid-caps get Advanced, and High-caps get Expert. I imagine that because of this, you could print more weenies with more total disciplines (of 128 3-caps, only 8 have 3 disciplines!) and those weenies could be printed with actual neat and relevant abilities. (Most weenies either have no special or a drawback.) Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > which impliedly suggests that large amounts of S:CE was never or rarely playtested > Extremely professional behavior! And as I've said before - we can see problems in Jyhad as mistakes, even if it looks to me that they have workable combat system and then intentionally fucked it. But they was pressed by time, got no experience in multiplayer ccg, maybe even there was some obscured problem, which can't be solved without SCE... But then they got a year until VtES "reboot", and what changes do they managed to make when time constraints was removed as well as they've got information from all around the world about the way their game is played? Concealed Weapon was just dropped -(by the way, LbP here is your answer - it was not a misprint;) ) and Chainsaw was also dropped (they actually spend like 20% of the "from Jyhad to VtES article" on musings about it, when they have like 40 unplayable combat cards in the set). O, and they changed how aggravated damage works, which was quite reasonable, except Ivory Bow became even more broken. zip gun + DBR as well as aggravated Pulled Fangs was in the pool also. So the combat became even more thin, than in Jyhad. Than they made three more sets, including "combat oriented" Sabbat, upping number of combat cards to 154 (more than doubling initial 69), managing to add by it a total of one combat strategy (). All this looks like a bad design job, dumbness and "do not give a fuckery" to me. Nobody can prohibit you to call them professionals, thou - I think they was paid just fine. NC Russia

When a card game is young, its designers rarely have a grasp on the game's overall balance not just due to massive amount of playtest required, but also because designers don't yet know what exactly players are looking for in the game. What makes it fun? What makes it captivating? What makes people want to play more? These things are subjective and difficult to answer. Mistakes always happen in the early years. I do not want to look back into the past too much because of this. However, its the mentality against change that I see as a problem, particularly on these forums. Players have become too stuck with the past. If there are problems with cards, lets fix them/introduce counters/errata problematic cards etc. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> elotar wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > which impliedly suggests that large amounts of S:CE was never or rarely playtested > > > Extremely professional behavior! > Again, quit with the whiny, whiny idiocy. Mistakes and oversights are not the same as being unprofessional. > elotar wrote: > Concealed Weapon was just dropped -(by the way, LbP here is your answer - it was not a misprint;) ) and Chainsaw was also dropped (they actually spend like 20% of the "from Jyhad to VtES article" on musings about it, when they have like 40 unplayable combat cards in the set). > There's a theme to the cards that are dropped, and those that are added. With the exception of Movement/Shadow, everything that's dropped was disciplineless and everything that was added was disciplineless too. (Working on the principle that CW was a misprint. It makes no sense to print it with Obfuscate, because Disguised Weapon is better in every way, and Obfuscate already had 11 Obfuscate cards without it.) They wanted to give some very wide access to stealth-bleed defence - which is what Elder Intervention, Protected Resources, Justicar Retribution, and Archon Investigation are intended as - so they're all disciplineless. Removing the Paralyse rule gets you the option of removing two cards, although in the end they only removed one (because Stake got reprinted as Wooden Stake). Taking out disciplined combat cards would leave you with an imbalance between the disciplines. Of the disciplineless combat cards, quite a lot actually saw play - despite being a bit ropey, and having been surpassed these days. After Concealed Weapon, there are 16. A good dozen-ish of them would have been considered playable at the time: Zip Gun, Trap, Taste of Vitae, Dodge, Pulled Fangs, Dragon's Breath Rounds, Fake Out, Boxed In/Dead-End Alley, Lucky Blow, and the one on the borderline for me would be Amaranth. Several wouldn't make the cut today for a variety of reasons, but the card set in Jyhad was different. For Lucky Blow, these days I'd swap Target Head/Vitals as being more interesting. Boxed In/Dead-End Alley wouldn't get put in pretty much any deck today, but in the days of Jyhad/V:TES, people were still regularly trying to make Thaumaturgy combat work well. Presses (either generic presses or presses to continue) are suprisingly hard to access in Jyhad. The obvious places to look - Read Intentions (aus), and Movement of the Mind (tha) - are both presses to end. A number of people tried Mages on Speed (tha/cel - because cel gets you presses fairly easily), which was fun and interesting, but expensive in terms of vampires and susceptible both to combat defence (S:CE) and being trumped by better combat decks. Similar happened with Tha/For, which was also quite painful to play. Which of them you'd prefer would depend on what you were seeing from opponents. Of the remaining six, one is a clan hoser (Nosferatu Putrescence), and either you remove all of them or none of them, most likely. And they'd clearly made the choice to keep them around. The remaining five are Glaser Rounds, Manstopper Rounds, Open Grate, Ritual of the Bitter Rose. Open Grate is poor, but actually turns up in one TWD (with 4 copies), and given that press-based combat was still trying to work, was probably seen as something that needed to be kept. Manstopper and Glaser Rounds probably weren't considered bad, if you wanted to use them with proper guns - it's just that Zip Gun+DBR was by far the most efficient alternative. RotBR, I personally have little to no time for, but it turns up in several TWDs, including one from last year. > elotar wrote: > O, and they changed how aggravated damage works, which was quite reasonable, except Ivory Bow became even more broken. > > zip gun + DBR as well as aggravated Pulled Fangs was in the pool also. > > So the combat became even more thin, than in Jyhad. > Now, obviously you're desperate to concoct a scenario in which one of the team on V:TES at that time needed to overturn the rules to make his or her pet deck work better. In the real world, look at all the changes that were made in V:TES in the round. Include in that the optional rules (long since dropped) that were added to the game, and they're trying to make the game quicker - a trend that continues into DS/AH, with Tomb and Return to Innocence. The execution is, obviously, flawed, but the intent is very understandable.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Taking out [the non-]disciplined combat cards would leave you with an imbalance between the disciplines. > Aren't the disciplines already imbalanced? I get that a certain amount of 'neutral' cards would be good for the game, equipment being one such example, but I also think that the game would benefit from having disciplines be more prominent, both visually and mechanically. I think it would add greatly to the visual appeal of passerbys and new players. New players instantly grasp 'vampire powers' but explaining the Sects is more work (I basically dismiss the Sects as being 'like political parties' when explaining the game.) Subjectively, I think building a deck around the various vampire powers is much more exciting than building around a Clan or Sect (the discipline icons were what got me into the game, and when new players realize that they can mix and match vampires as long as they have the needed disciplines, their eyes light up.) It would add consistency. I find it bizarre that a card like Haymaker, where the image is a guy throwing a punch, doesn't require Potence and very strange that a card like Vermin Channel doesn't require Animalism despite depicting rats. I personally think it would be really neat if most / all cards required disciplines and then gave Clan / Sect bonuses like Aire of Elation and Fiendish Tongue. I also think it would be cool if the Political Actions required disciplines. But that requires viewing the disciplines as abstract attributes or traits that vampires have, rather than specific powers, which goes back to my point about VTES being too subservient to VTM lore and mechanics. VTM has a lot of problems conceptually and mechanically, and I think VTES was afflicted by them. /rant Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I personally think it would be really neat if most / all cards required disciplines and then gave Clan / Sect bonuses like Aire of Elation and Fiendish Tongue. > But then we would have to give the same basic functions to nearly every discipline, which would create a lot of overlap and boring copypaste. I don't see how that would make things better. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > ...blatant fanboism, which is as pointless to discus as an second round decks in the world with IG... > > Now, obviously you're desperate to concoct a scenario in which one of the team on V:TES at that time needed to overturn the rules to make his or her pet deck work better. > O, actually! As an example of stupid crap, happening during jyhad playtest, Garfield in an interview mentioned some dorks, who tried at 2:00 at night to try to add together two "2 hand damage" cards, so they can gave "4 hand damage". He, as I understand, for one hundredth time told them, that such thing do not stack. And what do they do at the move to VtES, when Garfield was not in control? They made this crap stack! PS: no presses to was intentional and quite clever - you got cool second round abilities, so you will be tempted just to go there dodging or something at first. As you got no presses, than you have to work at the firs one (staying at long against and going to close against ), having second round threat as just an insurance. NC Russia

> Bloodartist wrote: > When a card game is young, its designers rarely have a grasp on the game's overall balance... > The whole story is that they've got fine balance and then destroyed it for the sake of couple idiots, and then for 4 years, having "playtesters" all around the world and all problems completely clear at the table (see req.games.jyhad), was pretending that everything is fine. > Bloodartist wrote: > However, its the mentality against change that I see as a problem, particularly on these forums. Players have become too stuck with the past. If there are problems with cards, lets fix them/introduce counters/errata problematic cards etc. > It's quite logical, actually - all who was "pro change" already left, we have only crazy fanboys (in their mid 40-s ) left, who will not only argue with any change, they, as you can see, are continuing to defend clearly stupid decisions, which are already fixed! NC Russia

Some idea, how "combat minigame" broke whole game. As you know was quite cool at Jyhad - you was able to play conditioning, threats and bonding in one action. It's a little broken, obviously, but was not so bad when it was first introduced. Because to play them all you should have them all in your hand, an you also need a couple stealth cards, and a bounce and a master and couple combat cards. Combat cards? For M94 all there was is dodge, press, maneuver and disguised weapon. Not so cool, but if we know, that combat is quite widespread as well as except couple retainers all damage are dealt with regular strikes, than we know that dodge will save at least 2 blood for us, which is quite fine. If we will dodge, than it's practically impossible to kill us in the first round, so opponent will press and our press to end will be helpful too. Maneuvers will not be needed, but there is one pared with dodge, so we some time can surprise. Or we can go with some disguised cool weapon - we know it can be used. So then we got like 16+ combat cards in a deck, which makes our deck slower, but much more survivable as well as much more pleasant to play against. Obviously, if you got IG in the world, than having anything is dumb - combat is rare, so most of the time it will be just dead cards, when you'll meet combat, then it will be complete crush with IG - you will have to ability to dodge or attack with weapon and you will not survive till a press time. So you drop all of this and put more stealth and bleed, and then your prey will have no other option then to destroy you or be destroyed by you. NC Russia

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > I personally think it would be really neat if most / all cards required disciplines and then gave Clan / Sect bonuses like Aire of Elation and Fiendish Tongue. > > > But then we would have to give the same basic functions to nearly every discipline, which would create a lot of overlap and boring copypaste. I don't see how that would make things better. > I should clarify: I think most / all cards should require disciplines. And it would be cool if there were more cards like Aire of Elation that gave Clan / Sect specific bonuses, i.e. Vermin Channel requires Animalism but gives an additional small bonus if the vampire is Nosferatu. How do you reach your conclusion about giving same basic functions to every discipline?There is already overlap between the disciplines, but as long as each does it in the discipline's own unique way, and has its own flavour, then that is fine. Let me give an example: Disguised Weapon vs (NEW!) Quick Draw Quick Draw Combat Only usable before strikes are chosen if you have a gun weapon card in your hand. The gun cannot cost 3 or more pool or inflict (with a regular strike) aggravated damage or 3 or more damage. Equip this vampire with that gun (and pay cost to equip as normal). As above, and this round the gun strikes with first strike. Does it overlap with Disguised Weapon? Yes, but it does it in a distinctly Celerity style. Does Celerity Guns need it? They have Concealed Weapon, but this is just an example to show how Disciplines could be given to all sorts of cards that are currently Discipline-less. I'd be interested in seeing how Forced Awakening, WWEF, and On The Qui Vive would be done, what Disciplines they would theoretically get. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> elotar wrote: > Some idea, how "combat minigame" broke whole game. > > As you know was quite cool at Jyhad - you was able to play conditioning, threats and bonding in one action. It's a little broken, obviously, but was not so bad when it was first introduced. > Richard G. has been quoted as saying that he knew there were broken and OP Magic cards released with Alpha (the cards that came to be called 'The Power Nine' among others...) and his response was something like, "Well if it's a niche game, no big deal because everyone will have those cards. If the game is a run-away hit, well... is that really a problem?" (I'm paraphrasing.) Had VTES taken off like MTG did, and WotC kept it, Govern and Conditioning would probably be 100$+ cards right now. Of course, this is just pointless speculation. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> elotar wrote: > O, actually! As an example of stupid crap, happening during jyhad playtest, Garfield in an interview mentioned some dorks, who tried at 2:00 at night to try to add together two "2 hand damage" cards, so they can gave "4 hand damage". He, as I understand, for one hundredth time told them, that such thing do not stack. > I read this passage too but had a much different takeaway than you did. Garfield basically locked himself in a room as a deadline for VTES approached so people would leave him alone, yet he apparently was the final decision maker. That's pretty dysfunctional behavior, and this was coming from the lead creator/designer of the game. Not sure why you are quick to call everyone else "dorks," but then defend someone who was likely instigating the "stupid crap." Is it not possible that the "stupid crap" was trickling down from the top? If there were any issues with VTES that were introduced at that time, I think it's safe to say all parties involved were responsible.

> elotar wrote: > some dorks, who tried at 2:00 at night to try to add together two "2 hand damage" cards, so they can gave "4 hand damage". He, as I understand, for one hundredth time told them, that such thing do not stack. > > And what do they do at the move to VtES, when Garfield was not in control? They made this crap stack! > And yet, combat still does not win.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but doing a quick look at the TWDA going back to Dec 10th of last year, 5 of the last 15 tournament wins were with what I'd consider combat-oriented decks. Edit: I'm certainly not with Elotar regarding most of his opinions on the game, but it's not like combat loses either.

You can build decks and never include a single red card or only include S:CE and a vast majority of great decks do that. elotar's talking about how combat got buffed because Hand Damage became +Strength. That really has had no impact of making combat better.

> elotar wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > When a card game is young, its designers rarely have a grasp on the game's overall balance... > > > The whole story is that they've got fine balance and then destroyed it for the sake of couple idiots, and then for 4 years, having "playtesters" all around the world and all problems completely clear at the table (see req.games.jyhad), was pretending that everything is fine. > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > However, its the mentality against change that I see as a problem, particularly on these forums. Players have become too stuck with the past. If there are problems with cards, lets fix them/introduce counters/errata problematic cards etc. > > > It's quite logical, actually - all who was "pro change" already left, we have only crazy fanboys (in their mid 40-s ) left, who will not only argue with any change, they, as you can see, are continuing to defend clearly stupid decisions, which are already fixed! > Boy you have issues... I mean, serious, sociological ones. What is your deal? To upset everyone in this forum (all the crazy fanboys in their mid 40s, wtf) because they cannot stand behind your """racional, logical, thought-through reasoning""", which is in my opinion absolutely NOT promotes critical thinking (or thinking at all), but best case scenario an interpretation of how you gathered stuff, how you imagine it to be? But this alone could stick, I mean who gives a dang, right? But the your arrogance... this utmost superiority you project based on your claim of being what now, racional, logical? And based upon that, you go off insulting the whole playerbase (suggesting they are only here because they are old and bigotted refusing any changes whatsoever, since clearly all the smart ones left due to reasons you've finally found out), AND call the designers of this game dumb... you are calling them names? It is almost funny, how you deal with this situation, projecting your unapprehendedness towards all the world, except it is not funny, it is disturbing. I know I know it's my fault why I am reading this forum if I cannot stand such misery (probably I'm stupid and in my mid 40s). Even if I'd be as smart as you are, I wouldn't be calling game designers dumb, dork, and whatever else you used just to prove my point, it's called respect which derives from wisdom. Anyway I'm not here to educate you, I'm here because I don't like how you form your responses. You could have made an argument without any of your condescension! Everyone has to right to invent any BS they want, but insulting people is not wise, not smart AT ALL, especially in 24-years-time, just because you think you are right. NC of Hungary ///

> Malachy wrote: > Boy you have issues... you go off insulting the whole playerbase > Actually it's you, who got serious issues. This was hypothetical thread about some (maybe invented by me) concept of "initial Jyhad combat", because I'm amused with the idea to mentally juggle with the possibilities of it, and have a thought, that maybe somebody else will be too. I even put it into the off-topic forum to not bother "serious people discussing serious issues" (dumping Archon because excel is too hard?). But somehow this totally academical musings produced so much buthurt in you and several other people, so you made serious effort to troll this thread with picking irrelevant stuff out of context, jump to bullshit conclusions or just inventing points, because, as we found earlier, reading is hard. Part, where you are calling half a dozen people, trolling anything constructive here, "whole playerbase", is especially amusing. PS: Insulting people is "bad", but calling a guy, or actually a committee of guys having the "game designer" in their job description, who were looking at ZG+DBR combo for a 4 years and haven't found any problem in it dumb is not an insult - it's objective statement about their mental capabilities. NC Russia

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Richard G. has been quoted as saying that he knew there were broken and OP Magic cards released with Alpha (the cards that came to be called 'The Power Nine' among others...) and his response was something like, "Well if it's a niche game, no big deal because everyone will have those cards. If the game is a run-away hit, well... is that really a problem?" (I'm paraphrasing.) > Yes, it was the thought before Alpha, that you can fix powerlevel with rarity, so it was was fine having both Healing Salve (W: gain 3 life) and Ancestral Recall (U: Draw three cards) in one set, if you got one common and other at rare. So maybe somebody will luck into one "power" card, but it will not matter. But, obviously, it was quickly proven false, and MTG Revised (April 1994) was printed without such crap (35 cards was dropped) and with serious rules revisions (including stack - clear timing rules), I don't know, if there were any banned cards at 1994 mtg world championship, but there was a restricted list for sure. Jyhad was printed at August 94, VtES at September 95. But they spectacularly failed to even just duplicate what they already have done with their flagship game! NC Russia

> kschaefer wrote: > You can build decks and never include a single red card or only include S:CE and a vast majority of great decks do that. elotar's talking about how combat got buffed because Hand Damage became +Strength. That really has had no impact of making combat better. > Learn to read, you missed the point by a mile. NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > If there were any issues with VTES that were introduced at that time, I think it's safe to say all parties involved were responsible. > For the 10th time: Jyhad development was pressed by time and other issues - mistakes may be acceptable, unacceptable part is that the game suffered reboot and three expansions after it without any meaningful corrections to initial fuckups. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > If there were any issues with VTES that were introduced at that time, I think it's safe to say all parties involved were responsible. > > > For the 10th time: Jyhad development was pressed by time and other issues - mistakes may be acceptable, unacceptable part is that the game suffered reboot and three expansions after it without any meaningful corrections to initial fuckups. > I'm not arguing about what you find acceptable or unacceptable. I am merely stating that Garfield was also to blame for the purported "initial fuckups." In addition, the responsibility for the three expansions without "meaningful corrections" falls on the lead designer as well, and not just the other people involved. The anecdote about locking himself in a room proves that Garfield was not a good communicator and perhaps fostered a dysfunctional environment. This led to those "initial fuckups" and no later "meaningful corrections" because the lead designer did not communicate that there should be "meaningful corrections." So those "initial fuckups" may have been interpreted as designer intent because of lack of communication. On the basis of the anecdotal evidence you cited earlier, this is as plausible a scenario as anything you stated previously.

Elotar would you mind reiterating your main points? I'm trying to understand. It sounds like you want a soft reboot or soft reset to correct perceived problems, but what do you think the problems are? Zip Gun+DBR combo? IG & Psyche! being hard-counters to S:CE? S:CE making Dodges and Prevention and Press-to-End less useful? The power level of Dominate? The M-S-P combat system? I think the game has some problems too (things it could do differently for a better / quicker experience) but what do you think should be done? What should be fixed? Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I am merely stating that Garfield was also to blame for the purported "initial fuckups." In addition, the responsibility for the three expansions without "meaningful corrections" falls on the lead designer as well, and not just the other people involved. The anecdote about locking himself in a room proves that Garfield was not a good communicator and perhaps fostered a dysfunctional environment. > I think you got some strange ideas about role of Garfield in this project. Generally he made initial design, got some say in questions of organizing development process and then mostly fade into the background, having even not enough authority (or just time) to "fight changes" which break key elements of the game. Also I think you've missed in SCE thread, that there is clearly visible agenda of pushing some cards, which happen to be most troublesome. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > I think you got some strange ideas about role of Garfield in this project. Generally he made initial design, got some say in questions of organizing development process and then mostly fade into the background, having even not enough authority (or just time) to "fight changes" which break key elements of the game. > I am just going with what I read in the anecdote about Garfield locking himself in a room. How are you able to determine Garfield's exact role? Are there other anecdotes I am missing? > Also I think you've missed in SCE thread, that there is clearly visible agenda of pushing some cards, which happen to be most troublesome. > Again, I don't recall seeing any anecdotes about this. I recall you stating there was an agenda, but without citing any evidence. Let's pretend what you say here is all true. The point still remains: those "initial fuckups" were incorporated into VTES, which is credited as designed by Garfield. Hence, they are as much his responsibility as anybody else's. Even if later expansions did not include "meaningful corrections," this may have been done to coincide with what was perceived to be Garfield's original design intent. Unless you have actual anecdotes proving the contrary, what I say here is as plausible as anything you've said previously.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Elotar would you mind reiterating your main points? I'm trying to understand. It sounds like you want a soft reboot or soft reset to correct perceived problems, but what do you think the problems are? > > Zip Gun+DBR combo? > IG & Psyche! being hard-counters to S:CE? > S:CE making Dodges and Prevention and Press-to-End less useful? > The power level of Dominate? > The M-S-P combat system? > > I think the game has some problems too (things it could do differently for a better / quicker experience) but what do you think should be done? What should be fixed? > Fuck. Agenda here was to reconstruct Jyhad combat as it was before shit hit the fan just for academical reasons. It got nothing to do with the game as it is - I've already written what should be done with current combat system in "option B" thread. As even it looks "too extreme" for many, there is no point in discussing more radical ideas, like "soft reboot". NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Unless you have actual anecdotes proving the contrary, what I say here is as plausible as anything you've said previously. > Anecdots do not prove anything. Logic does it. Here, if you filter dumb squabble, was presented initial combat system, which looks quite logical and workable, with different cool "winning" strategies, which also have a reasonable influence on a general game - as it encourage to put combat defense into any decks, thus making them less unbalanced. In SCE thread there was presented chain of events, which lead from here to what we have at Jyhad release, including exact vampires in the deck of manager, who championed all this jumping off the cliff. Then there was some words about Jyhad -> VtES transition and later "works", which greatly falls in line with stupidity of "phase 2". You may provide some other story with logically connected elements, which can lead from something reasonable to a result of having 75% of combat cards useless, as well as in general imbalance of combat and other elements in the game at release and till the end of the WotC "reign", then you will have "plausible" position. By now you are just trolling. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Unless you have actual anecdotes proving the contrary, what I say here is as plausible as anything you've said previously. > > > Anecdots do not prove anything. Logic does it. > So, here again, I will state that I'm not arguing anything you repeated in this post. I am specifically disagreeing with your defense of Garfield and condemnation of everyone else involved in the early days of VTES. Garfield is to blame for whatever "fuckups" you think were introduced into the game early on. I've stated my "logic" on that. Are you going to respond to this or not?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Are you going to respond to this or not? > Own goal. We both know he's not going to do any such thing.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > So, here again, I will state that I'm not arguing anything you repeated in this post. > Great, you should have started with that. And finished. If you are interested in finding people to blame then I think you should start a new thread, where you can state your "case" to Garfield and people interested can organize "defence" or what a fuck you really want to hear. Here I would like to continue discussion of Jyhad "combat as intended". NC Russia

I guess that's a no, then? I mean, I'm intrigued by your version of events in the early days of VTES. That's why I wish to discuss only that.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I guess that's a no, then? I mean, I'm intrigued by your version of events in the early days of VTES. That's why I wish to discuss only that. > I care about events only to understand how cards and rules was changed by them, so I can reverse engineer original design. "Discussions" with you looks pointless to me, because I see no other goals in your comments except trolling. But maybe it's just me - start a new thread and you will find others who share interests with you. NC Russia

You want to discuss something and force the subject on, but in the same thread you confess not to have read the actual written book by the original developers exactly about this very subject. www.amazon.com/Eternal-Struggle-Strategy-Guide-Jyhad/dp/1565041631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527675835&sr=8-1&keywords=jyhad+richard+garfield

> Brum wrote: > You want to discuss something and force the subject on, but in the same thread you confess not to have read the actual written book by the original developers exactly about this very subject. > > www.amazon.com/Eternal-Struggle-Strategy-Guide-Jyhad/dp/1565041631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527675835&sr=8-1&keywords=jyhad+richard+garfield > Tiago, we are discussing here Jyhad combat BEFORE it took final form (SCE were introduced). What "Strategy Guide" should have to do with it? As I get from the reviews of the time, it was quite useless even for the game as published. But if there were some interesting information, I'll be very grateful if you share it with us. NC Russia

I don't understand how this thread is still going. Only Garfield and the initial playtesters possess information to support or denounce the theory. Nothing about a conclusion matters, but Elator, some incite apparently appears in the beginning of a book that's $10for a pdf. Since its changed since conception to now so drastically, there's nothing even remotely meaningful for the game today. You are of course fine to chime in on the endless discussions about potential combat reworks, or argue that some change or another would benefit the game. But I don't see anything about pre-launch versions of cards mattering. Scott admitted there were some cards he was less than crazy about, I'm sure Garfeild had similar hindsight, but the game is moving forward, not backwards.

Hear, hear! Finnish Politics!

Changed my mind about second round strikes - they should be the the main goal of the discipline. It answers two main questions - why there are three second round strikes and no presses and how Theft of Vitae should work to not be so overpowered in a world, where thrown lead deals 2 damage. So the main combat card. Optional press as a superior was a common logic on most ranged strikes: Theft of Vitae [tha] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood. [THA] as above, with an optional press Side note - story about Blood fury/rage: There was (is) second level power at Path of Blood called Blood Fury, which forces opponent to burn blood against his will, obviously was not helping against it, and it was a fixed damage no matter your strength - you was just touching, not hitting. The clever idea was to make it an answer to weapons (it got some minor psychological effect also), as logic was that all combat disciplines need it. But then they was searching for the weapon answer to , "invented" "Blood Rage", made a correct assumption that version should deal more damage ( is not a damaging discipline), but instead of changing card templates, they moved Fury to and leave Rage at . Then they thought about Sideslip and clutter the card text. Later designers fucked it up even more - changed templates to +strength damage and moved Fury back to TLDR: hypothetical "right" way to go with the cards should be this: Blood Rage Requires: Thaumaturgy Cost: 1 blood Only usable at close range. [tha] Strike: 2 damage. This damage cannot be prevented. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. [THA] As above, but 3 damage. Blood Fury Requires: Fortitude Only usable at close range. [tha] Strike: hand damage. This damage cannot be prevented. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. [THA] As above, but for +1 damage. So the was no misprint at Jyhad! Is this card really needed i do not know, thou. Prevention looks like a fine answer to weapons anyway. Second round So to elaborate, how the combat supposed to work: - default range was long - each discipline got an "affectiveness zone" was fine at staying at long, throwing things and pressing was defensive as is, packed with weapons in can deal massive damage at first round. Again - at long. can deal few, but aggravated damage at close mostly can't deal real damage, but it can negate opponents damage regardless of range, so theoretically it should came on top in some strange infinite lasting combats. deals massive damage at second round at any range combination deals massive damage at the first round up close. should be "ultimate bad ass", able to have an answer to any combat strategy (having a weakest position at non-combat sphere). So the logic for a for the second round was "updated version of first round strikes" (Theft, burst of Sunlight, Blood Rage): Drain Essence Cost: 2 blood (!) Not usable on the first round of combat. [tha] Strike: ranged; steal 2 blood. [THA] Strike: ranged; steal 4 blood Walk of Flame as is Cauldron of Blood Cost: 1 blood Not usable on the first round of combat. [tha] Strike: 3 damage. [THA] Strike: 56 damage. The've changed it when moved to close as a default range So the logic behind this cards was to balance superior effects, as you will need to press at the first round anyway. And basic level was just an afterthought. Clever idea may be to make basic level do completely different things, it the first round or may be even outside of combat. No chance, thou. So the math looks like this: 1 damage = +1 blood cost ranged = 1 damage 1 aggravated = 2 regular 1 steal = 1,5 regular NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Side note - story about Blood fury/rage: > > There was (is) second level power at Path of Blood called Blood Fury, which forces opponent to burn blood against his will, obviously was not helping against it, and it was a fixed damage no matter your strength - you was just touching, not hitting. The clever idea was to make it an answer to weapons (it got some minor psychological effect also), as logic was that all combat disciplines need it. But then they was searching for the weapon answer to , "invented" "Blood Rage", made a correct assumption that version should deal more damage ( is not a damaging discipline), but instead of changing card templates, they moved Fury to and leave Rage at . Then they thought about Sideslip and clutter the card text. Later designers fucked it up even more - changed templates to +strength damage and moved Fury back to > > ... > > So the was no misprint at Jyhad!.... > You know what another clever idea was? Misspelling "Venture Justicar" and having it make a Tremere you control Tremere Justicar. The "designers fucked it up" by fixing the misspelling in the title and changing "Tremere" to "Ventrue" in the card text. Seriously though, my theory is that Blood Rage, Concealed Weapon, Venture Justicar, etc. were simply proofing errors. In Jyhad, Fortitude and Obfuscate had one extra card each, and Thaumaturgy had one fewer card. This is why they were all changed later on. Anyway, here are my theories on how these errors were introduced at the proofing stage: Blood Rage: the proofreader saw the word "fortitude" in the card text and changed the symbol. Concealed Weapon: The proofreader confused this card with the similarly titled Disguised Weapon and added the Obfuscate symbol. Venture Justicar: Either nobody proofread this card, or these errors were introduced at a later stage in production. So, in my theory, it was not the designers who fucked anything up, it was the proofreader (who obviously was not a very good proofreader if these types of errors were being introduced).

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Anyway, here are my theories on how these errors were introduced at the proofing stage: > > Blood Rage: the proofreader saw the word "fortitude" in the card text and changed the symbol. > > Concealed Weapon: The proofreader confused this card with the similarly titled Disguised Weapon and added the Obfuscate symbol. > > Venture Justicar: Either nobody proofread this card, or these errors were introduced at a later stage in production. > For Ventrue Justicar, I think, it's just "cntr-C / V" error - when templates of cards were copy-pasted somebody forgot to change clan name. Concealed Weapon looked very much like a misprint, except in VtES (initial set) it was not fixed, but dropped. As it's a key card for weapon strategies either it was intentional all along (or actually introduced as a disciplineless card, then deemed "too good", but as a printing materials was already made, "fixed" by adding "little black box"), or as other quite plausible explanation - guys responsible for the game at Jyhad -> VtES transition totally lost grasp of original intent. About Blood Rage/Fury may be I'm really overthinking. It may be just then when Wake was moved to disciplineless they quickly need something to fill the gap at and then fucked up discipline requirements. Still do not see any need for two such cards, so : Anti weapon cards Blood Fury Requires: Thaumaturgy Only usable at close range. [tha] Strike: 1 damage. Cannot be prevented. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. [THA] As above, but 2 damage. Canine Horde Requires: Animalism [ani] Strike: 1R damage. [ANI] Strike: ranged; destroy equipment with first strike. Fast Hands Requires: Celerity Cost: 1 blood [cel] Strike: steal weapon. [CEL] Strike: steal weapon with first strike. Shattering Blow Requires: Potence [pot] Strike: destroy equipment. [POT] Strike: destroy equipment with first strike. So looks kind of balanced. NC Russia

And finally I think I've understood IG/Psyche "story"! Which makes initial idea slightly wrong: IG/Psyche was not introduced as a means to fight SCE - they were there all along, their uses just was supposed to be different, no way intended as a key combat effects. Psyche was intended as a "super press" in the logic of being specialized in them. IG was the same as printed, just, as initial range was long and SCE was only in , against which you do not want to go to close, it was "for the lulz" card. That's why nobody bothered to write length of the "grapple effect" - you should spend maneuver to go close, IG, then something to deal damage - if the combat will go into the third round without the second IG then you will need to spend two more cards (press + maneuver) to just be close... Looks extremely rare occurrence. So actually we was very lucky, that there were cards which can beat SCE in the initial set. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > Concealed Weapon: The proofreader confused this card with the similarly titled Disguised Weapon and added the Obfuscate symbol. > > Concealed Weapon looked very much like a misprint, except in VtES (initial set) it was not fixed, but dropped. As it's a key card for weapon strategies either it was intentional all along (or actually introduced as a disciplineless card, then deemed "too good", but as a printing materials was already made, "fixed" by adding "little black box"), or as other quite plausible explanation - guys responsible for the game at Jyhad -> VtES transition totally lost grasp of original intent. > Here's my story for what I think happened. Concealed Weapon was originally Disguised Weapon in the early stages, but they thought Disguised Weapon (being strictly better than Concealed Weapon) was too strong, so they changed Disguised to Concealed, adding the drawbacks / limitations that Concealed has today. That's why Concealed Weapon required Obfuscate - it was the direct descendant of Disguised Weapon. Disguised evolved over a couple of playtests into Concealed when they realized it was too good. But somewhere along the way, they forgot to delete Disguised Weapon from their files (or whatever) and so both Disguised & Concealed Weapon made it into the 1st set - Jyhad. Disguised Weapon was never suppose to be printed. Concealed Weapon was suppose to be a "nerfed" / fixed Disguised Weapon, that's why it had the Obfuscate symbol. Obfuscate symbol got removed from Concealed Weapon in later sets because designers wanted to enable celerity gun decks. My logic is infallible. B) Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > My logic is infallible. > If they change card text they leave name as is. Concealed / Disguised was fully in the logic, that most basic discipline effect got limited analogue in disciplineless cards. Suddenly except "prevent one damage". NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Venture Justicar: Either nobody proofread this card, or these errors were introduced at a later stage in production. > Probably the texts for all the Justicar cards were copied and pasted and in this one they just forgot to change the clan. So it was obviously a proofreading problem. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > So, in my theory, it was not the designers who fucked anything up, it was the proofreader (who obviously was not a very good proofreader if these types of errors were being introduced). > Yup. I'm suremost of these fall into the domain of proofreader effing it up. Like Renage Garou and Renegade Garou etc Jyhad Blood Rage was identified/admitted as misprint already in the very early years. No need to construct elaborate conspiracy theories how it came to pass... Finnish Politics!

> elotar wrote: > For Ventrue Justicar, I think, it's just "cntr-C / V" error - when templates of cards were copy-pasted somebody forgot to change clan name. > A proofreader would catch a copy/paste error. That Venture Justicar was printed with such glaring errors tells me that the QA process (ie, proofreading) was not a very rigourous one with Jyhad. Hence, my theory that most of the misprints were just simple proofreading errors. > Concealed Weapon looked very much like a misprint, except in VtES (initial set) it was not fixed, but dropped. As it's a key card for weapon strategies either it was intentional all along (or actually introduced as a disciplineless card, then deemed "too good", but as a printing materials was already made, "fixed" by adding "little black box"), or as other quite plausible explanation - guys responsible for the game at Jyhad -> VtES transition totally lost grasp of original intent. > Concealed Weapon has been confirmed to be a misprint . It was not printed in VTES to simply make room for the new cards in that set. > About Blood Rage/Fury may be I'm really overthinking. It may be just then when Wake was moved to disciplineless they quickly need something to fill the gap at and then fucked up discipline requirements > I really think you are overthinking this. Blood Fury has the word "fortitude" on it. I can tell you that a common mistake among inexperienced proofreaders is making rash decisions in the context of a looming deadline, where there is no time to research the ramifications of their decisions. Think of a person getting proofs of 437 cards to read against the original text files to ensure the printed card matches the files provided, with barely any time to do it, while the lead designer is hiding out somewhere. The inexperienced proofreader is likely thinking, "Oh my gosh, this card says fortitude, but has the Thaumaturgy discipline symbol. I need to ask, but can't find anybody. And I have to have all this done in an hour. I'm going to change it because this looks like a huge error." I have seen this scenario happen many, many times. All the errors in Jyhad (and there are many of them) have the stink of this scenario all over them.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Concealed Weapon has been confirmed to be ... > Cool quote: "But earlier in this post it's pointed out that although Mr. Garfield intended Concealed Weapon to be disciplineless, VTES has evolved to the point to where making CW so would harm the game more than help it." NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Concealed Weapon: The proofreader confused this card with the similarly titled Disguised Weapon and added the Obfuscate symbol. > There is no logical reason why concealing a pistol on your person would require the use of a discipline. a normal person can do it easily with a jacket or something. The cost/damage limitation is there to keep the card making sense: while you can conceal a pistol or a knife, you cannot conceal a bazooka or a machine gun without the use of discipline (like in disguised weapon) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Concealed Weapon: The proofreader confused this card with the similarly titled Disguised Weapon and added the Obfuscate symbol. > > > There is no logical reason why concealing a pistol on your person would require the use of a > discipline. a normal person can do it easily with a jacket or something. > > The cost/damage limitation is there to keep the card making sense: while you can conceal a pistol or a knife, you cannot conceal a bazooka or a machine gun without the use of discipline (like in disguised weapon) > In source materials, weapons concealment was listed as : P(pocket) J(jacket) T(trenchcoat) N(not concealable) The small handgun and revolver were P, large of both were J, as was possibly small SMG, shotgun and bigger SMG was T, and the sniper rifle and probably cross bow were N. The initial set, going off of source materials would probably have accounted for this, and not given the easy out of "they all wear trench coats".

Let's discuss more interesting point. Here we got "initial combat" kind of fully recreated. What was the problem so they decided to change it and go with SCE? Sample decklist of something non-combat with access to Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 5 max: 10 average: 8.33333 4x Anson 8 CEL PRE aus dom prince Toreador:1 3x Anneke 10 AUS CEL PRE dom justicar Toreador:1 2x Masika 10 AUS CEL PRE primogen Toreador:1 1x Tatiana Romanov 7 AUS cel pre prince Toreador:1 1x Adrianne 6 aus cel pot pre Toreador:1 1x Ramiel DuPre 5 PRE aus cel dom Toreador:1 Library [90 cards] Action [10] 2x Distraction 2x Entrancement 6x Social Charm Action Modifier [12] 12x Change of Target Combat [19] 3x Fast Hands 6x Flash 10x Vampiric Speed Master [22] 5x Aching Beauty 1x Art Museum 1x Barrens, The 1x Elysium: The Arboretum 3x Fame 1x Giant's Blood 1x Golconda: Inner Peace 3x Information Highway 5x Minion Tap 1x Police Department Political Action [12] 1x Ancient Influence 1x Ancilla Empowerment 2x Conservative Agitation 1x Domain Challenge 4x Kine Resources Contested 3x Parity Shift Reaction [15] 6x Deflection 1x Telepathic Counter 2x Telepathic Misdirection 6x Wake with Evening's Freshness The problem here, as I see it, is that there are no place for "vote pushing" politics. So maybe the idea was to give to non-combatans easy way out of combat, so they will have more place for non-optimal political actions? NC Russia

I keep wondering why any of us engage elotar when he starts these rambling pseudo threads? He does not have any kind of common respect or manners for those he converses with, has an immense Dunning-Kruger effect, seems to be slightly paranoid or schizophrenic based on how easily he sees conspiracies in anything, and has a completely over-vaunted judgement of his own intellectual prowess. Is it akin to why we like to watch accidents during races?

> Blooded wrote: > I keep wondering why any of us engage elotar ... > Mostly because of terrible buttheart, somehow inflicted by my posts. All this dumb trolling is very annoying for me also, I would greatly prefer those who do not care about my ideas to just ignore my threads, but what can you do? NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Concealed Weapon has been confirmed to be ... > > > Cool quote: > > "But earlier in this post it's pointed out that although Mr. > Garfield intended Concealed Weapon to be disciplineless, VTES has > evolved to the point to where making CW so would harm the game more > than help it." > Right. Concealed Weapon was meant to be discipline-less. There were 5 sets released without Concealed Weapon in the game. Hence the concerns about harming the game in your quote. When Concealed Weapon was reprinted, it had extra restrictions that allayed those concerns.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > When Concealed Weapon was reprinted, it had extra restrictions that allayed those concerns. > Thanks, the part where original CW was less restrictive, was missed by me. NC Russia