Slaves

Can we drop the rule that Slaves cannot perform D actions untill you control their masters? Fix or ban on tupdogs will be required ofcourse. -1 Strength

Why? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Why? > In short: to make gargoyle vampires matter. It is possible to make a competitive deck with hatchlings. It is possible to make a competitive deck with rockcats and mages. It is possible to make a competitive deck with tupdogs. If you're not playing the above decks, it's probably better to play gangrel or brujah then to try and make a slave gargoyle deck. If you take away the slave D action rule, they'd be on par with gangrel and people could have fun mixing and matching indy/slave gargoyles. You can still add tremere, but you don't NEED to. The main reason this thread exists is because I tried to make a group 5-6 slave gargoyle deck tonight and saw the lame/expensive options I had in group 5-6 (!)tremeres. I was also dissapointed LoK gargoyle cards where mostly slave oriented and did not use the storyline where Gargoyles rebelled and became free. Removing the D action slave rule would imo. make gargoyles as a clan equally competitive to other clans although tupdogs will need addressing. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > Removing the D action slave rule would imo. make gargoyles as a clan equally competitive to other clans although tupdogs will need addressing. > I put forward one semi-elegant-ish way of doing that: www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/74734-bloodlines-gargoyles#75569 , which is essentially to keep the ban (D) actions in the first turn they're out only. So Tupdogs still need a master to do useful stuff, but others can probably get by.

If you would do this then you would need to rebalance all slave gargoyles, because then slave would be purely strong beneficial trait and they would all need a point taken out from somewhere else.

> Klaital wrote: > If you would do this then you would need to rebalance all slave gargoyles, because then slave would be purely strong beneficial trait and they would all need a point taken out from somewhere else. > In the situation where slave didn't require a master, I'm not sure that the benefits would ever really materialize, because people wouldn't play them together. Complicating your crypt with incompatible disciplines is usually a real pain in the ass. I suspect that what you'd get in reality the majority of the time in the best performing Gargoyle decks is just some of the slaves being used alongside some of the non-slave vampires for their compatible disciplines and abilities. And yes, some of the slave Gargoyles would be a bit of a bargain, but not really on a worse scale than quite a few other clans have a few really tasty vampires who feel undercosted compared to their fellows.

Instead of overruling the entirity of the slave trait, maybe the best course of action would be a support card, in form of a crypt card, like anarch convert, who absolves slaves from being incapable of acting without their masters, or a master or event card with similar wording? We've seen one-card-wonders before, to make a given bloodline or clan or even a concept work. On general releasing a card is more complicated than errata-ing a trait, but removing a negative effect in itself should haven been compensated by the need of crypt or library spaces. NC of Hungary ///

> GreyB wrote: > The main reason this thread exists is because I tried to make a group 5-6 slave gargoyle deck tonight and saw the lame/expensive options I had in group 5-6 (!)tremeres. I was also dissapointed LoK gargoyle cards where mostly slave oriented and did not use the storyline where Gargoyles rebelled and became free. > So it's more a crypt issue with g5-6 Tremere/!Tremere. Since those groups are still missing vampires, it should improve. I am not convinced by your arguments: some Gargoyles are slave, it's a restriction you have to take into account and that is part of the game. You can't just remove all restrictions to make decks easier to build. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Klaital wrote: > > If you would do this then you would need to rebalance all slave gargoyles, because then slave would be purely strong beneficial trait and they would all need a point taken out from somewhere else. > > > In the situation where slave didn't require a master, I'm not sure that the benefits would ever really materialize, because people wouldn't play them together. Complicating your crypt with incompatible disciplines is usually a real pain in the ass. > > I suspect that what you'd get in reality the majority of the time in the best performing Gargoyle decks is just some of the slaves being used alongside some of the non-slave vampires for their compatible disciplines and abilities. And yes, some of the slave Gargoyles would be a bit of a bargain, but not really on a worse scale than quite a few other clans have a few really tasty vampires who feel undercosted compared to their fellows. > By that logic, vampires shouldn't pay anything for out of clan discplines either since they will mostly be played with other vampires of the same clan and wouldn't use those out of clans anyway.

> Ankha wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > The main reason this thread exists is because I tried to make a group 5-6 slave gargoyle deck tonight and saw the lame/expensive options I had in group 5-6 (!)tremeres. I was also dissapointed LoK gargoyle cards where mostly slave oriented and did not use the storyline where Gargoyles rebelled and became free. > > > So it's more a crypt issue with g5-6 Tremere/!Tremere. Since those groups are still missing vampires, it should improve. > > I am not convinced by your arguments: some Gargoyles are slave, it's a restriction you have to take into account and that is part of the game. You can't just remove all restrictions to make decks easier to build. > I agree with this. I've recently seen a lot of people on these forums suggesting drastic alteration to game mechanics to make certain strategies more viable at the tournament level. It's like people forget that casual play is a thing and that a lot of non-tournament-viable strategies work fine (and are fun) in casual play (one example being the slave mechanic). Is everyone's playgroup so cutthroat that fun decks aren't an option, and now we have to resort to drastic changes to game mechanics so people can play different decks? I really don't get it.

I like the slave mechanic. I see on reason to practically remove it from the game with the topic suggestion. If groups 5-6 need more practical vampires to support the slaves, then lets introduce those. Don't have to make the keyword meaningless. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I love Gargoyles. I've kept a non-slave Gargoyle deck built in some incarnation for more than 8 years. As of HttB, I gained AstheCrow, BrickbyBrick, and went from owning 1 rockcat to like 5. So from like mid February 2010 until 3months ago, Ferox, Erinyi , Obsidian and 1copy of Fidus sere always in a deck assembled. It sucked. Terribly. But I'm a fan, so it existed. In June something happened; LK came out and with it 1 additional non-slave Gargoyle. Handsome Dan grouped with Alabastrom (who I'd picked up extras of outside of the costly In the States Anthology) and Malachai (I totally pulled at least 10 of him in heirs). With those 3 and Andre Laroux and or Rusticus, multiple decks are possible. Gargoyles haven't WON anything recently, but they are gradually popping up in TWD reports in final tables as anarch gargoyle decks. So, the problem isn't the slave rule; the problem is crypt options. Or lack of them. I was sad only Dan was non slave in LK. Frankly, a few library cards from LK /HttB(children of stone and Voices of the Castle) keep you from dying easy, and without anarch tech and retainers with either guns or P Strength, you're hosed. Group 6 and 2 have 3 non slaves each. If Roccia got 2 buddies, there would be 3 different crypts to use. Slave rule is whatever, Gargoyles need 2 more crypt cards (actually, they need ADV versions of some G2 slaves turned not slaves too...) and a card or 2 that gives perma-strength and a reaction that is an untap st vasic and +1 intercept against a non-flying minion at superior, and they're good. With the metaplot events of V5, slave Gargoyles probably are rarer than Nagaraja at this point. (I'll be posting a metaplot rundown this upcoming week probably. ) I agree that non slave gargoyles need help and could be way better supported. I don't agree with your remedy, and a convert style fix could be ok.

There would be no crypt problems for a pure gargoyle deck when you remove the stupid restrictive and ridiculously expensive slave rule. Gargoyles would be fixed right away. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > There would be no crypt problems for a pure gargoyle deck when you remove the stupid restrictive and ridiculously expensive slave rule. Gargoyles would be fixed right away. > The problem with Gargoyles is not the slave rule, its that their discplines don't really lend to much other than combat. Which is why the slave rule actually makes them better, since you can then have Tremere with Dominate to give you the ousting power you need, with the gargoyles protecting them.

> Klaital wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > There would be no crypt problems for a pure gargoyle deck when you remove the stupid restrictive and ridiculously expensive slave rule. Gargoyles would be fixed right away. > > > The problem with Gargoyles is not the slave rule, its that their discplines don't really lend to much other than combat. Which is why the slave rule actually makes them better, since you can then have Tremere with Dominate to give you the ousting power you need, with the gargoyles protecting them. > To elaborate, having to play a incompatible clan alongside your gargoyles is a huge cost in pool and time, basically your behind 2 rounds before the game even starts when you choose to play slave gargoyles. Then you have the problem that when anyone succeeds in eradicating your slave masters, you will be dead in the water, you lost all ousting capabilities, this is a huge weakness. This cost would be justified if there was a fantastic benefit, but there isn't, even being able to play deflect isn't beneficial enough to justify the costs. And if you rely on tremeres to bleed and gargoyles to combat, it's simply MUCH better to play gangrel or brujah or any other clan that can combat really... LK made a great attempt to add value to slave gargoyles, but you'd still be behind 2 rounds. What Gargoyles needed most was crypt acceleration and cards that would still be useful with and without slave masters (the majority of cards require slave masters or are wallpaper until you have a slave master on the table). Now in the future we can keep designing cards to avoid the D action slave rule like converts or slave masters in master form, or we can simply change the D action rule, which would be the easiest option and beats adding trash to your deck to be able to play competitively. Options thusfar. 1.) Remove the D action rule and fix tupogs. 2.) Replace the D action rule -- 1.) Only affects slave 1 turn after entering play. -- 2.) D actions cost 1 extra blood unless you have a slave master 3.) Add exceptionally powerful cards that justify the slave/master cost 4.) Avoid the D action rule by adding convert mechanics. -1 Strength

Maybe you just haven't made the right kind of decks? Because I have seen plenty of success with a deck consisting of small dom tremere and few choice gargoyles (and create gargoyles) that will wreck anyone who blocks your dom tremere when they bleed. Create Gargoyles worked especially great since could give them dominate also.

> Klaital wrote: > Maybe you just haven't made the right kind of decks? Because I have seen plenty of success with a deck consisting of small dom tremere and few choice gargoyles (and create gargoyles) that will wreck anyone who blocks your dom tremere when they bleed. Create Gargoyles worked especially great since could give them dominate also. > Or tupdogs, or rockcats, or hatchlings... Why even bother with Gargoyles like Alabastrom, Chalcedony, Chaundice etc. my point exactly. Just because 4 cards allow you to make a few good decks doesn't mean the gargoyles as a clan isn't broken. It's like saying; 'the only way to play with Gangrels is to use Renegade Garous or just Stanislava'. ps. I've played all conceivable Gargoyle decks for the last 8 years, I have played the 'right' decks. -1 Strength

Thinking about it more, the main thing I would like Gargoyles to get is a master: dicpline card for Visceratika. its just way too annoying to teach superior to the smaller gargoyles as it is. Also, Chaundice is actually pretty sweet, she is sabbat so you can just put regent and eternal vigilance on her with some of the permacept that gargoyles have abundance of to have really solid defense.

> Klaital wrote: > Thinking about it more, the main thing I would like Gargoyles to get is a master: dicpline card for Visceratika. its just way too annoying to teach superior to the smaller gargoyles as it is. > This. The slave rule is fine, Gargoyles are (mostly) fine... except that they really could use *some* new mechanism for gaining superor Vis in a reasonable fashion. Sure, you can use Sanguine Instruction / Field Instruction (but that needs another Gargoyle with superior). Maybe a Tre/!Tre action card? Would be thematic, too ("let's improve on this thing we've built!") ...and of course, G5/G6 Tremere / !Tremere support still has holes, but that's partly a separate issue. Having more non-slave Gargoyle options would be cool, of course.

> Klaital wrote: > Create Gargoyles worked especially great since could give them dominate also. > 'Them' ? You mean 'it' right? you could only have one out at a time, it's a vampire and not 'non-unique'

> narpassword wrote: > > > Klaital wrote: > > Create Gargoyles worked especially great since could give them dominate also. > > > 'Them' ? > > You mean 'it' right? you could only have one out at a time, it's a vampire and not 'non-unique' > You might want to read the card more closely because it specifically says it is non-unique.

> Klaital wrote: > > > narpassword wrote: > > > > > Klaital wrote: > > > Create Gargoyles worked especially great since could give them dominate also. > > > > > > > > 'Them' ? > > > > You mean 'it' right? you could only have one out at a time, it's a vampire and not 'non-unique' > > > You might want to read the card more closely because it specifically says it is non-unique. > I must have to read a lot closer sorry- edit: the cardlist download csv file seems to cut off: "+1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile vampire. Put this card into play; it represents a 2-capacity slave Gargoyle of the same sect enslaved to the acting vampire's clan with basic Visceratika [vis] and flight [FLIGHT]. You may search your hand, librar" Txt file has the complete text: Name: Create Gargoyle [BL:U2, LoB:R, HttB:PGar] Cardtype: Action Clan: Tremere/Tremere antitribu Cost: 2 pool +1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile vampire. Put this card into play; it represents a 2-capacity slave Gargoyle of the same sect enslaved to the acting vampire's clan with basic Visceratika [vis] and flight [FLIGHT]. You may search your hand, library and/or ash heap for a master: Discipline to place on this Gargoyle. Move up to 3 blood from the acting vampire to this Gargoyle. This Gargoyle cannot act this turn. Artist: Durwin Talon Still not seeing 'non-unique' there. Can you tell me where you are seeing 'non-unique'? as that would mean including them in my gargoyle deck may be worthwhile - cheers.

Thats weird, that might be a misprint because the bloodlines version of the card says it is not unique, they shortened the text on the card al ot in the newer printing and I guess they accidently cut that out. Here is the full text written from the Bloodlines Create Gargoyle card. +1 stealth action Put this card into play. This card represents a slave Gargoyle vampire (enslaved to the acting vampires clan) with 2 capacity, basic Visceratika and Flight . You may go through your hand, library, and ash heap to find a Master: Discpline card and place it on this Gargoyle. Move up to 3 blood from the acting vampire to this Gargoyle. This Gargoyle is the same sect as the acting vampire and is not unique. This Gargoyle cannot act this turn.

Crypt cards are unique by default. Library cards are not unique by default. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> narpassword wrote: > the cardlist download csv file seems to cut off: > I downloaded them, they are not truncated. www.vekn.net/card-lists Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Crypt cards are unique by default. Library cards are not unique by default. > Ah right - so the other breed cards that say 'non-unique' are just reminding us? that's a tad confusing. > Ankha wrote: > > > narpassword wrote: > > the cardlist download csv file seems to cut off: > > > I downloaded them, they are not truncated. www.vekn.net/card-lists > I downloaded them - create gargoyle was cut off for me. https://www.screencast.com/t/qhPnQAVlXd

> narpassword wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Crypt cards are unique by default. Library cards are not unique by default. > > > Ah right - so the other breed cards that say 'non-unique' are just reminding us? > that's a tad confusing. > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > narpassword wrote: > > > the cardlist download csv file seems to cut off: > > > > > I downloaded them, they are not truncated. www.vekn.net/card-lists > > > I downloaded them - create gargoyle was cut off for me. > https://www.screencast.com/t/qhPnQAVlXd > I think they changed the base rules to make all library cards non-unique by default fairly late, so the older sets before that have everything saying 'non-unique'

> Klaital wrote: > > > narpassword wrote: > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > Crypt cards are unique by default. Library cards are not unique by default. > > > > > > > > Ah right - so the other breed cards that say 'non-unique' are just reminding us? > > that's a tad confusing. > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > narpassword wrote: > > > > the cardlist download csv file seems to cut off: > > > > > > > I downloaded them, they are not truncated. www.vekn.net/card-lists > > > > > > > > I downloaded them - create gargoyle was cut off for me. > > https://www.screencast.com/t/qhPnQAVlXd > > > I think they changed the base rules to make all library cards non-unique by default fairly late, so the older sets before that have everything saying 'non-unique' > Yea -the txt file still has non-unique for some others. Sounds like more need to be updated. Name: The Embrace [Jyhad:R2, VTES:R, CE:R2, KoT:R] Cardtype: Action Cost: 2 blood +1 stealth action. Requires a ready non-Sterile vampire. Put this card in play; it becomes a non-unique vampire with 1 capacity of the same clan as the acting vampire. This vampire must hunt this turn. Artist: Pete Venters; Mark Nelson Name: Third Tradition: Progeny AKA: The Third Tradition: Progeny [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U, KoT:U] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 blood +1 stealth action. Requires a ready non-Sterile prince or justicar. Put this card in play; it becomes a non-unique 1-capacity vampire of the same clan as the acting vampire. You may go through your library (shuffle afterward), ash heap or hand to find a Discipline card for this vampire. Move up to 2 blood from the acting vampire to this vampire. This vampire cannot take any actions this turn. Artist: L. A. Williams; Julie Collins

> Klaital wrote: > I think they changed the base rules to make all library cards non-unique by default fairly late, so the older sets before that have everything saying 'non-unique' > No, they always have been non-unique. The "non-unique" part on some cards is redundant (but if it's says "unique", it's not redundant, but mandatory). > narpassword wrote: > I downloaded them - create gargoyle was cut off for me. > https://www.screencast.com/t/qhPnQAVlXd > Don't use Excel to open CSV files - it truncates the data displayed by default. If you open it with a text editor, you'll see that the text is not truncated. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Crypt cards are unique by default. Library cards are not unique by default. > While I understand what you are trying to do, I think cards that create new vampires should still include the words "not unique" for clarity's sake. You are, after all, creating vampires; and vampires are mostly unique in this game. A beginning player may wonder this very same question if he/she comes across these, and having it read on the card avoids confusion. I feel that the contradiction between standard vampire cards warrants this reminder text. For any other library cards we don't need the reminder (unless the card is actually unique). Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech