Bleed vs Burn

Was thinking about something I would do if I had any influence over the game. That would be: making there be a difference between bleed and burn. Currently, burn is used in place of 'discard' in most instances... except where it isn't used like on Revelations, Masque of Judas, Truth of Blood, Precision, Feline Saboteur, etc. Even though, according to the rulebook, these instances should be 'burn' as well: > When a card is "burned," it is placed into its owner's discard pile (the discard pile is called the "ash heap" for this reason). The ash heap can be examined by any player at any time. When a counter is "burned," it is returned to the blood bank (see Blood Bank and the Edge, sec 2.2). > Why? Consider VTES' older sibling: Magic. The designers of Magic have made 'lose life' distinct from 'damage'. Damage results in the loss of life, but effects that say 'target opponent loses 3 life' do not count as damage. These tiny differences create thematic and mechanical distinctions between the colors of Magic, particularly Black and Red. The color Black, which represents death, decay, corruption, disease, etc. is the domain of 'lose life' effects. Red, on the other hand, which represents fire, passion, anger, etc. is the premiere color for dealing direct damage (see the classic Lightning Bolt for example.) With VTES, playing up the distinction between burn vs bleed could and probably would result in different playstyles or archetypes. Some clans might be great at bleeding, whereas others focus on burning pool. Others might focus on moving pool to and from different cards like the 419 Operation of the Osebo. Furthermore, I think most 'costs' should be worded as 'spend' or 'pay' blood or pool, not burn. This would further allow for different effects. Both bleed and burn result in the loss of pool / blood, but they're ultimately different words for different triggers. 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.

I dont really get this post. There already is a huge difference between bleed and burn, and burn vs damage. Bleed comes as a result of a bleed action. And when you are burning pool, the damage comes from a non bleed action or effect? And in combat damage vs burn blood are completely different already, as damage can torporize a vampire and burning or losing blood cant. Or am I missing something? Prince of Joensuu, Finland

@Khormag: I think BC should emphasize that bleed != burn (pool). They could be / should be two different ousting methods, supporting different strategies, and thematically representing different things. Having bleeds come from bleed actions and burn come from some non-bleed action is not sufficiently different in my book. KRC is a glorified +2 bleed that requires stealth AND votes. By making the distinction between bleed vs burn, they can print effects that support each. It would allow them to produce cards that help weaker clans without needing to print some new version of Conditioning specifically for that clan / their disciplines. Just look at 419 Operation. It's a really neat way of reducing your prey's pool without saying bleed or burn. The word 'burn' is being used too generally, when it should be selectively applied to certain cards and effects. 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.

like Enticement? i dont think any more distinction needs to be made...? ive never had my prey try and flick or reduce enticement thinking it was a bleed.

I still dont get what you mean. There already exists plenty of cards to oust players other than bleeding. Such as Constant Revolution, Anarch Revolt, Smiling Jack, Antediluvian Awakening, Enticement, Fame etc. I think that it shows that this idea is already implemented in the game, and I would assume that its going to be seen in the future. So where is the problem? Burn is just universal term to use to tell that effect causes someone to lose something, I think its really unnecessary to add more and more new words to tell the same thing in a already complex game, just to get things more interesting in some obscure way? Losing pool is losing pool, why would you need million terms to tell that? Also saying that voting is just glorified bleeding, is really stupid and bad argument, because you could basically say that to everything. All the actions in VTES need stealth to success so everything is just bleeding?. You are basically saying that Fame is just glorified bleeding because you need the stealth to get to the combat with the right minion and strength to kill it?? They are completely different things... Prince of Joensuu, Finland

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it's a brilliant idea. It would open up a new piece of design space, but I can already sense the balance issues. There are a lot of effects that burn XYZ. I'd rather see cards that are more specific than that.

I am failing to communicate it seems... @Khormag, @narpassword: I think burning pool can be done in more fun, interesting, creative ways. The cards you guys named are some of the more powerful and iconic ones: * Constant Revolution - Burn X pool during unlock where X is number of counters on CR * Anarch Revolt - Burn 1 pool during unlock * Antediluvian Awakening - Burn 1 pool during unlock * Smiling Jack - Burn X pool during unlock where X is number of counters on SJ * Curse of Nitocris - Burn 1 pool during unlock * Judgement: Camarilla Segregation - Burn 1 pool during unlock Most of the cards that burn pool are Masters, Political, or disciplineless in some form. Pool is very abstract flavor-wise, and most cards that I see don't help paint a picture about what these vampires are doing. Like, why does Aching Beauty burn pool? I think Fame is interesting because its not so straight forward. The same goes for Tension In The Ranks. I also think highly of Army of Rats, Contagion, Burnt Offerings, and Diabolic Lure. Extortion is a cool card. So is Victim of Habit. Precision is underpowered but it has a neat idea behind it - a kind of gameplay that could be fun AND actually win. Perhaps I'm being overly harsh on KRC. When I say KRC is a glorified +2 bleed, I mean because the result is virtually the same, but more work is required. Your minion declares the action, there is the stealth/intercept check, then the referendum happens, and if all of that is successful, your prey now has 3 less pool. Fortunately, what makes KRC interesting is the referendum part. However, the result is immediate pool loss for your prey. Now, consider the implications if KRC said: > "If successful referendum, steal all Mortal retainers and allies target player controls unless that player chooses to contest them with you. If they choose to contest, turn this card facedown. It represents each of the contested Mortals together. The contest only costs you 1 pool." > This is a whole new card, and it may very well be a bad card, but the effect it has on the board state and the way in which it burns pool, the way it functions, is different than hitting someone for 3. Enticement has the same "problem" as KRC does, IMO. I mostly like the card, but functionally its a bleed for 3 or 4. At least it has things that make it unique: Costs blood, needs Serpentis, needs the Edge, restricts bleeding for the end of the round. I guess I'm asking to see more conditional and varied forms of pool damage. And more flavorful. Try this: [Cardname] Only usable during an equip action. If this action succeeds at 3 or more stealth, your prey burns half the cost (rounded up) of the equipment in pool instead of you. You may play action modifiers granting +stealth now, even if not needed. [Cardname] OR Put this card in play. The first time you look at a card or cards in your prey's hand during your turn, that player burns 1 pool. You can burn only 1 pool each turn with [cardname] cards. Breaking & Entering Lock a Location. That Location doesn't unlock during its controller's next two unlock steps. That player burns 1 pool. Lock a Location. That Location doesn't unlock during its controller's next unlock step and its text box is considered blank. That player burns 1 pool. 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.

Enticement inst interesting as an alternatice to bleed because of its similar result, its interesting because of the implications behind it not being a bleed: you can use it with the same minion you just bled with if you manage to unlock. you can use it to oust a stubborn flicker/bleed reducer who isnt able to block Im not sure what your examples add to the game other than exactly the same 'burn pool' that you seem to have an issue with - albeit with highly convoluted and unlikely to happen conditions. you ask 'why does aching beauty' force you to burn a pool flavour wise... but why, if i equip my AR at more stealth are you paying for half of it all of a sudden? why have something as confusing as breaking and entering when you could burn the location (or steal it) and then get rid of it permanently and stick to hitting your prey in other way? (or if youre gangrel, play rewilding to burn the location and 2 pool)

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Pool is very abstract flavor-wise, and most cards that I see don't help paint a picture about what these vampires are doing. Like, why does Aching Beauty burn pool? > Because the Toreador with Aching Beauty is so influential, cunning, and and charismatic that, even if you block them, they will still find some alternative way to chip away at your influence and resources? The interaction between burning pool and Aching Beauty paints a fine picture in my mind.

It's true that many of garfields cards are flavor light. He is good a creating game concepts and then filling the available game space but lacking in balance, flavor, etc. Influence is so abstract that there is no lore reason potence couldn't have +3 bleed modifiers. And how the hell does deflection work? How does the vampire have foreknowledge? Master spam? Might as well just have 12 cap vampires.

> Mewcat wrote: > And how the hell does deflection work? How does the vampire have foreknowledge?. > Unlike auspex flick - which feels like foreknowledge (or misdirection with some telepathy..ahem), I always thought of dominate flick to be something like 'you thought you were telling your minion what to do but HA! it was ME ALL ALONG! (only usable after blocks declined, because you wouldn't block yourself =p).

So we are to assume u just dominate all minions all the time? How u know what I'm doing and change it both? Seems pretty sketchy. Then we just use blind, deaf, or foreigners and no dominate.

> Mewcat wrote: > So we are to assume u just dominate all minions all the time? How u know what I'm doing and change it both? Seems pretty sketchy. > -________________- yea sure, i dominate you all the time.

That's one busy vampire.

> Mewcat wrote: > That's one busy vampire. > Welcome to the World of Darkness, buahahahaha! NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > That's one busy vampire. > > > Welcome to the World of Darkness, buahahahaha! > That most special of places where you see bats hitting someone in the balls and then suddenly there is a drive by flash banging. And EVERY SINGLE PERSON is being mind controlled. Truly magical.

> Mewcat wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > > Mewcat wrote: > > > That's one busy vampire. > > > > > > > > Welcome to the World of Darkness, buahahahaha! > > > That most special of places where you see bats hitting someone in the balls and then suddenly there is a drive by flash banging. And EVERY SINGLE PERSON is being mind controlled. > There are too much combat in present VtES. We have to do something about it, yes NC Russia

Let me try to reiterate and refine this idea: Currently it seems like most pool burn cards are Masters, Political Actions, or generally disciplinesless. In my honest opinion, I think the game would benefit if more cards required disciplines. The discipline system is VTES' "color pie". Certain effects appear in certain disciplines or combinations of disciplines. Dominate has the best +bleed. Obfuscate has the best and most +stealth. Auspex has the best and most +intercept. Etc. Etc. What discipline has the best burn pool cards? Burn is not something any discipline really specializes in, and thus is not something any specific clan really has as a unique or special won condition. Yes, some clans have some specific cards: Daughers have Choir, Torries have Aching Beauty, Nosferatu and Gangrel have Army of Rats, etc. But none of these really have that je ne sais quoi that comes from having a discipline be the source of the effect. Enticement is a great pool burn card but burn is not an effect that defines Serpentis. If there were differences between the terms "bleed", "burn", and "lose" (pool), certain effects could be made more specific to certain disciplines (this is desirable in my opinion.) Currently, according the the rulebook: bleed = burn = lose (pool) (this accordingly limits the design space for new cards.) I also think that the game would benefit if there was less emphasis on bleeding and more on stealing / burning Locations, Equipment, Minions, Retainers, and cards from hand / library - but this is tangential to the point (request) I'm trying to make. 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.

I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here, possibly because you're still being vague about what you're hoping to see, possibly because I'm dumb, possibly because both. I can't do much about the latter two, so I'll harp on the former: You say "If there were differences between the terms "bleed", "burn", and "lose" (pool)..." What specific differences would you want to see? Currently, the only difference between them is that there are cards that key to "bleed" but not "burn," such as action modifiers and reactions that modify the amount or target of bleeds. Are you hoping for cards that have similar bounce/reduce/increase effects specifically for cards that cause pool to burn, rather than bleeds?

This entire thread is odd. There's already a distinct difference between bleed and burn. For example we could create a card like this: Un-Archonabe. Costs 1 blood [dai] Bleed with +2 bleed. [DAI] Bleed with +2 bleed, if this bleed is successful the target burns one additional pool. The bleed is still for 3, the target looses 4 pool and you can't be archon'd — seems like the distinction is already there. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I think he is pointing out potential areas for development. Not that burn pool isn't a thing but that it a scarcely used.

Actually all such topics are about one thing - deep frustration VtES "imbues" in it's players, by conflict of rock solid core of the game and crappy illogical mechanics, rulings and other enelegant stuff, which are built on top of it. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Actually all such topics are about one thing - deep frustration VtES "imbues" in it's players, by conflict of rock solid core of the game and crappy illogical mechanics, rulings and other enelegant stuff, which are built on top of it. > Elotar bringing the truth. It's the dread of seeing something once beautiful that has been allowed to become grotesque and idiotic. You become bound to it because if you cant help something as simple and meaningless as a ccg to reach its potential what hope do we have? Or something... You did forget that for many years the development team was a room full of monkeys throwing cards.

> elotar wrote: > Actually all such topics are about one thing - deep frustration VtES "imbues" in it's players, by conflict of rock solid core of the game and crappy illogical mechanics, rulings and other enelegant stuff, which are built on top of it. > however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all. The best thing for the health of the game itself is probably a full, hard reset. We'd have better mechanics and better design if that happenend. But this option is also untenable as the player base has made it very clear that they dont want to replace their collections.

> self wrote: > > however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all. > That is a manipulative statement - first during last couple decades, while the game was in a "stasis", you've removed from player base everybody, who is not deeply financially or/and emotionally invested into the game in it's present state , then you are saying that "majority of the player base do not want change". It's, actually, are two manipulations in one post, because you are implying fallacy "best for the game is a hard reboot -> we are not going to do it -> game should stay as is" NC Russia

Yea, after players that want change have left we say that change is not wanted. Let's not pretend that the current playerbase is robust and that change may not add more players than are lost.

As a rather new player, having played about 2 years now, I don't really see any huge problems in the game that would need a complete reboot to fix. Only real issue I see, is the inconsistency in some rules interactions and wording of cards that allow these inconsistencies, but these are easily fixable with new and updated card text. That is something that is being done in multiple games all the time. Like, look at Magic for example. There has been multiple major rules overhauls in some pretty relevant parts of the game, and no reboot needed. Most of the problems with VTES now are completely fixable in similar ways. Considering the changes to the cards etc, I cant really say anything, as I have only experience one major change that is the coming change to Pentex, and if you ask me, I don't really care, as its kind of a minor change in the end. Other than that, all the new cards brought to the game by BCP have been great, the products are excellent and the direction seems healthy and well thought out. I wouldn't worry about them ruining the game as from what I understand the people making the changes are well educated, smart and have the understanding of the game to make the changes. Prince of Joensuu, Finland

> Kushiel wrote: > You say "If there were differences between the terms "bleed", "burn", and "lose" (pool)..." > What specific differences would you want to see? Currently, the only difference between them is that there are cards that key to "bleed" but not "burn," such as action modifiers and reactions that modify the amount or target of bleeds. Are you hoping for cards that have similar bounce/reduce/increase effects specifically for cards that cause pool to burn[/b], rather than bleeds? > Yes, you are understanding me here. Because every bleed results in "burning pool" which is also a "loss of pool", printing an effect that keys off / triggers / looks for instances of pool burning / etc. requires some extra wording, usually some kind of "only usable during a non-bleed action" (or similar) clause. Does that make sense? > Ke. wrote: > This entire thread is odd. There's already a distinct difference between bleed and burn. For example we could create a card like this: > > Un-Archonabe. > Costs 1 blood > [dai] Bleed with +2 bleed. > [DAI] Bleed with +2 bleed, if this bleed is successful the target burns one additional pool. > > The bleed is still for 3, the target looses 4 pool and you can't be archon'd — seems like the distinction is already there. > But you could not have a card say, "Whenever a minion burns 3 or more pool from your prey, that minion gains 1 blood." without also adding something about "from a non-bleed action", because any bleed of 3 or more "burns" pool. > mewcat wrote: > I think he is pointing out potential areas for development. Not that burn pool isn't a thing but that it a scarcely used. > Yes, this is it exactly. > elotar wrote: > That is a manipulative statement - first during last couple decades, while the game was in a "stasis", you've removed from player base everybody, who is not deeply financially or/and emotionally invested into the game in it's present state , then you are saying that "majority of the player base do not want change". > That's an interesting and insightful observation. It seems obvious, yet I didn't see it until you pointed it out. > selfbiased wrote: > however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all. > This is what I don't understand. BC changed something that was likely to upset many players, a very strong and popular card, and yet so much card board exists that no one uses in their decks due to it being unplayable, is left untouched? I look at my box full of Aura of Invincibility and think: "This could have been great if it was / and had a stronger effect." > Khormag wrote: > Other than that, all the new cards brought to the game by BCP have been great, the products are excellent and the direction seems healthy and well thought out. I wouldn't worry about them ruining the game as from what I understand the people making the changes are well educated, smart and have the understanding of the game to make the changes. > I agree with this, mostly. Their new card designs are mostly in the right spot. They have some hits, but also misses. I don't like the decision to errata certain iconic cards unless they were also going to errata the tons of wallpaper that exists, and I would prefer they do the latter rather than the former. And I find it strange they they are so bold - they'll change iconic cards like Pentex - yet almost timid when it comes to pushing the power-level of their new cards. I think the game going forward would prosper if potential areas were explored, developed, etc. The idea of making burn (pool) more distinct from bleed is on par with developing (really emphasizing and exploring the mechanical differences between) the Camarilla and Sabbat. 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: > > > self wrote: > > > > however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all. > > > That is a manipulative statement - first during last couple decades, while the game was in a "stasis", you've removed from player base everybody, who is not deeply financially or/and emotionally invested into the game in it's present state , then you are saying that "majority of the player base do not want change". > my intent was to show that there are several camps of thought with regard to the health of the game overall, and none of these different groups want the same thing, though there is some overlap in the big picture. What one group wants and thinks is 'best' for the overall health of the game, other groups are opposed to it (and for them would be THE DEATH OF THE GAME). Just look at all of the recent salt and vitriol that was tossed around before and after the Pentex Subversion errata. The most recent errata have shown how divided the community at large is over... well, everything. Even you and I, Elotar, it feels like we agree on the big picture stuff and the broad strokes when it comes to Vtes. However, when it comes down the fine details on how to fix whatever detail we're looking at, we end up on disagreeing. it's that division and how complex it is was what I was referring to. > It's, actually, are two manipulations in one post, because you are implying fallacy "best for the game is a hard reboot -> we are not going to do it -> game should stay as is" > you say 'manipulation,' but i'm not trying to mislead anyone, but I think you might be conflating the health of the game as its own entity, and the health of the community comprised of the people who play the game. The two are related and certainily have a deep effect on each other. Ideally a healthy game environment for Vtes would be one where a player could use a variety of different tools to create a deck archetype to suit their playstyle, and no one set of tools or archetype has a clear best-in-slot dominance in the meta. A healthy game environment makes for happy players, who will want to play the game and buy new product. I feel that Vtes's game environment is stable, but has some changes that could be made to make the game environment better. This is the "rock solid core of the game and crappy illogical mechanics, rulings and other enelegant stuff, which are built on top of it." point that you make, and I agree with you 100%. I personally feel that a hard reset is the best option to ensure the health of the game environment, despite it being a very minority opinion within the community. Reading threads here on the forum and in the facebook groups has shown me that many players in the community would be extremely upset if a hard reset were implemented. some worry about the value of their collections, others would see it as a cynical cash grab, others would shrug and continue playing the old game instead of the new one, some would ragequit the game, and the rest would presumably follow into the new game. But in the big picture, is it worth it to potentially harm the community so significantly with such sweeping changes? In the end, I personally come to the conclusion that it is not, despite my feelings that there are changes that need to happen. > LivesByProxy wrote: > > > selfbiased wrote: > > however, at the same time there is a significant portion of the player base that seemingly doesn't want to fix the stuff that doesnt work well, or at all. > > > This is what I don't understand. BC changed something that was likely to upset many players, a very strong and popular card, and yet so much card board exists that no one uses in their decks due to it being unplayable, is left untouched? I look at my box full of Aura of Invincibility and think: "This could have been great if it was / and had a stronger effect." > The common refrain I've heard regarding issuing errata to old wallpaper cards, is that even if they errata the card, the old version of the card still exists and would confuse people or otherwise cause problems somehow. At least, that's what I see people claim. It seems weird to me that people to feel so strongly about cards that claim are junk. Can't errata them because that would be confusing! Why bother banning them or eliminating them from the card pool when nobody uses them? I don't have an answer to this. And honestly, I'm pretty far afield from the topic so I'll stop here before getting a stern look from Kraus. Modedit\\ Moderation is sad for the missed Iron Glare reference.

Old versions of the cards already given an errata have existed for years on end and I do not remember people complaining much about them. Say, Majesty anybody? On a similar note: Copies of banned cards still exist. Ain't that problematic? Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Old versions of the cards already given an errata have existed for years on end and I do not remember people complaining much about them. > We have a new player that is a bit confused by the mix of old versions / new versions of Majesty. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Lönkka wrote: > Old versions of the cards already given an errata have existed for years on end and I do not remember people complaining much about them. > > Say, Majesty anybody? > > On a similar note: > Copies of banned cards still exist. Ain't that problematic? > > Ankha wrote: > We have a new player that is a bit confused by the mix of old versions / new versions of Majesty. > Both sides of the argument have merit, but without some kind of card pool rotation in place or at least an indicator printed on the card that can show what is the newest version is, things are always going to be sticky.

> self wrote: > my intent was to show that there are several camps of thought with regard to the health of the game overall, and none of these different groups want the same thing, though there is some overlap in the big picture. What one group wants and thinks is 'best' for the overall health of the game, other groups are opposed to it > Obviously there are different opinions - it's normal for any shared human activity. The key problem, as I see it, is that "doing nothing group" most of the time was forcing it's will on the whole community, because, obviously, its much harder to advocate for the change than against it even when the game is abandoned and it's only fellow players you have to convince. As a result most other groups are leaving (actually - have already left) the game or, in rare cases of dedicated individuals, start the topics such as this one. Hight end tournament crowd is fine and is quite important for any serious game, but all other groups are also important, especially for a vampire urban fantasy. By the way, to somehow return to the initial topic - the idea of losing pool was present in the original game in the form of Army of rats card, which was cumulative at the time, opening alternative way of win for animalism decks. But they was actually changed into irrelevance as the card is now. So, obviously, not all change is good NC Russia

The best thing I ever saw in a ccg was when 7th sea ccg errata/most recent printing a whole bunch of unplayable cards. The manner is which it was done was elegant. The cards all did what they did before and also had a second option to play them as so that if you had an old copy it did what it said, there was just another mode on the card too. Not sure if this would extend to vtes but anyway. It was a nice way they added value to your collection. As it stands currently if you split your collection into playable boxes and junk boxes you would have more junk boxes. Collection isn't really worth much, just takes up a lot of space.