Hello,
If I remember correctly, Seeds of Corruption was banned mostly for "technical" reasons, i.e. it was not always clearly defined what its effects would be when played. This was before the new rulebook was released.
Now that we have a new rulebook, which in particular gives a clear definition of a card's "text box", would it be possible/desirable to revert the ban of Seeds of Corruption?
> Text box: The area containing a vampire’s sect (Camarilla in this case), title, special abilities or other attributes.
>
For example, the card text could be updated as follows.
> Name: Seeds of Corruption
> [AH:U5, CE:PTr2]
> Cardtype: Action
> Cost: 2 blood
> Discipline: Blood Sorcery
> +1 stealth action.
> [tha] Put this card on one of your prey's vampires. If the vampire is a Minister, he or she burns 2 additional blood when attempting an action; otherwise, he or she burns 1 additional blood when attempting an action. The vampire's special abilities cannot be used. The text box of the attached vampire is considered to contain only their sect and title. Any vampire(s) may burn this card with two +1 stealth actions.
> [THA] As above, but the vampire burns 2 additional blood when attempting an action; Ministers burn 3 additional blood.
>
This could of course give rise to strange interactions (such as removing Tariq's capacity restriction?), but given that the card can only be played on one's prey I do not think it would be a problem in practice.
Thoughts (betrayed)?
Emiliano "Sans Terre" - Wandering Player - Prince of Brussels
When it wasn't banned, it was rarely played.
When it was not banned and was played, it cost 2 blood to make someone's important vampire lose something vital to the function of the deck, and essentially hamstring them in a way that seldom helped further your game. They went empty fast, it took 2 actions to remove, and in general gave thier prey even more freedom than a sense dep would have (oh, I just have to snuff the guy who played sense dep?).
For the sane reason mind of a child and prison of the mind aren't good and shadowed eyes isn't much better, Seeds was a standard "dickery" sort of card that didn't advance the game of whoever played it 97% of the time it saw the light of day.
Compare it to the still legal but rarely played Blood of Sandman, which essentially gives you a shot at taking a Carna/neighbor John out of your list of problems, without removing the opportunity for your prey to go forward.
Seeds is the card you play if you want your prey to want to turn thier chair towards you for the rest of that round, and/or you want your grandprey to get the table with 0 pressure.
It was banned for the rulings nightmare it is, but I'd sooner encourage memories of mortality or PTO come back nerfed to blindspot/veles hunt levels (respectively) than any iteration of Seeds come back.
BCP seems to avoid making cards that encourage bad plays, I see no reason to change that now.
(Can you tell I've seen that card played?)
> emime wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > emime wrote:
> > >
> > > Thoughts (betrayed)?
> > >
> > It's a bad idea.
> >
> Maybe so! But how/why?
>
Remember that the ban list is for official VEKN sanctioned events only. If your group wants to play with SoC, go for it. If you want but your group does not because they cling to some digital banlist that's made to ensure tournament games don't timeout due to imbued events etc, try to see if they're willing to play one game with it. If it's not a problem for your group, there's nothing preventing you from bringing it back locally.
Just don't expect it to be brought back globally. The way V5 and legacy separation for VTES tournaments is being pushed we'll likely soon see much larger ban lists. Why spend time and effort on fine tuning one legacy card long banned and forgotten when at the same time one is aiming to ban everything but V5 for a new format.
It's just conservation of development time and the future design intent vs past design intent.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> Kilrauko wrote:
>
> The way V5 and legacy separation for VTES tournaments is being pushed we'll likely soon see much larger ban lists.
>
Not at all. The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Kilrauko wrote:
> >
> > The way V5 and legacy separation for VTES tournaments is being pushed we'll likely soon see much larger ban lists.
> >
> Not at all. The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.
>
Am I supposed to read this as "The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.".
Or am I supposed to assume BCP has given up plans to ban previous 12 versions of Govern the Unaligned alone for the future V5 format meaning the actual "massive ban lists" of "no cards that are not in V5" and "no versions of V5 cards that have been printed outside of V5" is no longer a thing and it's just the first. Because it will be a doozy due to fact even couple cards shoot it past the current one. Even if there's attempt to mask that behind one sentence instead listing all the cards.
In the vein of making game more presentable and current product compatible, I'm also assuming BCP and Paradox are not really fine with some of the current legacy cards, so they'll receive the Terrorists treatment before being included in some future V5 product or PoD. Again necessating a increase to the existing banlist. Or they'll be left ignored and eventually start to claim prices of hundreds thus eventually making news how "Mind Rape, a VTES card sells for 1000 dollars on ebay auction, now why do these players like to Mind Rape so much?"
With that logic, I'm assuming it's the former, as anything else deals with the future and as we all know, that beast is malleable. But please no promises of "Not at all.", I'd rather not be let down by them.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
Seriously, no reason to go on tangents (or to remind me what the ban list is for... LOL).
I am not particularly attached to Seeds of Corruption nor I necessarily want it back, and I liked ReverendRevolver's thoughtful explanations.
I just asked because - as you may remember - Ankha had said explicitly in the past that the card was banned "until the new rulebook is out, at least", so now that it is out, wanted to check whether there had been or there could be any new reflections.
Emiliano "Sans Terre" - Wandering Player - Prince of Brussels
> Kilrauko wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > Kilrauko wrote:
> > >
> > > The way V5 and legacy separation for VTES tournaments is being pushed we'll likely soon see much larger ban lists.
> > >
> > Not at all. The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.
> >
> Am I supposed to read this as "The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.".
>
It's what is written, yes.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> Or am I supposed to assume BCP has given up plans to ban previous 12 versions of Govern the Unaligned alone for the future V5 format meaning the actual "massive ban lists" of "no cards that are not in V5" and "no versions of V5 cards that have been printed outside of V5" is no longer a thing and it's just the first.
>
The first what?
There has never been any plan to ban previous prints. If you're disclosing info about the V5 format, I suggest you read again what was written.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> Because it will be a doozy due to fact even couple cards shoot it past the current one. Even if there's attempt to mask that behind one sentence instead listing all the cards.
>
> In the vein of making game more presentable and current product compatible, I'm also assuming BCP and Paradox are not really fine with some of the current legacy cards, so they'll receive the Terrorists treatment before being included in some future V5 product or PoD. Again necessating a increase to the existing banlist. Or they'll be left ignored and eventually start to claim prices of hundreds thus eventually making news how "Mind Rape, a VTES card sells for 1000 dollars on ebay auction, now why do these players like to Mind Rape so much?"
>
> With that logic, I'm assuming it's the former, as anything else deals with the future and as we all know, that beast is malleable. But please no promises of "Not at all.", I'd rather not be let down by them.
>
It looks like a random rant based on random assumptions.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Kilrauko wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kilrauko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way V5 and legacy separation for VTES tournaments is being pushed we'll likely soon see much larger ban lists.
> > > >
> > > Not at all. The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.
> > >
> > >
> > Am I supposed to read this as "The default format will still be the standard, and the ban list is not going to evolve because of the V5.".
> >
> It's what is written, yes.
>
> > Kilrauko wrote:
> > Or am I supposed to assume BCP has given up plans to ban previous 12 versions of Govern the Unaligned alone for the future V5 format meaning the actual "massive ban lists" of "no cards that are not in V5" and "no versions of V5 cards that have been printed outside of V5" is no longer a thing and it's just the first.
> >
> The first what?
> There has never been any plan to ban previous prints. If you're disclosing info about the V5 format, I suggest you read again what was written.
>
> > Kilrauko wrote:
> > Because it will be a doozy due to fact even couple cards shoot it past the current one. Even if there's attempt to mask that behind one sentence instead listing all the cards.
> >
> > In the vein of making game more presentable and current product compatible, I'm also assuming BCP and Paradox are not really fine with some of the current legacy cards, so they'll receive the Terrorists treatment before being included in some future V5 product or PoD. Again necessating a increase to the existing banlist. Or they'll be left ignored and eventually start to claim prices of hundreds thus eventually making news how "Mind Rape, a VTES card sells for 1000 dollars on ebay auction, now why do these players like to Mind Rape so much?"
> >
> > With that logic, I'm assuming it's the former, as anything else deals with the future and as we all know, that beast is malleable. But please no promises of "Not at all.", I'd rather not be let down by them.
> >
> It looks like a random rant based on random assumptions.
>
I'm just interpreting how the current Tournament rules, particulary 7.9 were and are worded. To Disclose something implies something being hidden in the first place, 7.9 seems to be quite public to me, I'll use forums confidental tag just in case;
This message contains confidential information
Now as I don't recall during White Wolf time there being mention of BCP printed cards, there has been deliberate addition to it. This is not a new addition.
It would be logical to limit V5 in same vein, which raises the above two roads. To have V5 format means the line has to be put somewhere, it has to be drawn and it means banning cardboard cards that are outside that line. By pure statistics, pre-V5 has decades worth of cards, V5 has years. More cards out then in. Larger ban lists, one for standard constructed unchanged at start, one massive for V5.
Now juggling two formats and balance is hard, hence there might be hypothetical future cards that are fine in the V5 format but require ban for standard constructed. Or there might be no such cards, but PoD future prints will eventually run to those "Terrorists" cards that require rework. Aka banlist grows.
If nothing is unbanned, the future is bigger banlists. Despite "not at all". I'm not saying that as a bad thing btw. People will play with what they want, always. But I'm sceptical on the "Not at all." due to above reasons all pointing the other direction.
The question was aimed whether or not BCP has made decision on the lines position and was that "Not at all" a indication for one direction or another. Or is the future still malleable and unknown as ever.
For the "rant", well, emime did put a link to the past, at least the words were more future proof back then. Or perhaps I'm just reading too much into things. It tends to happen when things are not disclosed and conclusions need to be drawn from the design intent and past.
But for the promises made BCP,
And it might be random rant, I tend to do that. Please don't take it personally, I'm after the concepts here.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
You might want to look at the reasons behind the new V5 format (one that probably won't even see much, if any, use) before going full folio hat...
No reason to try to see conspiracy where there ain't one!
Finnish Politics!