The announcement of the upcoming Rebellion expansion may mean that
this question has already been settled, for the time being... but
anyway...
A discussion a few weeks ago about Anarchs included, among other
things, a little bit of debate about out-of-the-box Anarchs. The two
sides are basically "Just go ahead and print them, already" and
"Anarch is distinct from other traits because of how it is acquired,
let's maintain that distinctness".
Things usually not being exactly black-and-white, there's some middle
ground here. One option proposed was (a small number of) vampires
that, per special text, could go Anarch by burning some blood or pool
and/or tapping during some appropriate window. Another was (a small
number of) 4-cap Anarchs, possibly one standard-disciplined 4-cap from
each clan, that ignored the grouping requirements.
It seems like vampires that ignore the grouping rules (I'll call them
group 0) are a design possibility that will eventually be exploited,
if the game lives long enough. Putting user-friendly Anarchs there
would be a mistake, though, at least if you believe maintaining
distinct mechanisms for distinct traits is desireable. It would
change the Anarch trait from one that requires effort to acquire into
the most readily available in the game. (Imagine a bunch of group 0
Seraphs, one from each clan, or Princes, or...) And from the
standpoint of needing to keep printing and selling new cards, a bunch
of group 0 Anarchs would be a one-shot, unrepeatable thing that would
also weigh against the later release of grouped ootb Anarchs.
Here's another angle for having ootb Anarchs that wouldn't genericize
the trait too much (in my opinion, which is grounded in trying to
respect the trait's distinctness).
Alice, Thin-blood Anarch
Caitiff, capacity 2, group 2
Independent, Anarch. Thin-blood Anarchs are not unique. When this
Alice enters play, choose a discipline; this Alice may play cards
requiring an Anarch as though she had that discipline at the basic
level. During your untap phase, burn 2 pool if you do not control an
older, ready, unique Anarch.
Bill, Thin-blood Anarch
Caitiff, capacity 2, group 4
Independent, Anarch. Thin-blood Anarchs are not unique. When Bill
enters play you may search you hand, library or ash heap for a Master:
Discipline card and place it on him. During your untap phase, burn 2
pool if you do not control an older, ready, unique Anarch.
Cathy, Thin-blood Anarch
Caitiff, capacity 2, group 6
Independent, Anarch. Thin-blood Anarchs are not unique. Once per
turn, Alice may play a card requiring an Anarch as though she had any
one discipline at the basic level. During your untap phase, burn 2
pool if you do not control an older, ready, unique Anarch.
etc.
On Jan 28, 10:42 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> It seems like vampires that ignore the grouping rules (I'll call them
> group 0) are a design possibility that will eventually be exploited,
> if the game lives long enough. Putting user-friendly Anarchs there
> would be a mistake, though, at least if you believe maintaining
> distinct mechanisms for distinct traits is desireable.
Assuming fairly generic "G0", 4 cap anarchs, you'd still need to have
other non anarch vampires that have useful disciplines go anarch.
Having the start out anarch, however, saves you a blood (by giving you
that leg up) and lets you play some cards defensively even if you
can't go anarch with your other guys for whatever reason.
> It would
> change the Anarch trait from one that requires effort to acquire into
> the most readily available in the game. (Imagine a bunch of group 0
> Seraphs, one from each clan, or Princes, or...)
Why would we imagnie that? Why does making "G0" anarchs (which solves
an existing problem) equal making "G0" Seraphs of Princes (which
creates a new problem)?
-Peter
Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> It seems like vampires that ignore the grouping rules (I'll call them
> group 0) are a design possibility that will eventually be exploited,
> if the game lives long enough.
Just to be pedantic for no reason, "Group 0" would be a bad name for this :)
I would love to see some actual "Group 0" vampires by the canonical
rules for Grouping.
That is, some vampires that are only playable alongside group 1 (to
compete with the strengths of g2-3, especially with availability of
Indy/Sabbat/Laibon stuff).
[ quoted text not captured ]
There already are "GO" Princes. See Maxwell and Horatio Ballard.
They are not a problem.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Jozxyqk schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don´t really like the idea. Given that a lot of new players who will
buy new cards don´t have a good access to G1 Vampires. Also G1 is pretty
strong by itself.
It would be really awfull mixing old a new crypt designs, I am glad that
it is restricted to combining G2/3.
--
Johannes Walch
On Jan 28, 11:57 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> There already are "GO" Princes. See Maxwell and Horatio Ballard.
> They are not a problem.
No, no. Not "Go" Princes. "Group Zero" princes. As per the discussion
of "Group Zero" anarchs (i.e. vampires that are anarch out of the box
and no group number so they can go in any crypt, which Malone dubbed
"Group Zero"--vampires that are groupless and go in any crypt
regardless of group number).
Adding a bunch of "Group Zero" princes would arguably add a problem,
in that it would greatly increase the at start princes in any given
group (which might be irrelevant, but also michg be problematic,
depending on how it was done). Adding a bunch of "Group Zero" anarchs
might fix the going anarch problem.
-Peter
On 28 Jan., 18:15, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Jozxyqk schrieb:[ quoted text not captured ]
You know, new players might be more likely to own the G1 vampires in
the new layout (10th).
Just to be pedantic. :)
"Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a421a57-d66f-4a34...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Uhm, I've never played Anarchs (yet). Could someone explain why
> (apparently) Seattle Committee isn't a solution to this problem?
You have to draw it. How many will you put in the deck? If too many,
your deck is full of cards you don't need. If too few, how many games
will you play where the first one doesn't appear until, say, card #30
or #35? How bad will your game go when that happens?
It's The Parenthenon situation all over again. Only The Parenthenon
frequently gives you a decided enough advantage to be worthwhile. Is
the advantage of Seattle Committee likewise that advantageous? Few
think so.
Fred
> > It would
> > change the Anarch trait from one that requires effort to acquire into
> > the most readily available in the game. (Imagine a bunch of group 0
> > Seraphs, one from each clan, or Princes, or...)> Why would we imagnie that?
To illustrate how making a whole bunch of groupless TRAIT X vampires
would *radically* alter the nature of TRAIT X, making it pretty much
the easiest of all traits to incorporate in a crypt and be certain you
have access to it. Doing so with the Anarch trait would make it
functionally exactly the opposite of what it is now, which, I know, is
along the lines that you would prefer. But it's the opposite of
preserving a currently distinct feature of the Anarch trait, which I
made perfectly clear was where I was coming from.
On Jan 28, 11:09 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
maybe group 'infinity' then...
They probably shouldn't be groupless, because the occasional grouped
vampires that are misprinted without their group number would be
confused for the groupless ones. An infinity symbol where the group
number goes would solve that.
In message <y5CdnWV3W4i4YwDa...@comcast.com>, Jozxyqk
<jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes:
>Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote:>> It seems like vampires that ignore the grouping rules (I'll call them
>> group 0) are a design possibility that will eventually be exploited,
>> if the game lives long enough.>
>Just to be pedantic for no reason, "Group 0" would be a bad name for this :)
For this, were it implemented, I'd go for "Group U" - ungrouped, group
unlimited, whatever.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Jan 28, 1:27 pm, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> To illustrate how making a whole bunch of groupless TRAIT X vampires
> would *radically* alter the nature of TRAIT X, making it pretty much
> the easiest of all traits to incorporate in a crypt and be certain you
> have access to it. Doing so with the Anarch trait would make it
> functionally exactly the opposite of what it is now, which, I know, is
> along the lines that you would prefer. But it's the opposite of
> preserving a currently distinct feature of the Anarch trait, which I
> made perfectly clear was where I was coming from.
See, but it is a bad comparison. There is nothing that a (Prince or
Seraph) mechanic needs to fix them. The Anarch mechanic arguably needs
a fixing. Adding a handful of "Group Zero" or whatever pre existing
anarchs fixes a problem with the anarch mechanic (that it is too
costly to go anarch currently)--you have someone who can play cards
out of the gate, and it makes going anarch the hard way cheaper across
the board. Making them Group Zero (i.e. groupless) gives all group
pairs the ability to take advantage of this fix without adding
anything else significant to each group pair, assuming the Group Zero
pre packaged anarchs were fairly generic (i.e. 4 cap with 3 inclan
disciplines at inferior and inherrent anarch trait--are the Nosferatu
*really* going to benefit from getting a second Sammy?)
Adding "Group Zero" Princes or Seraphs increases the power of an
already effective group (i.e. Princes or Seraphs) by adding more of
the same to each group. It isn't a good example.
-Peter
On Jan 28, 10:42 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Here's another angle for having ootb Anarchs that wouldn't genericize
> the trait too much (in my opinion, which is grounded in trying to
> respect the trait's distinctness).
I think 1 or 2 ootb anarchs for even numbered groups is the way to
go.
There could really only be 1 vampire printed that was groupless to
prevent complications.
I like your weenie Caitiff/Pander idea, though one could use creative
text like "When [vamp X] is brought into play, you may lower his
capacity by one to give him the Anarch trait." or similar. For group
two shoe-horning considerations, the theoretical vampire could be from
a Scarce clan, since that mechanic mitigates the abuse potential. i.e.
Shecky DuBois
True Brujah
group 2
Capacity: 5 TEM pot pro tha
Independent. When Shecky is brought into play, you may lower his
capacity by one to give him the Anarch trait. He may not use cards
that require celerity [cel]. Scarce.
Winifred McGillicutty
Pander
group 4
Capacity: 6 OBT cel for tha
Sabbat. When Winifred is brought into play, you may lower her capacity
by one to make her Independent and give her the Anarch trait. Winifred
pays one less blood for cards that require Obtenebration [obt].
Or whatever (don't even start in on me about points and costing - I
didn't give it much consideration.You get the idea.)
In article
<0a421a57-d66f-4a34...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm, I've never played Anarchs (yet). Could someone explain why
> (apparently) Seattle Committee isn't a solution to this problem?
To piggyback on what Fred wrote, those who see a problem with the "go
anarch" mechanic (which isn't everyone, mind you, but it isn't at all
unusual to see folks critisizing the mechanic) generally feel that
filling your deck with cards that don't do anything other than let you
play some other cards in your deck is just too disadvantageous in the
long run to be worth the effort.
For example, if you need all your vampires to be anarchs (as you have a
lot of anarch tech in your deck--say you are relying on making multiple
Barons to pass votes and let you protect your Baron titles), and you
need them early and often (assume you want 4 vampires in play, and you
want all of them anarchs as soon as possible), you have some options,
none of which are great:
A) Include enough cards to make your guys anarch that you draw them
early and often--say, 12-13 slots dedicated to Galaric's Legacy, Go
Anarch, Seattle Committee. That is about 15% of your deck filled with
cards that don't do anything other than make you an anarch. And once all
of your vampires are anarchs, they don't even do that. So then you add a
few Power Base: LA so that you can cycle them out of your deck for a
handy untap. So then, let's say, you have 12 "go anarch" cards and 3
PB:LA (17% of your deck). You have a pretty good chance of having a go
anarch card in your opening hand, but also have a pretty good chance of
not ever seeing a PB:LA, and have a pretty good chance of not drawing
enough go anarch cards early enough anyway.
B) Include no go anarch tech at all, and plan on going anarch the hard
way. Saves deck space, costs blood and actions. Not necessarily a good
trade off.
In situations where you don't *need* to be an anarch immediately (i.e.
your anarch angle is limited in the deck), then you can add a couple
Seattle Committees or a small handful of Go Anarch or something and not
worry about it. But if you need your vampires to be anarchs and need
them anarach as soon as possible, as being an anarch is the mechanism
that makes your deck go, the two current options aren't great and
provide significant disincentive to bother even trying.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
[ quoted text not captured ]
So you are adamant about ignoring what I'm actually saying?
Saying, "imagine FOO" can never be wrong. It's not a claim. It's not
even an opinion. It can't be wrong.
Imagine a trait that has a pile of group-ignoring low caps starting
with it, and every single other vampire in the game able to acquire
it, most of them by either a trifle or a cardless +1 stealth action.
Now I will make a claim : changing the Anarch mechanism to the one
imagined above is diametrically opposed to respecting anything about
its current nature.
On Jan 28, 9:14 pm, Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> though one could use creative
> text like "When [vamp X] is brought into play, you may lower his
> capacity by one to give him the Anarch trait." or similar.
Additional examples of alternate creative text:
"Daffy" Daphne
Malkavian
group 6
Capacity 4 dem obf cel
Camarilla. At the start of your untap phase, if you control an odd
number of ready vampires, Daphne becomes Independent and gains the
Anarch trait until your next untap phase.
Phil McKrevis
!Ventrue
group 5
Capacity 5 FOR dom aus obf
Sabbat. Phil may play cards that require an anarch as though he were
an anarch. Do not replace cards requiring an anarch played by Phil
until your next untap phase.
Babs Bakersfield
Nosferatu
group 3
Capacity 3 ani obf pre
Camarilla. During your Master Phase, you may place a turncoat counter
on Babs. If Babs has a turncoat counter, she is considered Independent
and has the Anarch trait. Any titled vampire can enter combat with
Babs as a D action if she has a turncoat counter. Burn all turncoat
counters on Babs at the start of your turn.
On Jan 28, 6:17 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> A) Include enough cards to make your guys anarch that you draw them
> early and often--say, 12-13 slots dedicated to Galaric's Legacy, Go
> Anarch, Seattle Committee. That is about 15% of your deck filled with
> cards that don't do anything other than make you an anarch. And once all
> of your vampires are anarchs, they don't even do that. So then you add a
> few Power Base: LA so that you can cycle them out of your deck for a
> handy untap. So then, let's say, you have 12 "go anarch" cards and 3
> PB:LA (17% of your deck). You have a pretty good chance of having a go
> anarch card in your opening hand, but also have a pretty good chance of
> not ever seeing a PB:LA, and have a pretty good chance of not drawing
> enough go anarch cards early enough anyway.
>
> B) Include no go anarch tech at all, and plan on going anarch the hard
> way. Saves deck space, costs blood and actions. Not necessarily a good
> trade off.
And just to add a little more concrete data to what Peter wrote, if
you put 3 PB:LA in your 90-card deck, on average, you'll draw the
first on card 23, which is probably about the same time that all your
vamps are anarch and you want to start ditching Become Anarch cards.
Also, I'm not sure how many cards Peter expects to cycle in a game,
nor what a "pretty good chance of never seeing a PB:LA" means to him,
but to me, I expect to cycle at least 30 cards in a game, and "pretty
good chance" means >50%. So I disagree with the "pretty good chance
of never seeing a PB:LA" if you put 3 of them in your 90 card deck.
Regardless of what English you use, the actual numbers are:
You'll draw at least 1 PB:LA by card 23 in 50% of your games.
You'll draw at least 1 PB:LA by card 38 in 80% of your games.
You'll draw at least 1 PB:LA by card 55 in 95% of your games.
So, yes, there will certainly be some games that you don't see a
PB:LA, but the chances of that are directly related to the number of
total cards you cycle.
Ira, defender of the anarch mechanic, advocate of creating additional
powerful 3-way cards.
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> And just to add a little more concrete data to what Peter wrote, if
> you put 3 PB:LA in your 90-card deck, on average, you'll draw the
> first on card 23, which is probably about the same time that all your
> vamps are anarch and you want to start ditching Become Anarch cards.
You have a 50% chance of having 1 or more of your three PB:LA's somewhere in the
first 18 cards of your deck, meaning, on average, the time at which you'll draw
the first one is somewhere around there or earlier.
On Jan 28, 10:21 pm, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> So you are adamant about ignoring what I'm actually saying?
I'm not. I'm simply trying to point out that your proposed example of
"group zero anarchs" = "group zero princes" is not a viable
comparison.
> Saying, "imagine FOO" can never be wrong. It's not a claim. It's not
> even an opinion. It can't be wrong.
I'm not saying you can't imagine it. I'm saying that it isn't a
relevant comparison.
> Imagine a trait that has a pile of group-ignoring low caps starting
> with it, and every single other vampire in the game able to acquire
> it, most of them by either a trifle or a cardless +1 stealth action.
Ok.
> Now I will make a claim : changing the Anarch mechanism to the one
> imagined above is diametrically opposed to respecting anything about
> its current nature.
Yes. It might be. As it's current nature is insufficiently effective,
this doesn't strike me as a bad thing. On the other hand, doing the
same thing with Princes, say, is a bad thing. As the current nature of
Princes is effective.
-Peter
On Jan 29, 3:05 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And just to add a little more concrete data to what Peter wrote, if
> you put 3 PB:LA in your 90-card deck, on average, you'll draw the
> first on card 23, which is probably about the same time that all your
> vamps are anarch and you want to start ditching Become Anarch cards.
Yep. And other times, you won't draw them till you go through half
your deck, and by then, you are probably sucking.
> Also, I'm not sure how many cards Peter expects to cycle in a game,
The trick to cycling cards is being able to play them. If you aren't
going anarch in a deck that requires you to be an anarch, you cycle
fewer cards.
> nor what a "pretty good chance of never seeing a PB:LA" means to him,
It means that with 2 or 3 cards in a deck, you have reasonable chance
of not drawing said card early or often.
> Regardless of what English you use, the actual numbers are:
> You'll draw at least 1 PB:LA by card 23 in 50% of your games.
> You'll draw at least 1 PB:LA by card 38 in 80% of your games.
> You'll draw at least 1 PB:LA by card 55 in 95% of your games.
Sure. But if you aren't cycling cards, 'cause you aren't going anarch,
playing 23 cards takes a while. If you are going anarch, and you are
cycling cards, 23 cards isn't that long, and it can work out. And even
then, 20% of the time, you aren't seeing a PB:LA till you are over a
3rd of the way through your deck.
> Ira, defender of the anarch mechanic, advocate of creating additional
> powerful 3-way cards.
You honestly think the "Go Anarch" mechanic is a good one? You
wouldn't want to see an improvement of some sort?
-Peter
If going Anarch were ever worthwhile, we wouldn't complain about
building the extra effort in to going anarch. As it is, its seldom
worth the card slots or effort to Go Anarch.
On Jan 28, 10:42 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Malone" <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d3f8c3b1-261f-42fc...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Things usually not being exactly black-and-white, there's some middle
> ground here. One option proposed was (a small number of) vampires
> that, per special text, could go Anarch by burning some blood or pool
> and/or tapping during some appropriate window. Another was (a small
> number of) 4-cap Anarchs, possibly one standard-disciplined 4-cap from
> each clan, that ignored the grouping requirements.
>
> It seems like vampires that ignore the grouping rules (I'll call them
> group 0) are a design possibility that will eventually be exploited,
> if the game lives long enough.
Maybe. But it would have huge implications and I'd question why it would
be necessary to use such an atribute for this purpose. If you want 'special'
Anarchs, that's fine. James's objection not withstanding, I don't think
it's a terrible idea, especially if they had to pay something to start out
Anarch like blood or something and had compensating disadvantages. But
there's no need to make them group 0. Make them Group 4 or group 5 or, in
some cases, earlier groups. The game wouldn't collapse if it were easier
to make a group 4-5 Anarch deck than a group 1-2 Anarch deck.
There. To me, that's the simplest end to the group zero argument.
Fred
In message <dWRnj.17071$4H1....@newsfe07.phx>, Frederick Scott
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>James's objection not withstanding, I don't think
>it's a terrible idea, especially if they had to pay something to start out
>Anarch like blood or something and had compensating disadvantages.
That wouldn't be my objection notwithstanding. That would be my
objection worked around - other traits don't, by and large, work in the
manner you've just described.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I'm not. I'm simply trying to point out that your proposed example of
> "group zero anarchs" = "group zero princes" is not a viable
> comparison.
I never proposed any such example.
> > Saying, "imagine FOO" can never be wrong. It's not a claim. It's not
> > even an opinion. It can't be wrong.
>
> I'm not saying you can't imagine it. I'm saying that it isn't a
> relevant comparison.
"Imagine .." no doubt suggested that the imaginer might want to make a
comparison. I myself offered no statement, claim, nor even opinion
about the specific content or conclusions of such a comparison. Stop
saying I did. Stop making the slanderous accusation that I said "
'group zero anarchs' = 'group zero princes' !!! : )
> > Imagine a trait that has a pile of group-ignoring low caps starting
> > with it, and every single other vampire in the game able to acquire
> > it, most of them by either a trifle or a cardless +1 stealth action.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Now I will make a claim : changing the Anarch mechanism to the one
> > imagined above is diametrically opposed to respecting anything about
> > its current nature.
>
> Yes. It might be. As it's current nature is insufficiently effective,
> this doesn't strike me as a bad thing. On the other hand, doing the
> same thing with Princes, say, is a bad thing. As the current nature of
> Princes is effective.
When you made the comparison what you focused on was the competitive
effectiveness of trait X vs trait Y. Fine, the imaginer has authority
over the content of their imagination. But I was never talking about
competitive effectiveness anywhere in any of my posts in this thread,
it was quite clear that I was talking about the mechanic *as such*.
Now, as a game mechanic I think making a trait that a bunch of
affordable, grouping-ignoring vampires start with and that is
available to *all* other vampires, most of them at very, very low
resource cost (no card needed!), is a terrible idea. That's my
opinion, disagreeing with it is fine, I'll stop repeating it if you'll
stop completely misrepresenting it.
On Jan 30, 10:46 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> I never proposed any such example.
You wrote:
"Putting user-friendly Anarchs there would be a mistake, though, at
least if you believe maintaining distinct mechanisms for distinct
traits is desireable. It would change the Anarch trait from one that
requires effort to acquire into
the most readily available in the game. (Imagine a bunch of group 0
Seraphs, one from each clan, or Princes, or...)"
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you certainly followed "It
would change the Anarch trait from one that requires effort to acquire
into the most readily available in the game." with "(Imagine a bunch
of group 0 Seraphs...") Which looks like a comparison between the two.
Maybe that is just me though. Or maybe it is not what you intended.
But that is what it looks like. So at least maybe you can understand
why I would think you said such a thing.
-Peter
On Jan 29, 10:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Malone" <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Since you quoted me it sounds like you're disagreeing with me, when
actually we agree...
Group 0 Anarchs was an idea Peter expressed in an Anarch discussion a
while ago. I think the Group 0 thing is an interesting possibility
for something or other, but putting some user-friendly Anarchs there
is not a good solution to 'the Anarch problem', because (as you say)
of the huge implications.
On Jan 30, 11:08 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Group 0 Anarchs was an idea Peter expressed in an Anarch discussion a
> while ago. I think the Group 0 thing is an interesting possibility
> for something or other, but putting some user-friendly Anarchs there
> is not a good solution to 'the Anarch problem', because (as you say)
> of the huge implications.
I'm not seeing the huge implications, really. I mean, like, I'm not
totally sold even on my own idea. But what are the huge implications
of a group zero anarch guy? I mean, assuming they are fairly generic,
not spectacular vampires--my original idea was make a generic 4 cap
for every clan who starts as an anarch and is grop zero (or whatever).
It would add an extra vampire to every clan in every group, but a
singularly unspectacular one (a 4 cap with 3 in clan inferior
disciplines). You could make a whole crypt out of them, but that isn't
impacted by the group aspect (i.e. you could make a whole crypt out of
them if they were all G4 also), and said crypt isn't likely to be that
useful, due to the large discipline spread, even taking the crazy
anarch 3 ways into account.
What are the huge implications you are seeing here? I'm not saying
there aren't any, but I'm not seeing what they are.
-Peter
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:9aad8272-126c-4158...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> But what are the huge implications of a group zero anarch guy?
> I mean, assuming they are fairly generic, not spectacular vampires--
> my original idea was make a generic 4 cap for every clan who starts
> as an anarch and is grop zero (or whatever).
Just that people inevitably find uses for such a vampire other than their
original intent. So, for instance, if you make a group zero 4-cap with
inferior potence, this would be usable for all potence decks which could
conceivably make use of such a vampire, anarch or not. Maybe 'huge' was
an unforunate choice of words (you know we Usenet denizens always pump
up the drama of the situation) but certainly a lot bigger and more long-
lasting than the standard vampires that are now being designed, given
that grouping is here to stay.
Fred
On Jan 30, 12:43 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Just that people inevitably find uses for such a vampire other than their
> original intent.
Oh, sure--that is certainly something to worry about running into, but
that is pretty much why I went with the most mundane possible vampire
for the idea--generic 4 cap with 3 in clan inferior disciplines.
Again, I'm not totally sold on the plan by any stretch of the
imagination, but still, that seems like a pretty benign starting
point.
> So, for instance, if you make a group zero 4-cap with
> inferior potence, this would be usable for all potence decks which could
> conceivably make use of such a vampire, anarch or not.
Oh, of course. But using that as an example, there are already more
than twelve 4 caps per group pair with potence (13 in G1/2; 17 in
G2/3; 20 in G3/4). I suspect that the same goes for most disciplines.
Yeah, adding, what, another six or seven 4 caps with pot (or whatever--
Nos, !Nos, Bru, !Bru, Las, Gio. Do six clans have Pot as an in clan?)
to each group certainly will have *some* effect on something, but I
don't think it would be particularly drastic one way or the other.
-Peter
On Jan 29, 10:26 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> You honestly think the "Go Anarch" mechanic is a good one? You
> wouldn't want to see an improvement of some sort?
I'm satisfied with it, because across a pretty good number of games
I'm rarely bitten by any of the problems you site (about as often as I
get randomly screwed no matter what deck I play). I just want to see
better Anarch cards.
--
David Cherryholmes
[ quoted text not captured ]
Remember you have to consider that no group, or "group 0" is EVERY
group in this proposal. At one per clan you are adding 13 vampires to
EVERY grouping. Every clan in every grouping would have a perfect
utility vampire, and for clans that share a couple of discs, maybe
two. Throw in the Anarch trait as an added Anarch Revolt defense
mechanism. It would expand the possibilities for weenie crypts
dramatically. I'm not one of those guys that crunches numbers, but
occasionally somebody will pop on here and figure statistics that give
me a headache trying to absorb, so if one of those guys wants to chime
in, please do.
That's not even talking about the insta-anarch weenie crypt this would
create. A crypt full of 4 caps unhindered by the need for go-anarch
tech would be strong. Too strong? I dunno. The potential for dial-a-
crypt abuse becomes WAY to accessible, IMO.
The "pick-a-vamp and add 8 anarchs" deck would be strong. Choose your
favorite vampire to run Anarch tech with, add 8 groupless vampires who
are already anarchs.
I don't think that's the intention with the Anarch trait.
Like I said earlier, I think it could be done ONCE, very carefully -
one vampire who ignores grouping rules.
Otherwise, creative texts for ootb anarchs with disadvantages is the
way to go, IMO.
On Jan 30, 1:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Yeah, adding, what, another six or seven 4 caps with pot (or whatever--
> Nos, !Nos, Bru, !Bru, Las, Gio. Do six clans have Pot as an in clan?)
Guruhi and Osebo, too. (Ignoring Bloodlines for the time being.)
But I'm still ticked at this thread, 'cause although Google Groups
claims my witty post was sent, and it shows up in the tree, it's just
not there. *sigh*
- D.J.
In article
<0b6a81fa-b310-40f5...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> But I'm still ticked at this thread, 'cause although Google Groups
> claims my witty post was sent, and it shows up in the tree, it's just
> not there. *sigh*
Yeah, I noticed that. Weird...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<34947d91-347c-4722...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Remember you have to consider that no group, or "group 0" is EVERY
> group in this proposal.
Sure.
> At one per clan you are adding 13 vampires to
> EVERY grouping. Every clan in every grouping would have a perfect
> utility vampire, and for clans that share a couple of discs, maybe
> two.
Every clan already has one or two of these available, and I don't see
them show up that often (I can't remember the last time I used Sammy).
> Throw in the Anarch trait as an added Anarch Revolt defense
> mechanism.
Sure, but at the cost of not being Camarilla (or whatever). Which in a
lot of decks, would be irrelevant. But in others, would be a problem.
And once and a while, having a random Anarch in the deck will help out,
but you can always *make* a random anarch in your deck. Strikes me as a
pretty minimal advgantage.
>It would expand the possibilities for weenie crypts
> dramatically.
I don't know that it would, really--if you pick any grouping pair
(ignoring the currenly under represented G5) and any common discipline,
there are generally more than 12x four capacity vampires with that
discipline (protean is on the short end, due to only 2 clans starting
with it, as is tha). And 4 caps are on the upper end of weenie anyway.
> That's not even talking about the insta-anarch weenie crypt this would
> create.
But what is such a crypt gonna do? Given the current list of anarch
cards, having 12x 4 cap anarchs with random disciplines isn't going to
be particularly effective at, well, anything.
> A crypt full of 4 caps unhindered by the need for go-anarch
> tech would be strong. Too strong? I dunno. The potential for dial-a-
> crypt abuse becomes WAY to accessible, IMO.
Maybe. Again, I'm not sold on this at all. But I have thought about it a
lot, and the biggest problem, really, is that you'd need to print 20
unspectacular vampires that you don't actually need that many of.
> The "pick-a-vamp and add 8 anarchs" deck would be strong. Choose your
> favorite vampire to run Anarch tech with, add 8 groupless vampires who
> are already anarchs.
Not seeing it as all that useful, but ok.
> I don't think that's the intention with the Anarch trait.
Well, i think the *intention* of the anarch trait is that it enables
interesting and effective decks. But I don't think it has lived up to
that intention yet.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jan 30, 5:46 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> Well, i think the *intention* of the anarch trait is that it enables
> interesting and effective decks. But I don't think it has lived up to
> that intention yet.
>
On that point, sir, we agree completely.
Perhaps I'm just a bit more conservative in the fix approach. The
groups are balanced to some (unquantified in my perception but
assumed) standard, and it just seems to me that introducing
"group arbitrary" has a greater potential to throw the system into a
spiral than introducing vampires with the anarch trait acquisition
cost reallocated (action and 2 blood reallocated to disadvantageous
special text).
In article
<35b5cd8e-8353-4356...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On that point, sir, we agree completely.
>
> Perhaps I'm just a bit more conservative in the fix approach. The
> groups are balanced to some (unquantified in my perception but
> assumed) standard, and it just seems to me that introducing
> "group arbitrary" has a greater potential to throw the system into a
> spiral than introducing vampires with the anarch trait acquisition
> cost reallocated (action and 2 blood reallocated to disadvantageous
> special text).
Sure. Maybe this is a possibility. But I'm still unconvinced that "Group
Zero" ootb anarch guys are likely to have that big of an impact on
things. But then, in the name of conservativism, you could throw in,
say, 4 or 5 of them. Each with different discipline spreads. Or
something. There is certainly tweaking to be done to the idea (and well,
really, the idea is unlikely to go anywhere at all), but I don't think
it is neccessarily a bad idea from the get go.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Sure. Maybe this is a possibility. But I'm still unconvinced that "Group
> Zero" ootb anarch guys are likely to have that big of an impact on
> things. But then, in the name of conservativism, you could throw in,
> say, 4 or 5 of them. Each with different discipline spreads. Or
> something. There is certainly tweaking to be done to the idea (and well,
> really, the idea is unlikely to go anywhere at all), but I don't think
> it is neccessarily a bad idea from the get go.
How about making a single 4-cap anarch for each of the Laibon clans?
This way they don't really fit into Laibon decks (they are not Laibon)
and also don't really fit into other clan-based decks (they are strange
clan). With this solution, you not only get ootb anarchs, but also help
the Laibon clans, who could really use more crypt cards.
Something along the lines of:
Hoal
4-cap Guruhi
Group X
ani pot pre
Independent Anarch. Any older vampire can take a D action to make Hoal
Laibon and loose the Anarch trait for the rest of the game.
This way you can include him in any Guruhi deck, having a built in
action to revert back to Laibon, so he and you can play all those Laibon
cards, but is well worth including in anarch decks, if only for the
reuced cost of the built-in action.
Comments?
--
-bur
This would really help
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com