Praxis vs Crusade

All moaning about how lame it is that Crusades are Rare [and I must side with the moaners on this one - pulling a Crusade out of a booster I paid good dollars for makes me want to gouge someone's eyes out] what ever happened to the old Archbishop vs Princes rule that existed when the Sabbat set first came out? Now that all the Euro cities are being brought out as Crusades, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back the old "Archbishops and princes contesting control of a city can rush each other as a D action" rule? I always thought that rule added a lot of flavour to the game, on the rare occasion that a contestation actually occured. nood

"noodleboy" <nood...@iprimus.net.au> wrote > > Now that all the Euro cities are being brought out as Crusades, > wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back the old "Archbishops and > princes contesting control of a city can rush each other as a D > action" rule? > > I always thought that rule added a lot of flavour to the game, on the > rare occasion that a contestation actually occured. > > nood that would be great, since a lot of contest are bound to happen. This would also give a boost to the Anarch titles, and give the sabbat/ camarilla player an incentive to remove it as soon as possible since their prince is now in danger (in opposition to just wait for the baron to burn 2 blood each turn until he becomes empty)

[ quoted text not captured ] That rule would only benefit combat decks, which would make it unfair. I prefer the current title-contesting rule. Greetings, Damnans

[ quoted text not captured ] I really think the benefit for combat decks would be minimal. It would require the combat deck to have a prince/archbishop (or baron - but this I find highly unlikely), and some other player contesting that title with a vampire of a different sect. Combat decks have, in my opinion, difficulties winning the game as it is, and i don's think this rule would upset this "balance". I loved the old rule, and agree that it would be nice to bring it back into the game. /Martin

"Martin" <notm...@email.dk> wrote in message news:c7ais5$f1g$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk... [ quoted text not captured ] yes, and combat decks trying to pull a crusade are not common ! besides this people might be inclined to vote for or against knowing wombat would occur and vampire would fly around the table =) the obsolescence of this rule came maybe from the fact that contestation of a city occured very rarely. Now that we can see more of it, that would be great. And in line with the Gehenna stuff, maybe ? =)

Damnans wrote: > That rule would only benefit combat decks, which would make it > unfair. Because combat decks are acknowledged as being overpowered and having too many advantages? --Colin McGuigan

noodleboy wrote: > All moaning about how lame it is that Crusades are Rare [and I must > side with the moaners on this one - pulling a Crusade out of a booster > I paid good dollars for makes me want to gouge someone's eyes out] > what ever happened to the old Archbishop vs Princes rule that existed > when the Sabbat set first came out? As far as I know, nothing. It is still a rule, isn't it? > > Now that all the Euro cities are being brought out as Crusades, > wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back the old "Archbishops and > princes contesting control of a city can rush each other as a D > action" rule? I kinda thought that was one of the main points of all the new Crusades--it increased the likelyhood of getting this rule to actually come into play. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:aadbb36b.0405...@posting.google.com... > noodleboy wrote: > > All moaning about how lame it is that Crusades are Rare [and I must > > side with the moaners on this one - pulling a Crusade out of a booster > > I paid good dollars for makes me want to gouge someone's eyes out] > > what ever happened to the old Archbishop vs Princes rule that existed > > when the Sabbat set first came out? > > As far as I know, nothing. It is still a rule, isn't it? come on peter =) this rule was changed by LSJ and the Rulzzor team when sabbat war came out =)

Reyda wrote: > "Martin" <notm...@email.dk> wrote in message > news:c7ais5$f1g$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk... > >>Damnans wrote: [...] >>>>Now that all the Euro cities are being brought out as Crusades, >>>>wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back the old "Archbishops and >>>>princes contesting control of a city can rush each other as a D >>>>action" rule? >>>> >>>>I always thought that rule added a lot of flavour to the game, on the >>>>rare occasion that a contestation actually occured. >>> >>> >>>That rule would only benefit combat decks, which would make it >>>unfair. >>> >>>I prefer the current title-contesting rule. >> >>I really think the benefit for combat decks would be minimal. No. If a combat vampire is contesting a title with a non combat vampire, then the combat vampire's chances to get that title is higher. >> It would >>require the combat deck to have a prince/archbishop (or baron - but this >>I find highly unlikely), Which is what title contesting requires. >>and some other player contesting that title >>with a vampire of a different sect. Combat decks have, in my opinion, >>difficulties winning the game as it is, and i don's think this rule >>would upset this "balance". See for yourself: AMSTERDAM: Klaus v.d.Veken - ARAGON: Lucita (Merged) - ATHENS: Spiridonas - ATLANTA: Rake - Antonio Delgado - Victorine Lafourcade BARCELONA: Javier Montoya - BERLIN: Wilhelm Waldburg- BOSTON: Cardano - Quentin King III BRUSSELS: Nik. Vermeulen - CAIRO: Suhaila - CHICAGO: Sir Walter Nash - Lachlan Noddist CLEVELAND: Selma - Rachel Brandywine DALLAS: Ira Rivers - Timothy Crowley DETROIT: Cailean - DUBLIN: Dónal O'Connor - FRANKFURT: Volker - GENEVE: Ingrid Rossler - GLASGOW: Katarina - HOUSTON: Tatiana Romanov - Lucas Halton - Lazverinus ISTAMBUL: Murat - LONDON: Queen Anne - LOS ANGELES: Jeremy McNeil (Merged) MEXICO: Stravinsky - MIAMI: Gilbert Duane - Imogen - Fleurdumal MONACO: Marcellus - NEW YORK: F.D.de Polonia - Calebros PARIS: Francois Villon - Dominique (Merged) PHILADELPHIA: Salinger - PITTSBURGH: Álvaro - ROME: Constanza Vinti - Sela (Advanced) SEATTLE: Casino Reeds - Anson STOCKHOLM: Greger Andersen - STRASBOURG: Marconius - TORONTO: Ethan Locke - WASHINGTON,DC: Marcus Vitel - Emerson Bridges [...] Tatiana Romanov will not resist Lazverinus' or Lucas Halton's attacks for long. The same with Casino Reeds and Anson. Or with Cardano and Quenting King III. Or Selma and Rachel Brandywine. (Note: the above comparisons assume one of the vampires' controller is not playing a combat deck) > yes, and combat decks trying to pull a crusade are not common ! > besides this people might be inclined to vote for or against knowing wombat > would occur and vampire would fly around the table =) Who's talking about calling a political action? >:) > the obsolescence of this rule came maybe from the fact that contestation of > a city occured very rarely. Now that we can see more of it, that would be > great. And in line with the Gehenna stuff, maybe ? =) So combat is the only way to claim domain over a city? I really think the current contesting rule for titles is more balanced. Greetings, Damnans

>No. If a combat vampire is contesting a title with a non combat vampire, >then the combat vampire's chances to get that title is higher. >So combat is the only way to claim domain over a city? I really think the >current contesting rule for titles is more balanced. Agreed. Don't get me wrong. The nostalgic part of me sometimes misses the old rule (which I still find rather amusing), but I think the game has shifted in the appropriate direction since then. Halcyan 2

Damnans wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > >> "Martin" <notm...@email.dk> wrote in message >> news:c7ais5$f1g$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk... >> >>> Damnans wrote: > > > [...] > >>>>> Now that all the Euro cities are being brought out as Crusades, >>>>> wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back the old "Archbishops and >>>>> princes contesting control of a city can rush each other as a D >>>>> action" rule? >>>>> >>>>> I always thought that rule added a lot of flavour to the game, on the >>>>> rare occasion that a contestation actually occured. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That rule would only benefit combat decks, which would make it >>>> unfair. >>>> >>>> I prefer the current title-contesting rule. >>> >>> >>> I really think the benefit for combat decks would be minimal. > > > No. If a combat vampire is contesting a title with a non combat vampire, > then the combat vampire's chances to get that title is higher. > When using the current rules, the deck with the best pool gain has higher chances of getting the title. In almost all circumstances this will *not* be the combat deck. >>> It would >>> require the combat deck to have a prince/archbishop (or baron - but this >>> I find highly unlikely), > > > Which is what title contesting requires. > Off course, but it's hardly all combat decks that contains princes/archbishops. The contesting of titles is also rather uncommon, in my experience. The following must at least be fullfilled for the scenario to take place: 1) The combat deck must contain a prince/archbishop (or baron or ability to gain titles - but really...), and influences out this vampire 2) Some other player must influence out a vampire from a different sect, contest the title - either through inherent title, or by gaining the title due to some political action. 3) The combat deck must have some interest in bashing the other vampire. If it is controlled by some crosstable buddy, some arrangement might be possible instead. My conclusion is that it will almost never happen. I still love the rule though because, as noodleboy puts it, it adds flavour to the game. [ quoted text not captured ] They wouldn't last much longer with the current rules. If I was playing a combat deck, I would have other ways to rush, than hoping somebody would contest my vampires title, with a vampire from a different sect. >> yes, and combat decks trying to pull a crusade are not common ! >> besides this people might be inclined to vote for or against knowing >> wombat >> would occur and vampire would fly around the table =) > > > Who's talking about calling a political action? >:) > >> the obsolescence of this rule came maybe from the fact that >> contestation of >> a city occured very rarely. Now that we can see more of it, that would be >> great. And in line with the Gehenna stuff, maybe ? =) > > > So combat is the only way to claim domain over a city? I really think the > current contesting rule for titles is more balanced. > Balanced as in 'better for non-combat decks'? > Greetings, > Damnans > /Martin

>When using the current rules, the deck with the best pool gain has >higher chances of getting the title. In almost all circumstances this >will *not* be the combat deck. Incorrect. Blood gain, not pool gain is the key. The combat deck can fill right back up with a nasty combat and a well-played Taste of Vitae. Halcyan 2

I used to love that old rule and was bummed when it became a simple contestation. PUHlease bring it back!!!!!. And as for this "it benefits combat decks" stuff - well gee, boo hoo.

Reyda wrote: > come on peter =) > this rule was changed by LSJ and the Rulzzor team when sabbat war came out Really? I had no idea. At all. I mean, I have never actually seen a situation in play where it would have ever come up, so I never noticed that it wasn't a rule. But I always assumed it was still a rule. Oh well. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

Martin <notm...@email.dk> wrote: > I loved the old rule, and agree that it would be nice to bring it back > into the game. There's nothing stopping you from using it in social games... -- james o'rance

[ quoted text not captured ] Also, since they contest, the question of the existence of the old rule is moot - there can never be two vampires that meet the conditions necessary to invoke the rush. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> That rule would only benefit combat decks, which would make it > unfair. Are you serious? Combat decks need all the help they can get! noods

>> come on peter =) >> this rule was changed by LSJ and the Rulzzor team when sabbat war came out >> =) > >Also, since they contest, the question of the existence of the old rule is >moot - there can never be two vampires that meet the conditions necessary >to invoke the rush. :-) Illusions of the Kindred? (allows them to "exist" at the same time) Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Doh, brainfart by me. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Always one in the crowd, eh? There is more to the requirements of invoking the rush than mere existence. Those two vampires do not meet the conditions necessary to invoke the rush (e.g., to have both ready when an action can be announced with one controlled by the "active" Methuselah (or a Malk with a Madness Network in play at the end of some other Methuselah's minion phase) and untapped and not prohibited from taking the action and not required to take some other action, and the other controlled by a different Methuselah and able to be targeted by (D) actions, among others :-). [ quoted text not captured ]

noodleboy wrote: >>That rule would only benefit combat decks, which would make it >>unfair. > > Are you serious? Yes. > Combat decks need all the help they can get! I would not be so sure >:) Greetings, Damnans

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<tDomc.44806$Xj6.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > Illusions of the Kindred? (allows them to "exist" at the same time) > > Always one in the crowd, eh? > Or alternately 'Always Halcyan in the crowd', depending on your viewpoint. :P -John Flournoy

> They wouldn't last much longer with the current rules. If I was playing > a combat deck, I would have other ways to rush, than hoping somebody > would contest my vampires title, with a vampire from a different sect. > And either way, your combat deck with its bashing-away-of-my-blood and its sending-me-to-Torpor is plenty equipped to take my title away unless I have really good combat defense. It makes more sense for there to be net zero votes if two players play the Foo/Bar of Atlanta than for there to be net four votes.

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, never mind the advantage to combat decks. It was just a stupid rule, both in terms of the backstory and the card game. In terms of the backstory, the thing made no sense whatsoever! I love it: Dragos gets elected Archbishop of Atlanta and as they're showing him the ropes in his new domain, his assistant hands him some keys and says, "Oh, by the way, here's the key to the passage way." "Passage way?" "Oh, yea. As Archbishop of Atlanta, you now have a secret passageway that runs directly between your office and Rake's office. You guys are practically roommates now. Wanna go see him right now?" I mean, what the hell is this? Clue? I didn't know Mrs. White in the Lounge could get elected Prince of Miami, grab the lead pipe, and go take a run at Archbishop Mustard in the Conservatory with a rope - just the two of them, vampire-to-vampire. I mean, it's not like title-holders have anyone working for them, preventing the opposing leader from just waltzing into their haven any time he feels like. In terms of the game, all does is create the potential for another one of those random, unplanned fucks. "Hey, great!" Having brought out Fleurdumal, I see where my prey has gotten elected Dragos to pass a Crusade: Miami using a Dia de los Muertos. Oooh! Bad play on my part!!!" I mean, what is the strategy against this supposed to me. (And if you say, "Never use princes.", please proceed directly to another thread where they don't care about the real world.) I realize this game already has random, unplanned screw plays a plenty built in. But we don't need any more such devices. The current rule is nice, moderate, and reasonable and does the trick just fine. Fred

Frederick Scott <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<409A9832...@nospam.com>... > Oh, never mind the advantage to combat decks. It was just a stupid > rule, both in terms of the backstory and the card game. > I mean, it's not like title-holders > have anyone working for them, preventing the opposing leader from > just waltzing into their haven any time he feels like. Um, there's this "blocking" thing that I've heard of. Conceptually, it sorta resembles what you're talking about here... I'm pretty sure that, at least for the Sabbat, killing the prince gets a fairly high priority during a crusade. John Eno Prince of Pittsburgh

kushiel wrote: > > Frederick Scott <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<409A9832...@nospam.com>... > > Oh, never mind the advantage to combat decks. It was just a stupid > > rule, both in terms of the backstory and the card game. > > I mean, it's not like title-holders > > have anyone working for them, preventing the opposing leader from > > just waltzing into their haven any time he feels like. > > Um, there's this "blocking" thing that I've heard of. Conceptually, it > sorta resembles what you're talking about here... Maybe. But you still have leave someone untapped, play the stealth/ intercept game, and avoid things like Mind Numbs to defeat it. It still makes no sense. > I'm pretty sure that, at least for the Sabbat, killing the prince gets > a fairly high priority during a crusade. I suppose so. But the point is about it being that easy to do. Fred

*sigh* i miss the old rule. it made more sense. sure they are competing for the same city, but they aren't contesting the same title, as in archbishop=!prince. i thought the short, but sweet answer on the sabbat boosters was wholly logical. sure they are vying for the same city, but they answer to different followers, therefore different political machinations used to gain dominance within two wholly different sects... oh well, it was a good rule then, but the judicial ruling stands now. i hope you leave open the opportunity to reconsider LSJ.

Still agree with Martin here. Sure many titled camarilla are not battle monsters. But that doesn't mean they are helpless before the onslaught. They've always, like martin pointed out, had to deal with rushes and they've always had a panalopy of ways to deal with it (no sense going into it again). There's plenty of types of rushes available now and risking titled-to-titled ocmbatants is not such a high priority in deck design. This other form of rush is so conditional as to hardly be a detriment. Remember there's only so many turns in a game and therefore only so many actions. In fact returning the old rule would give strength to vote decks because they'd have more turns (and therefore actions and chances to vote) with their competing minion. A non-combat vote deck can handle combat evasion and blood bloating easily, so I really have trouble seeing the concern here. In fact, if anything, combat decks should be happy the rule exists because contestation is a great way to tie up an annoying vote monster. I'm for the joy of atmosphere. I think the rule should come back.

> Maybe. But you still have leave someone untapped, play the stealth/ > intercept game, and avoid things like Mind Numbs to defeat it. It still > makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. The location of a Prince/Archbishop rarely be difficult to determine. Princes go to Elysiums, have favoured hunting grounds, most Archbishops would welcome the chance to toe to toe with a prince and make little attempt to conceal their location. The intercept/stealth/mind numb game you're describing could also be quite accurately described as "the Jyhad", you know, various pawns and minions being sent out to achieve set objectives, being opposed by other pawns/minions in control of another Methuselah. > I suppose so. But the point is about it being that easy to do. Easy? It might be easy to Rush, yes. Easy to dunk? No, not by a long shot. If it were, combat decks would be a far more threatening archetype than they are. Prince Constanza vs Archbishop Sela. What's easy about that? noodleboy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<Prfmc.42152$Xj6.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Reyda wrote: > > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > > news:aadbb36b.0405...@posting.google.com... > > > >>noodleboy wrote: > >> > >>>All moaning about how lame it is that Crusades are Rare [and I must > >>>side with the moaners on this one - pulling a Crusade out of a booster > >>>I paid good dollars for makes me want to gouge someone's eyes out] > >>>what ever happened to the old Archbishop vs Princes rule that existed > >>>when the Sabbat set first came out? > >> > >>As far as I know, nothing. It is still a rule, isn't it? > > > > > > come on peter =) > > this rule was changed by LSJ and the Rulzzor team when sabbat war came out > > =) > > Also, since they contest, the question of the existence of the old rule is > moot - there can never be two vampires that meet the conditions necessary > to invoke the rush. :-) Yes, but you can change the rule: Title contests (as for the actual rules) *AND* the contesting vamps - for the same title - can rush each other (as the old rule).

noodleboy wrote: > > > Maybe. But you still have leave someone untapped, play the stealth/ > > intercept game, and avoid things like Mind Numbs to defeat it. It still > > makes no sense. > > It makes perfect sense. > > The location of a Prince/Archbishop rarely be difficult to determine. > Princes go to Elysiums, have favoured hunting grounds, most > Archbishops would welcome the chance to toe to toe with a prince and > make little attempt to conceal their location. Right. Now explain the point where only the Archbishop gets to readily attack the Prince and vica versa. Stupid, makes no sense whatsoever. If you had created a game where titled vampires may always be rushed by opposing vampires, that would make sense per the explanation you're pushing above. (Or, for instance, you could make a subset of titles "rushable", under varying conditions.) However, that would make a much different game than what we've got now. And it's much different than THIS: "I happen to have vampire A, the Archbishop of X. You happen to have vampire B, the Prince of X. Vampire A can specifically rush vampire B and vica versa." No other combinations allowed. And therefore complete happenstance, as no one would ever bother to design a deck around this feature. Happenstance, though not entirely avoidable, is a poor attribute for a strategy game rule. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Right. Now explain the point where only the Archbishop gets to readily > attack the Prince and vica versa. Stupid, makes no sense whatsoever. Explain the point where it's impossible for vampires to find eachother while they're alive and kicking, but you can find any ol' vampire in torpor with no problem at all. Then realize that this is a ccg, and real life explanations are pointless. =P > And therefore > complete happenstance, as no one would ever bother to design a deck around > this feature. Happenstance, though not entirely avoidable, is a poor > attribute for a strategy game rule. Though I agree with you here, up to a point -- this is a ccg, and luck does factor into things. Consider it in the framework of the whole contesting rule (which is always by happenstance). --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Right. Now explain the point where only the Archbishop gets to readily > > attack the Prince and vica versa. Stupid, makes no sense whatsoever. > > Explain the point where it's impossible for vampires to find eachother > while they're alive and kicking, but you can find any ol' vampire in > torpor with no problem at all. Huh? That's simple enough. He's in torpor and can't defend himself. Or hide. > Then realize that this is a ccg, and real life explanations are > pointless. =P Fine. It doesn't bother you that the "secret attack passage rule" sounds stupid in terms of the backstory. Add that to the fact that the rule *is* stupid because it has nothing to do with any strategy anyone could take advantage of and it explains why it was done away with. Good riddance. > Though I agree with you here, up to a point -- this is a ccg, and luck > does factor into things. I've already conceded that several times. But unless a rule adds something attractive, there's no reason to tolerate random silliness like that. > Consider it in the framework of the whole > contesting rule (which is always by happenstance). Not on that order. You can always yield the title if you don't want to pay the blood off your guy. Or - if you have the combat deck with the proper strategic rush card you're supposed to have, you can rush the opposing title holder, run him out of blood or put him in torpor, and win the title that way. *Much* better than, "OK you two vampires are allowed to rush each other." And it makes a lot more sense in the backstory, if one cares about such things. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Colin McGuigan wrote: >>Explain the point where it's impossible for vampires to find eachother >>while they're alive and kicking, but you can find any ol' vampire in >>torpor with no problem at all. > > Huh? That's simple enough. He's in torpor and can't defend himself. > Or hide. Oh, I see. I can have my superior Auspex and not be able to find a Famous 1-cap, but you knock Arika into torpor and suddenly everyone can find her. Makes perfect sense. =P > Fine. It doesn't bother you that the "secret attack passage rule" > sounds stupid in terms of the backstory. Not any stupider than the Bum's Rush card sound stupid in terms of backstory. > Add that to the fact that > the rule *is* stupid because it has nothing to do with any strategy > anyone could take advantage of and it explains why it was done away > with. Good riddance. Ditto with the contesting rule. > Not on that order. You can always yield the title if you don't want > to pay the blood off your guy. Or - if you have the combat deck with > the proper strategic rush card you're supposed to have, you can rush > the opposing title holder, run him out of blood or put him in torpor, > and win the title that way. *Much* better than, "OK you two vampires > are allowed to rush each other." And it makes a lot more sense in the > backstory, if one cares about such things. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Colin McGuigan wrote: > >>Explain the point where it's impossible for vampires to find eachother > >>while they're alive and kicking, but you can find any ol' vampire in > >>torpor with no problem at all. > > > > Huh? That's simple enough. He's in torpor and can't defend himself. > > Or hide. > > Oh, I see. I can have my superior Auspex and not be able to find a > Famous 1-cap, but you knock Arika into torpor and suddenly everyone can > find her. > > Makes perfect sense. =P You bet! You know something else? That 1-cap is tougher than Arika in torpor, too. There was some strange song a few years back that I struggle to recall but it went along these lines: "I'm funnier than John Belushi - because he's DEAD. I'm a better singer than Frank Sinatra - because he's DEAD."... and so on. A vampire in torpor ain't moving around, trying to avoid being seen, and such. I'm confused about which part of this you don't get? :-P > > Not on that order. You can always yield the title if you don't want > > to pay the blood off your guy. Or - if you have the combat deck with > > the proper strategic rush card you're supposed to have, you can rush > > the opposing title holder, run him out of blood or put him in torpor, > > and win the title that way. *Much* better than, "OK you two vampires > > are allowed to rush each other." And it makes a lot more sense in the > > backstory, if one cares about such things. > > You seem to be contradicting yourself here. How so? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > You bet! You know something else? That 1-cap is tougher than Arika in > torpor, too. There was some strange song a few years back that I struggle > to recall but it went along these lines: "I'm funnier than John Belushi - > because he's DEAD. I'm a better singer than Frank Sinatra - because he's > DEAD."... and so on. A vampire in torpor ain't moving around, trying to > avoid being seen, and such. I'm confused about which part of this you > don't get? The part where the location of an Inner Circle member reposing in torpor is common knowledge, but the location of a Famous Igo the Hungry is this impossible-to-get secret. =P > How so? You say that vampires who contest titles being able to rush eachother is a rule that no one can strategize for, and so should be avoided, and then go on to say that contesting titles -- which is a rule that no one can strategize for -- is fine, because, hey, if one of the decks is a combat deck, it can play a rush card to knock the other vampire into torpor... --Colin McGuigan

>You bet! You know something else? That 1-cap is tougher than Arika in >torpor, too. There was some strange song a few years back that I struggle >to recall but it went along these lines: "I'm funnier than John Belushi - >because he's DEAD. I'm a better singer than Frank Sinatra - because he's >DEAD."... and so on. A vampire in torpor ain't moving around, trying to >avoid being seen, and such. I'm confused about which part of this you >don't get? Heh, well this ain't exactly true in the World of Darkness. In fact, many elders are *still* kick-@ss even while in torpor. And plenty are still able to do stuff while in such a deep sleep. Halcyan 2

Colin McGuigan wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > You bet! You know something else? That 1-cap is tougher than Arika in > > torpor, too. There was some strange song a few years back that I struggle > > to recall but it went along these lines: "I'm funnier than John Belushi - > > because he's DEAD. I'm a better singer than Frank Sinatra - because he's > > DEAD."... and so on. A vampire in torpor ain't moving around, trying to > > avoid being seen, and such. I'm confused about which part of this you > > don't get? > > The part where the location of an Inner Circle member reposing in torpor > is common knowledge, but the location of a Famous Igo the Hungry is this > impossible-to-get secret. =P Sure, why not? Perhaps you were assume "Fame" had to mean something like an internationally famous singer going on concert tours? How about a reclusive author who's written lots of popular books? OTOH, a vampire torporized in a fight is left in heap wherever the fight was. Watch where the thrown cars came from. > > How so? > > You say that vampires who contest titles being able to rush each other is > a rule that no one can strategize for, and so should be avoided, and > then go on to say that contesting titles -- which is a rule that no one > can strategize for -- is fine, because, hey, if one of the decks is a > combat deck, it can play a rush card to knock the other vampire into > torpor... Having the same title is happenstance either way, no matter what the game rule about it says, obviously. So the grounds of your accusation of self-contradiction boil down to the point that I prefer the current rule rather than the original rule. This is ludicrous. The point of the "happenstance" argument is to note that this condition comes up not because it can be strategically planned for or made to come up, but because it simply comes up at random from time to time for various reasons. Therefore it is not a thing that should be given a strong type of effect which varies wildly in the advantages and disadvantages it grants based on the type of deck one chooses to bring. As I've posted elsewhere on the thread, allowing the two to simply contest the titles as you would if they were in the same sect is a much milder and more generic effect than giving each a permanent Contract on one another. (And by calling it a "Contract on one another", note that the Prince and Archbishops are the HIRED ASSASSINS in this role, not the ones taking out the contracts on one another, as might be a lot more intuitive.) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah. Well, you're going to have to forgive me if I'm not taking that into account properly. I don't play the role game and the only fiction I've read are the clan novels and a few of the mid-90s werewolf novels. One thing about VtES is that there's some abstraction going on, which leads to these little disputes like I'm having Colin and others. He abstracts this in his mind one way and I apparently abstract it in another. When I think of torpor, I think of the kind of thing that happened to Vegal, left lying in a heap for Leopold to readily diablerize. I guess some torpor situations are much different, particularly with ancient vampires. But I don't have enough experience with either the RPG or the fiction to have much idea how that would work. I've always assumed the Jyhad abstraction was much more the former than the latter. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Sure, why not? Perhaps you were assume "Fame" had to mean something > like an internationally famous singer going on concert tours? How > about a reclusive author who's written lots of popular books? Fame would have to mean someone in the public eye -- hence the pool loss that comes when the famous vampire goes to torpor, as resources have to be spent to "explain" the disappearance. > OTOH, > a vampire torporized in a fight is left in heap wherever the fight was. > Watch where the thrown cars came from. Many, many ways to go to torpor. Perhaps Arika was taking a little daylight stroll to visit the law firm? (Of course, I won't even go into how two vampires fight, one of them knocks the other into torpor, and then says, "Oops, no time for diablerie, gotta jet!"...) > As I've posted > elsewhere on the thread, allowing the two to simply contest the titles > as you would if they were in the same sect is a much milder and more > generic effect than giving each a permanent Contract on one another. It's not permanent. Once the contest is yielded, the effect ends. As you stated in your previous-previous post, it's always possible to just yield the title. --Colin McGuigan

Frederick Scott wrote: > Fame could easily be someone who's enough in the public eye that it would > be noticed if he didn't turn up in public places from time to time - but > enough so that he's easy to find and attack. As I continue to point, it > may be tricky, but as long as he's mobile and conscious and all that, it's > clearly possible. Uh huh. Yet Famous Igo the Hungry can go for a quick bite to eat in LA, and meet up with Francois Villoin, who flew in from Paris and just coincidentally happened to be in the right place. Mmm. Yeah. > Then she'd better get her ass back to her haven by some means before she > gets found. And indeed, the game provides the opportunity for her to > Freak Drive and leave torpor again before the end of the turn. The point being, how would anyone know she was in torpor to begin with? > Anyway, I'm not here to defend everything in the game as if there were > no holes in any of the abstractions. There are. If it helps any, I'll > readily concede the point you're making. Thank you. As amusing as your replies were. =P > I'm not sure what you're talking about. The original rule didn't work > that way. The "contest" - such as it was - was over when the opposing > titleholder was burnt. Until then, the ability was always there. There > was no way to just "yield" your title if it wasn't being contested within > your sect. Mmm. In that case, I misremember the rule. I could've sworn it was, "Contest the titles as normal, but while contesting, the prince and archbishop could rush eachother." I may, in fact, be terribly mistaken. --Colin McGuigan