Forget the point system

The much vaunted point system that the opponents of Ian Forrestal are pointing to should be scrapped as any sort of benchmark, or at least re-analyzed. Tura Vaughn, for example, has POT, CEL, PRE, and dom. Brachah has CEL, PRE, and for. If my deck design only uses CEL and PRE then the two vampires are equally effective save that one is more expensive. Therefore Tura would be said to be less efficient. Any aspects of the cards that I do not use in my deck design are completely irrelevant to that measure of efficiency. The value of any vampire is completely relative to the deck it is in. If there were two vampires with the same abilities but one cost twice the capacity of the other, I would not be surprised to both those vampires in the same crypt....and I, personally, would not start calling the more expensive vampire 'broken'. It is simply different. I would use the bigger one if I wanted to drop an atonement on it, use obedience, minion tap, galconda, Ancient Influence, Legendary Vampire, absorb damage, blood doll, or Return to Innocence. Capacity and Ability need not be related by formula. Rather, abilities should be given to vampires that would allow for interesting thematic deck constructions and that reflect the character that the game designers have imagined. Muaziz is regarded as under-priced by the point system. Role-playing wise, I think she is perfectly priced and has just the right abilities. She strikes terror into the hearts of those who see her come out and she attracts a lot of fire but it lets Ulugh have a powerful assassin at his beck and call without forcing the Tremere to load their deck with obfuscate cards. I look forward to seeing more vampires with wide-ranging abilities, such as Ian, so that we'll be able to try new deck ideas. How else will we be able to see an effective Auspex/Necromancy deck? or Dominate/Serpentis/Celerity? How else will we be able to please all those who whine about contesting vampires becoming a lost aspect of the game? The solution is to make vampires who are not cost-effective by the old point system.,...and its a good thing.

[snip claim that point system should be scrapped/re-analyzed] > Tura Vaughn, for example, has POT, CEL, PRE, and dom. > Brachah has CEL, PRE, and for. If my deck design only uses CEL and PRE > then the two vampires are equally effective save that one is more > expensive. Therefore Tura would be said to be less efficient. Any aspects > of the cards that I do not use in my deck design are completely > irrelevant to that measure of efficiency. The value of any vampire is > completely relative to the deck it is in. OK, given. I play with Badger and Camille in my deck, even though I don't use Potence. Other than that, they are exactly the same vampire, except that one costs 1 more (which only means that Camille can Atone and Badger can't...). But I would not want Badger to cost 5. I think that would be wrong. Just like in Magic (sorry), there shouldn't a 2/2 plain monster for 2G, nor should there be a 2/2 for G, since there is a fundamental monster which is 2/2 for 1G. The first would suck, and the second would be too good. That's a benchmark. In Shadowfist, there shouldn't be a 2 cost 3 fighting plain resource character, nor should there be a 2 cost 1 fighting plain resource character, since all of the 2 cost no-ability plain resource characters have 2 fighting. That's a benchmark. The "point system" is simple to figure out and applies to most vampires. It is a benchmark. Making vampires with odd or out-of-clan discipline distributions cheaper would make some vampires too good, as compared with almost every other vampire in the game. Why should one vampire be significantly better than all others? > If there were two vampires with the same abilities but one cost twice the > capacity of the other, I would not be surprised to both those vampires in > the same crypt.... Because, since vampires are unique, you need a distribution of different vampires with the right abilities. Tura and Bracha should not both cost 5, since one is obviously superior to the other. Tura should be (and is) more expensive. > and I, personally, would not start calling the more > expensive vampire 'broken'. Were Tura a 5, she would be broken. >It is simply different. I would use the > bigger one if I wanted to drop an atonement on it, use obedience, minion > tap, galconda, Ancient Influence, Legendary Vampire, absorb damage, blood > doll, or Return to Innocence. Atonement? Only if it's not bigger than 5... I agree with you in that large vampires have their uses, but consider your own example. You have 2 slots left to fill in your crypt for your PRE CEL deck. Your choices are Brachah, Tura and X, who has exactly the same abilities as Brachah. Who will you put in? As useful as the things you mention are, you are more likely to put in Brachah and X. Why do you think so many people play with the "Raven is Camille" rule? > Capacity and Ability need not be related by formula. Rather, abilities > should be given to vampires that would allow for interesting thematic > deck constructions and that reflect the character that the game designers > have imagined. Sure, vampires should have neat abilities/detriments. That makes things interesting. But no vampire should be strictly better than all other vampires, which Ian clearly is. Note that if he had a higher capacity (say 9 or 10) I wouldn't be as upset. > Muaziz is regarded as under-priced by the point system. Role-playing > wise, I think she is perfectly priced and has just the right abilities. > She strikes terror into the hearts of those who see her come out and she > attracts a lot of fire but it lets Ulugh have a powerful assassin at his > beck and call without forcing the Tremere to load their deck with > obfuscate cards. I'll say this again. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do not play the Vampire: the Masquerade game. I understand that this card game is based on that game. But this is not a role-playing game. This is a card game. Role-playing considerations do not apply to issues of game balance. As for Muaziz, you can imagine a 5-point vampire with Muaziz's disciplines, since this would be exactly comparable with most other 5's in the game. So you're really paying 2 pool for Muaziz's other abilities. What if there was a 2-cost master card which increased the vampire's capacity by 2, made it immune to Blood Hunts, and gave it +1 stealth on all actions? Wouldn't that be very powerful? And Muaziz starts off with that. > I look forward to seeing more vampires with wide-ranging abilities, such > as Ian, so that we'll be able to try new deck ideas. How else will we be > able to see an effective Auspex/Necromancy deck? or > Dominate/Serpentis/Celerity? Playing with master: skill cards, like God intended. > The solution is to make vampires who are not cost-effective by the old > point system.,...and its a good thing. But then older-edition vampires become strictly less powerful than the new vampires, which is not fair and pisses people off. James -- * James Hamblin * * Cornell University * * je...@cornell.edu *

Malcolm McCallum (mcca...@pacificcoast.net) wrote: You will recall that I've already responded to another of your posts, and I don't have the energy to do a particularly good job here (as if I did there!) but here goes... : The much vaunted point system that the opponents of Ian Forrestal are : pointing to should be scrapped as any sort of benchmark, or at least : re-analyzed. That seems to be a fair statement, but a good argument is awaited... : Tura Vaughn, for example, has POT, CEL, PRE, and dom. Brachah has : CEL, PRE, and for. True. : If my deck design only uses CEL and PRE : then the two vampires are equally effective save that one is more : expensive. Therefore Tura would be said to be less efficient. Would be said to be less efficient TO THAT DESIGN. Now let's say that I want a deck which uses POT CEL. And then one with POT PRE. And then one with POT CEL PRE. And then one with POT DOM. Note that Tura can probably fit into EACH of these deck designs. This makes Tura MORE valuable than Brachah, does it not? One should have to pay for versatility... and therefore, Tura should be priced accordingly. Now, if you could care less that a vampire is versatile, DON'T USE (and don't pay) for the more versatile one. But you should still have to PAY if you want the versatility. Ian does not effectively pay for the versatility he provides. By your argument, if I want a POT CEL deck, I should find the smallest vampires with POT CEL around. And then when I make a for aus deck, I should find the smallest vamps with those. And the same goes for any combination of skills... including ones which are very rare combinations. The fact that Ian may be used in ANY of these deck designs points to his versatility, something which should be paid for. : Any aspects of the cards that I do not use in my deck design are : completely irrelevant to that measure of efficiency. The value of : any vampire is completely relative to the deck it is in. A fair statement. But does this mean that I should pay MORE for a weenie vampire because he/she is pivotal to my deck strategy? Or LESS for an inner circle member if they are not? The value of any vampire to a given deck design is variable. The COST for any vampire is fixed based on their given abilities. You need to weigh the cost with the added value. Asking for underpriced vampires just makes it easier for you to do less thinking when building your crypt. I don't see that as making the game any better. : If there were two vampires with the same abilities but one cost twice the : capacity of the other, I would not be surprised to both those vampires in : the same crypt....and I, personally, would not start calling the more : expensive vampire 'broken'. That's nice that you wouldn't, but I do not see how it relates to the discussion of UNDER-pricing. If you wish to use an OVER-priced vampire in your crypt, that is your weight to bear. : Capacity and Ability need not be related by formula. Rather, abilities : should be given to vampires that would allow for interesting thematic : deck constructions and that reflect the character that the game designers : have imagined. So if a game designer were to imagine a little weenie vampire who had the power to bring about the destruction of the world of darkness as a +1 stealth undirected action, would that make the design valid simply because they thought it up? And if you believe that Ian's ability follow the game's source, why doesn't he pay blood for his use of the arcane to emulate disciplines he does not have? : Muaziz is regarded as under-priced by the point system. And those that feel she is under-priced only have as being under-priced by 1 or 2. Nothing egregious. At least her abilities can be explained as being a well-trained assassin for Ulugh. How does one explain the free discplines that Ian gets? His special ability does not seem to honor the source... : I look forward to seeing more vampires with wide-ranging abilities, such : as Ian, so that we'll be able to try new deck ideas. How else will we be : able to see an effective Auspex/Necromancy deck? or : Dominate/Serpentis/Celerity? BUT, if you are respecting the game source, it should not be an EASY thing to use combinations of disciplines which do not occur naturally in the world of darkness. And it should certainly not be an EASY thing to use a single vampire in ALL of these combinations without paying for this versatility. If the cost means nothing, why have it? : How else will we be able to please all those who whine about contesting : vampires becoming a lost aspect of the game? Contestation indicates a values resource. The higher the probability that something will contest indicates a higher value. By your arguments, Ian is extremely highly likely to be contested, which should indicate that his cost is too low. If two Meth's have decided to invest in the same highly contested resource, they will pay the price. This is, again, a case of attempting to weigh the benefits with the possible costs. There should be a BALANCE between expected benefit and cost. If you are HIGHLY contestable, then this should indicate that the costs are too low for the benefit. If contestation is HIGHLY unlikely, the benefits probably are overshadowed by the cost. A _good_ design respects this balance. : The solution is to make vampires who are not cost-effective by the old : point system.,...and its a good thing. I wouldn't mind if the old system were ignored IF (big IF) vampires appeared to have some semblance of a balance between cost and ability AND a respect for the source. Ian does not appear to have either. That is the argument. -spongy

Malcolm, I think James did a pretty good job of defending the point system as it stands. There are a couple of things I would like to add though. I think Ian Forestal is an abusive and unfair vampire that helps the Tremere to become even more powerful. If the card were printed thus: "Ian Forestal, 8, THA, AUS, DOM, ani, cel, chi, dem, for, nec, obf, obt, pot, pre, qui, ser, vis," it might be more obvious at a glance that something is wrong with it. He has every discipline in the game and all his clan's basic disciplines are at superior. In just a run of the mill Tremere deck he would be useful but not overly powerful. The real degeneracy comes to light when the Tremere start to add in some disciplines. This guy can fit into any Tremere deck and fit well. He may not be any better in a particular deck than another Tremere, but he will be better in all possible Tremere decks than any other Tremere. No matter what discipline combos are used, the Tremere need never have to pay more than 8 pool to have them all on a single vampire. I don't see Ian Forestal being contested as widely as some folks suggest because he is not going to be useful in many decks other than Tremere decks. Will the Gangrel want to pay 8 for a vampire with inferior of all their clan disciplines? Will the Torreador need an 8 capacity vamp with AUS cel pre even if he has another skill they are trying to incorporate? Brujah won't want an 8 pot cel pre. His inferior disciplines are not worth the 8 pool for clans that can't also use his superior disciplines. Expect to see him in lots of Tremere decks, some Malk decks and only a few others. Since you mention Muziz...now there is a design problem vamp. Yes, I'm sure it is very nice for the Tremere to have a powerful assassin without having to load their deck with obfuscate cards. Of course, if any other non-obf and non-pro clan wants to have that ability they do have to load those obfuscate cards in the old card mix. The way it stands now, the Tremere get to use stealth without worrying about the cards coming up or diluting their focus. Soon, they will be able to use every discipline without worrying about how to make it work in the crypt. Truly they are the chosen ones. ;-) I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is apparently some kind of bias toward the Tremere in the design process. I am not the only one who thinks so. It seems as if the only folks on the group who support this are the Tremere fans within the game. Go figure. ;-) Good luck with the Tremere decks, Doug Dunaway

DOUGDWISE (doug...@aol.com) wrote: : I think Ian Forestal is an abusive and unfair vampire that helps the : Tremere to become even more powerful. If the card were printed thus: "Ian : Forestal, 8, THA, AUS, DOM, ani, cel, chi, dem, for, nec, obf, obt, pot, : pre, qui, ser, vis," it might be more obvious at a glance that something : is wrong with it. He has every discipline in the game and all his clan's : basic disciplines are at superior. As I've mentioned before, they obviously didn't want to print the disciplines on the card because then Ian wouldn't be able to use any of the cute new disciplines which could possibly be added as time goes on. Not only is Ian overpowered now, but he will GROW in power as time goes on. : In just a run of the mill Tremere deck he would be useful but not overly : powerful. The real degeneracy comes to light when the Tremere start to : add in some disciplines. Or when previously unworkable combinations of skills are now possible, given any clan. Many folks are not afraid of discipline masters... and at most three can give Ian superior in any three that you like. Quite cute. : but he will be better in all possible Tremere decks than any other : Tremere. Which should indicate his value (underpriced). : I don't see Ian Forestal being contested as widely as some folks suggest : because he is not going to be useful in many decks other than Tremere : decks. If you already play with discipline masters, than you won't mind tossing Ian into just about any deck. : Will the Gangrel want to pay 8 for a vampire with inferior of all : their clan disciplines? They will if they'd like to add some auspex. Or to contest Tremere unique locations in a hoser capacity. Who knows? The addition of a do-it-all vampire makes previously unworkable strategies workable. Maybe there really is a viable reason why the Gangrel could use him. : Will the Torreador need an 8 capacity vamp with AUS cel pre even if : he has another skill they are trying to incorporate? Perhaps not, but if they wanted to incorporate another clan for odd combinations, Ian is someone who can bridge that gap. : Brujah won't want an 8 pot cel pre. His inferior disciplines are not : worth the 8 pool for clans that can't also use his superior disciplines. That's just fine... but he also sets a precedent for future cross disciplined vampires. His value should not depend on whether he will work in a given deck strategy. His value should be based on the inherent versatility and usability of his abilities. -spongy

In article <50k363$9...@gw.dgii.com> jam...@dgii.com (James Puzzo) writes: >DOUGDWISE (doug...@aol.com) wrote: >: I think Ian Forestal is an abusive and unfair vampire that helps the >: Tremere to become even more powerful. If the card were printed thus: "Ian >: Forestal, 8, THA, AUS, DOM, ani, cel, chi, dem, for, nec, obf, obt, pot, >: pre, qui, ser, vis," it might be more obvious at a glance that something >: is wrong with it. He has every discipline in the game and all his clan's >: basic disciplines are at superior. [snip] >: I don't see Ian Forestal being contested as widely as some folks suggest >: because he is not going to be useful in many decks other than Tremere >: decks. > >If you already play with discipline masters, than you won't mind tossing Ian >into just about any deck. [snip] >: Will the Torreador need an 8 capacity vamp with AUS cel pre even if >: he has another skill they are trying to incorporate? Yay, another 'Toreador' with Protean. And DOMinate! Definitely worth the 8 blood, in a Protean S&B deck. Or Obfuscate, for a Weapons intercept deck. [snip] >: Brujah won't want an 8 pot cel pre. His inferior disciplines are not >: worth the 8 pool for clans that can't also use his superior disciplines. Brujah combat, with Thoughts Betrayed and Disguised guns. He'd be nice, even for 8. Now there are 3 useful 'Brujah' with DOM. He's not Donal O'Connor or Constanza, but still useful. I think it won't be long before someone comes up with a really, really broken way to use him. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

Tom and James, I guess you guts are a little more creative than I am when it comes to mixing in vampires. It is possible that Ian Forestal will be very popular in other clan decks based on what you guys propose. I don't think I'd use him but then I generally stay with one clan or two if they share two disciplines. And I certainly agree that his cost should be based on the disciplines that he _can_ use rather than the ones he is using in any particular deck. If that were the way it worked I would always use the Inner Circls vamps and only have to pay 8 for them. Wow! I might really like this new V:tES trend! ;-)= Of course, I do think that he would be all right at 8 cost if he had to pay one blood to play a card with his ability. "What do you think, Sirs?" Doug Dunaway

DOUGDWISE (doug...@aol.com) wrote: : Tom and James, : I guess you guts are a little more creative than I am when it comes to : mixing in vampires. My crypt building has _always_ been suspect, simply because I can't bring myself to NOT use those Nosferatu. But I have seen many a deck, and have a relatively good understanding of deck mechanics. : Of course, I do think that he would be all right at 8 cost if he had to : pay one blood to play a card with his ability. : "What do you think, Sirs?" This has been one of the many fixes proposed. I think 8 is a bit much for him if that's the fix... perhaps a cost of seven would suffice. Another proposed fix was: "Well, what if when you add a discipline master he DOESN'T get that discipline at superior?" -spongy

On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > The much vaunted point system that the opponents of Ian Forrestal are > pointing to should be scrapped as any sort of benchmark, or at least > re-analyzed. [snip] > Any aspects > of the cards that I do not use in my deck design are completely > irrelevant to that measure of efficiency. The value of any vampire is > completely relative to the deck it is in. Not true. The value of the vampire is the abilitiy of it to be put into any deck. The value of the vampire _to_that_deck_ is quite different than the value of a vampire in particular. Otherwise, my payment for vampires in my mono-discipline decks should be extremely cheap indeed. > If there were two vampires with the same abilities but one cost twice the > capacity of the other, I would not be surprised to both those vampires in > the same crypt....and I, personally, would not start calling the more > expensive vampire 'broken'. It is simply different. I would use the > bigger one if I wanted to drop an atonement on it, use obedience, minion > tap, galconda, Ancient Influence, Legendary Vampire, absorb damage, blood > doll, or Return to Innocence. No one is calling the bigger vampire broken. What we are saying is this: Arika wouldn't be too cheap if she were only 8 (or 9) capacity, would she? Why should she pay for here out-of-clan disciplines? They aren't likely to be used. In my presence-only deck, shouldn't I only have to pay 6 (2 for discipline, 4 for special ability)? Aren't the above statements ludicrous? They are the statements being made by the design team and Shawn regarding Ian Forestal. > Muaziz is regarded as under-priced by the point system. True. >Role-playing > wise, I think she is perfectly priced and has just the right abilities. > She strikes terror into the hearts of those who see her come out and she > attracts a lot of fire but it lets Ulugh have a powerful assassin at his > beck and call without forcing the Tremere to load their deck with > obfuscate cards. Just because a vampire inspires terror means nothing. Camille can inspire terror, but at least she costs the right amount. Muaziz, on the other hand, is too cheap. > I look forward to seeing more vampires with wide-ranging abilities, such > as Ian, so that we'll be able to try new deck ideas. How else will we be > able to see an effective Auspex/Necromancy deck? or > Dominate/Serpentis/Celerity? With Master skill cards. With vampires who have these disciplines. With Ian (if his cost were appropriate). > How else will we be able to please all those who whine about contesting > vampires becoming a lost aspect of the game? > The solution is to make vampires who are not cost-effective by the old > point system.,...and its a good thing. Why? So that all the old (balanced) cards become obsolete. If you truly believe this, I am sorry. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

'Forgive me, but I really don't understand this 'point system.' Could someone explain it to me? Please Email me if you like, so as not to waste Bandwidth and piss people off at me. :) Thanx, C. Maietta, Dark Poet

I sent him one (he probably got like, 3 or 4), so you don't need to send him any more (unless you really want to :-) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "...and this Perpetual Motion Machine is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster!" -Homer J Simpson

The Corrupter wrote: > Arika wouldn't be too cheap if she were only 8 (or 9) capacity, would she? > Why should she pay for here out-of-clan disciplines? They aren't > likely to be used. In my presence-only deck, shouldn't I only have to > pay 6 (2 for discipline, 4 for special ability)? > > Aren't the above statements ludicrous? They are the statements being > made by the design team and Shawn regarding Ian Forestal. No, this is not what I am saying, and I would appreciate if you would stop putting words in my mouth, thank you. My original comment was on discipline costs, and how I personally felt that at higher levels, they may be overpriced. This is WotC's "design point" system, and not the one described on the net. I asked for people's input because I wanted to hear what they had to say. As a side note, I am starting to believe that this Ian Forestal discussion is giving me gas. What I state as my opinion is now being reworked into discussions of other cards. I *never* said word one about Arika, lower cost or not. My input was on the workings of the design behind Ian, most of which have been ripped apart as heresy and reworded for further critical analysis which I have not lent my input to. Now I fully expect to see all my previous posts assimilated together into another lambaste on Ian and the design team. I can't wait--whee. It all comes down to personal opinion, and some opinions will always differ than the others. I'm sorry some people don't care for how the design/development team of WotC does things, but being a part of it, all I can say is that we strive to become better each day. If it is not to someone's liking, then all I can do is apologize and try to incorporate changes to make it better. I cannot, however, cater tastes when the differing opinions of the DT themselves must come into swing. I am but a single part. -- >>> Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull goose loony here?" --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

In article <323F10...@castle.wizards.com>, sw...@castle.wizards.com says... > >The Corrupter wrote: > >> Arika wouldn't be too cheap if she were only 8 (or 9) capacity, would she? >> Why should she pay for here out-of-clan disciplines? They aren't >> likely to be used. In my presence-only deck, shouldn't I only have to >> pay 6 (2 for discipline, 4 for special ability)? >> >> Aren't the above statements ludicrous? They are the statements being >> made by the design team and Shawn regarding Ian Forestal. > >No, this is not what I am saying, and I would appreciate if you would >stop putting words in my mouth, thank you. My original comment was on >discipline costs, and how I personally felt that at higher levels, they >may be overpriced. This is WotC's "design point" system, and not the >one described on the net. I asked for people's input because I wanted >to hear what they had to say. Alright, Shawn. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Try to relax. This Ian Forestal thing has all of us rather worked up. The Corrupter is just the person who had his post phrased in a way which made it sound like he was putting words in your mouth(from your perspective, I can see that it would seem like he was). I'm not trying to necessarily excuse him here(not that I have the right to judge him or you in the first place), but as a way of explaining what and why he said: a) You haven't been on the group for a while; I think since you made your statement about out-of-clan disciplines being cheaper than the usual costs which we posted as our basis for the "point system". The fact that you haven't responded to our attempted rebuttals, or been able to, just makes us frustrated, especially when newbies who don't have as much background in the game as us or you start saying things like "The point system ought to be scrapped; Tura vaughn should only cost as much as Brachah for a Presence/Celerity deck." b) The aforesaid newbies asked for our explainations about why and how the "point system" we refer to works; a number of us explained, and since Ian was riding on our minds, and since you had been unable to respond, our debating frustrations and desire to make our points came out on those posts, as we used Ian as an example of a card which to US violates the point system. The Corrupter's quoted text was basically a rhetorical device, intended to make a point about the point system and game balance, not necessarily a personal attack(knowing the Corrupter, I wouldn't take it that way). >As a side note, I am starting to believe that this Ian Forestal >discussion is giving me gas. Hey, me too... I think that the reasons are slightly different, though. ;) >What I state as my opinion is now being reworked into discussions of >other cards. I *never* said word one about Arika, lower cost or not. >My input was on the workings of the design behind Ian, most of which >have been ripped apart as heresy and reworded for further critical >analysis which I have not lent my input to. Now I fully expect to see >all my previous posts assimilated together into another lambaste on Ian >and the design team. I can't wait--whee. We don't lambast.(At least, not most of us.) What we try to do is debate. Point. By Point. By Point. Sometimes we expect people to know every argument back to the start of the thread. I'm sorry if our style of discussion makes you uncomfortable, or even angry at us, Shawn. That is not it's intent in any way. I believe that I can speak for most of the group here in saying that what we want is an open discussion of design and balance issues, and your participation in such a discussion would be valued and even needed so that we don't end up just talking to ourselves and coming to a general consensus which nonetheless will have no effect on the design team or WotC's policies in any way. I know that your time is limited. But do you think that we could have a discussion about the principles of game balance, especially as they relate to Jyhad, with your input? >It all comes down to personal opinion, and some opinions will always >differ than the others. Well, there are arguments too... Logic and all that. Of course, what is logical and illogical will generally come down to opinion as well. I don't suppose that if you want to discuss these issues with us, you'd be willing to either have us define the format, or come to some agreement (I haven't seen the newsgroup charter yet... :( ). >I'm sorry some people don't care for how the >design/development team of WotC does things, but being a part of it, all >I can say is that we strive to become better each day. If it is not to >someone's liking, then all I can do is apologize and try to incorporate >changes to make it better. I cannot, however, cater tastes when the >differing opinions of the DT themselves must come into swing. I am but >a single part. I assume that you have already been informing them of our opinions and letting them see our posts for themselves? I don't suppose that any of the rest of them would be willing to check up on the newsgroup once in a while, and maybe post? The ability to talk to more people from WotC would enable us to communicate our concerns to you better, and perhaps make Jyhad/V:teS a better game in the long run. Alec Chang, Concerned Gamer

[ quoted text not captured ] Whoa! Whoa! Why is that when I say that the system is skewed you assume that I'm a newbie? I've been Jyhadding since it first came out and know what I'm talking about. The difference is that Corrupter and Co. have immersed themselves into an ivory tower of netizens. The 'point system' should be scrapped. I stand by that. That you think *anybody* has actually said that Tura Vaughn should only cost as much as Brachah for a Pre/Cel deck just shows that you've been completely ignorant to what some of us are actually saying. We say that the value of a vampire is completely relative to the deck it is in and less so to the decks it is opposed to. Capacity should NOT be considered the value of a vampire nor should there be a direct link/formulaic relationship between capacity and abilities. Big vamps should have more abilities than small ones. Beyond that, whatever the team comes up with will likely (Yes, I trust them) be a fair creature. Our group would have been quite happy to play with the unerrated Blythe. We know that there are enough variable factors in the game to prevent the super weenie from becoming a dominant or even noticeable factor. [ quoted text not captured ] The 'point system' is a shaky axiom used by some. Back up and try the logical arguments without it. There is no question that Ian does not fit the system yet he still may be a valid vampire. That would invalidate the 'system'. People have thrown together decks that are supposed to show how bad Ian is. I haven't yet seen anyone claiming that they put an Ian proxy in their deck and swept the table with it because of him every time. For every viable strategy (S&B, Gangrel rush etc) that someone puts forth as too powerful, others come back with strategies that oppose it. Have faith that a deck that derives its strength from Ian has a weak link. That said, I cringe at the way that Summon the Serpent will almost ensure Ian's arrival in any game where he is really necessary. > > >I'm sorry some people don't care for how the > >design/development team of WotC does things, but being a part of it, all > >I can say is that we strive to become better each day. If it is not to > >someone's liking, then all I can do is apologize and try to incorporate > >changes to make it better. I cannot, however, cater tastes when the > >differing opinions of the DT themselves must come into swing. I am but > >a single part. > I assume that you have already been informing them of our opinions and > letting them see our posts for themselves? I don't suppose that any of the > rest of them would be willing to check up on the newsgroup once in a while, > and maybe post? The ability to talk to more people from WotC would enable us > to communicate our concerns to you better, and perhaps make Jyhad/V:teS a > better game in the long run. > > Alec Chang, Concerned Gamer > > > Malcolm McCallum, Unconcerned Gamer?

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Alec Chang wrote: [To Shawn...] > > a) You haven't been on the group for a while; I think since you made your > > statement about out-of-clan disciplines being cheaper than the usual costs > > which we posted as our basis for the "point system". The fact that you > > haven't responded to our attempted rebuttals, or been able to, just makes us > > frustrated, especially when newbies who don't have as much background in the > > game as us or you start saying things like "The point system ought to be > > scrapped; Tura vaughn should only cost as much as Brachah for a > > Presence/Celerity deck." > Whoa! Whoa! Why is that when I say that the system is skewed you assume > that I'm a newbie? Not to be rude, but if you are the one who made the original comment about Brachah and Tura Vaughn, then I too would have assumed you were a newbie. > I've been Jyhadding since it first came out and know > what I'm talking about. The difference is that Corrupter and Co. have > immersed themselves into an ivory tower of netizens. An Ivory Tower idea assumes a unified front. On the contrary, we are far from unified on most things. Take a call to the more vocal people's house rules. You'll find them quite different (see LSJ's House Rules list for many examples of large disagreement). I, for example, don't feel that the Setites hoser cards are a big problem. Alec strongly disagrees. I find Archon Investigation a stupid card that shouldn't have been made. James Hamblin strongly disagrees. Your idea that we have somehow formed our own little idea of right and wrong for the whole Jyhad world and assume that we are the world is incorrect. On the other hand, we are all standing in our own little areas of the real world, with vastly different experience (note West Coast (nod to Goudie) differences) in the game, yet (most of us) still feel there is a problem. >The 'point system' > should be scrapped. I stand by that. That you think *anybody* has > actually said that Tura Vaughn should only cost as much as Brachah for a > Pre/Cel deck just shows that you've been completely ignorant to what some > of us are actually saying. > We say that the value of a vampire is completely relative to the deck it ^^^^^^^^ > is in and less so to the decks it is opposed to. Capacity should NOT be > considered the value of a vampire nor should there be a direct > link/formulaic relationship between capacity and abilities. Big vamps > should have more abilities than small ones. Beyond that, whatever the > team comes up with will likely (Yes, I trust them) be a fair creature. > Our group would have been quite happy to play with the unerrated Blythe. > We know that there are enough variable factors in the game to prevent the > super weenie from becoming a dominant or even noticeable factor. Value is far different than cost. While a card might not be valuable to a certain deck, that doesn't mean its cost for _any_ particular deck should be lower. To address your idea to drop the point system, I have one question: Do you want to make the original Jyhad set obselete? All of the old vampires were created with some version of the point system (how accurate our idea of what exactly that is is debatable). If the design team starts making new vampires willy-nilly without the point system, those new vampires that cost too much will find themselves almost never used. Those new vampires that cost too little will find themselves used more often. In the end, you get to a point where the old vampires are all totally outclassed by the new ones, with the only way to compete being to play _only_ the new cards. Smart idea. > The 'point system' is a shaky axiom used by some. Back up and try the > logical arguments without it. There is no question that Ian does not fit > the system yet he still may be a valid vampire. That would invalidate the > 'system'. Whether he is valid or not (without the point system arguement) is totally a matter of opinion. By throwing out the point system, there is no objective way to tell if something is too powerful/weak, other than "Looks kinda Okay to me, Jed. How 'bout you?" "Dunno, about right, maybe..." > People have thrown together decks that are supposed to show how bad Ian > is. I wasn't too impressed with that whole dead-end challenge of Shawn's. An undercosted card won't necessarily break a game. Ian is such an example. >I haven't yet seen anyone claiming that they put an Ian proxy in > their deck and swept the table with it because of him every time. Again, an undercosted card doesn't necessarily break a game. Blythe Candaleria as written does not break Jyhad. However, it is certainly unfair, it would make Dr. John obselete (now only used extremely rarely). >For > every viable strategy (S&B, Gangrel rush etc) that someone puts forth as > too powerful, others come back with strategies that oppose it. Have faith > that a deck that derives its strength from Ian has a weak link. Would my all-presence deck which has Arika (cost 7 instead of 11) have a "weak link" because of her inclusion? It would derive its strength from her (even though it is still happy to include her as an 11). I mean, I only plan on _using_ presence. Why should I pay for the others? > That said, I cringe at the way that Summon the Serpent will almost ensure > Ian's arrival in any game where he is really necessary. Actually, you couldn't do that to Ian. He doesn't have Serpentis, he just can play as if he had it. (Wow! The first time it actually makes a difference... This and Kiss of Ra) > Malcolm McCallum, Unconcerned Gamer? Would you be unconcerned if Arika cost 9? After all, how many decks _use_ 6 disciplines anyway? [ quoted text not captured ]

Malcolm McCallum wrote: > > We say that the value of a vampire is completely relative to the deck it > is in and less so to the decks it is opposed to. Capacity should NOT be > considered the value of a vampire nor should there be a direct > link/formulaic relationship between capacity and abilities. Well, it is natural to equate cost = value. With most of the Jyhad original set vampires as a standard (Anvil notwithstanding), every vampire who is printed can and should be compared to existing vampires. It turns out that the "point system" as we have defined it conforms rather well to those vampires. Why should we not compare all vampires in this system and conclude "this one is too cheap" or "this one is too expensive"? > Big vamps > should have more abilities than small ones. Beyond that, whatever the > team comes up with will likely (Yes, I trust them) be a fair creature. But even with that statement you admit to the basis of the point system. Big vamps should have more abilities than small ones. Well, how many should small ones have? You certainly would want a 2 capacity vampire with a superior, would you? Were WotC to print such a vampire, the game would become unbalanced. Why should small vampires have so many abilities. How come X new vampire is a 2 with superior Fortitude, but Giuliano Vincenzi is a 2 with inferior fortitude? > Our group would have been quite happy to play with the unerrated Blythe. > We know that there are enough variable factors in the game to prevent the > super weenie from becoming a dominant or even noticeable factor. But even with eratta, Blythe is over powered. Compare her to Ricky van Demsy. They are both 3's. Ricky has 2 inferiors. UEBlythe has two superiors, and -1 hand damage against Malks. OK. What if they printed NewRicky, a 3 point Gangrel with FOR PRO and -1 hand damage against Malkavians. Which is the better vampire? Obviously, this new one, since (especially for Tremere) clan-specific disadvantages are nowhere near as bad as regular disadvantages. If NewRicky had simply -1 hand damage, it would much harder to determine which was the better vamp. > The 'point system' is a shaky axiom used by some. Back up and try the > logical arguments without it. There is no question that Ian does not fit > the system yet he still may be a valid vampire. That would invalidate the > 'system'. The argument above does not use the point system. It just compares vampires and attempts to determine which vampires are better than others. Also, vampires don't _have_ to conform to the point system. Simply because so many of them do is reason enough to say that certain vampires (Muaziz, Blythe, Ian, etc.) (Look at that... they're all Tremere...) are overpowered. > Have faith > that a deck that derives its strength from Ian has a weak link. The point is not that Ian will break the game. Uniqueness of vampires prevents him from doing so. However, more vampires printed according to this trend might break the game. You cannot deny that the point system conforms to most existing vampires. That said, why should we not use it as a benchmark? If Sabbat comes out and all/most of those vampires go against this system, then we will have to revise it. James

Malcolm McCallum wrote: [snip] > Whoa! Whoa! Why is that when I say that the system is skewed you assume > that I'm a newbie? I've been Jyhadding since it first came out and know > what I'm talking about. The difference is that Corrupter and Co. have > immersed themselves into an ivory tower of netizens. The 'point system' > should be scrapped. I stand by that. That you think *anybody* has > actually said that Tura Vaughn should only cost as much as Brachah for a > Pre/Cel deck just shows that you've been completely ignorant to what some > of us are actually saying. > > We say that the value of a vampire is completely relative to the deck it > is in and less so to the decks it is opposed to. Capacity should NOT be > considered the value of a vampire nor should there be a direct > link/formulaic relationship between capacity and abilities. Big vamps > should have more abilities than small ones. Beyond that, whatever the > team comes up with will likely (Yes, I trust them) be a fair creature. > Our group would have been quite happy to play with the unerrated Blythe. > We know that there are enough variable factors in the game to prevent the > super weenie from becoming a dominant or even noticeable factor.[snip] I hope you all don't mind if a "newbie" inserts an opinion here: When I first heard about the so-called "point system" I was rather happy knowing that there are some checks-and-balances built into the design system. This way certain vampires won't become "must haves" while others become wallpaper. I got into V:TES because I became disenchanted with the whole "this deck kicks butt, but it cost a hellacious amount of money to build" thing, currently inherent in Magic. I still play Magic, but I enjoy V:TES more, partially because I have a chance to compete with a limited budget and card set. Now I may just be naive, but I like to believe that a point system for building vampires is a good idea. I mean, why should I pay 5 pool to bring out a vamp with a certain skill set when I can pay 4 for the exact same vampire, unless I want the vamp to be a little bigger from the start? I'm not saying that this is the case with Ian, but if you don't hold to some sort of point system then you make some vampires inherently better than others simply because they do more for less. Ian is definately a "bargain" vampire. Just my .02. Regards, Ray Babbitt RBab...@Novell.COM Standard Disclaimer

Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@pacificcoast.net> writes: >That said, I cringe at the way that Summon the Serpent will almost ensure >Ian's arrival in any game where he is really necessary. Summon the Serpent cannot retrieve Ian, since he doesn't actually have serpentis. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Clap on! <clap> <clap> http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Clap off! <clap> <cla+W." Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | ^Ejq#xe>4NO CARRIER

Shawn F. Carnes (sw...@castle.wizards.com) wrote: : It all comes down to personal opinion, and some opinions will always : differ than the others. I'm sorry some people don't care for how the : design/development team of WotC does things, but being a part of it, all : I can say is that we strive to become better each day. If it is not to Well, thank you for striving to become better, but it seems a little like 'better' means 'more like M:tG' in your department. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my opinion, Jyhad was/is good. heck, close to perfect(except for the misprints and all, I mean the game) Changing the name was bad, adding some even freakier Tremere and Thaumaturgy cards was bad, adding more anti-clan cards was bad, and all of it added together is really starting to take the enjoyment out of it. In my group we tend to use the Jyhad rules, but as we use the expansions some cards are just to broken (Blood to Water jumps to mind) Also I think most cards in Jyhad were cards you could do something about. Or were temporary effects or whatever. Cards like Malkavian Derangement: Alternate Personality and Fear of Mekhet are cards you can't do anything about. And a cards like Seeds of Corruption takes a vamp 4 blood to get rid of + two actions. That's a lot. Well, I'm talking too much now, so I'll stop, but please, try to keep it simple, that'll be more fun. Oh btw, i realize that you can't help most of this since you joined after most of it was done, Shawn. : someone's liking, then all I can do is apologize and try to incorporate : changes to make it better. I cannot, however, cater tastes when the : differing opinions of the DT themselves must come into swing. I am but : a single part. Now that you mention the design team, I've always wondered why some cards were so hard to interprete while all one would have to do is step to the designer of the card and ask him/her what he wanted/intended the card to do. Now there are Rulesmongers and -teams working out what they might have thought.... Sounds like people who think a lot of themselves interpreting art in ways the artists hadn't even thought of. Nyway, have fun designig new cards and make sure they put a better coating on future cards, most of my DS cards have worse wear then my two years older Jyhad cards. -- //The Doctor. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | GCS -d+ H++>+++ s:++>+:+ g+ p2 !au a->+++ w++ v+(---) | | C+++>+ UHL++ P?>+ L+ !3 E N++ K- W(---) !M !V po+ | | Y t(+) 5>+ !j R+ G++@ tv+(++) b+>++ D+ B? e+ u+** | | h+* f? !r--- n---- !y+ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Greetings to All, On this subject of point systems for designing vampires I have to come down in favor of one. I recall a game called Spellfire (anybody remember that?) that had something called creatures or heroes, I can't remember much about it, and they were just put in the deck and brought out when you needed them to do battle. They ranged in power from 10 (high) to 1 and the 10s cost no more to bring into play than the ones. Nobody that I ever spoke with who played or saw the game could ever understand why someone would play with anything except their highest power cards since they all cost the same. I'm sorry if I am getting some of the details wrong but the concept was as I state. I just don't recall much about the game and that sort of helps make the point. The way they did the creature cards for Spellfire was stupid because there was no reason to ever use anything but a big monster of a ten. Why did they even print the ones? They had no "Point System", no way of appropriately costing the cards so that there would be some thought required to build a deck. One of the great things about Jyhad was it's mix of clans and disciplines and trying to get that right mix of vampires and library cards. Not every clan had inherent stealth or damage prevention so it was necessary to choose carefully and to blend the vampires in the crypt to get them to work. Without apprpriate costing, crypt building would be on the Spellfire plan: "OK, let's just put all of the vampires with the most disciplines and abilities in 'cause they all cost the same." This seems to be a "dumbing down" of the strategy levels and the challenge level of the game and so I would oppose Ian Forestal as advertised for this reason alone. Let's _not_ forget the point system. Shawn may never share with us the system that the design team uses (used?) for vampires but it seems obvious that there was one. We need it to keep this game interesting. Do we really want a 3-capacity PRE OBF Prince or a 5-capacity POT PRO FOR CEL that can attack any minion at +1 stealth? >shiver< Keep up the debate. Who knows, somebody may actually form a new opinion. Doug Dunaway

>Malcolm McCallum wrote: > Whoa! Whoa! Why is that when I say that the system is skewed you assume > that I'm a newbie? I've been Jyhadding since it first came out and know > what I'm talking about. The difference is that Corrupter and Co. have > immersed themselves into an ivory tower of netizens. The 'point system' > should be scrapped. I stand by that. That you think *anybody* has > actually said that Tura Vaughn should only cost as much as Brachah for a > Pre/Cel deck just shows that you've been completely ignorant to what some > of us are actually saying. > We say that the value of a vampire is completely relative to the deck it > is in and less so to the decks it is opposed to. So how do you price your vampires? > Capacity should NOT be > considered the value of a vampire nor should there be a direct > link/formulaic relationship between capacity and abilities. Big vamps > should have more abilities than small ones. Beyond that, whatever the > team comes up with will likely (Yes, I trust them) be a fair creature. > Our group would have been quite happy to play with the unerrated Blythe. > We know that there are enough variable factors in the game to prevent the > super weenie from becoming a dominant or even noticeable factor. Blythe without errata-what a thought. So poor Dr. John isn't feeling left out over there? (Okay, Shawn. I don't mean this to be offensive, and I don't think that the DT would actually do this.) If there were, for some unexplained reason, a new V:TES expansion with a Tremere ally, a Euthanatos mage, you wouldn't complain about it even if it looked like this- Euthanatos Mage-Unique Ally. Tremere specific. 0 pool. 1 life, 1R agg. damage, 0 bleed. As a D action, the Euthanatos Mage may burn all of your prey's vampires, both controlled and uncontrolled. The Euthanatos Mage gets an optional maneuver each combat. And the closest thing to compare it with is The Cult of Ecstasy mage for the Toreador- CoX Mage-Unique Ally, Toreador specific. 5 pool. 2 life, 1R damage, 1 bleed. Optional maneuver each combat. As a D action, the CoX Mage may tap a vampire of your prey-that vampire does not untap during its' Methuselah's untap phase. Our point is that semi-spoilers stack up. If there are no limits upon vampire or card creation, then there will only be unfair trumps like Archon Investigation to deal with the overpowered weenie. There aren't enough variables to do it. Justifying Spiridonas in the context of AI is possible. Not good, but possible. It shouldn't. > The 'point system' is a shaky axiom used by some. Back up and try the > logical arguments without it. There is no question that Ian does not fit > the system yet he still may be a valid vampire. That would invalidate the > 'system'. I don't see the logic here. Because something does not fit the system, that one thing invalidates the system? That very system produced one of the finest games on the market because of play balance-because it could not be broken easily and excessively. Without a system, the design shifts into "What can we get away with?" Ian can play any discipline card in the game. The question is not whether he is valid, but whether he is consistent with the others in the expansions and in comparison to the original set. > People have thrown together decks that are supposed to show how bad Ian > is. I haven't yet seen anyone claiming that they put an Ian proxy in > their deck and swept the table with it because of him every time. For > every viable strategy (S&B, Gangrel rush etc) that someone puts forth as > too powerful, others come back with strategies that oppose it. Have faith > that a deck that derives its strength from Ian has a weak link. Ian is not a broken card because he will win you the game every single time. That he has unlimited potential for less pool than any other vampires makes him flawed, though even a deck which is based around Ian will not use all his abilities. -Nathan Harada-

The most common point that people seem to make in favour of the point system is that without it we will get horrendously abusive cards (they then proceed to describe obscene card ideas). Let's dismiss this idea immediately. When I advocate abandoning a point system, I do not advocate going mad. I suggest that the design team should be able to push at the edges of the envelope a little and give us more variety. A vampire who, by the point system, has more abilities than he should for his age is not unfair for anyone. Everyone has equal access to that vampire (generally). Yes, by being more efficient than some, it will take the wind out of the sails of some of our old stand-by vampires. On the other hand, most crypts contain a few (majority) vampires who are not making the grade anyway. There will be filler. In the game environment that I play in, capacity is often more useful than the abilities that the vampires come with. An Inner Council Member does not rear its head without being Minion Tapped within the first few turns. That vampire was played to make the minion tap more efficient/valuable. The fact that the 11 pointer also has 4 votes and everything necessary in superior is a plus. When a Galconda is dropped on it the next turn for another 11 the value by the point system is even more moot. A 1 capacity vampire can drop a Princely title upon itself fairly easily in the opening moves. How then can we put a concrete value on a vampire that relates a title to capacity to abilities? It is an artificial assignment. As I understand it, the point system is not something that the design team has declared it used. Rather, it is a pattern that was detected and 'decoded' by players. There is some disagreement on which abilities are worth what capacity because the de-ciphered system is not wholly consistent with the vampires that existed (very nearly though). This might mean that the design team simply managed to create an apparently balanced collection of vampires in the first run. It does not mean that they are bound by that. It would mean though that they are likely concious of some rudimentary game-design philosophies and will likely, based on previous experience and expertise, continue to produce a fairly balanced system. You see signs of escalation. I too see it. I also see signs of under-powering. There were some damnably useless cards in that last expansion. Of course, there were some damnably useless cards in the basic Jyhad as well, non? As well, there were some obscenely overpowered ones. Misdirection anyone? Seek moderation in all things. Frankly, I dread the Sabbat expansion. I have this horrible feeling that it will wonk the game. I had the feeling before Ian and have it still regardless of him. I think it is simply a general fear of losing something that works. On the other hand, I'm going to try to keep my faith in the design team. Vampire has always been the game that was Magic's opposite. The more Magic messes itself up, the more likely we are to get a better game out of the Vampire expansions.

On 20 Sep 1996, DOUGDWISE wrote: > Greetings to All, Greeting to You... [snip] > Keep up the debate. Who knows, somebody may actually form a new opinion. My opinion on many things has changed because of this newsgroup. Those of you fencesitters on everything, keep listening. Those who have firm opinions (like me), don't stop. You might get 'em. Never know, you might even get one of your opposition. Three Hurrahs for debate... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > The most common point that people seem to make in favour of the point > system is that without it we will get horrendously abusive cards (they > then proceed to describe obscene card ideas). Like: Blythe Candaleria -- TRE 3 AUS THA -- -1 hand damage vs. MAL A small card, highly overpowered for its cost. > Let's dismiss this idea > immediately. When I advocate abandoning a point system, I do not advocate > going mad. What do you advocate then? Let's read on... >I suggest that the design team should be able to push at the > edges of the envelope a little and give us more variety. I see. Rather than having an objective standard, you propose the design team just make some vampires and if they look "about right, more or less" its okay? > A vampire who, > by the point system, has more abilities than he should for his age is not > unfair for anyone. So if I want to make a standard Gangrel disciplined deck, and an overpowered Toreador is made, I should throw it in or abandon my Gangrel? It _is_ unfair that Toreador, for example, would be able to get bargains that the Gangrel don't. If your answer is to make underpriced vampires for everyone, then I have to violently object. Planned obselesence for cards in a balanced game is a bad idea. > Everyone has equal access to that vampire (generally). > Yes, by being more efficient than some, it will take the wind out of the > sails of some of our old stand-by vampires. On the other hand, most > crypts contain a few (majority) vampires who are not making the grade > anyway. There will be filler. So, this New Order you propose will cause creation of cards that are "just a bit under/over-priced, make old vampires less useful, and all be justified by "most ... are not making the grade anyway"? Malcolm, I'm sorry, but I can't see how you can prefer this haphazard, cross-our-fingers-and-hope philosophy of design over a balanced standard. > In the game environment that I play in, capacity is often more useful > than the abilities that the vampires come with. An Inner Council Member > does not rear its head without being Minion Tapped within the first few > turns. That vampire was played to make the minion tap more > efficient/valuable. However, you lost not only pool in bringing it out, you lost influence time. The minion tap can't give you back that time you spent. Thus, if that tapped IC member gets Rushed into oblivion, you have lost : 1) Pool not reclaimed by the tap 2) A Master phase (minion tap) 3) several influences 4) opporunities to do other things > The fact that the 11 pointer also has 4 votes and > everything necessary in superior is a plus. When a Galconda is dropped on > it the next turn for another 11 the value by the point system is even > more moot. How so? No offense, Malcolm, but if your analysis of the situation brings you to that conclusion, you do not understand game theory enough to be arguing to remove the point system. > A 1 capacity vampire can drop a Princely title upon itself fairly easily > in the opening moves. How then can we put a concrete value on a vampire > that relates a title to capacity to abilities? It is an artificial > assignment. All assignments in the game are artificial. However, that doesn't mean they should be inconsistent. > As I understand it, the point system is not something that the design > team has declared it used. Rather, it is a pattern that was detected and > 'decoded' by players. There is some disagreement on which abilities are > worth what capacity because the de-ciphered system is not wholly > consistent with the vampires that existed (very nearly though). This > might mean that the design team simply managed to create an apparently > balanced collection of vampires in the first run. It does not mean that > they are bound by that. It would mean though that they are likely > concious of some rudimentary game-design philosophies and will likely, > based on previous experience and expertise, continue to produce a fairly > balanced system. Compare the original set to Dark Sovereigns if you believe that. > You see signs of escalation. I too see it. I also see signs of > under-powering. There were some damnably useless cards in that last > expansion. Of course, there were some damnably useless cards in the basic > Jyhad as well, non? As well, there were some obscenely overpowered ones. > Misdirection anyone? Misdirection is not overpowered for several reasons: Wake with Evening's Freshness, Rat's Warning, and 2nd Tradition The fact that these cards could totally nullify the pool cost add a _huge_ threat to using it. (X pool for virtually no effect). But, to address this whole issue: If the original Jyhad set fell into this range xxx x x xx x x x xx x x Useless--------------------------------------------------------Overpowered with cards being of varying degrees of usefulness, that does not mean that the following (more of Useless, more Overpowered) is good, just because the average is the same. x x xxx xx x x x x xx xxxxxc xx x Useless--------------------------------------------------------Overpowered > Frankly, I dread the Sabbat expansion. I have this horrible feeling that > it will wonk the game. I had the feeling before Ian and have it still > regardless of him. I think it is simply a general fear of losing > something that works. On the other hand, I'm going to try to keep my > faith in the design team. Vampire has always been the game that was > Magic's opposite. The more Magic messes itself up, the more likely we are > to get a better game out of the Vampire expansions. I too fear the Sabbat expansion. Given Shawn's reaction to our comments on Ian, a playtester friend's warning that there were "bigger fish to fry", the seeming escalation of recent WotC products in general, I am afraid. Most of my playgroup is looking forward with apprehension, and more than half of us have decided that if Sabbat is as we fear it may be, we will likely be done with the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Malcom McCallum wrote: "The difference is that Corrupter and Co. have immersed themselves into an ivory tower of netizens. The 'point system' should be scrapped. I stand by that" I fail to see how advocating game balance is immersing ones self in an ivory tower. The "Point System" as it were is not something that can be scrapped, as it is the theoretical system that was used to build the bulk of the vampires in the game, i.e. the vamps from the basic set. The system that was used to create all the basic vampires (wheither it is the player surmised "point system" or not) created a bench mark by which all other vampires in the game are judged. This is not debateable, it is simply the case. What ever system was used to create the basic vampires is quantifiable, and is one of the base balancing factors in the game. Without this balancing factor, there would be no logic to the vampires in the game, and the vampires would be unbalanced. If KoKo had POT while Lupo had pot, yet they were both still 2 point vampires, that would be unfair, regardless of the "story" ideas behind it. As it is, for the most part, most vampires are balanced with eachother, and thus the game works. Without the balance of the "point system" there is no stick to measure the worth of a vampire by. Regardless of wheither or not you belive in the "point system", Nakova is too expensive for what you get, while Anvil is too cheap. These are universally accepted truths, and this is because of what they get in comparrison to other similar cost vampires. The "point system" can easily be ignored as a concept, but you cannot ignore the comparison of equally priced vampires. Balance in card games is a very teniuous thing, and messing around with that ballance tends to screw things up quite a bit. Granted, Ian will not destroy the game by himself, and neither will Muaziz or Blythe, but the more "wrong" cards are printed, the further the game will suffer. Arbitrary atributes and abilities work just fine in a Role Playing Game. In the sticky ballance that is a card game, it just will not do. He then wrote: "Our group would have been quite happy to play with the unerrated Blythe." But then what possible use would Dr. John Cassey Cassem have? He would be then completely obsolete, as opposed to just somewhat obsolete, as he is now. And finally, he wrote: "In the game environment that I play in, capacity is often more useful than the abilities that the vampires come with. An Inner Council Member does not rear its head without being Minion Tapped within the first few turns. That vampire was played to make the minion tap more efficient/valuable." And in our enviornment, any IC member who is minion tapped for any worthwhile ammount of blood is rushed, mangled, and burned before they can even hunt. Everything is relative. [ quoted text not captured ]