Blood Doll...oh it's so broken!

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Now, assuming blood doll is a little overpowered (assume that, you
don't have to agree with it...) would it become more balanced if it
had 'from your next master phase, you may...' text on it? ie: can't be
used the turn you play it.

thoughts? abuse?

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
 

orpheus

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2005
171
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem a écrit :
> Now, assuming blood doll is a little overpowered (assume that, you
> don't have to agree with it...) would it become more balanced if it
> had 'from your next master phase, you may...' text on it? ie: can't be
> used the turn you play it.
>
> thoughts? abuse?

The only "fix", admitting one is needed, would be : taking a MPA for
either pool to blood, blood to pool or both. It wouldn't become
wallpaper, but certainly would have much less predominance over other cards.

Now, would it be a good thing ? Should we tune down all the very
powerful / useful cards, I'm not talking of the abused ones (not many
left) but the staple cards of the game ? Not sure about that...

Orpheus
 

Quetzalcoatl

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2005
92
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:
> salem a écrit :
> > Now, assuming blood doll is a little overpowered (assume that, you
> > don't have to agree with it...) would it become more balanced if it
> > had 'from your next master phase, you may...' text on it? ie: can't
be
> > used the turn you play it.
> >
> > thoughts? abuse?
>
> The only "fix", admitting one is needed, would be : taking a MPA for
> either pool to blood, blood to pool or both. It wouldn't become
> wallpaper, but certainly would have much less predominance over other
cards.

Doing it this way would completely make the use of Blood Dolls
disappear in favour for other ways to take/give blood. Normally you see
1 or 2 blood dolls on the table (sometimes more). If you cannot feed
more than one blood doll at a time this will make it a pointless card.
Minion Tap and Gird Minions will become more popular.

Perhaps that's a good thing, perhaps not.

As for Salem's idea regarding "next MPA" that is a good one. It will
put the card more in line with other cards.

Personally I would go for the Blood Doll costs (1) from the vampire to
begin with (maybe even pool). This would represent the "seduction" of
the blood doll to join your ranks.

Just some ramblings,
D
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:

> Now, assuming blood doll is a little overpowered (assume that, you
> don't have to agree with it...) would it become more balanced if it
> had 'from your next master phase, you may...' text on it? ie: can't be
> used the turn you play it.

Just take away the ability to give blood to the minion. Being able to take
pool is good enough for the card.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

If you remove the ability to give blood ot a minion you have a 'stays
in play' Minion Tap.

Other than setting a deck limit for the number in a game - what's the
real concern for someone playing Blood Dolls? It's why they gave us
"Reversal of fortune" after all...

"Rare" cards just ain't what they used to be (in any CCG)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

James Coupe wrote:
> In message <YcGdnSBbWqgmQdHfRVn-uw@giganews.com>, Derek Ray
> <lorimer@yahoo.com> writes:
> >There is, however, some curiosity as to what the game would be like
> >without such an obvious "goes in most decks" card. For example,
would
> >other forms of pool gain rise to the surface and become more common?
> >Short Term Investment or Powerbases, say?
>
> I would be interested to see what Investments (of all sorts) could do
if
> for instance there was a Blarble Blarble, Stockbroker ally (unique)
who
> could take actions to fiddle with them - putting pool on, taking pool
> off, upping the amount of pool you can take off at once, extra pool
> taken off for a life counter, or somesuch. Or let you search your
deck
> for them and put them in play, without using an MPA for that.
Probably
> some benefits if you have a Ventrue or Giovanni, or something like
that.
> The life counter version is appealing, due to the intricate (but
> awkward) combos it could set up with Panacea or Vagabond Mystic or
> something like that.
>
>
> That is, it would provide some useful incentive to play them outside
of
> the scarcity of Master Phase Actions, whilst still letting you fall
back
> onto that when you didn't have a master in hand.
>
> --
> James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be
sexual
> PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like
me and
> EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all
day?"
> 13D7E668C3695D623D5D --
www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Derek Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

> | Other than setting a deck limit for the number in a game - what's
the
>
> Not something that will be done, of course -- see many previous
> threads/arguments on the subject.

Well, in the future card limits could be set on certain new cards...
why not?

> | real concern for someone playing Blood Dolls? It's why they gave
us
> | "Reversal of fortune" after all...
>
> There's no concern about Blood Dolls. They don't break the game.

No, they just break my attention span. I see them too much. Like, every
time I play... and not just because they're in MY deck. It'd just be
nice if there were alternatives to them, as outline by other people in
other threads. Most of these additional masters are good alternatives
or suppliments to blood dolls.

Another example:

The shiney object of exchange
Equipment. Unique.
Untap this vampire after this equip action if successful. During your
master phase you may move any number of blood to or from this vampire
and your pool.

Long term influence
Master
Put this card on a vampire you control. You may use transfer to move
blood to and off of this vampire as if it were uncontrolled. You may
burn this card to (something small, like give the dude a dodge or
something).

> There is, however, some curiosity as to what the game would be like
> without such an obvious "goes in most decks" card. For example,
would
> other forms of pool gain rise to the surface and become more common?
> Short Term Investment or Powerbases, say?
>
> There is also some curiosity as to whether Blood Doll's power
actually
> PREVENTS other forms of pool gain from being worthwhile.

It should be obvious that its a little more than curiousity. You can be
surious as the the certainty of it, but still.

You could also be curious about how it limits the game designer from
making new cards (like there could have been two blood dolls instead of
one, as outline by someone else above).

> However, one
> always runs the risk of benefitting run-forward decks (weenie DOM is
the
> classic example, though there are many others) when you remove easy
> methods of pool recursion. The state of offense in the game was
> designed with Blood Doll's current form in mind; cripple Blood Doll
by
> assigning an MPA requirement to it, say, and THEN you risk breaking
the
> game.
>
> In this case, it's safer to say "it ain't broke, so we won't fix it"
> than to do something silly and accidentally really break things.

Sure. I would never wish to ban or errate Blood doll (well, not unless
there was a good easily accessible alternative just coming into the
pool of cards at the same time, though even then I'd be a bit grumpy).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paulmnz wrote:
| If you remove the ability to give blood ot a minion you have a 'stays
| in play' Minion Tap.

You won't be getting 10 blood back off of Etrius with a Blood Doll. The
game will be over long before then.

| Other than setting a deck limit for the number in a game - what's the

Not something that will be done, of course -- see many previous
threads/arguments on the subject.

| real concern for someone playing Blood Dolls? It's why they gave us
| "Reversal of fortune" after all...

There's no concern about Blood Dolls. They don't break the game.

There is, however, some curiosity as to what the game would be like
without such an obvious "goes in most decks" card. For example, would
other forms of pool gain rise to the surface and become more common?
Short Term Investment or Powerbases, say?

There is also some curiosity as to whether Blood Doll's power actually
PREVENTS other forms of pool gain from being worthwhile. However, one
always runs the risk of benefitting run-forward decks (weenie DOM is the
classic example, though there are many others) when you remove easy
methods of pool recursion. The state of offense in the game was
designed with Blood Doll's current form in mind; cripple Blood Doll by
assigning an MPA requirement to it, say, and THEN you risk breaking the
game.

In this case, it's safer to say "it ain't broke, so we won't fix it"
than to do something silly and accidentally really break things.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCTNy5tQZlu3o7QpERAhVtAJ0eX9cXZJKpc6S0j26HhROFFJY+jwCeMxIH
QIMWGO5rB1BQnZ8BUvzF8u4=
=J+wl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <YcGdnSBbWqgmQdHfRVn-uw@giganews.com>, Derek Ray
<lorimer@yahoo.com> writes:
>There is, however, some curiosity as to what the game would be like
>without such an obvious "goes in most decks" card. For example, would
>other forms of pool gain rise to the surface and become more common?
>Short Term Investment or Powerbases, say?

I would be interested to see what Investments (of all sorts) could do if
for instance there was a Blarble Blarble, Stockbroker ally (unique) who
could take actions to fiddle with them - putting pool on, taking pool
off, upping the amount of pool you can take off at once, extra pool
taken off for a life counter, or somesuch. Or let you search your deck
for them and put them in play, without using an MPA for that. Probably
some benefits if you have a Ventrue or Giovanni, or something like that.
The life counter version is appealing, due to the intricate (but
awkward) combos it could set up with Panacea or Vagabond Mystic or
something like that.


That is, it would provide some useful incentive to play them outside of
the scarcity of Master Phase Actions, whilst still letting you fall back
onto that when you didn't have a master in hand.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:25:18 +0200, Orpheus <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr>
wrote:

>salem a écrit :
>> Now, assuming blood doll is a little overpowered (assume that, you
>> don't have to agree with it...) would it become more balanced if it
>> had 'from your next master phase, you may...' text on it? ie: can't be
>> used the turn you play it.
>>
>> thoughts? abuse?
>
>The only "fix", admitting one is needed, would be : taking a MPA for
>either pool to blood, blood to pool or both. It wouldn't become
>wallpaper, but certainly would have much less predominance over other cards.
>
>Now, would it be a good thing ? Should we tune down all the very
>powerful / useful cards, I'm not talking of the abused ones (not many
>left) but the staple cards of the game ? Not sure about that...

I think if you had two types, like Gird Minions and Tribute to the
Master, it might be seen as a way of redressing the problem. Some
people use BD for pool gain. Others use them for 'girding'. Instead of
having a catchall group, have the following.

Blood Doll
Type: Master
Master.
Put this card on a vampire you control. During his or her master
phase, this vampire's controller may move 1 blood from this vampire to
his or her pool, or may use an MPA to move 1 pool to this vampire.

Blood Puppet
Type: Master
Master.
Put this card on a vampire you control. During his or her master
phase, this vampire's controller may move 1 pool to this vampire, or
may use an MPA to move 1 blood from this vampire to his or her pool.

So each is usable the 'traditional' way, but makes the standard
effectiveness a little less so. I figure the former would be the most
widly used, that's why I kept that one with the standard name. Also,
there might be something else that could be used instead of MPA, for
the conditional effect. That's definately adjustable.

Morgan Vening
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <1112369184.021864.158820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Screaming Vermillian <vermillian69@yahoo.com> writes:
>Well, in the future card limits could be set on certain new cards...
>why not?

Contrary to the established ethic of the game, and a pain in the ass to
check when it's only for certain cards.

Providing disincentives to over-stock your deck with them is typically a
better way of handling this, within the established framework of the
game. One per minion (e.g. Vehicles), one per game (e.g. Giant's
Blood), increasing costs (e.g. Sibyl's Tongue), unique (e.g. Fame),
unique per Methuselah (e.g. Communal Haven: Temple) etc. etc. etc.

Then a player can have as many as they like in the deck, but doing so
without careful thought and balancing of card ratios is going to screw
them over.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Paulmnz wrote:

> If you remove the ability to give blood ot a minion you have a 'stays
> in play' Minion Tap.

Ok. Still a really good card. I'm not saying that Blood Doll necessarily
*needs* to be changed, but if it was changed, probably the way to go is to
remove the ability to send blood back. It makes it less of a total no
brainer, makes other currently wallpapered cards potentially useful (seE:
Gird Minions), yet still leaves it mostly the same.

> Other than setting a deck limit for the number in a game - what's the
> real concern for someone playing Blood Dolls?

There is no concern for people playing Blood Dolls. This is just a
hypothetical discussion of game balance. Blood Doll, the card voted "most
likely to show up in any deck ever built" is arguably too good. Not a lot
too good, or too good to the point that it is actually worth changing, but
if, like, from day one Blood Doll had been different, the game probably
would have been better off for it.

> "Rare" cards just ain't what they used to be (in any CCG)

You are losing me. Wait. I'm lost.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:

> Well, in the future card limits could be set on certain new cards...
> why not?

'Cause it is a bad idea in a game where one of the main aspects of game
design is "no card limits". If you need to limit the number of a given card
in play, there is already a perfectly viable mechanism to do
this--uniqueness.

> No, they just break my attention span. I see them too much. Like, every
> time I play... and not just because they're in MY deck. It'd just be
> nice if there were alternatives to them, as outline by other people in
> other threads. Most of these additional masters are good alternatives
> or suppliments to blood dolls.

Yeah, see, this is something that is simply lost on me. I can see, like, a
reason to make cards that are slight variations for play and balance
reasons--that there is Govern and Scouting Mission makes perfect sense to
me, even though they are very similar. But what this means is that if you
want to use Govern ('cause you don't care about the blood cost and like the
greater effect) you use Govern, but if you care about the cost, or want a
similar effect but be able to play Bonding for the +1 stealth without being
AIed, you use Scouting. Perfect sense. I don't, however, see any reason to
make cards simply to have a similar effect with a different name, to avoid
"boredom" or something. Blood Doll is a good card that does what it needs to
do. Will it really improve the game to make a card that does almost the same
thing, but has a different name, just so you can look at a different card
when it hits the table?


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:08:50 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
scrawled:

>I would be interested to see what Investments (of all sorts) could do if
>for instance there was a Blarble Blarble, Stockbroker ally (unique) who
>could take actions to fiddle with them - putting pool on, taking pool
>off, upping the amount of pool you can take off at once, extra pool
>taken off for a life counter, or somesuch. Or let you search your deck
>for them and put them in play, without using an MPA for that. Probably
>some benefits if you have a Ventrue or Giovanni, or something like that.
>The life counter version is appealing, due to the intricate (but
>awkward) combos it could set up with Panacea or Vagabond Mystic or
>something like that.

i was always keen to do extra stuff with investments, too:
http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/finance.htm

>That is, it would provide some useful incentive to play them outside of
>the scarcity of Master Phase Actions, whilst still letting you fall back
>onto that when you didn't have a master in hand.

yeah! rock on investments!

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:15:18 +1000, salem
<salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Now, assuming blood doll is a little overpowered (assume that, you
>don't have to agree with it...) would it become more balanced if it
>had 'from your next master phase, you may...' text on it? ie: can't be
>used the turn you play it.
>
>thoughts? abuse?
>
>salem
>http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
>(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

I've played with a lot of new players who thought:
a) you couldn't stack Blood Dolls on vampires;
b) you couldn't use them the turn you played them;
c) you couldn't put blood on the vampire.

Say BD had all of those restrictions, it would still rank as one of
the best cards in the game. Should suggest just how good the card is.

Anyway, the game has a problem when it comes to creating new cards in
that new cards have to be as good as old to see play but that ramps up
the power level. Of course, every CCG has this problem until it goes
to a set rotation system or reboots.