[KMW Spoiler] Black Annis

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
<fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:40:18 +0100, "Orpheus"
> <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:
>
>>> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
>>> grouping rule IS necessary indeed.
>>
>> Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite.
>> Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just
>> duplicates
>> existing things with slight variations ?!
>
> Because it's inevitable.
>
> In short, grouping allows both approaches: printing altered versions
> of older vampires, and trying something different. Both are valid and
> necessary.
>
> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.

I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa,
this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
><fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
>
>> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
>> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
>> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
>> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
>> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
>> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
>> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
>> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.
>
>I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
> creativity it is time to stop designing.

I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
ideas for library cards, strategies available.
Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
Wait, there are always new players who can't get their hands somehow
in the old vampire cards (yeah, that happens). New vampires are
necessary. V:TES suffers too much already from being a fairly
complicated game for newbies to learn.

I'm not talking about "whoa,
> this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
> lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
> clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
> really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
> not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

I suspect that it is intended to be that way. Group 2 reshuffled or
not, group 4 should not have Annekes or Arikas. So no utter ecstasy
after a given special, I guess.

But maybe this thread has derived too far from the original subject.
Should we rename the topic and continue on? I'm afraid all these
arguments about grouping have been out there before or I've been just
too harsh on posting more and more now that I finally have a news
account and an appropriate news reader program 😉

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
--------------------------------------
Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

 

[Guest]

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

In message <opsloeupxpo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
> creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa,
> this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
> lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
> clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
> really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
> not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

It's rather hard to say that Group 4 is just Group 2 reshuffled.
Certainly, for my money, the Camarilla aspects of Group 3 are
interestingly quirky compared to Group 1 and 2/3 crypts tend to be quite
different from 1/2 crypts.

But a certain amount of "staple" vampires and "staple" abilities are
inevitable. There's only so much you can do with a 2 cap, 1 discipline
vampire without just being insane. And similarly, if you want to give
the Malkavians a solid bleeder or the !Nosferatu a solid combat monster,
there's only so much you can do.

However, providing solid, staple abilities, vampires and disciplines is
not the same as reaching the limits of creativity.

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

Orpheus snip:
- African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care

--> this would be my choice. the thing with it is that Laibon legacies
are not - at least not all of them - completely similar to Kindred
clans. even though the Shango are pretty much assamite sorceres, the
followers of set are still the same but then we have akunanse and
abombwe, which are not exactly gangrel/protean (even though close
enough to do some adaptation). the other option - using legacies as
bloodlines, i.e.: new clans - would over crowd, imo - the game with
clans, thus making things a bit harder. but then again, i can see that
being done without much trouble in a setting kind of way, since laibon
do not interact with kindred often. all in all, whenever this is done,
i´ll be glad either way.


- Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous,
Mages
with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.

Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.

--> this i strongly oppose. allies are not vampires, period. afaiu, the
game is about vampires, not about magi, garou or changelings, etc. yes,
they do happen to show up every now and then, but they´re sidekicks,
not main stars. that´s how it should be. again, imo.


- Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not,
but
still different combinations could have come from it, without
ressorting to
a new group.

--> too much tweaking to be done there, but it´s feasible nonetheless.

cheers
luciano "baital" de sampaio
vekn anarch baron de curitiba

 

[orpheus]

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

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
> ><fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
> >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
> >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
> >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
> >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
> >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
> >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
> >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.
> >
> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
> > creativity it is time to stop designing.
>
> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
> ideas for library cards, strategies available.
> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...

Or finding new alternatives.

Examples :

- African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care

- Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have
its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible.

- Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages
with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.
Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.

- Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to
a new group.

This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way
too early for a new group.

Deadly Yours,

Orpheus, Necromonger.

 

[Guest]

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

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message
news:4204d35b$0$17063$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> Or finding new alternatives.
>
> Examples :
>
> - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
> interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
> without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care
....
> - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
> still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to
> a new group.

(Sidestepping the issue of whether grouping is good or bad, necessary or
unnecessary.)

I kind of like the idea of "different parts of the world kindred" done
with some sort of other quasi-grouping world. As an example:

African Kindred and Kindred-of-the-East based decks must be declared at the
start of the game. Decks so declared must normally consist only of kindred
with these respective designations (referring to AK or KotE designations on
the crypt cards). Other vampires may be used in the crypts of these decks
and these vampires may be used in normal decks, but in both cases, such
vampires count as "scarce" vampires. In this case, the scarcity is calculated
on all out-of-designation vampires together as a group. Any vampire which
truly has the scarce designation must continue to pay its penalty on top of
"designation scarcity". So, for instance, when bringing a scarce Nagaraja
into play using a deck declared as an African Kindred deck which also has a
non-scarce Kindred-of-the-East vampire and another Nagaraja vampire in the
ready region, the penalty would be nine: six for the other non-African
Kindred vampire in play and three for the other Nagaraja in play.

Of course, African Kindred and Kindred of the East would either have to be
above average vampires or a great many of them would have to be created in
short order to make them competitive under such a rule. But it might make
for some interesting possibilities in terms of what could be done with such
vampires.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message
news:4204d35b$0$17063$626a14ce@news.free.fr...

> Or finding new alternatives.
>
> Examples :
>
> - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
> interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
> without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care
>
> - Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does
have
> its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible.
>
> - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages
> with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.
> Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.
>
> - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
> still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting
to
> a new group.
>
> This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was
way
> too early for a new group.
>
> Deadly Yours,
>
> Orpheus, Necromonger.
>
>

Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.
I know that this would require a lot of designing care,
but i believe that it can be sucessfuly done after some years...

Please don't release any Kindred of the East,
support the Bloodlines with a few more minions and
cards, modify the grouping rule now or after some time,
so that we can use more than two groups when building
decks. I am not talking about complete freedom, but
instead of allowing certain combinations of groups, you
might as well prohibit certain combinations.

e.g. instead of saying that G2 can be mixed with
only G1 or with only G3, you can say that G2 cannot
be mixed with G4 or G6, e.t.c. I know that the G rule
will become slightly more complicated than it is now,
but people will gain access to new type of decks and
thus that'll help to keep them interested in the game.

We are not stupid, i am sure that we can handle a
new improved G rule, even if it is more complicated.

Finaly, please keep new sets at 2 per year or 3 per 2
years, not more than this. In my opinion 1 set every 7-8
months would be the ideal thing to do.

We, who are buying a lot of stuff, won't have serious trouble
keeping up with 2 or even 3 sets per year, but this will lead us
to having a ton of cards and play with just a few.
We might even end up not knowing what a great portion of the
cards that we own does. That's bad...

Additionaly, new players will be so furstrated and dissapointed
because of not being able to catch up, having to buy the many
new sets and at the same time old ones, that they could lose
interest and even quit the game...

That's just my personal opinion, comments are welcome...


George

 

[Guest]

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

tzimisce_dragon wrote:
> Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
> with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.

Uh, no thanks. The NWOD is so different from the old (and I think the
official policy is "it has nothing to do with the old WOD except for a
couple of names here and there"), that they really wouldn't mix at all.

Adding stuff like Covenants to VTES would be just plain absurd and insane.

--CV

 

[orpheus]

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

> Finaly, please keep new sets at 2 per year or 3 per 2
> years, not more than this. In my opinion 1 set every 7-8
> months would be the ideal thing to do.

9 months is the current schedule, and I can go with that if I keep on
buying.

> We, who are buying a lot of stuff, won't have serious trouble
> keeping up with 2 or even 3 sets per year, but this will lead us
> to having a ton of cards and play with just a few.
> We might even end up not knowing what a great portion of the
> cards that we own does. That's bad...

It is already the case for me and many persons I know. The 6 months schedule
was very bad, even for small sets. There are too many things to try even
when 10 new cards come out (Powerbase LA alone is a good reason to revisit
many Anarch concepts, for instance), so 100+ new cards takes lots of time ;
more with each coming expansion, as a matter of facts, because the options
tend to multiply, many new cards bringing old ones under a new light.

> Additionaly, new players will be so furstrated and dissapointed
> because of not being able to catch up, having to buy the many
> new sets and at the same time old ones, that they could lose
> interest and even quit the game...
>
> That's just my personal opinion, comments are welcome...

Done. ;-)
--
Orpheus

--------------------------------
"Zane, Zane, Zane / Lalala Fashion Bip Bip / Oh ! By Jingo"

David Bowie, greatest rock lyricist of all times

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:28:40 +0200, tzimisce_dragon <georget@for.auth.gr>
wrote:

> Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
> with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.

This is probably the WORST idea I've ever heard about the
direction VTES should take. Grats, you suddenly swept the
different odder-than-odd ideas from the top of my lemon
list...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

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

In message <4204d35b$0$17063$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Orpheus
<orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> writes:
<snip - various possible different sets that could be released>
>This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way
>too early for a new group.

That seems to miss the point of what grouping exists for.

It is not, so far as I can tell, in order to completely exhaust the
creative possibilities of designers, who then start again from scratch.


It prevents dial-a-vamp across the game as a whole, but also attempts to
keep grouping pairs roughly power-equivalent amongst themselves. If,
therefore, printing more group three vampires would make [2/3] (and a
potential future [3/4]) more powerful than [1/2] in the view of the
designer, they don't print any more.

Sure, they could think up a thousand cool ideas with African kindred,
kindred of the east, crypt-based allies, mages, demons, mummies. But if
they think that that would significantly favour [2/3] over [1/2], they
step back from it. Bear in mind that both [1/2] and [2/3] have access
to Bloodlines (for random kookiness), and that giving [2/3] access to
more random stuff could provide it with a potential edge. This is bad,
because it pisses off old players who were told all their old decks were
still usable - it doesn't matter if they're usable if they're made
entirely obsolete.[0]

Once they've got to a stage, however, where the [2/3] crypt
possibilities are, in their opinion, roughly balanced with the [1/2]
options (for a given clan, a given discipline combo, or whatever)
printing more is a difficult choice. Whilst dial-a-crypt mitigates
heavily against cross-clan combos getting out of control, if you start
giving your group three Brujah a lot more vampires than group one had,
you end up with a potential imbalance as your [2/3] Brujah decks
outclass the [1/2] decks, leading to power escalation.


Hence, a significant part of grouping is NOT about the creative options
of random sets that could be produced, but a cold and clinical numbers
game of balance across grouping pairs.





[0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the
introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings
out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old
vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's
(Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis
here is on the word "mildly".)

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

James Coupe wrote:

> Hence, a significant part of grouping is NOT about the creative options
> of random sets that could be produced, but a cold and clinical numbers
> game of balance across grouping pairs.

Yeah, see, everyone is all like "when will there be group 5?!?!?!". Likely,
the answer is, like, "when G4 is the same size as G2". As the whole thing is
essentially numbers based, we are just trying to get equivelantly sized
groups. G1 is big. G2 is small for matching G1 clans and big for non also G1
clans. G3 is big for G1 clans and small for G2 clans. G4 will likely, then,
be small for G3 clans and big for G2 clans--we'll get, what, like, 7 or 8
various G4 Camarilla vampires, likely, but have room for about, what, 15-20
vampires for a given Sabbat clan (like in G2). And G4 has space for,
essentially, a whole new, identically sized Bloodlines set of vampires. And
a similarly sized set of independant vampires.

So until G4 contains, say:

~8 each of the Camarilla vampires
~20 each of the Sabbat clans
~20 each of the Independant clans
~the exact same number of all the Bloodlines clans

We don't need a G4. Once we hit that, we can go to G5. And probably will.

> [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the
> introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings
> out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old
> vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's
> (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis
> here is on the word "mildly".)

Ahh, but see, Jan Pieterzoon fits in with Old decks, as he is G2. So it is
certainly possible to fix this very issue by making advanced G1/G2 vampires
with abilities built for events.


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

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news😱pslrncge1o6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:28:40 +0200, tzimisce_dragon <georget@for.auth.gr>
> wrote:
>
> > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
> > with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.
>
> This is probably the WORST idea I've ever heard about the
> direction VTES should take. Grats, you suddenly swept the
> different odder-than-odd ideas from the top of my lemon
> list...
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Daneel



thanks....

Anyway, as i have said, releasing such cards would have been after
some years and would require an open mind from the players...

Maybe it is a bad idea, ok, don't do it... BUT please NO KotEast...


George

 

[Guest]

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

In message <BE2BA604.1D1C0%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
<pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the
>> introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings
>> out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old
>> vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's
>> (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis
>> here is on the word "mildly".)
>
>Ahh, but see, Jan Pieterzoon fits in with Old decks, as he is G2. So it is
>certainly possible to fix this very issue by making advanced G1/G2 vampires
>with abilities built for events.

Oh, yes. One small caveat is that I had a brain failure and thought Jan
was Group 3 temporarily. So yeah, that side of the argument loses out.

The difficulty of introducing new mechanics, without making old decks
need to account for them, is harder though. It's not quite 'power
escalation' (in the sense of printing a card that's simply outright
better than KRC), but it does require some element of buying new cards.
Nowhere near as aggressive as Magic, of course, but it's there. Which I
guess it has to be, in a commercial concern, but well, you know. It's
just a bit ick for casual players with older collections to gradually
become more distant from current play if they want to dip in.

The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a
general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play
Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so
on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters.
One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific
counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in
general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept).



More generally though, yes, I'd like to see more older vampires Advanced
- as discussed in another thread right now! Small sets which went over
bits of Group 1 and Group 2 and filled in some of the holes with
Advanced vampires would be really cool.

Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.)

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

James Coupe wrote:

> Oh, yes. One small caveat is that I had a brain failure and thought Jan
> was Group 3 temporarily. So yeah, that side of the argument loses out.

Caveat...ACCEPTED! Oh, wait. I thought you meant gambit. Never mind...

🙂

>
> The difficulty of introducing new mechanics, without making old decks
> need to account for them, is harder though. It's not quite 'power
> escalation' (in the sense of printing a card that's simply outright
> better than KRC), but it does require some element of buying new cards.
> Nowhere near as aggressive as Magic, of course, but it's there. Which I
> guess it has to be, in a commercial concern, but well, you know. It's
> just a bit ick for casual players with older collections to gradually
> become more distant from current play if they want to dip in.

Oh, yeah, sure. But like, for instance, the introduction of Events means
that you either have to buy into the new set for any kind of defense (even
ones that old decks can use, like, say, Emergency Preperations or The
Bloodening/Black hand Ritual), or just not worry about it. I think that
Gehenna had enough generic Event defense that can shuffle into completely
unrefitted old decks well enough that if someone was really worried about
Events in their, like, old school G1 Malk S+B deck, they could deal with a
handfull of Emergency Preps.

But even still, I don't think it is that big of a deal, overall--people were
all sorts of worried about Events destroying the game when they came out,
but really, at this point, I still see very few of them in play on a regular
basis. A few gateway Events get regular play (Anthelios, obviously, and The
Unmaskening in ally decks), but overall, I'm yet to see enough huge event
play that I have ever worried about having to respond with anti-event tech.
My pal Jay has one deck that is crazy with the events, but on the small
number of occasions that I see it in play and it doesn't just get killed
outright, it is just really funny when everyone is savaged by the 7 or 8
Events on the table. But that happens *really* rarely. So from my
experience, Events aren't really something that old decks need to respond to
all that much. But still, I see where you are coming from.

Although I still would be happy with a bunch of cool, new, Adavanced G!
vampires with some Gehenna tech special abilities. That'd be cool.

> The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a
> general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play
> Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so
> on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters.
> One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific
> counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in
> general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept).

Well, there is always Emergency Preperations, which is just as usable as
Sudden, even more so in a heavy Event environment (so you can use them to
untap if you have them after the fact). And Sabbat decks can use The
Bloodening/Black Hand Ritual (which also cycles freely if you don't need it
then). If someone really wants anti-Event tech, it is available. Luckily, it
doesn't seem to really be necessary.

> More generally though, yes, I'd like to see more older vampires Advanced
> - as discussed in another thread right now! Small sets which went over
> bits of Group 1 and Group 2 and filled in some of the holes with
> Advanced vampires would be really cool.

Agreed.

> Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.)

I'm thinking already. And sooooo happy...


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

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

 

[Guest]

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

In message <BE2BDAC6.1D1D7%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
<pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a
>> general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play
>> Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so
>> on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters.
>> One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific
>> counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in
>> general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept).
>
>Well, there is always Emergency Preperations, which is just as usable as
>Sudden, even more so in a heavy Event environment (so you can use them to
>untap if you have them after the fact). And Sabbat decks can use The
>Bloodening/Black Hand Ritual (which also cycles freely if you don't need it
>then). If someone really wants anti-Event tech, it is available. Luckily, it
>doesn't seem to really be necessary.

Oh, I really like Black Hand Ritual. The last deck I played in Watford
had four of the things in. I'm not sure that Blooding is necessarily a
good way to go about playing it, though. I'd much prefer to have a few
real Black Hand vampires in there, as it's quite hard to make sure you
get both and in the right order if you don't include quite a few.
(Though Black Hand Ritual might be worth including quite a few of, for
the untap.) Then, of course, Rob Treasure was the only person to
include an event, and it was The Unmasking. Not a big issue that day.

And I do agree that Emergency Preparations is possibly a useful card to
include, and possibly useful anyway.


However, there are two things that mildly concern me. (Again, this is
only mild concern, not THE END OF THE WORLD.)

1) The card type is Event. It's merely a facet of the Gehenna expansion
that all the events have the Gehenna designator too. Port Authority
shows the possibility for non-Gehenna events. Of course, this can be
countered by making Emergency Preparations-like cards for other Event
types, or even a more generic anti-Event tech. But this feeds into
mild concern 2.

2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types.
Compared with, say, a new designator for master cards (vulnerable to
anti-master tech) or a new equipment type or new, powerful (but
costed) actions (vulnerable to burning equipment, block actions,
etc.), it means that your defences have to change a fair bit if you
need to defend against it. And decks are already pretty darned full,
so if you want to defend against Events, do you drop some of your
anti-vote tech?

Now, of course, there are two obvious counters here:

1) The game gets shaken up a bit. It's not like you wouldn't have to
re-orient your decks if the new cards had been some super-strong
equipment cards.

2) As you say above, it may well be the case that anti-Event tech isn't
actually worth all that much.


There's quite a few Events which I do believe are powerful, though, even
if they're not currently being used heavily. People don't like, say,
Anarch Revolt because of the random effect to the table. Similarly, I'm
concerned by that possibility with Recalled to the Founder and Fall of
the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't include enough anti-Event/Gehenna
tech in your deck? Bye bye vampires. Bye bye votes." Is there
necessarily a good deck in there? Dunno, but it's somewhat similar to a
bad player sitting down with a bad Anarch Revolt deck and the effect it
can have on a table - he may not win, but he can take everyone down with
him in an arbitrary fashion.


Again, this isn't as though I'm thinking "OH MY GOD IT'S THE END OF THE
WORLD." It's just one of those things I think about.



>> Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.)
>
>I'm thinking already. And sooooo happy...

Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a
point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened.


--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

James Coupe wrote:

> Oh, I really like Black Hand Ritual. The last deck I played in Watford
> had four of the things in. I'm not sure that Blooding is necessarily a
> good way to go about playing it, though. I'd much prefer to have a few
> real Black Hand vampires in there, as it's quite hard to make sure you
> get both and in the right order if you don't include quite a few.
> (Though Black Hand Ritual might be worth including quite a few of, for
> the untap.) Then, of course, Rob Treasure was the only person to
> include an event, and it was The Unmasking. Not a big issue that day.

Yeah, The Bloodening isn't, like, the best option for using Black Hand
Ritual tech, but if, like, you were *really* set on using a G1/2 deck with
sabbat vampires, and were afraid of Events, a handfull of The Bloodening and
BHRs isn't going to hurt that much (as all the BH vampires are G3+).

> And I do agree that Emergency Preparations is possibly a useful card to
> include, and possibly useful anyway.

I mean, like, if you are worried about events (say some specific, easy to
play event *really* kills your deck, or you play in an event happy
environment), then a few Emergency Preps can't hurt so much, and could
possibly help a lot.

> 1) The card type is Event. It's merely a facet of the Gehenna expansion
> that all the events have the Gehenna designator too. Port Authority
> shows the possibility for non-Gehenna events. Of course, this can be
> countered by making Emergency Preparations-like cards for other Event
> types, or even a more generic anti-Event tech. But this feeds into
> mild concern 2.

Ooh. Strong point I hadn't considered--Emergency Prep and BHR only get
Gehenna cards, not Events, right? Huh.

> 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types.
> Compared with, say, a new designator for master cards (vulnerable to
> anti-master tech) or a new equipment type or new, powerful (but
> costed) actions (vulnerable to burning equipment, block actions,
> etc.), it means that your defences have to change a fair bit if you
> need to defend against it. And decks are already pretty darned full,
> so if you want to defend against Events, do you drop some of your
> anti-vote tech?

Also true. But again, now that they aren't so new anymore, they aren't
seeing that much play. At least in my experience.

> There's quite a few Events which I do believe are powerful, though, even
> if they're not currently being used heavily. People don't like, say,
> Anarch Revolt because of the random effect to the table. Similarly, I'm
> concerned by that possibility with Recalled to the Founder and Fall of
> the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't include enough anti-Event/Gehenna
> tech in your deck? Bye bye vampires. Bye bye votes." Is there
> necessarily a good deck in there? Dunno, but it's somewhat similar to a
> bad player sitting down with a bad Anarch Revolt deck and the effect it
> can have on a table - he may not win, but he can take everyone down with
> him in an arbitrary fashion.

I think that the hard Events (Recalled/Fall) are difficult enough to get
into play that it is farily difficult to build a deck around them.
Especially as their benefits are narrow enough to not always actually be
useful--you could fill your deck with enough infrastructure to be able to
play Fall or Recalled, but unless you are sitting next to someone who it
will actually harm significantly, all that infrastructure isn't that useful,
providing disincentive to actually play such a deck a lot.

> Again, this isn't as though I'm thinking "OH MY GOD IT'S THE END OF THE
> WORLD." It's just one of those things I think about.

And certainly reasonable things.

> Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a
> point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened.

Heh heh. Wasn't there a movie about that?


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

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

 

[orpheus]

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

Oy Fabio, been trying to mail you, please send me your address by mail
(remove the "eraserhead" part in my mail address).

---------------------
Orpheus, Necromonger

 

[Guest]

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

James Coupe wrote:
> 1) The card type is Event...
>
> 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types.

This is true, although the effect of many of the Events isn't that
remarkable.

Take, "The Unmasking" (allies get +1 intercept), for example. An
old-school Group 1 deck doesn't need to be changed to cope with this.
Either the deck cares about intercept and thus already had stealth, or
it doesn't.

Many of the easier-to-play and thus more commonly played Events are
similarly mostly new ways of doing old things. A pre-Event deck can't
prevent these things happening, but the effects of the Events are not
really unprecedented.

> Similarly, I'm concerned by that possibility with Recalled
> to the Founder and Fall of the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't
> include enough anti-Event/Gehenna tech in your deck? Bye bye
> vampires. ... it's somewhat similar to a bad player sitting down
> with a bad Anarch Revolt deck ...

I agree.

Although, I'd note that Recalled to the Founder is not generally a huge
problem. It's the equivalent of having a PTO played on a largish
mid-cap of your choice. Sure, if you aren't playing any mid-caps you're
either going to lose a single large cap. vampire or many weenie vamps.
Most decks, however, do have a 6-7 cap. vampire that it's irritating
but not totally disastrous to lose - particularly if your pred/prey are
also losing one. The point being that, a random PTO is not exactly
unexpected for (post Ancient Hearts) decks. Therefore, neither is
Recalled to the Founder.

In some ways, a proliferation of anti-Event tech. (say as Group 1
advanced vampire card text) would _disadvantage_ old-school decks.
Events would be designed assuming that they could be (more) easily
countered/prevented, hence they would be designed to be more powerful,
compelling old school decks to include the "new" advanced vampires. I
could imagine this annoying players.

--
* lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)

 

[Guest]

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

In message <BE2C41F6.1D206%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
<pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a
>> point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened.
>
>Heh heh. Wasn't there a movie about that?

The film was destroyed, in order to preserve humanity's sense of taste
and decency.

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus"
<orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:

>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
>news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
>> ><fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
>> >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
>> >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
>> >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
>> >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
>> >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
>> >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
>> >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.
>> >
>> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
>> > creativity it is time to stop designing.
>>
>> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
>> ideas for library cards, strategies available.
>> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
>> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
>> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
>
>Or finding new alternatives.

See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point
where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was
written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow
reached.

But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new
card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time
ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added
has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is
based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed
toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly.
At the same time, the game needs continuing support for available
strategies, including vampires who could help. That's what leads me to
believe that there's only so much space for new alternatives.
Not that there's none. There's plenty. But each 20 or 30 vamps or so,
one will look like a reshuffled version of X vampire from group 1 or
2. That's inevitable.

Not to mention that all these alternatives listed below are damn
interesting, but don't fit with the KMW theme.

best,



>Examples :
>
>- African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
>interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
>without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care
>
>- Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have
>its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible.
>
>- Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages
>with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.
>Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.
>
>- Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
>still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to
>a new group.
>
>This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way
>too early for a new group.
>
>Deadly Yours,
>
>Orpheus, Necromonger.
>
>

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

 

[Guest]

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

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:f7sf01tctlhhpuob35v8ah5sdn7qbrvoei@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus"
> <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:
>
>>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
>>news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
>>> > creativity it is time to stop designing.
>>>
>>> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
>>> ideas for library cards, strategies available.
>>> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
>>> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
>>> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
>>
>>Or finding new alternatives.
>
> See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point
> where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was
> written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow
> reached.
>
> But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new
> card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time
> ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added
> has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is
> based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed
> toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly.

Huh?!? OK:
--DISCLAIMER--
The following is written as a response to the that comment that, "Any
new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting, in accordance with
the scenario the game is based in,..." It may or may not have anything
to do with grouping and I'm not trying to assert grouping is good or
bad. I just think this comment misses the point about why library
destruction, as a strategy, is bad to design into the game.
--/DISCLAIMER--

First of all, you need to get your vocabulary cleaned up.
I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption". That word has little
relevance that I can think of when used in the context of what
strategies or tactics should or should not be supported in VtES.
To "disrupt" tends to suggest interference with another player's
defense (means of remaining in the game) or offense (means of ousting
prey and thus making progress towards winning the game). Rush combat,
as an easy example, clearly does both. So a statement that begins,
"Any new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting..." ignores
the reality of the game since it was invented.

Library destruction can not be deemed evil by any conceivable
definition of the term "disruptive". If anything, it's LESS
"disruptive" than many stratigies given that its victim has a
completely free hand to operate normally until a specific point is
reached when his library is exhausted. In fact, if the predator is
expending most or all of his offensive resources on just library
destruction, if anything, the problem caused is that the prey has
TOO free a hand since he isn't getting otherwise attacked by his
predator which would be normal by comparison. If anything, the
problem with pursuing a library destruction offense is that it
unbalances the board by being too UNdisruptive. (Bah. Enough. I
think I've made my point.)

The problem with library destuction is just that it doesn't work
very well as a strategy, period. Most all strategies for winning,
even the highly defensive ones, involve destroying the prey's pool
directly or his resources for defending his pool (then destroying it
directly by cruder means), and moving on. Once your prey's been
ousted, you take over the job of ousting his prey, which should be
already partially digested by that time so you don't start from
scratch. But with library destruction, it doesn't work that way.
You go through all your prey's library cards, run him out, then get
him either with Brinksmanship or just by the disadvantage cause by
his lack of library (which could still be quite difficult). In
any event, however you get him you are then faced by the challenge
of starting nearly from scratch on the next player. Presumedly,
your grandprey has gone through some of his library but unless it's
taken you a long time to oust your first prey, he should still have
a pretty sizable chunk of his library left. If you have taken a long
time, then he's had a lot of time to make progress on his position
and may well have made some ousts (or be very near one) by now.

This all causes two distinct problems for game balance:
1) It's not a very attractive strategy to the user. With the library
destruction cards available to those pursuing the strategy, it's
unlikely to get more than one oust in a game and even getting one is
not very easy;

and 2) When it doesn't work - which is often, it often cripples the prey
in favor of third parties. Particularly, the predator's predator (who
may well find his grandprey near out of library about the time he starts
in on the latter) and the prey's prey, who may reap the rewards of having
no pressure on him if the prey starts desparately attacking backwards to
end the library destruction as soon as possible (and sometimes just out
of spite).

In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the
same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way
out of kilter.

Fred

spoiling for a different debate - one that I find more intruiging

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:
<snip>
> In short
<snip>

This word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Guest]

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

"Colin McGuigan" <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:NdWdnVdWTfuErZXfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> <snip>
>> In short
> <snip>
>
> This word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well, you gotta to admit, the part AFTER "in short" was actually short.

Sigh. Some things, if you're brief, you're wrong. If you're right, it's
too complicated to bother with.

Oh, well. I had fun writing it.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the
> same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way
> out of kilter.

Wahhh! Fred! Your logic is flawed! And here is why for 8 pages! Bwaaaa!!!

Oh. Wait. I completely agree with everything you wrote.

Never mind.


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

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