Issues I have with KoT spoiled cards
Orpheus
course.
So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and what
it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns :
1) The flattening of the disciplines
We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
- S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
- prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
- intercept in For
etc.
Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict
what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks
do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game.
b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer
cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a
Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt choices.
Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). That
flattens the crypts out, and it's not good
c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know it's
always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good
justification for intercepting with For, i.e.
2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a
little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the
principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand is Dark
Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok,
you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if I
understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! That
means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your
prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have
to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access to
S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already.
3) Buy it or leave
Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in
fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan
Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on
Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4
compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big
difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who
buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most
CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I
liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and
even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new
strategies etc).
Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I
think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game,
because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough.
4) Reprints in the boosters
Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint
cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going
to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if
we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell
didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
?
So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty sure
that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like the way
it's going.
So, what thinketh thou ?
------------
Orpheus
as...@hotmail.com
> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
I agree. This is starting to get absurd.
> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel-
cards that are canceled, or? Card text:
Dark Influences
2 pool
Master: out of turn.
Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
burned instead.
> 3) Buy it or leave
I don´t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power
curve" rises to high, the game will die. I´ve heard LSJ is aware of
this.
> 4) Reprints in the boosters
Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or
like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis
Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem!
Also, I would like to add a fifth issue:
5.) Why the spoilers?
How could all these cards leak out to France? I think it´s a bit
annoying. Just a bit :)
Orpheus
> On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>
>> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> I agree. This is starting to get absurd.
>
>> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel-
> cards that are canceled, or? Card text:
>
> Dark Influences
> 2 pool
> Master: out of turn.
> Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
> cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
> play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
> minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
> burned instead.
"That card cannot be played again..."
I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and
everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ?
>> 3) Buy it or leave
>
> I don´t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power
> curve" rises to high, the game will die. I´ve heard LSJ is aware of
> this.
Maybe he thinks this isn't "too high". But then we all have our standards.
This sure is a change from previous expansions, now maybe some players will
prefer this to what they found was "dull expansions". I don't hink I will.
>> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or
> like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis
> Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem!
Yes, and that's why I'm waiting to know the proportions, but on the list
there are lots of cards I really don't need anymore of (even Torn Signpost).
> Also, I would like to add a fifth issue:
> 5.) Why the spoilers?
>
> How could all these cards leak out to France? I think it´s a bit
> annoying. Just a bit :)
Most of the spoilers on the french forum came from this newsgroup. ;)
---------
Orpheus
James Coupe
<orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes:
>as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>>> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>>
>> Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or
>> like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis
>> Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem!
>
>Yes, and that's why I'm waiting to know the proportions, but on the list
>there are lots of cards I really don't need anymore of (even Torn Signpost).
It's a base set. The point of base sets is to recycle cards back into
the hands of newbies (or other people who haven't had access to
particular sets). If you buy a few cards that you don't want along the
way, trade them with someone who wants them. And, as ever, if you only
want the new cards, you're quite welcome to buy singles. I'd be
unsurprised if TheLasombra or someone put together packs of KoT Commons
or KoT booster vampires, or similar. But the reprint policy can never
be dictated solely by the needs of oldbies, or some cards wouldn't ever
be reprinted because we all have a truckload from Jyhad, V:TES and
Sabbat.
Also, with most sets of boosters, having them good for draft is a useful
aim. Reprinting useful, staple cards in starters only removes them from
drafting.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
a...@student.chalmers.se
> > cards that are canceled, or? Card text:
>
> > Dark Influences
> > 2 pool
> > Master: out of turn.
> > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
> > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
> > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
> > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
> > burned instead.
>
> "That card cannot be played again..."
>
> I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and
> everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ?
>
I'm pretty sure you understand it correctly. and I think it's fine.
You need some extra strength for that extra pool. Once this card is
played it will be rather hard to get any use of additional DI1's or
DI2's.
Regarding the minion tap "hoser". Currently I think that card is
really nice. It won't really hose minion tap and seems to me to be
what Vessel should have been to Blood Doll. a slight hoser which won't
mean people will stop playing Minion Tap.
> > I don´t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power
> > curve" rises to high, the game will die. I´ve heard LSJ is aware of
> > this.
>
> Maybe he thinks this isn't "too high". But then we all have our standards.
> This sure is a change from previous expansions, now maybe some players will
> prefer this to what they found was "dull expansions". I don't hink I will.
>
Doesn't these cards seem to be about as powerful as the CE cards? I've
only seem a few spoilers that seems too strong to me. Could you menion
some examples of cards that are overpowered?
> > Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or
> > like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis
> > Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem!
>
> Yes, and that's why I'm waiting to know the proportions, but on the list
> there are lots of cards I really don't need anymore of (even Torn Signpost).
>
Agreed, we'll have to wait for the complete setlist. But keep in mind
that this is a base-set, it should include alot of staple reprints.
> > Also, I would like to add a fifth issue:
> > 5.) Why the spoilers?
>
> > How could all these cards leak out to France? I think it´s a bit
> > annoying. Just a bit :)
>
> Most of the spoilers on the french forum came from this newsgroup. ;)
Most spoilers are from the fact that the set was pre-released at the
NAC and players who attended the NAC bought cards which they now
spoiled.
Regards
Alex
as...@hotmail.com
> > > I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel-
> > > cards that are canceled, or? Card text:
>
> > > Dark Influences
> > > 2 pool
> > > Master: out of turn.
> > > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
> > > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
> > > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
> > > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
> > > burned instead.
>
> > "That card cannot be played again..."
>
> > I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and
> > everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ?
>
> I'm pretty sure you understand it correctly. and I think it's fine.
> You need some extra strength for that extra pool. Once this card is
> played it will be rather hard to get any use of additional DI1's or
> DI2's.
Wait, wait, wait... Yes, of course it is the card that is cancelled
that cannot be played again THIS TURN. But I referred to the sentence
"The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion
card as it is played is canceled". Sorry.
BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
think?
Salem
> BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
> anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
> think?
Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird?
i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
"In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up."
"Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat."
- James Coupe
Chris Berger
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
> > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
> > think?
>
> Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird?
> i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things.
>
team." At least in regards to that method of hosing, and also on the
new cards so far (and the last few sets as well, truth be told).
Oh wait, I forgot, the theme of this thread is, "the sky is falling."
Peter D Bakija
> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
I'm not real psyched about this myself, but I'll hold judgement till I
see cards in play.
> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it
prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful
for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which
basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is
ok in my book.
> 4) Reprints in the boosters
This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the
boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new
players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the
boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes.
> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
> ?
'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints.
'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and
> everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ?
My predator plays Deflection to bounce a bleed of 5 to me. I play Dark
Influences to cancel the Deflection. My predator (and presumably
everyone) can't play Deflection for the rest of the turn.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
> anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
> think
Makes sense. DI2 costs more pool (which is significant), has a
slightly stronger effect (to make up for the extra pool cost), and
then hoses future DI. Like, really, I would have rather seen DI get
banned and no more cards like it made. But if that isn't going to
happen, this is better than not.
-Peter
Andreas Nusser
> But the reprint policy can never
> be dictated solely by the needs of oldbies, or some cards wouldn't ever
> be reprinted because we all have a truckload from Jyhad, V:TES and
> Sabbat.
Just in case if anyone wants to dump me a truckload of V:TES Sabbat
cards. Here is my adress (we even got a delivery gate for trucks):
Andreas Nusser
Maximilianstraße 93
67346 Speyer
Germany
regards,
Andreas
Orpheus
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing
>> a anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t
>> you think?
My point exactly.
> Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is
> weird? i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things.
Although some people were arguing that BD was a little too good (which
Vessel isn't), there hasn't been the kind of "this is bad for the game" rant
that there is over DI. So the comparison can't be made, really.
-----------
Orpheus
Orpheus
I'm really not sure about this, Peter. Because now, even the "I know this
card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in had just in case" strategy doesn't
work, so it's even more a silver bullet. And if you can't play one because
another player played one which hasn't been cancelled yet, it just adds more
randomness and compromises planning, so I really hate it, despite its hosing
of a card I already hated and, partly, of itself.
-------------
Orpheus
XZealot
> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, of
> course.
>
> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and what
> it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns :
>
> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
> drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
> - intercept in For
> etc.
>
> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>
> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict
> what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks
> do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game.
....but if they cost more then you create blood management issue which
must be compensated for.
> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
....everyone is already playing a cheaper more effecient hoser Direct
Intervention.
> 3) Buy it or leave
When is this new? If you get caught flatfooted while playing your
1994 Malk S&B by a Karsh/Beast Anarch Deck with Street Cred then
that's just life. Put up or shut up.
Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the
old strategies.
> 4) Reprints in the boosters
....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a
selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
true?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Frederick Scott
news:74b72eff-88bb-45cf...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
> > 3) Buy it or leave
> >
> > fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan
> > Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on
> > Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4
> > compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big
> > difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who
> > buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most
> > CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I
> > liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and
> > even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new
> > strategies etc).
>
> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I
> think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game,
> because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough.
>
> curve" rises to high, the game will die. I“ve heard LSJ is aware of
> this.
Here's a real damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't place for White Wolf.
It is not possible to design new cards and make them relevant if they
have to continually fear "raising the power curve". I think they used to
be more conservative. As a result, people complained they weren't printing
anything good so there was no point to buying the new expansions; all the
"tournament cards" came from the original set. Now that they print more
usable cards - "Uh, oh! They're raising the power curve!"
Also, I don't know about you but I always overestimate the power of new
cards when they're being discussed in the newsgroup. When I get them in
hand and try to build decks, they're always less useful. It's a bad time
to try to understand what's going on with the power curve right now.
It may be getting pushed up a bit over time. It can't be helped.
> > 4) Reprints in the boosters
> >
> > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint
> > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going
> > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if
> > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell
> > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
I believe Keepers of Tradition was designated a "base set" - just like 3rd
Edition and Camarilla Edition but unlike any of the other expansions after
Camarilla Edition. That means:
1) The boosters include mainly reprint library cards.
2) The boosters include a few new library cards at each rarity level.
3) All the vampires in the boosters are new.
So veteran players who have all the previous sets (for the most part), if we want
the new vampires and new library cards, we have to take a bunch of reprints dumped
on us for which we mostly have little need. It is a problem because it makes
the new library cards relatively rarer than their ostensible rarity level. It
would help if they'd bump new library card rarity levels: make new library cards
that qualified to be rare in a normal set uncommon in a base set; new library
cards that would normally be uncommons into commons in a base set; and make new
cards that would normally be common into C2s or C3s in a base set. New library
cards that are printed as rares in a base set should be extreme corner case
cards, or base sets just shouldn't have any new rare cards.
Of course, all this would be a problem in later base sets because then their rarity
levels would need to get bumped back down - causing players to complain because
players don't like cards changing rarity. Oh, well.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> I'm really not sure about this, Peter. Because now, even the "I know this
> card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in had just in case" strategy doesn't
> work, so it's even more a silver bullet.
That strikes me as kind of the whole point of the card--make DI less
of a certain defense. I mean, it is kind of an obtuse (roundabout)
solution, but I suspect the whole reason to print this card is
specifically to foil "I know this card can be DIed so I'll keep one
more in my hand just in case".
> And if you can't play one because
> another player played one which hasn't been cancelled yet, it just adds more
> randomness and compromises planning, so I really hate it, despite its hosing
> of a card I already hated and, partly, of itself.
Or, it encourages you to just not use DI in the first place. Which
accomplishes the same thing. But cleaner.
-Peter
Petri Wessman
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
> > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
> > think?
>
> Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird?
> i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things.
Same here. I'm liking the new DIv2... costs a bit more but is more
powerful and somewhat hoses the old DI. It's also a nice help versus
many common archetypes, including the oh so common Kindred Spirits
bleed bazooka. "What, I can't play Kindred Spirits again this
turn?" :D
The new set is sounding like pretty good news, though of course we'll
have to wait until it's released to figure out a final opinion. I
don't even mind the (alleged) "flattening" of disciplines, provided
that it doesn't totally go overboard. We'll see.
//Petri
John Flournoy
>
> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint
> cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going
> to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if
> we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell
> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
> ?
It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards
in this set. Since this is a core set, that should make the ratio of
reprints to new library cards somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:1,
which I think will make you feel a lot better than you did about 3rd.
> Orpheus
-John Flournoy
Frederick Scott
news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> > 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a
> selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
> no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
> true?
That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it
or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal
is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to
die".
Nope. In fact, I am an alien disguised as human waiting for you to let
down you guard so I can attack and eat your brain!
Geeze, Norm, you have to keep an open mind about these things!
X13-Krzzzzzt! (or, as I'm known in my human form, Fred)
Frederick Scott
news:0fac8aa9-dcba-49fe...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards
> in this set. Since this is a core set, that should make the ratio of
> reprints to new library cards somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:1,
> which I think will make you feel a lot better than you did about 3rd.
Was it 100? I thought it was 60: 20 on each rarity level. (Granted, I
don't know where I read this, I just thought I did somewhere.)
Also, aren't there normally 100 cards at each rarity level, rare,
uncommon, and common? So that would make the ratio 2:1, best case.
(Of course, that would still be much better than 3E, which had
only 36.)
Fred
Matthew T. Morgan
> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
> drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
Likely to annoy a War Ghoul here and there. I'll bet most !Malk decks
that make it to major finals don't bother with this. They just stick to
good old bleed cards with stealth cards. It's worked so far.
> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
Costs a blood. I don't think it's that great for most Tremere decks,
although you might splash a couple. Most of the time Theft will be better
or you could Magic up a Leather Jacket. This card doesn't turn
Thaumaturgy into Fortitude.
> - intercept in For
And this one seriously doesn't turn Fortitude into Auspex. Fortitude is
often found with Auspex. Will you play +1 intercept on a (D) action or
will you play Enhanced Senses?
> etc.
>
> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>
> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict
> what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks
> do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game.
Disciplines are still extremely specialized. Nobody is going to build a
Fortitude intercept deck and assume it'll be just as good as weenie aus.
> b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer
> cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a
> Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt choices.
> Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). That
> flattens the crypts out, and it's not good
You do still have to make tough choices though. What if you put 8x
Obfuscate s:ce in your KS deck and nobody rushes you? You could fail to
draw that crucial Eyes of Chaos and lose the table.
> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know it's
> always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good
> justification for intercepting with For, i.e.
>
> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a
> little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the
> principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand is Dark
> Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok,
> you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if I
> understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! That
> means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your
> prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have
> to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access to
> S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already.
Dark Influences isn't a no-brainer like you say it is. We all know how
powerful Direct Intervention is when combined with multiple master phase
actions and Anthelios. Dark Influences doesn't give you that. You cancel
a card for 2 pool. Now you CAN recycle it back, but why on earth would
you want to? You'll pay 2 pool to try to cancel a card but the first DI2
cancels the second one. With DI1 at least you'd only be paying 1 pool to
have your own card cancelled (assuming someone else played a DI2 - your
card works normally if they didn't).
> 3) Buy it or leave
>
> Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in
> fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan
> Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on
> Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4
> compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big
> difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who
> buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most
> CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I
> liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and
> even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new
> strategies etc).
>
> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I
> think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game,
> because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough.
This totally remains to be seen. I remember when people were talking
about how Beretta 9mm will change everything. I expect you'll still be
able to win games with just Jyhad cards.
> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint
> cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going
> to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if
> we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell
> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
> ?
It's a base set and there are all kinds of reprints that all kinds of
people want. Heart, Unmasking, Jake Washington, Mind Rape, The Embrace,
etc. That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it.
Matt Morgan
XZealot
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a
> > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
> > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
> > true?
>
> That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it
> or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal
> is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to
> die".
1st, it is not a false dichotomy. Never reprinting cards is bad for
new players which is the lifeblood of the game
2nd, what problem do you see?
3rd, you are a centered self-self player whose long goal is a term of
imprisonment for all games to die new. :P
James Coupe
.com>, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes:
>It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards
>in this set.
I last saw 60 - 20 at each rarity. Possibly some others in pre-cons.
James Coupe
writes:
>as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
>> anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
>> think?
>
>Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird?
>i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things.
More generally, making good cards that dis-incentivise older cards that
are still playable cards for their own purposes. Hosers that are only
hosers just don't get played much.
I may disagree with the specifics of any given card, but the general
thrust - make playable cards that aren't just corner-case hosers - is
good.
bwross
> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
I agree. Out of discipline powers should at least be really costly or
hurt. Like the way Celerity had two sources of stealth, but they cost
you two (and now they have a third for CEL and 1, which seems to be
part of the flattening). I'd say that the key powers might be being
maintained by shifting discipline key powers into more versitile cards
(eg Murmurs) for a card efficiency advantage... but then I see cards
like Deep Song, which give animialism bleed and another rush.
No Trace is particularly annoying to me... it seems far too cheap and
easy, at the very least it shouldn't be usable when blocking (because
if you're going to try and stop me and then just disappear, I'd just
keep on going). Yeah, yeah... snakes on sportbikes. The thing is
that Gemini's Mirror was an appropriate way for obfuscate to do combat
defence, it didn't need S:CE, too. I suppose it's only a matter of
time before we start seeing more anti-S:CE tech to counter all this.
Hopefully, it won't also be targeted at hosing IG by name.
Disciplineless bleed also seems to be being made easier to access,
things like Leverage, Camera Phone, and Monkey Wrench (for anarchs)...
which seems to be a plan to guarantee that everyone has easy access to
some ousting power.
> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
I think the interesting thing to note about DI2 is that once you play
it, you're the only player at the table that can have a card cancelled
with impunity. Everyone else at the table is immune for one card.
That and the whole "put in play" thing seems to be geared to making
sure that this one gums up the DI/Anthelios machine. I keep getting
the feeling that DI1 might be up for banning and this is it's more
expensive replacement... but that whole, "cannot play that card again
this turn" makes it seem like DIe is supposed to be balanced against
DI1.
> 3) Buy it or leave
Personally, I think that the fact that every new set gives all new
vampires is enough reason to keep buying new sets.
> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint
> cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going
> to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if
> we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell
> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
> ? in a b
Because this is a base set for the Camarilla, it's going to be reprint
heavy and large. The good news is that it has more new cards than 3rd
and the distribution should be more uniform. However, the size is
still an issue... if there are 100 commons and 5 common slots in a
booster, you can only expect 1.8 (if the distribution is flat like
most sets, that means about 80% 2s, 20% 1s with a couple cards of
variablity allowing for maybe a 3 or 0) of any given common in a box
(if things are flat). If things are more random like SoC or badly
mixed like 3rd, that goes out the window... you can get really lucky
and get 7 of a common in a box, or really unlucky and see only 1 or
the common you most want in 3 boxes.
I'm no fan of the large sets... it'd be nice if they had a lower
rarity for new cards. Making the new ones C2s would up the expected
value to 3 (with some 2s and some 4s), bringing it closer to a medium
sized set (where you typically get around 5). Sure that makes older
cards harder to get for people, but on the other hand new cards are
easier to trade for handfuls of old cards that the veterans don't want
in theirs.
Brent Ross
mat...@gmail.com
be less likely to hold it for a key play for fear DI2 will be played
before they get the chance. This will reduce the effectivness of the
DI's. Once DI2 is in play, would you be more likely to hold your DI1,
play it (cracking the box) or discard it?
DI2's effect is so strong. I think we will see it played. Even w/ the
future shut drop of one cancel card will not stop the timing issue
(does any 2 meth a DI1/2)
What's more I think it is good for combat deck's(but maybe I remember
it wrong) want to cancel an IG or Frenzy well you need two of the
card. There are so many cancel cards in the game, my previous
statement about mindset is probably wrong. DI2 is just a stronger DI.
Are going to allow yourself to be grappled/rotshrekiced just to keep
the cancel window half closed?
Matt
Anybody want a peanut
James Coupe
Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing happiness
for most players with every set.
(Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.)
Frederick Scott
> On Oct 31, 10:11 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > 4) Reprints in the boosters
> >
> > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a
> > > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
> > > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
> > > true?
> >
> > That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it
> > or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal
> > is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to
> > die".
>
> 1st, it is not a false dichotomy. Never reprinting cards is bad for
> new players which is the lifeblood of the game
I'm not arguing for never reprinting. I'm not even arguing for never
reprinting in boosters. I'm just saying the way they do it causes the
problem Orpheus described.
> 2nd, what problem do you see?
That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the large
number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the new ones
"rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge problem that
will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also not saying that
I have a better alternative, at least from White Wolf's perspective.
But neither of these alters the fact that it causes a problem.
> 3rd, you are a centered self-self player whose long goal is a term of
> imprisonment for all games to die new. :P
Sure. That's why I spend so much money on the game. I'm trying to make
it die out.
Fred
John Flournoy
> "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No, you're correct. I double-checked - 20 rares, uncommons and
commons.
> Fred
-John Flournoy
Orpheus
> On Oct 31, 10:21 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> I'm really not sure about this, Peter. Because now, even the "I know
>> this card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in had just in case"
>> strategy doesn't work, so it's even more a silver bullet.
>
> That strikes me as kind of the whole point of the card--make DI less
> of a certain defense. I mean, it is kind of an obtuse (roundabout)
> solution, but I suspect the whole reason to print this card is
> specifically to foil "I know this card can be DIed so I'll keep one
> more in my hand just in case".
Well, if some players (myself included) complained about DI1, it wasn't
because if wasn't powerful *enough*, but because it was already way too
powerful, even if you could keep a card in hand. So now it's just worse.
>> And if you can't play one because
>> another player played one which hasn't been cancelled yet, it just
>> adds more randomness and compromises planning, so I really hate it,
>> despite its hosing of a card I already hated and, partly, of itself.
>
> Or, it encourages you to just not use DI in the first place. Which
> accomplishes the same thing. But cleaner.
I don't think it will. The card is way too powerful? Sure, you'll want to
play 1 or 2 in a game, but it will be game-changing. Whoever plays it first
wins. Let's play Jungle Speed now ?
-------
Orpheus
Orpheus
>> curve" rises to high, the game will die. I“ve heard LSJ is aware of
>> this.
>
> Here's a real damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't place for White
> Wolf.
You are right on this.
> It is not possible to design new cards and make them relevant if they
> have to continually fear "raising the power curve". I think they
> used to be more conservative. As a result, people complained they weren't
> printing anything good so there was no point to buying the new
> expansions; all the "tournament cards" came from the original set. Now
> that they print more usable cards - "Uh, oh! They're raising the power
> curve!"
Sure. But, speaking only for myself, I've bought each of the previous
(non-Imbued) expansion, and right now I don't know if I'll buy KoT or not
(in which case I don't think I'll be able to play competitively for very
long). So it does bother me more than "stagnation". A few good cards isn't a
problem, AAMoF they are required !! But a bunch of "much better cards than
before" is a problem to me. I don't want to feel "obligated to buy", that's
just how I am.
> Also, I don't know about you but I always overestimate the power of
> new cards when they're being discussed in the newsgroup. When I get them
> in hand and try to build decks, they're always less useful. It's a bad
> time to try to understand what's going on with the power curve right now.
Sure. This works for lots of cards. But then there are no-brainers where you
KNOW it's good by easy comparison with existing cards.
> It may be getting pushed up a bit over time. It can't be helped.
Over time and a bit : been there, done that. Just compare average G1 and G3.
Now it's getting more and more so, is all.
These are very good suggestions, thanks Fred ! If WW reads you, and if they
didn't already apply such a strategy to KoT (which is why I asked about it)
they should start with the next "base edition" set !
> Of course, all this would be a problem in later base sets because
> then their rarity levels would need to get bumped back down - causing
> players to complain because players don't like cards changing rarity.
> Oh, well.
Not a problem for me, because as you said the "real" rarity is a whole
different thing. Just see how the commons were in LoB (because there were
many different cards) or the new cards in 3rd Ed !
-------------
Orpheus
Orpheus
> On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> I'm not real psyched about this myself, but I'll hold judgement till I
> see cards in play.
Ok, let's speak about it later then (if I'm still in the game, not sure as
of now...).
>> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it
> prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful
> for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which
> basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is
> ok in my book.
As I said in another answer, it just makes the effect more random : the
first player to play it has a very strong effect, the next one is hosed, and
maybe another one plays it and gains a huge advantage again... I don't like
it at all.
>> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the
> boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new
> players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the
> boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes.
>
>> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new
>> players ?
>
> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints.
> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets.
Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I
hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new
cards.
-------------
Orpheus
Orpheus
> In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan
> <far...@io.com> writes:
>> That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it.
>
> Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing
> happiness for most players with every set.
You mean, like disagreeing with James Coupe on every subject, or something
like that ?
> (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.)
The sentence that makes the most sense in your post.
-------------
Orpheus F'tagn
Orpheus
> On Oct 31, 2:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not
>> fakes, of course.
>>
>> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read,
>> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my
>> concerns :
>>
>> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>>
>> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that
>> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>>
>> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
>> - intercept in For
>> etc.
>>
>> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>>
>> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to
>> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature
>> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is
>> less a part of the game.
>
> ....but if they cost more then you create blood management issue which
> must be compensated for.
And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing anything.
Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway and bloat like a
pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever without a grapple).
>> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> ....everyone is already playing a cheaper more effecient hoser Direct
> Intervention.
You misunderstood my point, so your answer makes no sense : the hosers and
DI2 are two different things, separated by a coma, not ":".
>> 3) Buy it or leave
>
> When is this new? If you get caught flatfooted while playing your
> 1994 Malk S&B by a Karsh/Beast Anarch Deck with Street Cred then
> that's just life. Put up or shut up.
Your example makes no sense at all. Beast / Theo or cel gunners could
destroy Malks wayyyy back. Street Cred or Anarchy change nothing
fondamental. So please find better examples. Or shut up. ;)
> Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the
> old strategies.
Certainly not the strategies, but several older cards yes. And several
interesting combos too, see the flattening part.
>> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a
> selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
> no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
> true?
I wonder what makes you reach that silly conclusion. If it's a drug pass it
around.
My trouble is more or less what Frederick Scott has developped, and I see
you are already in a discussion with him. Just consider that I agree with
his points on the "rarer" part and you'll (hopefully) get my PoV.
------------
Orpheus
bwross
> >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> > Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it
> > prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful
> > for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which
> > basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is
> > ok in my book.
>
> As I said in another answer, it just makes the effect more random : the
> first player to play it has a very strong effect, the next one is hosed, and
> maybe another one plays it and gains a huge advantage again... I don't like
> it at all.
Not quite. The first one to play it becomes the table target of all
DIs (1 and 2). Because the DIs are only cancelled if they target
"another Methuselah", which would be anyone other than the controller,
which would be the person who played it. This would continue until a
second playter plays DI2, at which point there would be two table
targets, at least one of which would be freed by the next DI play. So
the first player is also somewhat hosed, as they have no target they
can effectively DI cards on again until they "play" another DI (of
course that's not a big deal if you only play one... but you'd still
have to deal with becoming the DI target).
And, yeah, the second player is somewhat hosed, in that they might not
have their optimal DI target available. Which is bad if it means not
being able to cancel a big bleed card or a rush like you planed to use
DI, but with DI2 in the game now that's less reliable defense so you
shouldn't be planning on DI as ironclad anymore. But they can still
smack the person who did that to them, which is something... so their
DI isn't entirely worthless (and if they play a big stack of DI they
might be willing to toss a DI to regain the ability to target their
next DI freely... meaning that we might see some decks with more DIs
than ever).
Brent Ross
Peter D Bakija
> Well, if some players (myself included) complained about DI1, it wasn't
> because if wasn't powerful *enough*, but because it was already way too
> powerful, even if you could keep a card in hand. So now it's just worse.
I'm not seeing how it is "just worse" now; DI2 costs an extra pool.
And the existence of DI2 means that, generally speaking, only the
first DI1/2 that sees play will have any effect, and the rest of them
become dead cards (as no one is likely to play a DI or DI2 just to let
other folks play them more in the future). Which means that playing DI
is now risky (if I put DI in my deck, and someone plays DI2 before I
draw my DI, my DI is now likely just a dead card). So using multiples
of them (or DI2) becomes foolish. So the likely effect is fewer DIs in
circulation in general.
Yes. The individual effect of DI2 is more powerful than DI1. 'Cause it
costs an extra pool, and provides diminishing returns (how is putting
2+ DI2 in your deck going to help much? If you play the first, the
rest are dead, unless you spend 2 pool and a MPA to get the first DI2
off the table, which seems wildly counterproductive to me). But due to
the effect of the card, it is unlikely that more than 1 will go off
per game. Which strikes me as completely reasonable.
> I don't think it will. The card is way too powerful? Sure, you'll want to
> play 1 or 2 in a game, but it will be game-changing. Whoever plays it first
> wins. Let's play Jungle Speed now ?
Giant's Blood works the same way. And is arguably more powerful than
DI ever was.
DI2 means, likely, that there will be fewer DI effects floating
around. And yes, the first person to play theirs "wins". Which means
that people will want to play theirs early to avoid getting frozen
out. Which means that people won't hold them for the best possible
play. Which means that "winning" in this case will often mean "playing
it early for a minimal effect or at a not particularly important
moment, just so you don't just have to discard it later".
-Peter
Tetragrammaton
> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes,
> of course.
>
> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read,
> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my
> concerns :
> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that
> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
> - intercept in For
> etc.
>
> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>
> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to
> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature
> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is
> less a part of the game.
> nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to
> include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to
> make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha
> / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's
> not good
> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any
> good justification for intercepting with For, i.e.
>
>
> cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a
> fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand
> is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs
> you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the same card can't
> be played again ?! That means that if you're a stealth bleeder and
> get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one
> again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to include various rushes. But no
> IG either ? And now you've got access to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A
> no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already.
>
> cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the
> crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a
> deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the
> Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What
> this means is that there will be a big difference not only in
> variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and those
> who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most CCGs, but
> that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I
> liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards
> and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play
> variety, new strategies etc).
> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other
> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT
> or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be good
> enough.
>
> non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so
> we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons
> of cards we already own if we want those new cards ? What will the
> starters, which are way enough for new players ?
>
> sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like
> the way it's going.
>
> So, what thinketh thou ?
> ------------
> Orpheus
So far, the only issue that really concerns me about these spoilers (i think
i saw around 30 of 60 among the new ibray cards) is the total lack of *new*
camarilla-specific cards, scourge apart (which definitively seems to be
*not*
a "breaking news" card anyway)
Anyway, i'll wait some weeks to have the cards in hand, before giving
a real judgment.on the set
best
Emiliano, NC Italy
www.italybynight.org
Tetragrammaton
> On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> see cards in play.
>
>
> prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful
> for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which
> basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is
> ok in my book.
>
>
> boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new
> players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the
> boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes.
>
>> players ?
>
> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets.
>
I can see your points
However, about the "new players" argument, i think that
it will be matter of debate in near future, given the actual
VTES status .
best
Emiliano, NC Italy
Peter D Bakija
> first player to play it has a very strong effect, the next one is hosed, and
> maybe another one plays it and gains a huge advantage again... I don't like
> it at all.
Once the first one is played, no more will be played. Are *you* gonna
spend pool and an MPA just so that someone else can play DI later on?
DI2 has the same effect (more or less) of making DI say "only one DI
may be played per game" (just like Giant's Blood. And Ancient
Influence). And in the process, making DI cost 2 pool instead of 1. I
mean, sure, it is possible that everyone will just ignore DI2 and
nothing will change. But DI2 seems advantageous enough to justify
using, and playing it early to gain an advantage in both the short (as
you cancelled a card) and long (as no one else will ever play a DI for
the rest of the game) term.
> Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I
> hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new
> cards.
It is a base set. All base sets have had reprints and new cards in the
boosters (see: Sabbat War, CE, 3rd). As it gives new players access to
cards they need, old players cards access to cards they still need (I
don't have enough Freak Drives yet. And hopefully, there will be On
the Qui and Vessel in the boosters, as I don't have enough of those
either). And there are always new vampires in the boosters. So yeah,
it might not be the greatest plan ever, in terms of benefiting long
time players, but it is a basic marketing device, and all the other
base sets have worked the same way.
-Peter
mat...@gmail.com
them are playable.
Hide the Mind
Approximation of Loyalty
Disengage
Fae Contortion
Determine
False Resonance
Goundfighting
Terra Incognita
any Abombwe card
Any of them will take DI2 out, assuming the wording is correct.
Matt
bwross
> And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing anything.
> Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway and bloat like a
> pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever without a grapple).
No Trace (the obf S:CE) costs 1 blood according to the reports I've
seen. Which puts it as more expensive than similar S:CEs... Meld with
the Land, Staredown, and Spiritual Intervention, all of which offer
full S:CE at superior and a more limited defence at inferior and cost
no blood. It's also weaker than the Presence S:CE standards, which is
available unlimited at inferior for 1 blood. Protean S:CE is, of
course, right off the scale and super twinky. So it is at the bottom
of the S:CE scale and will often be trumped by the offering of a
different discipline in decks that want it. A Settite deck will just
use Presence, a City Gangrel deck will use Protean, Nosferatu might
use Flesh Bond (the 2R attack doesn't require range like No Trace)
does. It's only decks with no other access to S:CE that will even
look at it.
But still, I also don't exactly like the idea or direction of the
card. I like powers more "School" based than "Realm" based... where
you have to go to a particular School of Magic to get a particular
type of effect rather than having each Magical Realm cover almost all
the same ground but in their own flavour. In a School system you have
to mix and match what you care about and accept some holes. In a
Realm system you just choose what role you want (Death Mage, Life
Priest, Nature Druid... they all end up with all the same key powers)
and go. The only consequence of your choice is that you'll be
slightly less powerful in some areas. Realm systems are less
interesting to play, IMHO.
Brent Ross
Jozxyqk
> The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of
> them are playable.
> Hide the Mind
> Approximation of Loyalty
> Disengage
> Fae Contortion
> Determine
> False Resonance
> Goundfighting
> Terra Incognita
> any Abombwe card
Iron Heart
Botched Move
bwross
> Once the first one is played, no more will be played. Are *you* gonna
> spend pool and an MPA just so that someone else can play DI later on?
1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed"
clause (but IDNHCIH).
2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2
in front of them. Of course, if there are two DI2s out you'll be
cancelled by the other one... so at that point it gets somewhat
locked. The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like
Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you
(the controller of the card). You essentially become a target for
cancellation effects, which is one of the downsides.
3) As Matt points out, there are many cancel cards that might get rid
of the DI2 for you.
Brent Ross
Peter D Bakija
<9e6611d5-1b7b-4000...@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed"
> clause (but IDNHCIH).
That might be the case--I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. But
even then, you are still using a very limited resource for likely no
purpose but to benefit other folks. Unlikely to happen much.
> 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2
> in front of them.
I don't know that this is the case. The spoiler I saw said something
along the lines of "any card played to cancel a card played by another
methuselah is cancelled..." I think interpreting this in the way you are
interpreting it is reading too much into the text.
> The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like
> Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you
> (the controller of the card).
This strikes me as questionable interpretation. But then again, I'm not
looking at the spoiler right now.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Peter D Bakija
<b5875fb0-71c9-45d8...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
mat...@gmail.com wrote:
> The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of
> them are playable.
>
> Hide the Mind
> Approximation of Loyalty
> Disengage
> Fae Contortion
> Determine
> False Resonance
> Goundfighting
> Terra Incognita
> any Abombwe card
Sure. But most of these aren't super common, compared to DI. And unless
you are playing a lot of them, playing 1 just to get rid of the DI2 in
play (unless you have, like, a DI in your hand also) seems not that
likely to pay off.
mat...@gmail.com
> In article
> <b5875fb0-71c9-45d8-8759-d199d25d4...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> matt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of
> > them are playable.
>
> > Hide the Mind
> > Approximation of Loyalty
> > Disengage
> > Fae Contortion
> > Determine
> > False Resonance
> > Goundfighting
> > Terra Incognita
> > any Abombwe card
>
> Sure. But most of these aren't super common, compared to DI. And unless
> you are playing a lot of them, playing 1 just to get rid of the DI2 in
> play (unless you have, like, a DI in your hand also) seems not that
> likely to pay off.
>
> Peter D Bakija
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
Fair enough
Robert Scythe
> In article
> <9e6611d5-1b7b-4000-bb99-730cfee30...@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed"
> > clause (but IDNHCIH).
>
> That might be the case--I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. But
> even then, you are still using a very limited resource for likely no
> purpose but to benefit other folks. Unlikely to happen much.
>
> > 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2
> > in front of them.
>
> I don't know that this is the case. The spoiler I saw said something
> along the lines of "any card played to cancel a card played by another
> methuselah is cancelled..." I think interpreting this in the way you are
> interpreting it is reading too much into the text.
>
> > The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like
> > Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you
> > (the controller of the card).
>
> This strikes me as questionable interpretation. But then again, I'm not
> looking at the spoiler right now.
Dark Influences
Cardtype: Master: out of turn.
Cost: 2 pool
Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
burned instead.
If this is the official text (which makes the most sense) then bwross
is correct. Players can still cancel your (the controller's) minion
cards without burning the DI2. If you want to cancel another meths
minion card then you would burn the DI2 instead (at no cost). If
another meth plays a DI2 on you then they will have a DI2 in play as
well. At this point another meth playing a cancel card will burn one
or both of the DI2's depending on who they attempt to play it on and
their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost).
Thrall of Arika
> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, of
> course.
>
> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and what
> it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns :
>
>
> drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you
get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue.
Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude
as well!
> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? My greatest
difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps
so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and
only prevents damage from strikes.
> - intercept in For
> etc.
>
> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>
> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict
> what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks
> do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game.
How so? Predictability makes things easier. Reacting to something
unexpected, and using your resources effectively to counter-act that,
seems to me would require greater skill than say "Oh, you're just
playing fortitude, so I just stealth by rather than try to hurt you".
> b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer
> cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a
> Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt choices.
> Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). That
> flattens the crypts out, and it's not good
This is a boon in my books. Oh, so you mean I can now play 3/4ths of
the Tremere/!Tremere I have because they can now actually survive
heavy combat? I don't have to devote 10+ cards to try to graft on a
discipline that dilutes the focus of my deck? GREAT!
Sure, coming up with that perfectly tuned deck that uses a marginal
number of vampires is gone, but we now have opportunities to see a
much greater variety of vampires in play, due to the fact that they
can now compete a bit more with those that are highly specialized.
> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know it's
> always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good
> justification for intercepting with For, i.e.
I think I've missed the intercept for Fortitude, so I can't comment on
it. But something like Perfect Paragon (pre +3 votes, PRE allies/
younger vampires -1 intercept) effectively gives stealth to Presence,
but I can see the RPness of it (it's harder for some to overcome their
awe at such 'perfection' and attempt to stop what they're doing). Deep
Song (ani +1 bleed, ANI odd rush) seems to me to be getting in tune
with the Beast within all vampires, whether your own (+1 bleed), or
inducing it in others (the enter combat).
> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a
> little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the
> principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand is Dark
> Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok,
> you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if I
> understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! That
> means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your
> prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have
> to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access to
> S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already.
I can understand the frustration of stymied combat. But I'm not of the
school that non-combat decks should be at the mercy of combat oriented
ones.
> 3) Buy it or leave
>
> Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in
> fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan
> Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on
> Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4
> compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big
> difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who
> buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most
> CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I
> liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and
> even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new
> strategies etc).
He's not a copy of Ranjan, having FOR instead of PRE. I can see what
you're saying, but I'm not sure it's that much a concern. There are
still ridiculously powerful vampires all the way back to Jyhad.
There's little point in recycling discipline spreads and abilities,
there has to be new spins on vampires, or there's not point in playing
the new vampires. And if weenie Ventrue with VDA is annoying you, burn
the darn VDA (heck, use a titled vampire and João Bilé can't even
attempt to block it!).
> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I
> think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game,
> because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough.
Why not? Cards from Jyhad are still staples in a ton of winning decks.
This isn't going to change with KoT. I'm sure you can still make
winning decks if you've never bought anything since original Jyhad.
All KoT does is add more ways of doing the same thing, which is what
keeps the game interesting.
> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint
> cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going
> to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if
> we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell
> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
> ?
There's been enough comments on this. Just adding my vote to saying
that I don't see this as a bad thing. You can't pack enough reprints
in just the starters, nor should new players be forced to buy a ton of
starter decks just to get cards they haven't had a chance to get
before.
> So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty sure
> that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like the way
> it's going.
>
> So, what thinketh thou ?
> ------------
> Orpheus
I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come up
with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill stealth -
didn't happen. Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat
the only way to go - didn't happen. Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper
- hasn't happened. Certainly, there will be new cards to put into
decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't see
KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
bwross
> bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed"
> > clause (but IDNHCIH).
>
> That might be the case--I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. But
> even then, you are still using a very limited resource for likely no
> purpose but to benefit other folks. Unlikely to happen much.
Well, if my interpretation is correct, it's essentially tossing the
card (and perhaps a MPA if it's a DI) to regain your ability to cancel
cards. Until you cancel a cancel, you won't be able to cancel with a
DI2 in front of you. Other players will be less restricted because
they can at least hit you.
> > 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2
> > in front of them.
>
> I don't know that this is the case. The spoiler I saw said something
> along the lines of "any card played to cancel a card played by another
> methuselah is cancelled..." I think interpreting this in the way you are
> interpreting it is reading too much into the text.
>
> > The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like
> > Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you
> > (the controller of the card).
>
> This strikes me as questionable interpretation. But then again, I'm not
> looking at the spoiler right now.
Spoiler says: " Put this card in play. The next card played that
would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is
canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead."
Of course, the use of "no cost" in that text marks it as unreliable.
English does have some ambiguity with the wording, but in game terms a
card played will almost always cancelling another Methuselah's minion
card, the exceptions to that are rare and atypical (most are explicit
about not targetting yourself). Things like Andrew Stuard and Blood
of Sandman don't count here because they're not played. The only
cases I can see that are missing a restriction that prevents playing a
card to self-cancel are Abombwe Reflexes, Power of All, Soul
Decoration, and Disengage. It seems rather odd to single those out...
especially when it would be clearer to introduce the cancelling minion
into the DI2 text, so the "another Methuselah" would have something to
be "another" from. As it is, the subject is "the next card", and so I
default to assuming that "another Methuselah" means "other than the
controller of this card"... like the two dozen plus Master cards that
use the phrase.
I look at it and see a hokey limitation against self-cancel vs. a well
established precedent for what "another Methuselah" means and go with
the later as more sane. It just makes more sense to me that you'd
become a target (and have to play nice for a while) for breaking the
rules of the Jyhad and getting directly involved. DI2 is more along
the lines of what DI1 should have been to begin with (which is why it
occasionally causes my cardban-sense to tingle about DI1)... it's more
expensive, it doesn't play as nice with Anthelios (or other ways to
use it more often), and the "become a target, and lose your next
cancel" penalty just seems to fit right in (more than the "freeze the
whole table out from cancelling" boon interpretation).
Well, I guess we won't have an official answer until the set comes out
(unless LSJ decides to jump in with a hypothetical interpretation of
what such text on a card would mean in game terms).
Brent Ross
bwross
wrote:
> > 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
> > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>
> Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you
> get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue.
> Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude
> as well!
Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to
never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/
presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent
down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge",
especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I
think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no
one to stop me). I liked the idea that if you managed to actually
beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified
to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity.
But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change
the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't
care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this
flattening is heading.
Brent Ross
Peter D Bakija
<99834f93-6324-4648...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> Well, if my interpretation is correct, it's essentially tossing the
> card (and perhaps a MPA if it's a DI) to regain your ability to cancel
> cards.
Sure (now that I have read the spoiler recently :-)--you can play a DI,
spend an MPA but not cost a pool so that someone else can play DI in the
future--how many DIs are in anyone's deck, such that it is going to
really be worth the effort to do this? DI shows up a lot. But even when
it shows up a lot, people don't have more than 2-3 tops. If I have 2x
DIs in my deck, if someone plays DI2 before I get off one of my DIs,
what is the percentage for me to play one of my DIs just to allow me to
play my second, which:
A) I might never draw into.
B) Might get foiled by the *next* DI2 that I just opened the door for.
> It seems rather odd to single those out...
> especially when it would be clearer to introduce the cancelling minion
> into the DI2 text, so the "another Methuselah" would have something to
> be "another" from. As it is, the subject is "the next card", and so I
> default to assuming that "another Methuselah" means "other than the
> controller of this card"... like the two dozen plus Master cards that
> use the phrase.
I'm reading "another methuselah" as an indicator of what the DI2 in play
cancells--a card that cancels a card played by another
methuselah--rather than "another methuselah" being a limiter of what
cards will be cancelled by the DI2 in play (i.e. my reading of DI2 is
the one in play will cancel the first card played by anyone that cancels
a card played by another methusealh [as opposed to the methuselah
playing it] and then it will leave play).
My interpretation strikes me as lot less confusing (i.e. any card that
cancels a card played by another methuselah sets off the DI2 in play)
than yours does (i.e. any card that cancels a card played by another
methuselah than the one who originally played the DI2 card sets off the
DI2 in play). But that might just be me.
Kevin M.
> "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> > 4) Reprints in the boosters
>> >
>> > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new
>> > cards, so we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts
>> > and get tons of cards we already own if we want those new cards?
>> > What will the proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep
>> > reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players
>
> like 3rd Edition and Camarilla Edition but unlike any of the other
> expansions after Camarilla Edition. That means:
>
> 1) The boosters include mainly reprint library cards.
> 2) The boosters include a few new library cards at each rarity level.
> 3) All the vampires in the boosters are new.
I was told that there are 300 cards in the set, of which 100 are new
vampires, 60 are new library cards, and 140 are reprints (library cards).
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Peter D Bakija
<9bb4f6ea-0844-41cd...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote:
> Dark Influences
> Cardtype: Master: out of turn.
> Cost: 2 pool
> Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
> cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
> play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
> minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
> burned instead.
>
> If this is the official text (which makes the most sense) then bwross
> is correct. Players can still cancel your (the controller's) minion
> cards without burning the DI2. If you want to cancel another meths
> minion card then you would burn the DI2 instead (at no cost). If
> another meth plays a DI2 on you then they will have a DI2 in play as
> well. At this point another meth playing a cancel card will burn one
> or both of the DI2's depending on who they attempt to play it on and
> their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost).
Yeah, I'm not seeing that. "The next card played that would cancel
another Methuselah's minion card as it is played..." is, in my reading,
an indicator of what kid of card is cancelled (i.e. a card that cancels
another methuselah's minion card) not an indicator of who is playing
what. Just like if it said "The next card played that would allow a
tapped minion to untap or react as if untapped" or "The next card played
that would increase a minions bleed". These are examples of cards that
get played and do not indicate who is playing them; a card "played that
would cancel another methuselah's minion card" is a type of card, not an
indication of who is playing what.
Thrall of Arika
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can see the interpretation either way. To me, though, it's meant to
affect cards that cancel someone elses minion cards, not your own
(specifically, to curb the use of DI). For the above interpretation,
it would be more correct to say "The next card another Methuselah
plays that would cancel a minion card as it is played is canceled (no
cost) and this card is burned instead."
There are a few cards that will cancel your own actions. Telepathic
Vote Counting, Red Herring, Psychomachia at pre, Primal Instincts.
Paying 2 pool to make yourself the target of cancellation cards isn't
going to see many decks soon, even if they prevent the use of the
original cancelled card for the turn.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Robert Scythe
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > Dark Influences
> > Cardtype: Master: out of turn.
> > Cost: 2 pool
> > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
> > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
> > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
> > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
> > burned instead.
> Yeah, I'm not seeing that. "The next card played that would cancel
> another Methuselah's minion card as it is played..." is, in my reading,
> an indicator of what kid of card is cancelled (i.e. a card that cancels
> another methuselah's minion card) not an indicator of who is playing
> what. Just like if it said "The next card played that would allow a
> tapped minion to untap or react as if untapped" or "The next card played
> that would increase a minions bleed". These are examples of cards that
> get played and do not indicate who is playing them; a card "played that
> would cancel another methuselah's minion card" is a type of card, not an
> indication of who is playing what.
Then there would be no reason for the word 'another' in that sentence,
it would just use the word 'a' as in your two examples. Your
interpretation would make for a ridiculous card that would allow you
to DI something on your predators turn and protect yourself on your
turn from cancellation responses. It is more balanced an idea to
assume that the word 'another' is not a long way of saying 'a' and
that now you are the one restricted, unless somebody gets you off the
hook.
Thrall of Arika
> On Oct 31, 4:21 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
> > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>
> > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you
> > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue.
> > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude
> > as well!
>
> Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to
> never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/
> presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent
> down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge",
> especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I
> think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no
> one to stop me).
I don't see it as any different that someone with Protean or
Viscissitude coming up to you and then disappearing into the
ground ... why should that stop my rampage? Presumably the idea is
that your blocking minion distracts the acting minion long enough to
foil their plans, and you 'disappear without a trace', which is
actually a mid-range Obfuscate ability in the RPG (Vanish from the
Mind's Eye, which probably should have done this, as it allows you to
disappear from sight right in front of people).
> I liked the idea that if you managed to actually
> beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified
> to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity.
Don't play against Setites much? *grins*
> But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change
> the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't
> care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this
> flattening is heading.
>
> Brent Ross
As long as the power of the card remains in check, I'm all for it. As
described above, No Trace is sort of the bottom rung of Combat Ends
cards, while still actually being useful. It certainly doesn't compare
to the level of Majesty or Earth Meld.
And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions,
there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of
cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set.
Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for no
one to use?
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Robert Scythe
wrote:
> I can see the interpretation either way. To me, though, it's meant to
> affect cards that cancel someone elses minion cards, not your own
> (specifically, to curb the use of DI). For the above interpretation,
> it would be more correct to say "The next card another Methuselah
> plays that would cancel a minion card as it is played is canceled (no
> cost) and this card is burned instead."
That says something completely different that would allow YOU to be
the only one that could cancel a minion card without burning the DI2.
> There are a few cards that will cancel your own actions. Telepathic
> Vote Counting, Red Herring, Psychomachia at pre, Primal Instincts.
DI2 stipulation is the canceling of a minion card as it is played. TVP
cancels a referrendum not the card as it is played, Red Herring and
Psychomachia cancel the action not the card as it is played, Primal
Instincts cancels the strike not the card as it is played.
> Paying 2 pool to make yourself the target of cancellation cards isn't
> going to see many decks soon, even if they prevent the use of the
> original cancelled card for the turn.
Not the point but I am also not very certain about that. Stopping
multiple Kindred Spirits, KRC's, Governs, Comp Hacks, etc. can be
valuable indeed.
Orpheus
Anson. Anthelios. Recursivity can also be used for timing, just discard the
Master you don't want right now and use it later. One example among many...
-----------
Orpheus
mat...@gmail.com
It seems like you are correct, but the only hook that you are on is
people can still cancel your minion cards. while I admit
that is bad it is no different than if you had not played it. (unless
you think people will use you to cycle)
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
> Anson. Anthelios. Recursivity can also be used for timing, just discard the
> Master you don't want right now and use it later. One example among many...
Recursivity already makes DI nighmarish. With DI2, it recurses half as
much.
Peter D Bakija
<acea96b6-6d11-4eed...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote:
> Then there would be no reason for the word 'another' in that sentence,
> it would just use the word 'a' as in your two examples.
A "card that cancels another methuselah's card as played" is a type of
card.
> Your
> interpretation would make for a ridiculous card that would allow you
> to DI something on your predators turn and protect yourself on your
> turn from cancellation responses.
My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel
something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes
away.
ira...@gmail.com
> On Oct 31, 6:10 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a
> > > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you
> > > think?
>
> > Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird?
> > i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things.
>
> I agree. I don't say this enough, I think: "Good job, LSJ and WW
> team." At least in regards to that method of hosing, and also on the
> new cards so far (and the last few sets as well, truth be told).
I'll chime in on this as well. As a professional game designer, I
have vast respect for the balancing, elegance, and fun that LSJ has
created in recent expansions.
Dark Influences even has the same initials as Direct Intervention!
Ira
bwross
wrote:
> > Dark Influences
> > Cardtype: Master: out of turn.
> > Cost: 2 pool
> > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card
> > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in
> > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's
> > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is
> > burned instead.
>
> > If this is the official text (which makes the most sense) then bwross
> > is correct. Players can still cancel your (the controller's) minion
> > cards without burning the DI2. If you want to cancel another meths
> > minion card then you would burn the DI2 instead (at no cost). If
> > another meth plays a DI2 on you then they will have a DI2 in play as
> > well. At this point another meth playing a cancel card will burn one
> > or both of the DI2's depending on who they attempt to play it on and
> > their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost).- Hide quoted text -
>
> affect cards that cancel someone elses minion cards, not your own
> (specifically, to curb the use of DI). For the above interpretation,
> it would be more correct to say "The next card another Methuselah
> plays that would cancel a minion card as it is played is canceled (no
> cost) and this card is burned instead."
That's not the same at all. That would let "you" (the controller)
play as much DI as you please, when the exact opposite is true... the
controller of the DI2 can't play a cancel card without it being
cancelled unless he does so on himself.
The interpretation requires that "another Methuselah" be attached to
the target of the cancellation (which the phrase "another Minion's
minion card" does perfectly) and not the player of the cancelling card
(which not having "another Methselah" taked onto "The next card" does
perfectly).
My interpretation also curbs DI... if someone across the table plays a
DI2 and you have a DI in hand you have these options:
1) Play it on something they do (if only to cycle the card) which
might end up more beneficial to your prey or predator who are adjacent
to that player.
2) Discard it.
3) Have it cancelled by using it on someone else just to cycle and get
rid of the DI2... only beneficial if you're playing a lot of DI so you
can assume a better chance of being next to the post.
Essentially, if you were planing on using DI1 to defend against your
predator, a DI2 in play by anyone else will kill that plan dead.
> There are a few cards that will cancel your own actions. Telepathic
> Vote Counting, Red Herring, Psychomachia at pre, Primal Instincts.
We've already covered this... none of those are relevant here. The
first three cancel actions, not cards (which might not exist)... the
last one cancels a strike, not a card (which might not exist). For
DI2, as worded in the spoiler, you need to cancel the play of an
actual card. These simply do not do that... see my list above for
some that actually do (Abombwe, Soul Decoration, etc)... it
essentially requires doing abberant behaviour (although sometimes
useful, like cycling Abombwe out of your hand, they're always somewhat
weird).
Also, note that self-cancellation by the DI2-intent player isn't a
valid strategy under either interpretation. You can't actively design
a deck to play DI2 and clear it with Abombwe... both interpretations
require a DI2 deck to pack cancellation cards usable against others
with the plan of using them to clear the way for the DI2.
Brent Ross
bwross
> In article
> <99834f93-6324-4648-8333-638566f99...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Well, if my interpretation is correct, it's essentially tossing the
> > card (and perhaps a MPA if it's a DI) to regain your ability to cancel
> > cards.
>
> Sure (now that I have read the spoiler recently :-)--you can play a DI,
> spend an MPA but not cost a pool so that someone else can play DI in the
> future--how many DIs are in anyone's deck, such that it is going to
> really be worth the effort to do this? DI shows up a lot. But even when
> it shows up a lot, people don't have more than 2-3 tops. If I have 2x
> DIs in my deck, if someone plays DI2 before I get off one of my DIs,
> what is the percentage for me to play one of my DIs just to allow me to
> play my second, which:
>
> A) I might never draw into.
>
> B) Might get foiled by the *next* DI2 that I just opened the door for.
You know, talking DI stategy between us is pretty silly right now. I
read your argument and it completely doesn't fit with my
interpretation... so naturally it makes no sense.
For example, I see your situation and add:
C) Look at playing that DI against the player with the DI2 in front of
them. It won't be cancelled and you might be able to get some
benefit. If benefit is unlikely, discard it like any other card
you're unlikely to benefit from because of the way the game's playing.
An option which makes no sense under your interpretation. Which is
why we really can't talk about DI2 except in the cases where it's the
same under both interpretations.
Brent Ross
bwross
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:39 pm, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> > > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
> > > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> > > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>
> > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you
> > > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue.
> > > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude
> > > as well!
>
> > Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to
> > never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/
> > presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent
> > down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge",
> > especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I
> > think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no
> > one to stop me).
>
> I don't see it as any different that someone with Protean or
> Viscissitude coming up to you and then disappearing into the
> ground ... why should that stop my rampage?
That always bothered me too. Earth Melding in the RPG was too slow
for combat by default... the fast version (which might not be allowed)
was extremely expensive. Neither prevented the Garou from just
digging up the earth where you melded and doing nasty things... you
really needed to get away first. What Earth Melding was good for was
doing things into the day... anywhere there's dirt you can make a
temporary haven. I would have made it another Protean stealth card
instead (or made it cost blood for the S:CE). Still there's the
difference that an Earth Melded foe is still present and could pop up
behind you (perhaps that's how they do it... they make you try to play
Whack-a-Mole to distract you till sunrise makes you go home (they
don't have to leave)). Getting the hell out of Dodge means that
there's no one there to stop me, so I just go on with destruction. Of
course, you could say that the obfuscator is blinking about trying to
distract them (rather odd for a card called *No* Trace)... but that's
how Realm systems work. You can always find some interpretation to
give any powersource any ability... you just add the flavouring. For
example, if you want a Potence intercept card... welcome, "Unwilling
Informant". If you want it you can do it... but that doesn't mean you
sould.
> Presumably the idea is
> that your blocking minion distracts the acting minion long enough to
> foil their plans, and you 'disappear without a trace', which is
> actually a mid-range Obfuscate ability in the RPG (Vanish from the
> Mind's Eye, which probably should have done this, as it allows you to
> disappear from sight right in front of people).
>
> > I liked the idea that if you managed to actually
> > beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified
> > to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity.
>
> Don't play against Setites much? *grins*
The difference there is that the caught Setite actually stays around
for the combat and pulls a "Kneel before Zod" on you.
> > But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change
> > the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't
> > care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this
> > flattening is heading.
>
> As long as the power of the card remains in check, I'm all for it. As
> described above, No Trace is sort of the bottom rung of Combat Ends
> cards, while still actually being useful. It certainly doesn't compare
> to the level of Majesty or Earth Meld.
Yep, I'm glad that it really isn't so good as to really impact the
game much. It's the general idea of it and other recent cards passing
out abilities you used to have to work in another discipline for. The
more that happens the more the importance of differnent disciplines
gets washed out. It also means that you can play lower average
capacity in your crypt if you only really need one discipline for most
things. I'd rather have game design work towards making fatties more
playable than making them less important. For example, if No Trace
was like Sense the Savage Way (in requiring >6 cap) I'd have less of a
feeling that things were getting washed out. That sort of design
would essientally add new levels to disciplines... "exalted" inferior
and superior abilities available only to those with thick blood (it's
too bad that it's too late to make Govern the Unaligned require high
capacity). At the highest levels of any discipline borders really
start to blur because beings that get to that point should have big
benefits.
> And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions,
> there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of
> cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set.
> Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for no
> one to use?
Yeah, it's just that the flattening of disciplines marks the start of
Gehenna for the game, IMHO. If all they can do now is wash out the
disciplines into flavoured copies of each other to make new library
cards, I'd rather them just make new vampires and reprint library
cards.
Brent Ross
Robert Scythe
> My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel
> something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes
> away.
Exactly. DI2 something on your predators turn and then you are
protected on your turn from cancellation unless someone burns the DI2
and then you can be targeted. If we are talking about DI's then 2
different meths will have to work together to stop you. Seems a little
too strong that way for the one who played it. Well worth 1 more pool
then a normal DI.
James Coupe
<orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan
>> <far...@io.com> writes:
>>> That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it.
>>
>> Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing
>> happiness for most players with every set.
>
>You mean, like disagreeing with James Coupe on every subject, or something
>like that ?
>
>> (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.)
>
>The sentence that makes the most sense in your post.
You'd probably do better revising the concepts of "humour" and "ROT13".
Both are integral to Usenet.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
<orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes:
>Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints.
>> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets.
>
>Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I
>hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new
>cards.
Of course they want to print some new cards in it too. Most sets won't
thrive on the sales to new players alone. So you put in some cards that
will appeal to newbies, some that will appeal to oldbies.
Very few sets would shift significant numbers if they were solely
reprints.
bwross
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:39 pm, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> > > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were
> > > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> > > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>
> > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you
> > > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue.
> > > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude
> > > as well!
>
> > Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to
> > never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/
> > presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent
> > down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge",
> > especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I
> > think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no
> > one to stop me).
>
> I don't see it as any different that someone with Protean or
> Viscissitude coming up to you and then disappearing into the
> ground ... why should that stop my rampage?
That always bothered me too. Earth Melding in the RPG was too slow
for combat by default... the fast version (which might not be allowed)
was extremely expensive. Neither prevented the Garou from just
digging up the earth where you melded and doing nasty things... you
really needed to get away first. What Earth Melding was good for was
doing things into the day... anywhere there's dirt you can make a
temporary haven. I would have made it another Protean stealth card
instead (or made it cost blood for the S:CE). Still there's the
difference that an Earth Melded foe is still present and could pop up
behind you (perhaps that's how they do it... they make you try to play
Whack-a-Mole to distract you till sunrise makes you go home (they
don't have to leave)). Getting the hell out of Dodge means that
there's no one there to stop me, so I just go on with destruction.
> Presumably the idea is
> that your blocking minion distracts the acting minion long enough to
> foil their plans, and you 'disappear without a trace', which is
> actually a mid-range Obfuscate ability in the RPG (Vanish from the
> Mind's Eye, which probably should have done this, as it allows you to
> disappear from sight right in front of people).
Of course, you could say that... but that's how Realm systems work.
You can always find some interpretation to give any powersource any
ability... you just add the flavouring. For example, if you want a
Potence intercept card... welcome, "Unwilling Informant". If you want
it you can do it... but that doesn't mean you should.
The thing is that Obfuscate already had the "distract the acting
minion long enough" approach... maneuvers, presses to end, and most
importantly Gemini's Mirror... which is essentially just that. The
description of No Trace as "get the hell out of dodge" is exacty
counter to that. You need a Trace so the minion you're blocking is
actually distracted... running away and leaving them to their business
is a crappy way to stop someone.
> > I liked the idea that if you managed to actually
> > beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified
> > to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity.
>
> Don't play against Setites much? *grins*
The difference there is that the caught Setite actually stays around
for the combat and pulls a "Kneel before Zod" on you. It's very
different when the acting minion is the one that's doing the leaving
and has no desire to fight or continue with their action... No Trace
is the blocker leaving.
> > But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change
> > the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't
> > care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this
> > flattening is heading.
>
> As long as the power of the card remains in check, I'm all for it. As
> described above, No Trace is sort of the bottom rung of Combat Ends
> cards, while still actually being useful. It certainly doesn't compare
> to the level of Majesty or Earth Meld.
Yep, I'm glad that it really isn't so good as to really impact the
game much. It's the general idea of it and other recent cards passing
out abilities you used to have to work in another discipline for. The
more that happens the more the importance of differnent disciplines
gets washed out. It also means that you can play lower average
capacity in your crypt if you only really need one discipline for most
things. I'd rather have game design work towards making fatties more
playable than making them less important. For example, if No Trace
was like Sense the Savage Way (in requiring >6 cap) I'd have less of a
feeling that things were getting washed out. That sort of design
would essientally add new levels to disciplines... "exalted" inferior
and superior abilities available only to those with thick blood (it's
too bad that it's too late to make Govern the Unaligned require high
capacity). At the highest levels of any discipline borders really
start to blur because beings that get to that point should have big
benefits.
> And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions,
> there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of
> cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set.
> Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for no
> one to use?
Yeah, it's just that the flattening of disciplines marks the start of
Salem
> In article
> <acea96b6-6d11-4eed...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote:
>> Then there would be no reason for the word 'another' in that sentence,
>> it would just use the word 'a' as in your two examples.
>
> A "card that cancels another methuselah's card as played" is a type of
> card.
>
>> Your
>> interpretation would make for a ridiculous card that would allow you
>> to DI something on your predators turn and protect yourself on your
>> turn from cancellation responses.
>
> My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel
> something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes
> away.
The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still
free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that
gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new
tremere guy...etc..
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
"In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up."
"Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat."
- James Coupe
Salem
> In message <490b4307$0$12000$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus
> <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes:
>>Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints.
>>> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets.
>>
>>Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I
>>hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new
>>cards.
>
> Of course they want to print some new cards in it too. Most sets won't
> thrive on the sales to new players alone. So you put in some cards that
> will appeal to newbies, some that will appeal to oldbies.
>
> Very few sets would shift significant numbers if they were solely
> reprints.
>
Blood Shadowed Court seemed to do ok. Not that I've seen any sales figures.
It depends on the reprints, I'd say.
Salem
> Orpheus wrote:
>> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes,
>> of course.
>>
>> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read,
>> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my
>> concerns :
>>
>> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that
>> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>>
>> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>> etc.
>>
>> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>>
>> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to
>> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature
>> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is
>> less a part of the game.
>> nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to
>> include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to
>> make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha
>> / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's
>> not good
>> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any
>> good justification for intercepting with For, i.e.
>>
>>
>> Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new
>> cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a
>> fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand
>> is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs
>> 2 pool ; ok, you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when
>> you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the same card can't
>> be played again ?! That means that if you're a stealth bleeder and
>> get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one
>> again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to include various rushes. But no
>> IG either ? And now you've got access to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A
>> no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already.
>>
>> Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good
>> cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the
>> crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a
>> deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the
>> Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What
>> this means is that there will be a big difference not only in
>> variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and those
>> who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most CCGs, but
>> that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I
>> liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards
>> and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play
>> variety, new strategies etc).
>> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT
>> or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be good
>> enough.
>>
>> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new
>> non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so
>> we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons
>> proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep reprints to
>>
>> So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty
>> sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like
>> the way it's going.
>>
>> So, what thinketh thou ?
>> ------------
>> Orpheus
>
> i saw around 30 of 60 among the new ibray cards) is the total lack of *new*
> camarilla-specific cards, scourge apart (which definitively seems to be
> *not*
> a "breaking news" card anyway)
I thought Scourge just required a titled vamp? Could well be a non-cam
titled vamp...
Salem
> On Oct 31, 12:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
>
> Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? My greatest
> difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps
> so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and
> only prevents damage from strikes.
only opposing strikes, wasn't it? So it's not combinable with Burst of
Sunlight. Which is probably just as well. :)
bwross
> The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still
> free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that
> gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new
> tremere guy...etc..
Veil of Darkness doesn't apply here... it doesn't cancel a card, the
card just has no effect.
Card text:
"Each turn, when a vampire plays his or her first card that turn that
requires any Disciplines, that vampire's controller reveals the top
card
of his or her library (before drawing to replace). If it is a master
card, the original card has no effect (no cost is paid), and in
addition, if the original card required Obtenebration [obt], the
vampire
burns 2 blood."
Brent Ross
Kushiel
> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict
> what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks
> do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game.
It seems very counterintuitive to me to say that it takes more skill
to read and adapt to a predictable situation than to read and adapt to
an unpredictable one.
John Eno
Tetragrammaton
> Tetragrammaton wrote:
>> Orpheus wrote:
>> So far, the only issue that really concerns me about these spoilers
>> (i think i saw around 30 of 60 among the new ibray cards) is the
>> total lack of *new* camarilla-specific cards, scourge apart (which
>> definitively seems to be *not*
>> a "breaking news" card anyway)
>
> I thought Scourge just required a titled vamp? Could well be a non-cam
> titled vamp...
Really ? So that's isn't any better in the respect of my concern :-)
James Coupe
writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> Very few sets would shift significant numbers if they were solely
>> reprints.
>
>Blood Shadowed Court seemed to do ok. Not that I've seen any sales figures.
>
>It depends on the reprints, I'd say.
Oh, sure, there are some exceptions - Sabbat War was also heavily
reprints, with a very few new cards. But that was a specific situation,
where it was the first release of cards into the game for a VERY long
time.
But BSC and, to a lesser extent, the Tenth Anniversary Tins are a
different kettle of fish to a reprint-only base set, being static sets
with known contents. That in itself can appeal to oldbies who think "Oh
yeah, I'll spend twenty dollars and get a couple of copies of
everything", rather than "Oh shit, I need to buy an unpredictable - and
probably large - number of boosters to get those couple of vamps I was
missing."
Orpheus
> In article <490b7dd5$0$1533$426a...@news.free.fr>,
> "Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Anson. Anthelios. Recursivity can also be used for timing, just
>> discard the Master you don't want right now and use it later. One
>> example among many...
>
> Recursivity already makes DI nighmarish. With DI2, it recurses half as
> much.
Agreed. But when it does hit the table it impacts it twice as much.
All in all, no problem solved at all.
------------
Orpheus
Orpheus
> On Oct 31, 2:15 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing
>> anything. Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway
>> and bloat like a pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever
>> without a grapple).
>
> No Trace (the obf S:CE) costs 1 blood according to the reports I've
> seen. Which puts it as more expensive than similar S:CEs... Meld with
> the Land, Staredown, and Spiritual Intervention, all of which offer
> full S:CE at superior and a more limited defence at inferior and cost
> no blood. It's also weaker than the Presence S:CE standards, which is
> available unlimited at inferior for 1 blood. Protean S:CE is, of
> course, right off the scale and super twinky. So it is at the bottom
> of the S:CE scale and will often be trumped by the offering of a
> different discipline in decks that want it. A Settite deck will just
> use Presence, a City Gangrel deck will use Protean, Nosferatu might
> use Flesh Bond (the 2R attack doesn't require range like No Trace)
> does. It's only decks with no other access to S:CE that will even
> look at it.
Ok.
> But still, I also don't exactly like the idea or direction of the
> card. I like powers more "School" based than "Realm" based... where
> you have to go to a particular School of Magic to get a particular
> type of effect rather than having each Magical Realm cover almost all
> the same ground but in their own flavour. In a School system you have
> to mix and match what you care about and accept some holes. In a
> Realm system you just choose what role you want (Death Mage, Life
> Priest, Nature Druid... they all end up with all the same key powers)
> and go. The only consequence of your choice is that you'll be
> slightly less powerful in some areas. Realm systems are less
> interesting to play, IMHO.
>
> Brent Ross
Totally agreed.
---------------
Orpheus
Orpheus
> In message <490b435c$0$6021$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus
> <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan
>>> <far...@io.com> writes:
>>>> That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it.
>>>
>>> Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing
>>> happiness for most players with every set.
>>
>> You mean, like disagreeing with James Coupe on every subject, or
>> something like that ?
>>
>>> (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.)
>>
>> The sentence that makes the most sense in your post.
>
> You'd probably do better revising the concepts of "humour" and
> "ROT13". Both are integral to Usenet.
Humour is as unknown to necromancers as the real meanings of death are to
the non-initiated.
I didn't know about ROT13, quite a fun concept ! Oh, but wait, I don't have
humour, so... Bah, forget about it
(http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0ZyoUn7Vk).
------------
Donnie Orpheus
XZealot
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:74abe781-481d-4f84...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 10:11 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> > > > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
> > > > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
> > > > true?
>
> > > That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it
> > > or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal
> > > is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to
> > > die".
>
> > 1st, it is not a false dichotomy. Never reprinting cards is bad for
> > new players which is the lifeblood of the game
>
> I'm not arguing for never reprinting. I'm not even arguing for never
> reprinting in boosters. I'm just saying the way they do it causes the
> problem Orpheus described.
>
> > 2nd, what problem do you see?
>
> That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the large
> number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the new ones
> "rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge problem that
> will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also not saying that
> I have a better alternative, at least from White Wolf's perspective.
> But neither of these alters the fact that it causes a problem.
No, it doesn't make it rarer, but they have the appearance of being
more desirable over the short term.
For example, Weighted Walking stick was a new card in Camarilla.
Players wanted them. They were desirable, yet no less rare than
anything else printed in the Camarilla set that was on that sheet.
Weighted Walking stick was reprinted, several times, and no one is
complaining now how they can't get Weighted Walking Sticks.
Reprints are good.
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
> >> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not
> >> fakes, of course.
>
> >> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read,
> >> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my
> >> concerns :
>
> >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>
> >> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that
> >> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>
> >> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
> >> etc.
>
> >> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>
> >> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature
> >> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is
> >> less a part of the game.
>
> > must be compensated for.
>
> And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing anything.
> Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway and bloat like a
> pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever without a grapple).
Obf S:CE costs a blood.
Preventing a limited amount from opposing minions strikes for 1 blood
is okay, and will go into my Hector Trelane deck but nowhere else.
> >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>
> > ....everyone is already playing a cheaper more effecient hoser Direct
> > Intervention.
>
> You misunderstood my point, so your answer makes no sense : the hosers and
> DI2 are two different things, separated by a coma, not ":".
Your grammar is confusing me. Please restate your point. If it is
two points, then please restate them separately.
> >> 3) Buy it or leave
>
> > When is this new? If you get caught flatfooted while playing your
> > 1994 Malk S&B by a Karsh/Beast Anarch Deck with Street Cred then
> > that's just life. Put up or shut up.
>
> Your example makes no sense at all. Beast / Theo or cel gunners could
> destroy Malks wayyyy back. Street Cred or Anarchy change nothing
> fondamental. So please find better examples. Or shut up. ;)
Again, new stuff blindsides players who don't keep up.
....and Anarchy changes everything.
> > Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the
> > old strategies.
>
> Certainly not the strategies, but several older cards yes. And several
> interesting combos too, see the flattening part.
>
> >> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>
> > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a
> > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be
> > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that
> > true?
>
> I wonder what makes you reach that silly conclusion. If it's a drug pass it
> around.
>
> My trouble is more or less what Frederick Scott has developped, and I see
> you are already in a discussion with him. Just consider that I agree with
> his points on the "rarer" part and you'll (hopefully) get my PoV.
Again, see my point about Weighted Walking Sticks and how reprints
even out demand over the long term.
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still
> free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that
> gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new
> tremere guy...etc..
I think in the end, what we have is a card with somewhat ambigious
wording. Which should be easy enough to resolve. LSJ?
Peter D Bakija
<b71dada8-9377-4530...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:16 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel
> > something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes
> > away.
>
> Exactly.
What are we disagreeing about here?
> DI2 something on your predators turn and then you are
> protected on your turn from cancellation unless someone burns the DI2
> and then you can be targeted.
Ok.
> If we are talking about DI's then 2
> different meths will have to work together to stop you. Seems a little
> too strong that way for the one who played it. Well worth 1 more pool
> then a normal DI.
I'm not seeing so much what you are talking about with "2 different
meths will have to work together to stop you". The way I am reading the
card, DI2 effectively says "only one DI1/2 may be played per game.",
unless someone (yourself included) decides to take the hit and kill the
DI2 on the table. If no one is willing to suck it up (or, like, play a
Disengage for no effect), then no more DI for anyone. The disagreement
that I'm involved in is that some folks read this card such that once it
is in play, no one can play a DI1/2 *unless* it targets the person who
put the DI2 into play. Which strikes me as a unecessarily complicated
way to interpret the card.
Peter D Bakija
<76607579-4311-49fc...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> You know, talking DI stategy between us is pretty silly right now.
Sure. I'm not really talking about strategy so much as explaining how
I'm reading the card to work, however.
Orpheus
> On Oct 31, 12:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not
>> fakes, of course.
>>
>> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read,
>> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my
>> concerns :
>>
>> 1) The flattening of the disciplines
>>
>> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that
>> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) :
>>
>> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !)
>
> get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue.
> Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude
> as well!
Ani S:CE is an aberration already. Looks like every discipline will sooner
or later get an S:CE, that's vomiting. Anyway, thematically Obf is logicial,
for the balance of the game I think it's quite bad. And more than anything,
it's bad for creativity : why go to the trouble of giving the Malks Pro for
S:CE anymore ? No reason really, so here's a (difficult yet interesting)
concept killed on the spot. Let's just make Aus / Obf Princes decks without
it now, the crypts will be no-brainers.
>> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it)
>
> Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are?
In Aus / Tha walls, yes, it is very good. Of course it doesn't endure
against full combat decks, but against many other things including
bruise'n'bleed or Eurobrujahs or whatever it does pretty well.
> My greatest
> difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps
> so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and
> only prevents damage from strikes.
It will protect from Pot LR strikes, from ranged aggrav strikes etc, so yes
I do believe it makes a big difference. Once more, I'd been working on
several versions of Tha / Dom / For crypts, finding it to be an interesting
albeit difficult concept, rendered more viable with recent crypts, but now I
really don't see why I should bother. Bang, another dead concept ! Another
no-brainer ! See what I mean ? I'm sure you do.
>> - intercept in For
>> etc.
>>
>> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because
>>
>> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to
>> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature
>> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is
>> less a part of the game.
>
> How so? Predictability makes things easier. Reacting to something
> unexpected, and using your resources effectively to counter-act that,
> seems to me would require greater skill than say "Oh, you're just
> playing fortitude, so I just stealth by rather than try to hurt you".
The trouble is that after a while everyone can do everything. So if we
caricature it a bit we end up with : "ok, I'm playing just any deck so I can
stealth ; and he's playing just any deck so he can intercept, just not as
much or with more cost than if he had Aus". We're not there yet, of course,
but getting there. So what do they do ? Give us +2 int. with inferior Aus
(only on D actions, boooh !). And when we can get that with Cel too, I guess
we'll have to get Aus : +3 Intercept / AUS + [years that VTES has been for
sale] Intercept. ;)
Less skill, more randomness.
>> b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of
>> nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to
>> include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to
>> make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha
>> / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's
>> not good
>
> This is a boon in my books. Oh, so you mean I can now play 3/4ths of
> the Tremere/!Tremere I have because they can now actually survive
> heavy combat? I don't have to devote 10+ cards to try to graft on a
> discipline that dilutes the focus of my deck? GREAT!
Well, I for one don't like no-brainers. Tha works already pretty well
against most forms of combat because of its ability to maneuver and the
versatility of the range of its strikes, and you could even prevent 1
without a discipline, not to mention that Magic of the Smith could get you a
jacket. But of course with For it would be more efficient in a combat-heavy
environment. So you had to adapt to your metagame and maybe change your
crypt for one with less choice. In other words, use your brain to better the
players who wouldn't make that effort.
Less brains, zombies go hungry. Not good.
> Sure, coming up with that perfectly tuned deck that uses a marginal
> number of vampires is gone, but we now have opportunities to see a
> much greater variety of vampires in play, due to the fact that they
> can now compete a bit more with those that are highly specialized.
Well, seeing that the disciplines that got better are already used by some
of the most popular clans, I just think that we'll always see the same
vampires from those clans, and less and less of the ones with that "4rth
discipline that could make a difference".
>> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I
>> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any
>> good justification for intercepting with For, i.e.
>
> I think I've missed the intercept for Fortitude, so I can't comment on
> it. But something like Perfect Paragon (pre +3 votes, PRE allies/
> younger vampires -1 intercept) effectively gives stealth to Presence,
> but I can see the RPness of it (it's harder for some to overcome their
> awe at such 'perfection' and attempt to stop what they're doing). Deep
> Song (ani +1 bleed, ANI odd rush) seems to me to be getting in tune
> with the Beast within all vampires, whether your own (+1 bleed), or
> inducing it in others (the enter combat).
As I said the roleplay isn't the more important factor to me here. But
still, your justification for Deep Song doesn't convince me at all, and
Paragon seems far-fetched at best. Looks to me like they made cards to
increase the powers of some disciplines, then thought "we'll have to justify
that now" and found the best-fitting name possible. Not an easy task, not
very succesful in my book.
>> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2.
>>
>> Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new
>> cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a
>> fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't
>> understand is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !!
>> Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok, you can't play one more right away. But in
>> the turn when you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the
>> same card can't be played again ?! That means that if you're a
>> stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush
>> and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to
>> include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access
>> to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it
>> already.
>
> I can understand the frustration of stymied combat. But I'm not of the
> school that non-combat decks should be at the mercy of combat oriented
> ones.
Certainly. No concept should be at the mercy of any other one. Which is why
I find that Charismatic Aura, while very strong, is a good card (the
Toreador should be more "charismaticly hard to hit" than other clans). But
what I hated with DI1 already was, once more, the no-brainer part : "I
include a card in my deck and it will be useful for every situation ; no
matter how carefully drawn a plan is, I can thwart it". Now DI2 does the
same but even worse, and not only for the combattants : the bleeder, voter,
whatever who waits patiently to have all the cards for a kill now can be
totally screwed by just one card and can't even be saved by a second
identical card. So I guess it will encourage variety in the choice of cards,
which isn't bad in the whole picture, but isn't easy or viable in many
decktypes (I mean, if you bleed with Dem you have 2 action cards, yes ?!).
>> 3) Buy it or leave
>>
>> Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good
>> cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the
>> crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a
>> deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the
>> Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What
>> this means is that there will be a big difference not only in
>> variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and
>> those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most
>> CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons
>> why I liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your
>> old cards and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for
>> play variety, new strategies etc).
>
> He's not a copy of Ranjan, having FOR instead of PRE.
Did I say copy ? I said twin, close enough but not totally identical. ;)
> I can see what
> you're saying, but I'm not sure it's that much a concern. There are
> still ridiculously powerful vampires all the way back to Jyhad.
This is true.
> There's little point in recycling discipline spreads and abilities,
> there has to be new spins on vampires, or there's not point in playing
> the new vampires.
It is of course a good point. Vampires have to be interesting, that doesn't
mean that there has to be a rise in power. At all times there have been
better vamps than others, and we sure need to see some new "core" vamps.
There are other alternatives too : I might develop another time, but some
minion cards could provide alternatives to vamps like Anson, and therefore
make other groups more attractive.
It's a difficult balance to maintain between making new, interesting vamps
and not just making them better and better. But I'd like that balance to be
maintained as much as possible. There have been rises in power between
groups until now, I'm just afraid that we go over the edge now.
>And if weenie Ventrue with VDA is annoying you, burn
> the darn VDA (heck, use a titled vampire and João Bilé can't even
> attempt to block it!).
I guess you haven't fought any Ventrue VDA swarm deck recently. The turn
when they put the VDA in play is the turn when they kill you, and possibly
their next prey.
>> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other
>> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT
>> or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be
>> good enough.
>
> Why not? Cards from Jyhad are still staples in a ton of winning decks.
> This isn't going to change with KoT. I'm sure you can still make
> winning decks if you've never bought anything since original Jyhad.
It certainly was the case, except for some very good cards introduced in
recent expansions, like Jake Washington, Carlton etc.
> All KoT does is add more ways of doing the same thing, which is what
> keeps the game interesting.
This is where we disagree. I think it is more powerful ways of doing the
same old things. Rise in the power curve. Cards that you _need_ in order to
be competitive. Me no like.
>> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>>
>> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new
>> non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so
>> we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons
>> of cards we already own if we want those new cards ? What will the
>> proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep reprints to
>> starters, which are way enough for new players ?
>
> There's been enough comments on this. Just adding my vote to saying
> that I don't see this as a bad thing. You can't pack enough reprints
> in just the starters, nor should new players be forced to buy a ton of
> starter decks just to get cards they haven't had a chance to get
> before.
As you said it's been discussed in the rest of the thread. I think Fred
Scott's proposal is the best yet.
>> So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty
>> sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't
>> like the way it's going.
>>
>> So, what thinketh thou ?
>> ------------
>> Orpheus
>
> I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come up
> with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill stealth -
> didn't happen.
But it became a stapple card in every Aus deck. Add the new Tremere ally and
the new +2 cept card and I think Carna will just get a big raise for her old
job.
> Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat
> the only way to go - didn't happen.
Whoever said that never read the card. The new card is even better
(stackable with Torn) but more costly, so although it's very, very good, I
don't think we'll see it everywhere.
> Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper
> - hasn't happened.
In Paris, if you play a BD, you know that it'll last between 1 and 3 turns.
So in most decks people will prefer Vessel now.
> Certainly, there will be new cards to put into
> decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't see
> KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing.
Did I say that ? Sometimes I drink too much polluted blood and forget what
I've been saying. ;)
But I recall being more in the lines of "a set you *must* buy", not "*the
only set you need*"
Although with the reprints... lol
-----------
Orpheus
Orpheus
> out abilities you used to have to work in another discipline for. The
> more that happens the more the importance of differnent disciplines
> gets washed out. It also means that you can play lower average
> capacity in your crypt if you only really need one discipline for most
> things. I'd rather have game design work towards making fatties more
> playable than making them less important.
>> And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions,
>> there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of
>> cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set.
>> Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for
>> no one to use?
>
> Yeah, it's just that the flattening of disciplines marks the start of
> Gehenna for the game, IMHO. If all they can do now is wash out the
> disciplines into flavoured copies of each other to make new library
> cards, I'd rather them just make new vampires and reprint library
> cards.
>
> Brent Ross
All my multiple identities agree with you on both counts Brent.
-----------
Multiple Orpheus
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> I believe Keepers of Tradition was designated a "base set" - just
>> like 3rd Edition and Camarilla Edition but unlike any of the other
>> expansions after Camarilla Edition. That means:
>>
>> 1) The boosters include mainly reprint library cards.
>> 2) The boosters include a few new library cards at each rarity level.
>> 3) All the vampires in the boosters are new.
>
> I was told that there are 300 cards in the set, of which 100 are new
> vampires, 60 are new library cards, and 140 are reprints (library cards).
Hmmm. No "uncommon" rarity level?
Fred
Orpheus
If it is unpredictable, you cannot, by essence, predict it. And if you need
to adapt to every unpredictable thing, you'll go for strong decks that can
resist / adapt to everything. But then of course if / when every deck can do
most things, it won't require much skill to pick one, will it ?
------------
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
news:pdb6-E95250.1...@nntp.aioe.org...
> In article <490bb0e9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <kell...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still
>> free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that
>> gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new
>> tremere guy...etc..
>
> I think in the end, what we have is a card with somewhat ambigious
> wording. Which should be easy enough to resolve. LSJ?
It SHOULD be easy to resolve...
...unless, of course, your resolution authority is of a mind that
the answer is far too obvious to merit intervention. :-)
Fred
Orpheus
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> 4) Reprints in the boosters
>>
>> boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new
>> players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the
>> boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes.
>>
>>> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new
>>> players ?
>>
>> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets.
>>
>
> However, about the "new players" argument, i think that
> it will be matter of debate in near future, given the actual
> VTES status .
What is in your view the actual VTES status ?
-------------
Orpheus
Chris Berger
>
> The trouble is that after a while everyone can do everything. So if we
> caricature it a bit we end up with : "ok, I'm playing just any deck so I can
> stealth ; and he's playing just any deck so he can intercept, just not as
> much or with more cost than if he had Aus". We're not there yet, of course,
> but getting there. So what do they do ? Give us +2 int. with inferior Aus
> (only on D actions, boooh !). And when we can get that with Cel too, I guess
> we'll have to get Aus : +3 Intercept / AUS + [years that VTES has been for
> sale] Intercept. ;)
>
Just for the record, the only argument I agree with you on is the
ratio of reprints to new cards. The fact that it's a large set with
mostly reprints makes the new cards effectively much more rare than
they really are. I still have no Baltimore Purges, which was only
uncommon in CE, and the only reason I finally have a decent number of
Weighted Walking Stick and High Ground are because I bought them as
singles. I've gotten 3 Assamite starters from LotN, and even still I
wouldn't have nearly as many sticks as I wanted, if not for the
singles of them I got.
I hated 3rd Edition because of how few new cards there were, and the
new cards were pretty good, and just seemed impossible to get. I've
always felt that a reasonable approach to buying cards was "buy
boosters until the commons are no longer useful to you". And
obviously *all* the commons don't have to be useful, but in most sets,
you'll get a relatively flat distribution of the commons, and thus I
will probably buy until I have 5 or more of most of the commons. With
3rd Ed, it sucks to buy a pack and get 1 Grooming the Protege, 3 new
vamps, and a bunch of other cards that go straight into the giveaway
pile. If I'm lucky there's a rare that I didn't already have a bunch
of, but the chances of it being one of the new rares is pretty
small.
Even in a base set, I'd like to get at least half of the pack as
"desirable" cards (at least towards the beginning of opening packs -
the ratio would go down as one got plenty of certain commons and
vampires). By desirable, I mean new library cards, new vampires, and
reprints that *I* still want. Obviously, that's subjective, but I
think it's subjective in a way that most older players could reach a
reasonable consensus on whether or not it's done well. I don't think
that the mix of old-and-new in 3rd Ed and Cam were done very well. Of
course, making the set "playable" for newer players is a separate
concern that somewhat conflicts with making the set "desirable" for
older players. But I still think it could have been done better in
3rd Ed and Cam - *I* certainly didn't buy very much of those sets.
I'm planning on buying more of KoT, because I think it will be done
better. But we'll have to see...
Frederick Scott
news:e0185be0-d62d-431c...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 11:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> > That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the large
> > number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the new ones
> > "rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge problem that
> > will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also not saying that
> > I have a better alternative, at least from White Wolf's perspective.
> > But neither of these alters the fact that it causes a problem.
>
> No, it doesn't make it rarer, but they have the appearance of being
> more desirable over the short term.
It depends on what you mean by "rarer". In the context of the set,
no, it doesn't - by definition. But because the set is less desirable
in general terms to buy (only new players can make full use of all the
cards), it effectively makes them rarer. It's a simple question of
supply and demand: all players want the new cards; only new players really
have use for the reprints (or at least, new players will always have more
use for reprints than older players).
> For example, Weighted Walking stick was a new card in Camarilla.
> Players wanted them. They were desirable, yet no less rare than
> anything else printed in the Camarilla set that was on that sheet.
>
> Weighted Walking stick was reprinted, several times, and no one is
> complaining now how they can't get Weighted Walking Sticks.
Individual examples will always vary. I sure liked Ivory Bow reprints
when I saw them because Ivory Bow is relatively useful rare card. But
an individual anecdote doesn't prove anything.
> Reprints are good.
OK. I can get behind that statement.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I was told that there are 300 cards in the set, of which 100 are new
> > vampires, 60 are new library cards, and 140 are reprints (library cards).
>
> Hmmm. No "uncommon" rarity level?
When was the last time that there was a significant number of
"uncommons" that weren't vampires? For the last (significant?) number of
releases, the rarities were:
-Common
-Uncommon (mostly vampires, if not all vampires)
-Rare
Yeah, occasionally, there would be a few non vampire cards in the
vampire slots, but not usually many. Although I could be misremembering
how things have gone.
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
> Ani S:CE is an aberration already. Looks like every discipline will sooner
> or later get an S:CE, that's vomiting.
There is already enough S:CE available one way or the other that if you
really want to use S:CE, well, it isn't that hard to do. But as noted,
what makes Malkavians strong is that most of the time, they just ignore
combat all together (i.e. the "just pretend I don't have combat cards"
response to being rushed). That they can suddenly, relatively easily use
S:CE from Obfuscate (I haven't seen the spoiler yet, just heard that the
card exists; is it S:CE at inferior obf or only superior?) is unlikely
to really have that much of an impact on their overall effectiveness;
they could already use manuever/dodge at obf (which as a single card is
often better against, like, Immortal Grapple than other kinds of S:CE
combat defense). Or disguised weapons. Or AUS Dodge/press to end. All of
which are likely just as good against non super focused combat as S:CE
is. And against focused combat (i.e. Immortal Grapple rush), Obfuscate
S:CE isn't likely to actually help that much. So in the end, even with a
Obf S:CE card, I suspect that the good Malkavian decks *still* are just
going to play without combat cards anyway.
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> It SHOULD be easy to resolve...
>
> ...unless, of course, your resolution authority is of a mind that
> the answer is far too obvious to merit intervention. :-)
Sigh. Yeah. That happens a lot, doesn't it. I can hope, however.
James Coupe
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>That they can suddenly, relatively easily use
>S:CE from Obfuscate (I haven't seen the spoiler yet, just heard that the
>card exists; is it S:CE at inferior obf or only superior?) is unlikely
>to really have that much of an impact on their overall effectiveness;
1 blood. obf: S:CE at long range. OBF: S:CE.
Potentially good, and I'd prefer we'd left the Malks with a hole in
their defence, but I doubt it's going to set the world on fire anytime
soon.
James Coupe
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>When was the last time that there was a significant number of
>"uncommons" that weren't vampires?
Third Edition.
The 300+ card base sets have, historically, had uncommons. The
expansion sets haven't, or have had a few on the vampire sheet.
Peter D Bakija
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> 1 blood. obf: S:CE at long range. OBF: S:CE.
>
> Potentially good, and I'd prefer we'd left the Malks with a hole in
> their defence, but I doubt it's going to set the world on fire anytime
> soon.
Huh. Yeah, I too would rather have seen Obfuscate not get S:CE, but I
also don't think it is going to make a huge impact on Malkavian
effectiveness overall--you need to have OBF, really, to make it worth
using on a regular basis. Which means making your crypt that much bigger
and less quick.