I just Pre-Ordered my Camarilla set!
Mike Courtois
2 boxes of starters
Anyone else?
Michael Courtois
***Jedimike***
-Show you support-
Sorrow
> 2 boxes of starters
> Anyone else?
I cancelled my pre-order.
Anyone else?
Sorrow
-waiting to find out about the rewrites
---
"This is my costume.
I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else."
-- Wednesday Addams
reyda
"Mike Courtois" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message
news:c5a0b763.02070...@posting.google.com...
> 8 boxes of boosters
> 2 boxes of starters
OUCH !
that makes a lot of money =)
i prefer spending it while inviting beautiful girlies to expensive
restaurants ;)
Orpheus
> > 2 boxes of starters
>
> OUCH !
> that makes a lot of money =)
> i prefer spending it while inviting beautiful girlies to expensive
> restaurants ;)
Come on, Reyda, you don't know any beautiful girls...
And you have shitty taste in restaurants anyway !!
;-))
Witty Orpheus
Pepijn Kok
wrote:
>> > 8 boxes of boosters
>> > 2 boxes of starters
>>
>> OUCH !
>> that makes a lot of money =)
>> i prefer spending it while inviting beautiful girlies to expensive
>> restaurants ;)
>
>Come on, Reyda, you don't know any beautiful girls...
With the money he'll saves from buying less you can rent one right? :)
Grtz,
Pepijn
Prince of Amsterdam
*and no, I can't recommend anyone from the redlight district..:p )
reyda
"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:ag4kls$rrf$1...@wanadoo.fr...
> > > 8 boxes of boosters
> > > 2 boxes of starters
> >
> > OUCH !
> > that makes a lot of money =)
> > i prefer spending it while inviting beautiful girlies to expensive
> > restaurants ;)
>
> Come on, Reyda, you don't know any beautiful girls...
more than you can count =)
being small is looking harmless, so you can become a close confident =)
it's a whole strategy : think about a weenie deck with only one weenie with
built-in social charm and freak drive ;)
> And you have shitty taste in restaurants anyway !!
Is that why i didn't go to restaurant in Marseille =)
> ;-))
>
> Witty Orpheus
nifty reyda
reyda
"Pepijn Kok" <ka...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3d25dc7d....@newzilla.xs4all.nl...
> With the money he'll saves from buying less you can rent one right? :)
never tried =) but why pay for something you can have for free ? ;)
> Grtz,
>
> Pepijn
> Prince of Amsterdam
Oh, I see ! =)
you're the prince of the tourism office of amsterdam ? ;)
> *and no, I can't recommend anyone from the redlight district..:p )
yeah, you're selfish, keeping all the cool stuff for yourself !
reyda
(a day spent without a good laugh is a lost day)
atomweaver
> Anyone else?
2 boosters
1 starter
through Potomac
2 boosters
1 starter
through local game store
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Orpheus
>
> more than you can count =)
I only count on my fingers, so : 1 !!
> being small is looking harmless, so you can become a close confident =)
:-)
> it's a whole strategy : think about a weenie deck with only one weenie
with
> built-in social charm and freak drive ;)
lol
> > And you have shitty taste in restaurants anyway !!
>
> Is that why i didn't go to restaurant in Marseille =)
Yes, you should have tasted the Bouillabaisse !!
It's cool, if we keep on going this way, this forum will become as silly as
ours, let's DO IT !! ;-)))
Invading Orphy
Sacha
******Loves Uncommon Freak Drives*******
2 boosters
2 starters
legbiter
2 boxes of starters, 3 of boosters from Southsea Models. Based on
previous sets i will probably be getting another 2-3 boxes of boosters
from other sources, and in dribs and drabs from Southsea models. i
agree with the David tatu/Michael Eichler policy of making a point of
buying a few boosters whenever you see them for sale in any shop, just
so the owners know they can turn the darn stuff over.
Pepijn Kok
wrote:
>
>"Pepijn Kok" <ka...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:3d25dc7d....@newzilla.xs4all.nl...
>
>> With the money he'll saves from buying less you can rent one right? :)
>
>never tried =) but why pay for something you can have for free ? ;)
My idea exactly..:)
>> Grtz,
>>
>> Pepijn
>> Prince of Amsterdam
>
>Oh, I see ! =)
>you're the prince of the tourism office of amsterdam ? ;)
Yups, next to my normal day job, and the sucking of my prey's pool in
the night and... and.. and.. damn, My agenda suck..:p
>
>> *and no, I can't recommend anyone from the redlight district..:p )
>
>yeah, you're selfish, keeping all the cool stuff for yourself !
Ever been there? The right stuff I allready own..:) (sorry for the
mushy stuff, but my girlfriend has stuck around for a yrear now, need
to celebrate..:) )
>reyda
>(a day spent without a good laugh is a lost day)
Now you really have to quit! You starting to sound like my ex
manager.. and well.. he's not EX manager for nothing..:p
Todd Richter
"Mike Courtois" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message
news:c5a0b763.02070...@posting.google.com...
4 Boosters
2 Pre-Cons
Todd Richter
W. Mark Woodhouse
1 starter box
and another box of Bloodlines just for the hell of it.
Mark Woodhouse
Prince Of Minneapolis
(and his Weighted Walking Stick)
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
Didn't have a pre-order, but I certainly don't expect to buy the box+
I usually do now.
T
The Nosferatu Stuff
news:mgjV8.457$FW5.3...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > 8 boxes of boosters
> > 2 boxes of starters
> > Anyone else?
>
> I cancelled my pre-order.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Sorrow
> -waiting to find out about the rewrites
I cancelled my 6 boxes of boosters and box of starters.
Just thinking of the time when grouping 4 comes out and the way it *will*
make old cards unplayable I cant justify buying any of group 3.
I dont know why people can't see that when a grouping 4 set comes out it
will be havoc. Anything that I can think of for set 4 just kills me. Is it
going to be more of the same 7 clans like 1 and 3 are? If so they are going
to have to turn to printing the exact same vampires with different names.
So I'm buying stuff I already have.
If a set #4 is a some totally new clans or bloodlines, in order to use them
I will totally have to give up using independents and sabbat. How stupid is
that? Since WW tells us *nothing* about how they will assign group numbers,
what if CE is the only set in group #3? And anrachs are group #4? I could
make a Brujah/!brujah deck. I could make a Brujah/anarch-brujah deck. But
I can't make a anarch-brujah/!brujah deck?
What ever group #4 will be it will suck. If its the start of a new sabbat
set, then I wont be able to mix sabbat with independents. And to me that is
just looney. If #4 is dark ages, it will be totally unworkable with
bloodlines. All those temporis cards I have are suddenly useless for a #3/4
deck. Sure why not just make a #2/3 deck if I want to use temporis...but
then why would I buy any #3 or #4?
Besides, I dont like the idea that any card that is bad needs to get 'fixed'
by erasing its pool cost or its burn option. And that old, staple cards
that are good(good, not broken) need to be 'fixed' by adding costs. I guess
the moral of the story is dont win with any cards, or else they will get
fixed. I was pretty sure that WW only wanted to fix broken cards, but now
you never know when they are going to errata your favorite deck right out of
existance. That stack of errata is just getting bigger and bigger. But I
guess their answer for that is to BUY new cards.
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
Dave
The assumption that the next set of cards MUSt be number 4 is not a
given.
With a new set, if they wish to add to, say BL clans, those vampires
can easily be numbered 1-2-3 or 4, depending on how the development
team feels they could effect the game.
I do rather doubt that any future vampire cards will be printed with a
1.
There is a fallacy of thinking that the sets all have to be numbered
sequencially.
Raille
Damnans
The Nosferatu Stuff wrote:
> "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mgjV8.457$FW5.3...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > 8 boxes of boosters
> > > 2 boxes of starters
> > > Anyone else?
> >
> > I cancelled my pre-order.
> >
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > Sorrow
> > -waiting to find out about the rewrites
>
> I cancelled my 6 boxes of boosters and box of starters.
> Just thinking of the time when grouping 4 comes out and the way it *will*
> make old cards unplayable I cant justify buying any of group 3.
>
> I dont know why people can't see that when a grouping 4 set comes out it
> will be havoc. Anything that I can think of for set 4 just kills me. Is it
> going to be more of the same 7 clans like 1 and 3 are? If so they are going
> to have to turn to printing the exact same vampires with different names.
> So I'm buying stuff I already have.
Have you ever considered the fact that the more sets WW releases the less
necessary will it be to assign a group to them (unless WW stops printing
vampire cards in future sets), since there will surely be the same proportion
of vampires in each clan and sect?
The new rules read: "This new influx of vampires (CE), no matter how
well balanced individually, could give too much power to Camarilla deck builders
by increasing the selection of available vampires (making crypt selection more
like
building customized vampires). To ensure on-going play balance (for this set as
well as future sets in which new vampires will appear), The Camarilla Edition
introduces a new attribute, a number, on each vampire for grouping (shown
just above the upper-left corner of the text area)."
According to the rules above, with each new expansion it will be more likely to
make one's crypt "more like building customized vampires" without breaking the
game's necessary balance.
[...]
> Besides, I dont like the idea that any card that is bad needs to get 'fixed'
> by erasing its pool cost or its burn option. And that old, staple cards
> that are good(good, not broken) need to be 'fixed' by adding costs. I guess
> the moral of the story is dont win with any cards, or else they will get
> fixed. I was pretty sure that WW only wanted to fix broken cards, but now
> you never know when they are going to errata your favorite deck right out of
> existance. That stack of errata is just getting bigger and bigger. But I
> guess their answer for that is to BUY new cards.
Aaron, you must understand that some cards needed some rewording and cost
revision for balance's sake, regardless if those changes make your favourite
deck
not viable.
Greetings,
Damnans
Xian
"W. Mark Woodhouse" <shan...@tcinternet.net> wrote in message
news:3d266101....@news.tcinternet.net...
> 2 booster boxes
> 1 starter box
> and another box of Bloodlines just for the hell of it.
Heh. Ditto. Except for the Bloodlines. Looks like we Minneapolitans
(minneapolites? minneapolans?) think alike. :)
Xian
confused
W. Mark Woodhouse
Oops. You think anyone's figured out that there's actually only one
Jyhad player in Minneapolis?
Mark Woodhouse
Prince (etc) of Minneapolis
(who loves his spirit marionette)
do30red
2 boosters
1 starter
from Potomac
I did it months ago...long before the "discussion" erupted.
Would I do it now?...probably.
Will I buy more?...probably.
I'll certainly buy from the local stores who support VTES, especially
the one that I've pursuaded to stock the starter decks and carry VTES
again. (The last order they made previously was for AH.) I may even
hit Potomac again, depending on my needs and desires.
Joshua Duffin
"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:agb5ul$k870q$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de...
> I cancelled my 6 boxes of boosters and box of starters.
> Just thinking of the time when grouping 4 comes out and the way it
> *will* make old cards unplayable I cant justify buying any of group 3.
>
> I dont know why people can't see that when a grouping 4 set comes out
> it will be havoc. Anything that I can think of for set 4 just kills
> me. Is it going to be more of the same 7 clans like 1 and 3 are? If
> so they are going to have to turn to printing the exact same vampires
> with different names.
> So I'm buying stuff I already have.
Jeez, Aaron, you always sound so negative. :-)
If group 4 vamps are anywhere in our near future, they'd probably
be Sabbat and maybe Independent. I doubt that we'll see any
before the expansion after Anarchs at the earliest, though. The
existence of group numbers in no way means that WW has to start
cycling through groups as fast as possible; they could print The
Anarchs using group 1, group 2, and group 3 if they wanted.
If the set after the Anarchs is a new Sabbat base set, I could
understand if they made those new Sabbat vamps (but probably not
Cam/Indie vamps in the same set) group 4. But they may hold off
on another Sabbat set and do something else instead, keeping
Sabbat War in print in the meantime.
Who knows. Regardless, I really have no problem with the group
system at all. The only thing that seems really excessive to
me is the 5th Tradition change (I don't agree that it'd make
the card *useless* if true, but I do think it'd be going farther
than necessary).
I haven't placed my preorder yet (still not sure about these
"deadlines" people were talking about) but will probably be
ordering at least 2 boxes of starters and 2 of boosters...
Josh
ottimista
James Coupe
writes:
>Have you ever considered the fact that the more sets WW releases the less
>necessary will it be to assign a group to them (unless WW stops printing
>vampire cards in future sets), since there will surely be the same proportion
>of vampires in each clan and sect?
The point is not balance of sects and clans, but of "dial-a-vamp".
As more sets are released, it will be more necessary to assign a group
to them in order to prevent all vampires essentially becoming a new
iteration of disciplines and creating an eventual set of custom
vampires. Name a set of disciplines, you'll have it on enough vampires.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Damnans
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:cQbTblHg...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3D2999D2...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com>
> writes:
> >Have you ever considered the fact that the more sets WW releases the less
> >necessary will it be to assign a group to them (unless WW stops printing
> >vampire cards in future sets), since there will surely be the same
proportion
> >of vampires in each clan and sect?
>
> The point is not balance of sects and clans, but of "dial-a-vamp".
Yes, I agree with you.
>
> As more sets are released, it will be more necessary to assign a group
> to them in order to prevent all vampires essentially becoming a new
> iteration of disciplines and creating an eventual set of custom
> vampires. Name a set of disciplines, you'll have it on enough vampires.
However, the more new vampires from each clan (sharing disciplines,
capacity, titles...) are released the more possible will it be to
"unofficially"
build crypts the way you say, and the more irrelevant will it be to separate
vampires according to current groups. But it's difficult to say from my
perspective.
Greetings,
Damnans
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.com> writes:
>However, the more new vampires from each clan (sharing disciplines,
>capacity, titles...) are released the more possible will it be to
>"unofficially"
>build crypts the way you say, and the more irrelevant will it be to separate
>vampires according to current groups. But it's difficult to say from my
>perspective.
What happens unofficially isn't terribly relevant.
Unofficially, people play with four card limits, six card limits, 1 card
limits, 3 card limits with one for uniques, uniques cannot be replaced,
various clan based rules (Clan Wars etc.) and so on.
Officially, the dial-a-vamp situation is prevented. Players will be
free to combat dial-a-vamp in their own groups as they see fit. At
tournaments, standard rules will prevent Paint Yer Own (tm) from turning
the crypt into a direct reflection of what you want, rather than a
limiting factor.
*Officially*, create-yer-own vamps will be limited. They *need* to be
limited, for many obvious and non-obvious reasons. Disregarding the
groupings will lead to all the problems that can be detailed, unless
replaced with a similar set of rules.
If you (or anyone else) disagrees that dial-a-vamp will lead to broken
situations, that's separate. But groupings go a long way towards
preventing such abuses (caveat for people wanting to disagree about
abuses being possible goes here), if responsibly handed out.
Disregarding them creates brokenness.
I'm unsure how this is good.
The Nosferatu Stuff
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:agffeq$lg4k4$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
> Jeez, Aaron, you always sound so negative. :-)
I said something positive...once? At least I think I did? Too bad I will
probably have some more negative things once Kevin FINALLY gets around to
posting his official tournament report of Origins.
> If group 4 vamps are anywhere in our near future, they'd probably
> be Sabbat and maybe Independent. I doubt that we'll see any
> before the expansion after Anarchs at the earliest, though. The
> existence of group numbers in no way means that WW has to start
> cycling through groups as fast as possible; they could print The
> Anarchs using group 1, group 2, and group 3 if they wanted.
I'm not really worried about *when* Just the fact that they will is enough
for me.
> If the set after the Anarchs is a new Sabbat base set, I could
> understand if they made those new Sabbat vamps (but probably not
> Cam/Indie vamps in the same set) group 4. But they may hold off
> on another Sabbat set and do something else instead, keeping
> Sabbat War in print in the meantime.
>
> Who knows. Regardless, I really have no problem with the group
> system at all. The only thing that seems really excessive to
> me is the 5th Tradition change (I don't agree that it'd make
> the card *useless* if true, but I do think it'd be going farther
> than necessary).
>
> I haven't placed my preorder yet (still not sure about these
> "deadlines" people were talking about) but will probably be
> ordering at least 2 boxes of starters and 2 of boosters...
The deadlines are for preorders. They are cheaper since they are guaranteed
sales. A distributor that thinks it will sell say 100 boxes, but has
preorders for 50 might order 125 boxes and not be worried about moving the
product. They need to know enough in advance so they can get it to the
manufacturers.
But I mean, if all white wolf is going to do is reprint more 4 caps with
pot/obf/ani that aren't compatiable with the old VTES 4 cap with pot/obf/ani
why should I buy them? They are the same vampire, and do the same thing for
my crypt. My library is unaffected. WW is the one touting that I can still
play all my old decks. I'll just wait and see what, if anything, is screwed
up in CE before I decide to buy. Besides, my wife is going to kick my ass
if I dont get her a copy of Chez Geek! (thanks alot! lol)
Damnans
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <8XIW8.156$jD1....@news.ono.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.com> writes:
> >However, the more new vampires from each clan (sharing disciplines,
> >capacity, titles...) are released the more possible will it be to
> >"unofficially"
> >build crypts the way you say, and the more irrelevant will it be to separate
> >vampires according to current groups. But it's difficult to say from my
> >perspective.
>
> What happens unofficially isn't terribly relevant.
Sure ;-)
[...]
> *Officially*, create-yer-own vamps will be limited. They *need* to be
> limited, for many obvious and non-obvious reasons. Disregarding the
> groupings will lead to all the problems that can be detailed, unless
> replaced with a similar set of rules.
>
> If you (or anyone else) disagrees that dial-a-vamp will lead to broken
> situations, that's separate.
> But groupings go a long way towards
> preventing such abuses (caveat for people wanting to disagree about
> abuses being possible goes here), if responsibly handed out.
> Disregarding them creates brokenness.
>
> I'm unsure how this is good.
I fully agree with you on this. Dial-a-vamp will lead to broken situations,
unless (perhaps) all clans have access to a Dial-a-vamp crypt.
Greetings,
Damnans
Uriel
> understand if they made those new Sabbat vamps (but probably not
> Cam/Indie vamps in the same set) group 4. But they may hold off
> on another Sabbat set and do something else instead, keeping
> Sabbat War in print in the meantime.
>
are 15 vampires in each clan (compared to the 24 of Cammarilla and
Indidendants) another "Sabbat" set featuring say 6-9 vampires of the
existing clans and 12+ vampires of Serpants of Light, Assamites and
Ravnos Antitribu, plus one vampire of each of the Sabbat bloodlines
wouldn't unbalance at all the game. Sabbat is still in a disantantage
IMHO even with the group rule.
Also, thereafter expansion could turn to regional themes, featuring
vampires from all the sects. As for the custom crypt problem, it can
be easily dealt with with the introduction of new disciplines and
bloodlines.
The grouping IMO is a resault of WotC vampire's discipline spread. WW
oughted to correct this in some way or another. The grouping isn't the
best way, but then again something should be done.
Aris
James Coupe
writes:
>I fully agree with you on this. Dial-a-vamp will lead to broken situations,
>unless (perhaps) all clans have access to a Dial-a-vamp crypt.
No, you still miss the point.
The point (with regards) is not whether a *clan* has access to dial-a-
vamp. This is *NOT* related to clans.
As LSJ has pointed out, the crypt has *always* been designed as a
restriction on what you can do. (Hence, uniqueness, contesting with
other Methuselahs, minimum sizes, the slowness of sucking blood back
(this wasn't actually in some drafts) and so on.)
It is not hard to imagine a V:TES where you took (say) six pretty, but
blank, vampire cards and 24 discipline master cards and built your own
crypt.
By contrast, the crypt is a powerful limiting agent.
If you can't find a vampire with daimonon/dominate/thanatosis (Ian
Forestal notwithstanding[0], the time and effort required to simulate
that and the random chance of deck shuffling (will you only get your
Samedi popping up? So put in a Recruitment, a Coroner's Contract etc.)
limit the overall effectiveness such a discipline combination could
have.
I think at some point (dai/dom/than aside), we've all sat down and said
"Oh, wouldn't it be nice if...." and then come up with a really cool
combo, involving some great cards. Then when you look at the vampires
available, it's a lot of work. No-one in that clan has the stealth, no-
one in that clan is really big enough to afford it, so it'll be a lot of
work to pull it off. Oh, there is that vampire over there, but it's a
bit expensive for just those inferior disciplines.
Thus the potential power of such combinations is limited, by careful
design relative to the card set.
LSJ has, repeatedly, pointed out that simply allocating X points of
disciplines, using the system most people see in Jyhad/V:TES, is not
enough. A card that said "4 capacity, pot cel for pro, Default bleed is
0" would be pretty balanced along most such costing schemes.
The combos they facilitate are also a hugely important balancing factor.
As dial-a-vamp becomes possible (in a non-grouping environment), the
balance that has been constructed over *years* becomes - piece by piece
- taken down. Whereas, previously, attempts were made so that with a
small, focused set of vampires, e.g. my Gangrel deck, which I've
constructed with a small investment of two to three hundred cards and
some trading, could succeed, dial-a-vamp practically demands clan
transparency.
You wouldn't be limited by discipline matches - those would be entirely
set aside, with the foundation of dial-a-vamp. Currently, you would
have to limit your use of the 'good' cards to the disciplines you can
find to bring out, or put in a lot of work to bring out. With dial-a-
vamp, you just go and pick and choose all the best cards from all the
best disciplines. Well, let's take Skin of Steel, Claws of the Dead,
Torn Signpost, Blood of Acid and Shadow Strike. A few Rewind Times can
knock around in the deck.
The *frightening* point with dial-a-vamp is not whether you keep the
clans balanced with regards one another, or the sects, or the
bloodlines. The major point is whether you keep the game balanced
*within itself*. Dial-a-vamp requires a standard escalation of power
levels to compensate and rewards the current suitcase players who will
be able to make all the outlandish combos that are, currently,
restricted.
Sure, you want to keep the Gangrel balanced next to the Lasombra next to
the Tzimisce. But, more important than whether one clan is more
powerful than another, you want to keep the *game* balanced.
Clan decks get the benefits of some interesting clan cards and a tight
focus of discipline. Out of clan decks get the benefits of some
interesting combos, at a cost, with less tight focus of vampires -
expensive, fewer of them, more fragile, more likely to "self-contest" in
the uncontrolled region, jam on skill cards etc.
When all combos are available easily, the out-of-clan decks lose a
strong balancing factor - that of difficulty - and the power level ups.
That's why it's not a clan thing, or even a sect thing, but a game
thing.
As more vamps become available, it'll become even more important to keep
the game balanced.
[0] The above is also one of the reasons why, in the past, I have argued
strongly against replicating Ian Forestal's ability on any vampire, when
it came up in a Damnan's hosted card.
The Nosferatu Stuff
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:agySH7uHe$K9E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> You wouldn't be limited by discipline matches - those would be entirely
> set aside, with the foundation of dial-a-vamp. Currently, you would
> have to limit your use of the 'good' cards to the disciplines you can
> find to bring out, or put in a lot of work to bring out. With dial-a-
> vamp, you just go and pick and choose all the best cards from all the
> best disciplines. Well, let's take Skin of Steel, Claws of the Dead,
> Torn Signpost, Blood of Acid and Shadow Strike. A few Rewind Times can
> knock around in the deck.
So I guess that means that you will print FOR/PRO/POT/VIC/OBT vampires, but
just keep them in different sets. Make a few vampires with the same funky
disciplines and make them unusable together. Like you think that SOMEHOW a
crypt of 12 different 10 caps with these disciplines will be over powered?
I just dont see it. How many of them are you going to bring out? After the
first 2 all you are doing is making the vampires in different clans.
I dont see the strategy in playing sub-perfect vampires? What makes the
game so much more fun/balanced about playing with vampires that are better
suited for your deck? If everyone had access to the same kinds of redundant
vampires then whats the problem? I just dont see the power decks that are
going to unbalance the game. How about some examples of dial-a-decks that
are over powered and broken? Instead of the theoretical BS about how broken
they will be. Camile/Raven have been out for ages, and under your theory
gangrel should have had a huge edge...I have never seen it.
Xian
[snip James]
> I dont see the strategy in playing sub-perfect vampires? What makes the
> game so much more fun/balanced about playing with vampires that are better
> suited for your deck?
I'm going to assume you mis-stated that last sentence, and are saying "why
should we have limited crypts?"
There isn't strategy in playing with a sub-perfect crypt. The strategy is in
selecting the best set of vampires that fit your deck. Take it as a challenge:
"Will I be able to find a better crypt for my deck with group 1 vampires, or
with group 2 vampires?"
IMHO, part of the reasoning behind this is to return the focus of deck-building
to the *library deck*, rather than to the *crypt*.
And once again, you can still build and play all the decks you could yesterday.
It is just that their crypts won't get any better.
> If everyone had access to the same kinds of redundant
> vampires then whats the problem?
Shortly, everyone won't have the same access. Barring reprints of the old
vampires, new players are very very soon not going to have an easy time
collecting the old vampires. This puts old players at an approximate 2-to-1
advantage for finding the right vampire for their crypt, and gives them a great
possibility of having a much more diverse crypt.
> I just dont see the power decks that are going to unbalance the game.
> How about some examples of dial-a-decks that
> are over powered and broken? Instead of the theoretical BS about how broken
> they will be. Camile/Raven have been out for ages, and under your theory
> gangrel should have had a huge edge...I have never seen it.
Heh. Nice one.
Offhand? Eventually, we are probably going to see more obf/dom vampires. It'd
be an interesting object lesson to see how quickly it would get bad if you had a
fully unique crypt of vampires at 5-cap or below, all with obf/dom. I realize
this wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would be a return to all new
players claiming that obf/dom is broken. Not to mention, we've got a huge
influx of new obf/dem vampires, what with the new Malks.
Hey! Just think of it that way! All the other clans are hamstrung, but now
your Malk/!Malk decks will have twice as many vampires to choose from!
Xian
Damnans
[...]
> That's why it's not a clan thing, or even a sect thing, but a game
> thing.
>
> As more vamps become available, it'll become even more important to keep
> the game balanced.
I got the point. Thanks for the explanation.
Greetings,
Damnans
James Coupe
For reference, "I" do nothing.
I am not a member of the Design Team. I am not, and never have been, on
White Wolf's pay roll. I have no input into White Wolf's schedules
other than that available to everyone - e-mailing the relevant people or
posting to the newsgroup with my concerns, when they become pressing, in
my view. (As I did, for instance, when the Final Nights announcement
was made regarding "only new cards".)
>print FOR/PRO/POT/VIC/OBT vampires, but
>just keep them in different sets. Make a few vampires with the same funky
>disciplines and make them unusable together. Like you think that SOMEHOW a
>crypt of 12 different 10 caps with these disciplines will be over powered?
>I just dont see it. How many of them are you going to bring out? After the
>first 2 all you are doing is making the vampires in different clans.
There are a number of points here which need to be addressed.
(Zeroth of all, the hypothetical examples given are just that.
Hypothetical. There are likely to be many combinations that I'm never
going to think of - because I'm me - but which, with sufficient though
and work, would be significantly better than currently available
combos.)
First of all, the assumption that all copies of the discipline will need
to be at superior. This generally isn't the case, and there are many
cards out there with good inferiors. There are also an increasing
number of cards with 'split' levels. (By which I am *not* referring to
split disciplines or dual disciplines, though some of these will
feature.) The inferior does something radically different to the
superior. Random examples of such, for reference, would include
Distraction, Spectral Divination and Rayzeel's Song. In such instances,
requiring the superiors is going to be irrelevant, if someone chooses to
focus their combinations around the inferiors. (Using the entirely
different superiors if the situation arises.)
Secondly, that all such vampires would be ten caps. This follows on
from the first point. A for/obt/pot/pro/vic 5 cap is perfectly
allowable, under the current costing scheme. (Vittorio Giovanni being
underpowered, relative to the current 'scheme'.) If we do not
necessarily want all superior disciplines, paying for them would be
silly. That's what the logical extension of dial-a-vamp demands - that,
eventually, you effectively *are* sitting down with a deck of blank
cards, colouring them in yourself. (I wonder if we can get them to do
this on Blue Peter, with some toilet rolls and sticky back plastic. It
has a certain naive charm.)
Thirdly, that a deck focused upon certain disciplines necessarily needs
all of them, all the time, on all the vampires. This is often shown not
to be the case with clan decks currently. Whilst a deck may be
ani/for/pro Gangrel (taking your example from further down), this often
does not stop a Methuselah using Chandler Hungerford or Vliam Andor or,
indeed, Navar McLaren. Dial-a-vamp does not necessarily mean that
people won't want to play weenies, that would be dependent on their deck
choice.
Fourthly, that dial-a-vamp doesn't improve potential for pool gain.
That OBFuscate FORtitude OBEah Camarilla Prince over there has a lot of
options for pool gain with Minion Tap. This is *dial-a-vamp*. The
problems become more acutely obvious at extremes, but dial-a-vamp slowly
progresses that way, anyway. Currently, most clans will have problems
generating substantially large amounts of pool, relative to what can be
attempted with an unlimited range of options.
>I dont see the strategy in playing sub-perfect vampires?
It's not strategy, it's skill.
You have limited resources, you make the best of what you've got. You
pays yer money, you makes yer choice.
Similar arguments to this could be argued along the lines of:
"I don't see the strategy in playing costly cards."
"I don't see the strategy in playing with insufficient pool."
You work around what you've got. Creativity, within restraints.
Flexibility, to a point.
>What makes the
>game so much more fun/balanced about playing with vampires that are better
>suited for your deck?
You conflate two separate points here. Fun, which is one concept, and
balanced, which is another.
By limiting the options open to a Methuselah - by not creating Paint Yer
Own (tm) vampires, a la the Monty Python CCG (where it had downsides
too, because the more outlandish and popular they became, the easier it
was to stop them - the counter being written as the alternative use of
such cards so you could, indeed, beat them and join them, all at once) -
balance can be established.
Think carefully about it. Assume we create a list of advantages,
disadvantages and their respective points costs. You can pick any three
of them, and any fill up with disciplines to a capacity of your choice.
That's what dial-a-vamp means, in the end. You can have a six cap POT
FOR pro +1 hand damage, or whatever. The possibilities are practically
endless.
With enough time and experience, creating "broken" vampires is easy.
Just look at some of the monstrosities people put on Damnan's site. I'm
quite sure plenty of these are "fun" for the people. They're often so
far from balanced that they've skipped the country whilst you're still
trying to work out which way it headed.
Thus fun and balanced must be carefully handled, separate from one
another, as well as weighed up together. It is possible to see things
that *aren't* fun, by having a huge number of rules or something, but it
is hard to create things that *will* be "fun". And even huge numbers of
rules can be fun for the right people. (Anybody saying that I'm one of
them will die. Though they're probably right.)
The randomness and inherent problems of guaranteeing certain aspects of
play have been one significant element of balance in the game. Removing
that removes that element of balance. What's going to replace it?
>If everyone had access to the same kinds of redundant
>vampires then whats the problem?
It unbalances the game as it currently stands. It escalates power
levels. Those with suitcases full of arbitrary cards have a significant
advantage, whereas currently a player with a tightly focused set of
Toreador cards can compete with the suitcase player because they don't
need to collect all sorts of cards from all sorts of sets, they can play
with their limited pool of cards. This limited pool becomes relatively
worthless - from a playing value point of view, specifically nothing to
do with trade value or monetary value or whatever - because dial-a-vamp
means that the limitations an out-of-clan deck was under before are
continually broken down and the balance between in clan and out of clan
decks is rebalanced significantly in favour of the out of clan. This
makes it difficult to attract roleplayers, makes it difficult to attract
players with promises that all cards are equally usable from the off.
Oh well, yes, you can use those new cards. But you'll probably want a
copy of Anson, and Camille, and all these old vampires too, because then
you can dial-a-vamp. Not everyone does have the same access. Dial-a-
vamp favours oldbies, who can dial old vamps as well as new vamps. This
continually recurs as a problem as new sets are released. The older
oldbies have a significant advantage, the middle oldbies a bit of an
advantage, the newer oldbies a little advantage and the newbies are
significantly screwed. Old sets become harder and harder to obtain.
Dial-a-vamp necessitates use of old vampires - where appropriate - in
order to obtain the 'right' vampires. Groupings prevent oldbies from
exploiting the position, as balance is preserved between and within
groupings, as well as the game as a whole. An old grouping can be kept,
roughly, level with a new grouping.
>I just dont see the power decks that are
>going to unbalance the game. How about some examples of dial-a-decks that
>are over powered and broken?
Hard to do. The vampires aren't here yet.
Dial-a-vamp isn't a situation that will "just happen". It's a condition
that will be approached with every set.
>Instead of the theoretical BS about how broken
>they will be.
As opposed to the "theoretical BS" about how balanced they will be?
>Camile/Raven have been out for ages, and under your theory
>gangrel should have had a huge edge...I have never seen it.
Because that's missing a lot of the point entirely, on a number of
levels.
First of all, one of the significant points is of dial-a-vamp across
*all* vampires, not across clans.
Secondly, one vampire does not necessarily equate to a huge edge. My
"theory" does not, at any point, state that one Gangrel will lead to a
huge edge. I would be grateful if people stating what my theory is
would restrict themselves to what I've said about it, rather than making
up things which I simply haven't said. If I have said that one
duplicate vampire will create a "huge edge", I would appreciate a direct
citation or message ID so that I can refresh my memory and retract such
claims.
Thirdly, it misses the point of in clan disciplines vs out of clan
disciplines. Efforts have been made to make sure that the clans are
balanced, with their discipline spreads. ani/for/pro has been crafted
to be roughly balanced next to obf/pre/ser next to dom/for/pre.
Mistakes are made, of course, but the general principle is to allow them
to be roughly competitive relative to one another (metagame dependent).
(The Bloodlines are an exception, who are largely designed to be
supplementary.) Thus, the set of disciplines they have are supposed to
be roughly balanced. Certainly, there are other sets of disciplines
which would be roughly balanced, but there are many potential sets of
disciplines which would be significantly more powerful. The card sets
are designed knowing that certain combinations are hard to access. If
you wish to throw out this design principle, what are you going to
replace it with, or are you going to force those playing with small card
pools to buy new cards to compete with the escalating power level -
that's what removing a balancing factor, without compensating for it,
necessitates.
Joshua Duffin
"Uriel" <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8b60e8d.02071...@posting.google.com...
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<agffeq$lg4k4$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> > If the set after the Anarchs is a new Sabbat base set, I could
> > understand if they made those new Sabbat vamps (but probably not
> > Cam/Indie vamps in the same set) group 4.
>
Actually, you're right. I was just thinking that the first
vamps they'd be likely to use "group 4" for would be Sabbat, if
they did a "big Sabbat set" in the future to "take the place" of
Sabbat War.
Now that you point it out, it's at least equally possible that
the first use of "group 4" would be for a bunch of "supplemental"
vampires for the Camarilla: vamps to be used by newer players
(and for different options) instead of the Dark Sovereigns and
Ancient Hearts vamps.
See, there are just so many options with all these groups!
That's why I like them. :-)
> There are 15 vampires in each clan (compared to the 24 of Cammarilla
> and Indidendants) another "Sabbat" set featuring say 6-9 vampires of
> the existing clans and 12+ vampires of Serpants of Light, Assamites
> and Ravnos Antitribu, plus one vampire of each of the Sabbat
> bloodlines wouldn't unbalance at all the game. Sabbat is still in a
> disantantage IMHO even with the group rule.
Good point. They probably don't need a "group 4" set of Sabbat
until/unless there are as many members of Sabbat clans as there
are of the Camarilla ones. Like if, for example, they did
another 6-10 of each Sabbat clan in the Anarchs or the set after
that.
> Also, thereafter expansion could turn to regional themes, featuring
> vampires from all the sects. As for the custom crypt problem, it can
> be easily dealt with with the introduction of new disciplines and
> bloodlines.
See, I'm not sure they *can* easily deal with the "custom crypt"
problem by making new disciplines and such. I think they're
about out of disciplines from the role-playing game (not that I
play it, but this is what I've heard). So almost all new vamps
will probably have to have disciplines that already exist.
Unless they want to just start making up new ones. :-)
Josh
like the regional plan though
Gomi no Sensei
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>>Camile/Raven have been out for ages, and under your theory
>>gangrel should have had a huge edge...I have never seen it.
>
>Because that's missing a lot of the point entirely, on a number of
>levels.
>
>First of all, one of the significant points is of dial-a-vamp across
>*all* vampires, not across clans.
>
>Secondly, one vampire does not necessarily equate to a huge edge. My
>"theory" does not, at any point, state that one Gangrel will lead to a
>huge edge. I would be grateful if people stating what my theory is
>would restrict themselves to what I've said about it, rather than making
>up things which I simply haven't said. If I have said that one
>duplicate vampire will create a "huge edge", I would appreciate a direct
>citation or message ID so that I can refresh my memory and retract such
>claims.
Furthermore, there was a _huge_ hue-and-cry over Raven/Camille, back
in the day (check Google). She was perceived as a big advantage for the
Gangrel -- remember, this was before any expansions had been printed,
so her proportional effect was bigger, and given the limited selection,
a 5-cap with 2 superiors was (hell, still is) a Quality vampire with a
big NyQuil 'Q'.
So it's not like R/C was let go gently by the player community on the froup.
Shocking, I know, but the place was about as happy with change then as
it is now. Possibly less so -- we were less used to it.
Dial-a-Vamp is just the Raven/Camille problem writ large. And people had
hissy-cows over Raven/Camille.
gomi
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts
vermillian
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<agffeq$lg4k4$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> > If the set after the Anarchs is a new Sabbat base set, I could
> > understand if they made those new Sabbat vamps (but probably not
> > Cam/Indie vamps in the same set) group 4. But they may hold off
> > on another Sabbat set and do something else instead, keeping
> > Sabbat War in print in the meantime.
> >
> There's no reason for new Sabbat vampires to be in group "4". There
> are 15 vampires in each clan (compared to the 24 of Cammarilla and
> Indidendants) another "Sabbat" set featuring say 6-9 vampires of the
> existing clans and 12+ vampires of Serpants of Light, Assamites and
> Ravnos Antitribu, plus one vampire of each of the Sabbat bloodlines
> wouldn't unbalance at all the game. Sabbat is still in a disantantage
> IMHO even with the group rule.
I'd like to comment on this. Its true. Sabbat has 15 or so vampires of
each clan.
Imagine this.
Cam set released. One new Sabbat vampire each. Total around 16.
Anarchs released. Gangrel, some new camerilla, a few independents, one
more sabbat vampire of each. that's 17 sabbat of each clan now.
Next set is released. Say its the new Sabbat Expansion. Make 12 New
Sabbat vampires of each clan. That's 29 Sabbat vampires each. Not TOO
over bearing really.
Then release set 4 with a new camerilla set. :) Then another
bloodlines, another side set, another sabbat, then clock it up to five
with a new cam set. Whatever.
Its workable. QUit complaining.
~SV
berni...@attbi.comholdlespam
wrote:
You'll know VTES is in trouble when the Schmekels actually see print due
to lack of new ideas.
http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/BLsch.html
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
Dave
Well if you would get off your high horse and actually play in the
tournament games, you would have found that not only do the Gangrel
rock with their huge edge, they swept table after table on their way
to victory. And they took 1st in at the final round also.
Sheesh, some people just need to look around more!
Raille
Dave
Matt Latham
>Besides, my wife is going to kick my ass
> if I dont get her a copy of Chez Geek! (thanks alot! lol)
Get all three sets Aaron. The two expansions are AS good as the
original, and make it a real dynamic game.
Matt
Servant of four princes. Denizen of the Sewers
Uriel
> galama...@hotmail.com (Uriel) wrote in message news:<e8b60e8d.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<agffeq$lg4k4$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > If the set after the Anarchs is a new Sabbat base set, I could
> > > understand if they made those new Sabbat vamps (but probably not
> > > Cam/Indie vamps in the same set) group 4. But they may hold off
> > > on another Sabbat set and do something else instead, keeping
> > > Sabbat War in print in the meantime.
> > >
> > There's no reason for new Sabbat vampires to be in group "4". There
> > are 15 vampires in each clan (compared to the 24 of Cammarilla and
> > Indidendants) another "Sabbat" set featuring say 6-9 vampires of the
> > existing clans and 12+ vampires of Serpants of Light, Assamites and
> > Ravnos Antitribu, plus one vampire of each of the Sabbat bloodlines
> > wouldn't unbalance at all the game. Sabbat is still in a disantantage
> > IMHO even with the group rule.
>
> I'd like to comment on this. Its true. Sabbat has 15 or so vampires of
> each clan.
>
> Imagine this.
>
> Cam set released. One new Sabbat vampire each. Total around 16.
>
> Anarchs released. Gangrel, some new camerilla, a few independents, one
> more sabbat vampire of each. that's 17 sabbat of each clan now.
>
> Next set is released. Say its the new Sabbat Expansion. Make 12 New
> Sabbat vampires of each clan. That's 29 Sabbat vampires each. Not TOO
> over bearing really.
>
7 and the total clan number will be 24, add 10 vamps for assamites,
setites and ravnos antitribu plus 1 for each BL circle (or even a new
circle) and one kiasyd, ahrimane, etc. we'll have a set with 100+ new
vamps without braking the balance. Add new cards (around 100C & 100R)
that would be clan- and sect oriented, plus some additional discipline
cards. Does this seem unbalancing? I think not, rather the opposite.
> Then release set 4 with a new camerilla set. :) Then another
> bloodlines, another side set, another sabbat, then clock it up to five
> with a new cam set. Whatever.
>
> Its workable. QUit complaining.
>
I will complain, because this excactly a "type 2" enviroment
(concerning the crypt). It will become boring to rotate vampire
groups, while the decks will remain in effect the same. That's the
reason i suggested regional expansions (that will feature a multitude
of clans and sects to keep the game balanced, while introducing new
BL-like disciplines -maybe THA or NEC paths- and new mechanics to
refresh the game).
The only reason to see a new grouping is a DA BASE set and after i
gave it some thought, it now seems totaly rediculous to combine it
with cammies and anarchs, as well as the current library cards.
If the sets begin to rotate the vampire groups with similar discipline
spread on the new vampires and by reprinting basic cards, I will
certainly quite playing. I stopped M:tG because of this, it was just a
plain reap off. But I strongly disbelieve that this is the intent of
WW. I don't like this set and dispise the grouping rule, but the
should have found (earlier!) a way to deal with the sins of WotC.
Uriel
> "Uriel" <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e8b60e8d.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<agffeq$lg4k4$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> > vampires from all the sects. As for the custom crypt problem, it can
> > be easily dealt with with the introduction of new disciplines and
> > bloodlines.
>
> See, I'm not sure they *can* easily deal with the "custom crypt"
> problem by making new disciplines and such. I think they're
> about out of disciplines from the role-playing game (not that I
> play it, but this is what I've heard). So almost all new vamps
> will probably have to have disciplines that already exist.
> Unless they want to just start making up new ones. :-)
>
and bloodlines. But it would be a lot more intresting to expand the
already existing ones. Also if they're about to realease new BLs with
new disciplines it would be much better to publish also vampires from
other clans that can tag along.
James Coupe
<galama...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I will complain, because this excactly a "type 2" enviroment
>(concerning the crypt). It will become boring to rotate vampire
>groups, while the decks will remain in effect the same.
Not necessarily.
Sets allow interesting discipline mixes to go on in different sets, that
can't interact with each other. For instance, some big Gangrel have
Potence as a secondary discipline, similarly some Nosferatu have
Fortitude.
An immiscible set could explore a different secondary discipline,
without fear of the former set interacting in unexpected ways.
The Nosferatu Stuff
"Dave" <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message
news:8a0d1529.02071...@posting.google.com...
I dont like tournament games...thats why I go to all the qualifiers and dont
play! =)
The Nosferatu Stuff
> (Zeroth of all, the hypothetical examples given are just that.
> Hypothetical. There are likely to be many combinations that I'm never
> going to think of - because I'm me - but which, with sufficient though
> and work, would be significantly better than currently available
> combos.)
I think this is the strangest thing I have ever heard you say? Anyway, if
you could just tell me what DAC(dial a crypt) is so broken that would be
great!
What I really want to do, is take the magic marker and actually play a deck
with 12 of the same mid cap vampire with funky disciplines that you are so
afraid of. I just want to make sure the boogy man really exists so to
speak. Just let me know which guys you think would be the MOST broken and I
will make it and test it.
Is it 4 caps with DOM/obf?
POT/pro?
CEL/chi!?
I mean, what if its worse then it sounds? What if DAC is no big deal?
> Those with suitcases full of arbitrary cards have a significant
> advantage, whereas currently a player with a tightly focused set of
> Toreador cards can compete with the suitcase player because they don't
> need to collect all sorts of cards from all sorts of sets, they can play
> with their limited pool of cards
I didn't know that grouping was being used to prevent suitcases from beating
up new players. Sounds like what you are saying is that oldbies? or
whatever you call them would always crush newbies without the grouping rule
to protect them. Shouldn't cards be balanced against each other? Since
newbies will be playing oldbies? instead of trying to shift the metagame to
make the new cards better without escalation.(they call that theory type 2
in magic...that old players hold an advantage over the new because they have
more sets worth of cards)
Curevei
>you could just tell me what DAC(dial a crypt) is so broken that would be
>great!
>What I really want to do, is take the magic marker and actually play a deck
>with 12 of the same mid cap vampire with funky disciplines that you are so
>afraid of. I just want to make sure the boogy man really exists so to
>speak. Just let me know which guys you think would be the MOST broken and I
>will make it and test it.
>Is it 4 caps with DOM/obf?
>POT/pro?
>CEL/chi!?
>I mean, what if its worse then it sounds? What if DAC is no big deal?
I would like to see this pursued and have thought about it. But, I had a hard
time deciding on an exact crypt. Specials added a great deal of complexity to
the equation.
Also, there are crypts that would blow away current possibilities but wouldn't
necessarily be the best of the best. I could really badly use a 3 cap VIC for
one of my favorite decks. Add a 5 cap AUS VIC ani (good special would be
better than ani) plugs another hole in that crypt. This wouldn't even approach
the optimality of having clones of the 3 cap, Lolita, the 5 cap, and Corine.
Then, compare this to a Malk crypt with a spectrum ranging from 4-8 with the
discipline spreads and specials of your choice. No matter the former, the
latter is likely to be far stronger.
The Nosferatu Stuff
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message
news:20020715224643...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> >Anyway, if
> >you could just tell me what DAC(dial a crypt) is so broken that would be
> >great!
> >What I really want to do, is take the magic marker and actually play a
deck
> >with 12 of the same mid cap vampire with funky disciplines that you are
so
> >afraid of. I just want to make sure the boogy man really exists so to
> >speak. Just let me know which guys you think would be the MOST broken
and I
> >will make it and test it.
> >Is it 4 caps with DOM/obf?
> >POT/pro?
> >CEL/chi!?
> >I mean, what if its worse then it sounds? What if DAC is no big deal?
>
> I would like to see this pursued and have thought about it. But, I had a
hard
> time deciding on an exact crypt. Specials added a great deal of
complexity to
> the equation.
I always assumed that specials wouldn't play a part in the DAC issue? I
guess it really only makes sense for 'standard' specials. I can't believe
that DAC would ever occur that there were 12 vampires that are 5 caps with
POT/CEL +1 strength?
> Also, there are crypts that would blow away current possibilities but
wouldn't
> necessarily be the best of the best. I could really badly use a 3 cap VIC
for
> one of my favorite decks. Add a 5 cap AUS VIC ani (good special would be
> better than ani) plugs another hole in that crypt. This wouldn't even
approach
> the optimality of having clones of the 3 cap, Lolita, the 5 cap, and
Corine.
> Then, compare this to a Malk crypt with a spectrum ranging from 4-8 with
the
> discipline spreads and specials of your choice. No matter the former, the
> latter is likely to be far stronger.
I say try making a deck with just Corines...say that each is a different
unique vampire and see what happens? Have everyone else do the same so that
everyone is equal. See what happens. Then remember that there would only
be 1 corine clone/per expansion(assuming EVERY set was sabbat) And that you
would need 11 more sets. Averaging 2 sets a year you could build that deck
in....about 5 years. Considering there are 3 groups, cam/independent/sabbat
I figure that time frame would be more like 15 years. Still not sure that
we should be worried about what *might* happen 15 years from now. But try a
deck out with DAC and see what happens!