Proposal: Unique means irreplaceable
Madman2001
I have a proposal for an interesting rule change in our game. I would
suggest that when a vampire, a unique ally or retainer, a unique
location, or unique equipment is burned, that
vampire/ally/location/equipment cannot be used again in the game
(except thru card mechanics such as Daemonic Possession, Compel the
Spirit, etc.). Cards that are burned by yielding would be exempt, of
course.
This proposal has a number of advantages, including a better adherence
to the backstory.
Thoughts??
Madman
LSJ
This has been brought up before. [PONTES 17-OCT-1996]
It may be worthwhile to read that thread. Pontes and I took it to email
as well, so not all the details are there, but he agreed that it isn't
as simple as his first suggestion might seem. [PONTES 21-OCT-1996].
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=b0fd2132df7c54ff,33&start=4
It has a certain appeal, but ends up being largely unworkable in practice.
Many special cases are needed:
discards
Illusions of the Kindred
Horrid Reality
Jimmy Dunn
Goodnight Sweet Prince
Visit from the Capuchin
etc.
Some unique cards just represent ideas and are transitive by nature.
Arsoning an Elysium, for instance, just means that a new Elysium
will be established.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Jack Crow
wrote:
I played a tournament where this was the case. Let's just say people
would intentionally lose weapons and went diablerie crazy. That was
over a number of games tho. In one game, it would probably only
prevent competition between 2 of the same decks...bah.
Halcyan 2
>suggest that when a vampire, a unique ally or retainer, a unique
>location, or unique equipment is burned, that
>vampire/ally/location/equipment cannot be used again in the game
>(except thru card mechanics such as Daemonic Possession, Compel the
>Spirit, etc.). Cards that are burned by yielding would be exempt, of
>course.
I disagree. I think VTES already does an excellent job balancing the "unique"
concept (compare Mr. Winthrop vs. Sport Bike for example). Adding this
additional limitation would greatly weaken any unique cards when there are
already inherent disadvantages from the start.
In addition, there are other flaws to your suggestion. Note that a card is
burned when it is blocked. So if my intercept deck successfully blocks your
attempt to equip with an Ivory Bow or attempt to recruit Thadius Zho, then the
Bow or Zho "cannot be used again in the game." Now how does that figure into
your "backstory?"
>This proposal has a number of advantages, including a better adherence
>to the backstory.
And the proposal also has a large number of disadvantages. First of all, it
would greatly limit variety and creativity in deck-building. This restriction
would severely ham-string all sorts of decks and strategies. In addition, your
special exemption for Necromancy would heavily shift the game balance for the
Giovanni. In addition, I noticed that unique Masters are also exempted from
this. Any particular reason?
You claim that your proposal allows a better adherence to the backstory. I
disagree. In Jyhad/VTES, you play powerful Methusalehs with all sorts of
supernatural resources at your disposal. Nothing is as it seems in this game.
Just because it *seemed* like Ozmo got decapitated doesn't mean that's what
really happened (not exactly the best example but hopefully you get the point).
Halcyan 2
Derek Ray
news:20010817091900...@ng-bg1.aol.com:
> backstory. I disagree. In Jyhad/VTES, you play powerful Methusalehs
> with all sorts of supernatural resources at your disposal. Nothing is
> as it seems in this game. Just because it *seemed* like Ozmo got
> decapitated doesn't mean that's what really happened (not exactly the
> best example but hopefully you get the point).
Really, what's to stop you, as a Methuselah with all sorts of supernatural
resources at your disposal, from just Scotch-taping Ozmo's head back on and
sending him out again? :)
Philippe Richer
>In addition, there are other flaws to your suggestion. Note that a card is
>burned when it is blocked. So if my intercept deck successfully blocks your
>attempt to equip with an Ivory Bow or attempt to recruit Thadius Zho, then the
>Bow or Zho "cannot be used again in the game." Now how does that figure into
>your "backstory?"
Also, you could no longer have the pleasure of seeing your prey's face when
you brought up the Ivory Bow as a Disguised Weapon, in the combat ensuing the
blocking of the Ivory Bow equipping action.
And it IS supported by the backstory. You just got it before the acting vamp
could put his hand on it.
Bleu