Camarilla Edition
LSJ
ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The
Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games
in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001.
"More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new
stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck.
"This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The
Eternal Struggle."
The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
the boosters) and several new library cards. In addition, six
pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started
quickly. The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
Vampire: The Eternal Struggle fans throughout the world lauded the return
of their favorite card game in October 2000 when Sabbat War marked the
first new release since 1996. Sabbat War has since sold through two entire
print runs, and the subsequent Final Nights expansion has nearly sold out
its initial print run as well.
Look for Bloodlines in stores now and The Camarilla Edition in August 2002.
Vampire: The Eternal Struggle's Final Nights is available in limited
quantities through some distributors and retail outlets.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Wes
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
>
> The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> the boosters)
Good move! Thank you for considering the older players too.
> and several new library cards. In addition, six
> pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get
started
> quickly.
Sealed deck tournaments just got more interesting. Thank you again.
> The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
> prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
Arrrrgh! This is gonna hurt my pocketbook. But with a name like that, who
can argue?
I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs and a few
non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this set include
Lasombra Antitribu, Old Clan Tzimisce (ANI AUS DOM!) and probably a few
other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu, Assamite Antitribu,
Serpents of the Light, Warrior Setites (SER PRE POT!) and a lot of Panders.
Additionally, the Gangrel have a few variants as well. There's a Central
American offshoot that has ANI FOR SER (I think) and the aquatic Gangrel
which are like creatures from the black lagoon or something like that. Kind
of silly but I think they have the same disciplines...
I'm all giddy I tell you!
Cheers,
WES
Martin Laganičre
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com...
> WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION
>
So if i read correctly , they will be no re-print , is that correct ?
I only have one thing to say : WOW ! And about the Anarchs : WOW !
ML
Joshua Duffin
"Martin Laganičre" <Megatro...@decepticons.com> wrote in message
news:Y%%u8.7187$5J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com...
> > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION
> >
>
> So if i read correctly , they will be no re-print , is that correct ?
Well, it sounds to me like "several new library cards" out of
a set of 300 implies that there *will* be reprints, and I'd
guess that it also means the majority of the library cards
will be reprints.
> I only have one thing to say : WOW ! And about the Anarchs : WOW !
I entirely agree. Tres cool.
Josh
the anarchs are revolting!
Orpheus
> > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they
need
> > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> > the boosters)
>
> Good move! Thank you for considering the older players too.
Hope the cards everyone needs from the previous editions will be included
(I'd understand it if some cards present in both VTES and Sabbat War weren't
printed again, but only if SW sees reprints...).
> > and several new library cards. In addition, six
> > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get
> started
> > quickly.
Good !! I thought it would be only 4, as "usual". What motivated this
choice, as opposed to SW (LSJ ?).
> Sealed deck tournaments just got more interesting. Thank you again.
>
> > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
> > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
>
> Arrrrgh! This is gonna hurt my pocketbook. But with a name like that, who
> can argue?
Hum, depends what's in it...
> I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs
It would be very nice to see it include Caïtiff "makeshift disciplines" ;
some thin blooded, too (can play Daring the Dawn without taking
aggravated...).
and a few
> non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this set include
> Lasombra Antitribu,
Maybe in the Cam set ?
Old Clan Tzimisce (ANI AUS DOM!) and probably a few
> other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu, Assamite Antitribu,
> Serpents of the Light, Warrior Setites (SER PRE POT!) and a lot of
Panders.
No more Setites !!! They already rule. I'd like to see some new discipline
cards for the independent disciplines, though (mainly Necro of course...),
and maybe some split disciplines including Bloodlines disciplines (by then
WW will have seen which ones need to be improved) ? And I'd LOVE to see one
more guy with Dom / Obt / Nec...
> Additionally, the Gangrel have a few variants as well. There's a Central
> American offshoot that has ANI FOR SER (I think) and the aquatic Gangrel
> which are like creatures from the black lagoon or something like that.
Kind
> of silly but I think they have the same disciplines...
NO, NOT THEM !!!! They ARE silly, it's really the one WW extension I don't
understand and cannot caution.
But let's wait already for the Camarilla set B4 we begin to ask for other
things... BTW, when do we get to pre-test it ? I'm in !!!
I must say I'm skeptical on the potential (and real utility) of The Anarchs,
but I trust WW to make it interesting. It looks like they alternate between
"must have" and "can get" extensions, and that's a smart move : you don't
HAVE to buy some Bloodlines, you'll HAVE to get somme Camarilla, maybe you
won't really NEED The Anarchs but some will and you can always trade with
them... Nice.
--
Yours,
Orpheus, Prince of Marseille
http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel)
http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band)
news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
audio...@yahoogroups.com
Marko Saari
But few questions will arise.
What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have
camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck
tournaments?
Or are the all Gangrels soon independent? What I am going to do with my
Gangrel vote deck then? :)
Are we seeing new Justicars?
- Guzmo
CurtAdams
>In addition, six
>pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get >started
quickly.
Fabulous!
>The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
>prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
Also Fabulous! I'm content to wait for that Gangrel.
Sounds like an excellent choice for a set.
Here's hoping some of the power rarities get fixed. Since
V:tES/Jyhad prices had gone up substantially of late, I'm
much more hopeful about the sales of the expansion.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
vermillian
> Cool!
>
> But few questions will arise.
>
> What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have
> camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck
> tournaments?
Of course... !Tremere are all dead, and they can have titles.
Assamites have eliminated their blood curse but still can't diablerize
in the card game, etc...
> Or are the all Gangrels soon independent?
Any new gangrel released will be independent, or sabbat, or camerilla.
They won't all be for just one sect.
> What I am going to do with my
> Gangrel vote deck then? :)
Keep playing with it? Conversely: What should I do with my old
!Tremere theft deck? Same thing.
>
> Are we seeing new Justicars?
Count on it. 100 new vampires? Malks, Ven, Tor, Nos, Tre, Bru... that
covers 6 clans (a precon for each I'm guessing). That's about 17 new
vampires for each clan. SOME of them will have to have previously
existing titles, don't you think? (Besides...if they're going to
update with Gangrel leaving Cam, then thye should also update with the
new justicars that have taken over, and new titles, etc...).
~SV
vermillian
>
> ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The
> Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
> card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games
> in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001.
A year ago, or is that a typo? Or were they hoping we'd read "April
2001... Hey that's this month! We rock! er... wait, no... that was
last year... we suck..."
> "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new
> stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck.
> "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The
> Eternal Struggle."
Wow... what an amazingly non-epiphany creating quote. This Steve Wieck
sure is a man of great somantics.
> The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> to play.
Cards REAL players need to play:
Blood Dolls
Minion Taps
Tribute to the master
Bum's Rush
Sudden Reversal
DI
Low caps with DOM
Deflections
Torn Signpost
Immortal Grapple
Disarm
Obedience
Freak Drive
Psyche!
Power Base (freeness) Montreal
Am I missing anything?
> The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> the boosters) and several new library cards.
Woah mamma'! A third of the cards will be vampires? Crazy! And what's
this several thingy... any specific number? Like, will I see a new
library card in the first pack I open or the tenth? (not that ANY
would be able to answer this question, but...).
> In addition, six
> pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started
> quickly.
That's one for each can kids (except Caitiff and Gangrel, as mentioned
next).
So we should expect an Immortal Grapple in the Brujah precon, a freak
drive and second tradition in the Ventrue one, apportations to be
reprinted and included in the tremere one, Toreador Grandball in the
Toreador one (and maybe a second or fifth), Obedience in the Malk one,
another grapple in the nosferatu (or maybe a disarm... its more their
style) along with a night moves.
Sounds fair to me.
> The Gangrel are not a part of this set,
HAHAHA!!!
> but they will be
> prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
Hmmm... interesting. An all gangrel set, which includes 12 new city
gangrel, 12 new country gangrel and 12 misc crazy gangrel, 10 new
caitiff, pander, and some tremere antitribue. ???
<Snip shameless advertisement>
Sweetness.
~SV
Jeff Kuta
> Cool!
>
> camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck
> tournaments?
Indeed. What will happen with all "old" cards from previous versions.
I hope we don't go down the road of splitting tournament types and
phasing out older sets simply to sell new cards. I tend to think VTES
players wouldn't like that very much.
Chris Berger
"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f987c6cd.0204...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> > the boosters) and several new library cards.
>
> Woah mamma'! A third of the cards will be vampires? Crazy! And what's
> this several thingy... any specific number? Like, will I see a new
> library card in the first pack I open or the tenth? (not that ANY
> would be able to answer this question, but...).
>
it would be nice to have some idea of how many new cards there are. Having all
new vamps is interesting, although with 100 of them, that pretty close to rules
out the possibility of an uncommon sheet *and* a vampire sheet, meaning we're
likely to have the same annoying rarity scheme as Bloodlines. I have a feeling
there will be an announcement of exactly how many new cards there are in the
set, at some later date, but... well... any chance that announcement could come
sooner rather than later? 8)
Tobias
>
> ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The
> Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
> card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games
> in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001.
August 1st, that is?
> "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new
> stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck.
> "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The
> Eternal Struggle."
"Stand-alone edition of the base set." Fully compatible with the
previous sets? New game mechanics, or mostly concerned with cleaning
up some old stuff?
> The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> the boosters) and several new library cards. In addition, six
> pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started
> quickly. The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
> prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
Great move on both the 6 boosters and the subsequent expansion. I,
too, am curious about 'several'. Let's talk %, say, 20 %? (100 new
vampires, 20% of 200+ library cards means 140+ new cards... yum). Of
course, if some of the highly desired 'old' cards re-appear, but this
time with a favorable rarity scheme, this would mean the remaining
160ish cards are nothing to sneeze at either.
Thanks, White Wolf! Time to pick up some boxes again. :)
Tobias
Deventer
LSJ
> >
> > ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The
> > Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
> > card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games
> > in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001.
>
> A year ago, or is that a typo?
A year ago - that's the date of the Comics & Games Retailer which
listed V:TES in its list of the top ten card games, as stated.
Joshua Duffin
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Hm8v8.2239$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> Having all
> new vamps is interesting, although with 100 of them, that pretty close to
rules
> out the possibility of an uncommon sheet *and* a vampire sheet, meaning
we're
> likely to have the same annoying rarity scheme as Bloodlines.
An annoying rarity scheme is certainly possible - though I have
some hope that, given what they did for Bloodlines after the
Final Nights complaints about too few R1s relative to R2s, they'll
at least *try* not to be as annoying - but, parsing the announcement,
there are supposed to be "over" 300 cards. Which means 4 sheets,
given sheets of 100. So there should be three levels of library-
card rarity (assuming, which may be unwarranted, that none of the
sheets are dedicated solely to the starter-decks). Sadly this
analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed
X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them.
Unless there are 350 new cards and one of the sheets has 50 X2s
on it, or some such.
Josh
reading between the lines
Joshua Duffin
> > "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new
> > stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve
Wieck.
> > "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The
> > Eternal Struggle."
>
> Wow... what an amazingly non-epiphany creating quote. This Steve Wieck
> sure is a man of great somantics.
Be nice. It's a press release. All it's supposed to do is
tell people what's happening, not create epiphanies. :-)
> Cards REAL players need to play:
>
> Blood Dolls
> Minion Taps
> Tribute to the master
> Bum's Rush
> Sudden Reversal
> DI
> Low caps with DOM
> Deflections
> Torn Signpost
> Immortal Grapple
> Disarm
> Obedience
> Freak Drive
> Psyche!
> Power Base (freeness) Montreal
>
> Am I missing anything?
Yeah, Wake/Forced. I don't think real players all *need* to
have Psyche, Obedience, Disarm, or Direct Intervention, either.
Those are pretty much only necessary if you want to play certain
specific decks. Likewise the low caps with DOM (which in fact
I would just as soon not see any of), Torn Signposts, and
Immortal Grapples.
Anyway, I'd bet that all these things (possibly barring Disarm,
DI, and other things reprinted in Sabbat War, but not necessarily)
will in fact be in the set.
Josh
guessing
Reyda
> > The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> > the boosters) and several new library cards.
>
> Woah mamma'! A third of the cards will be vampires? Crazy! And what's
> this several thingy... any specific number? Like, will I see a new
> library card in the first pack I open or the tenth? (not that ANY
> would be able to answer this question, but...).
how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ?
how can Betrayer be playable anyway ? =)
maybe there will be split vampire cards ? =)
the upper part is Ventrue, the lower part is toreador ?
oh, and i just want to add this before white wolf does
"we used the word new vampires for the vampires you willf find in the
boosters. We did not talk about what you will find in the starter. We
didn't write anything about the promo vampires. You will find them in the
starters, as usual. Note that those promo vampires are not promo-only
vampires, which is slightly different. We all know that Promo and promo-only
are not the same thing, don't we ? Promo only vampires are not scheduled.
But not scheduled doesn't mean there will be no promo vampires. Not
scheduled yet. But as you alreadymay know, there will be promo vampires,
different from those you may (or may not) find in the starters. So maybe
there will be promo-only (genuine promo) vampires, but they will not be in
the starters along with those promo-vampires-you-don't-know-about-yet.
This is white wolf talking, so everything is prefeclty clear "
=D
reyda
CurtAdams
>Sadly this
>analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed
>X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them.
What's sad about that? The frequency gaps between the rarites
are large, and X2 helps put in spots for cards too good for X
and too poor for the next lower rarity.
Joshua Duffin
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020417125301...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> josh writes:
>
> >Sadly this
> >analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed
> >X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them.
>
> What's sad about that? The frequency gaps between the rarites
> are large, and X2 helps put in spots for cards too good for X
> and too poor for the next lower rarity.
No, you're right, it doesn't have to be sad, but if it's
anything like Bloodlines it easily could be. Sure, three
rarities might not be enough, but six is probably too many.
Or maybe it's just that R1s are too rare in a set with C2s.
I dunno, I'm no authority on rarity-design, but it does
seem to me that you usually shouldn't need that many
different rarities unless you have some magical method of
knowing exactly what proportion of each card players are
going to want.
Josh
ensaddened
Thomas Pichler
> The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> the boosters) and several new library cards.
Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in
favor of Camarilla.
Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in
the set...
> In addition, six
> pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started
> quickly.
Great move - no one will have to complain their favorite clan wasn't featured
in a starter. I think this is a good move in terms of trying to attract
storyteller players to the CCG.
> The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
> prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
Hmm... really curious about that one just hearing this... an expansion that
will include one full-fledged clan, as well as, well, hmm, time for
speculation, ey?
Thomas
vermillian
> vermillian wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION
> > >
> > > ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The
> > > Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
> > > card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games
> > > in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001.
> >
> > A year ago, or is that a typo?
>
> A year ago - that's the date of the Comics & Games Retailer which
> listed V:TES in its list of the top ten card games, as stated.
Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They
could have said "White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The
Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal
Struggle card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle contains cards made
from 50% recycled paper." And I would have been just as intrigued as
that other great fact. :)
~SV
LSJ
> Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They
Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm.
Noal McDonald
>> I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs
>
> It would be very nice to see it include Caïtiff "makeshift disciplines" ;
> some thin blooded, too (can play Daring the Dawn without taking
> aggravated...).
Weenies that can takes actions unblockable by vampires and not go to
torpor? Thanks, but no thanks.
>> and a few non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see
this
>> set include Lasombra Antitribu,
>
> Maybe in the Cam set ?
Unlikely. More likely to see a few vampires from some of the other
printed clans, though.
> But let's wait already for the Camarilla set B4 we begin to ask for other
> things... BTW, when do we get to pre-test it ? I'm in !!!
No, you're not. The playesting for the Camarilla set began a while ago
and has certainly concluded by now. However, you may wish to e-mail
LSJ regarding your interest in playtesting the Anarchs expansion.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit
Xian
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a9ke89$43chk$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
[snip rarity stuff]
> No, you're right, it doesn't have to be sad, but if it's
> anything like Bloodlines it easily could be. Sure, three
> rarities might not be enough, but six is probably too many.
Yup, probably. Though I'm not certain that I would be saddened by seeing
something like:
60 C1s
20 C2s
70 U1s
15 U2s
80 R1s
10 R2s
You know, so it's balanced in favor of truth, justice, and the American Way. ;)
> Or maybe it's just that R1s are too rare in a set with C2s.
That could be it too. DS, though kind of a flop, at least didn't have the huge
range of rarities. I think.
> I dunno, I'm no authority on rarity-design, but it does
> seem to me that you usually shouldn't need that many
> different rarities unless you have some magical method of
> knowing exactly what proportion of each card players are
> going to want.
So since WW obviously doesn't have this method, now you're the magical man in
gumdrop land that lives in a house on lollipop lane? :)
Xian
embiggened
Chris Berger
"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message
news:a9kufa$43mm8$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a9ke89$43chk$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > seem to me that you usually shouldn't need that many
> > different rarities unless you have some magical method of
> > knowing exactly what proportion of each card players are
> > going to want.
>
>
Yeah, no kidding. Some wacko at WW actually posted that he thought Darkling
Trickery was an anti-equipment card! ;)
Good to see that I'm not the only one that thinks rarity proportion is
important in a set. More common cards (assuming they're useful) = more packs I
buy to get common cards. Your rarity scheme (snipped - sorry... too lazy to go
cut and paste it back in) that allows for a small amount of R1's and a small
amount of C2's (meaning more Blood Dolls and Wakes, mainly, which I will choke
on and bitch about, but which everyone else seems to need more of - I guess I
just bought a lot of starter decks to get fixed cards) is good, although
hopefully they'd remember the Final Nights problem... (i.e. making the R1's new
cards that are powerful) and make the R1's clan hosers or something similarly
useless.
I guess it's all just speculation now. Personally, I'm really torn between
whether or not to pre-order any of the expansion until I hear what they screwed
up. If it's a Bloodlines-like rarity scheme, I just don't want any of it. I'd
rather trade for the new vamps, sheesh.
The Bard of Crete
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message >
> I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs and a
few
> non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this set include
> Lasombra Antitribu,
Perhaps a few, but I'd like to see one or two in the Cam too....
> Old Clan Tzimisce (ANI AUS DOM!)
Well considering that there really isn't such thing as the "old clan" just a
bunch of fogeys who didn't join the sabbat and decided to hide in their
stuufy old castles, I don't expect to see them.....
> and probably a few other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu
Assamite > Antitribu,
Ravnos are independant, no such thing as "antitribu", but that does beg the
question:
Will the Anarchs have their own designation "Anarch" or will they simply be
"Independent"?
> I'm all giddy I tell you!
Agreed.... :)
vermillian
> vermillian wrote:
> > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They
>
> Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm.
I've been told that about alot of my definitions...
Would you accept something like "insignificant" "random" or "silly"?
:)
~SV
Barny Baker
I agree, that would be 'bad'. And I mean Huey Lewis and the News
'Bad', not Michael Jackson 'Bad'.
Rafe
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> > the boosters) and several new library cards.
>
> Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in
> favor of Camarilla.
> Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in
> the set...
I wouldn't think they'll be that many odd discipline combos (unlike
Ancient Hearts), especially among the lower capacity vampires. This
is supposed to be a new base set, therefore the majority of the
vampires for each clan should focus around the core disciplines to
enable new players without access to vampires from previous
sets/expansions to play those clans effectively. Of course, some of
the the higher cap vampires will have out of clan discpilines, but I'm
hoping we won't see too many low caps with out of clan disciplines
(e.g. Regilio), and especially not non-Cam disciplines. One or two
would be fine, but as this is supposed to be a new base set, I hope we
don't see to many for the sake of players entering the game with this
set. Of course, having some (especially higher-caps) might encourage
the new players to go back and get some cards from earlier
sets/expansions to use those vamps, but too many would be a bad idea I
feel.
> > In addition, six
> > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started
> > quickly.
>
> Great move - no one will have to complain their favorite clan wasn't featured
> in a starter. I think this is a good move in terms of trying to attract
> storyteller players to the CCG.
Yes, plus as someone else mentioned it will add spice to sealed deck
tournaments, and WW will sell more precons (each precon has cards not
available in the boosters or any of the other precons? THEY MUST BE
MINE!!!).
> > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
> > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
>
> Hmm... really curious about that one just hearing this... an expansion that
> will include one full-fledged clan, as well as, well, hmm, time for
> speculation, ey?
Given the 'defection' of a significant number of Anarchs to the New
Promise Mandarinate in the RPG, perhaps we'll see some Cathayan
allies?
- Rafe
Tony
> Assamite > Antitribu,
>
> Ravnos are independant, no such thing as "antitribu", but that does beg the
> question:
> Will the Anarchs have their own designation "Anarch" or will they simply be
> "Independent"?
>
are the Sabbat Ravnos. The designations was necessary to distinguish
them from their independant brethren, with whom they ain't sharing
much love.
Tony
Literary Thug
LSJ
> > > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They
> >
> > Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm.
>
> I've been told that about alot of my definitions...
>
> Would you accept something like "insignificant" "random" or "silly"?
... for your definitions? Sure. :-)
In regards to the press release?
Whatever word you have that matches "most recent applicable data
available" is fine.
Xian
> Your rarity scheme (snipped - sorry... too lazy to go
> cut and paste it back in) that allows for a small amount of R1's and a small
> amount of C2's (meaning more Blood Dolls and Wakes, mainly, which I will choke
> on and bitch about, but which everyone else seems to need more of - I guess I
> just bought a lot of starter decks to get fixed cards) is good, although
60 C1s
20 C2s
70 U1s
15 U2s
80 R1s
10 R2s
Actually, it's got a small amount of x2, and a large amount of x1s, which *I*
think is desirable. That way, although you have a crapload of R1s, they're all
equally valuable, and it's fairly easy to get a hold of *an* R1, maybe not one
specific R1. Though I have no idea how that would actually work. Something
more like 40 (x1) and 30 (x2) would be interesting, but I suspect that wouldn't
make up the numbers of separate cards we're looking at.
Then again, the initial rarity scheme I proposed doesn't come up with that
either. Hmm. I'm guessing we're looking at 4 sheets, really. Maybe there
*will* be a vampire rarity again?
> hopefully they'd remember the Final Nights problem... (i.e. making the R1's
new
> cards that are powerful) and make the R1's clan hosers or something similarly
> useless.
Yeah, I was not all that thrilled with the FN rarity scheme myself, but I
thought most of the cards that *were* R1s were appropriate. Okay, half of them
were. It would have been nice if the vampires weren't.
> I guess it's all just speculation now. Personally, I'm really torn between
> whether or not to pre-order any of the expansion until I hear what they
screwed
> up. If it's a Bloodlines-like rarity scheme, I just don't want any of it.
I'd
> rather trade for the new vamps, sheesh.
Heh. I'll be pre-ordering fairly soon, I think. Partly just to see what it's
like, but also to get in on any unexpected goodies, like Dreams of the Sphinx in
the Giovanni starter. :)
Xian
Noal McDonald
> how can they manage to do that? Do we need 100 new vampires?
The Toreador certainly do. Worry not, LSJ's a smart guy. I'm sure he's
figured out a way to prevent weenie madness.
> how can Betrayer be playable anyway ? =)
Use the best vampire that has ever been printed: Uriah Winter
> maybe there will be split vampire cards ? =)
I would think the paper quality would be better than that.
> the upper part is Ventrue, the lower part is toreador ?
???
You think the Tzimisce would create new Camarilla vampires?
> This is white wolf talking, so everything is prefeclty clear "
Be happy. At least White Wolf _is_ talking...unlike WotC when they had
the game.
Regards,
Noal
legbiter
> > > > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They
> > >
> > > Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm.
> >
> > I've been told that about alot of my definitions...
> >
> > Would you accept something like "insignificant" "random" or "silly"?
>
> ... for your definitions? Sure. :-)
>
> In regards to the press release?
>
> Whatever word you have that matches "most recent applicable data
> available" is fine.
Hehehe ... THAT'S my rulemonger.
All of this is terrific news and thanks and congratulations to Scott,
Steve and all involved in the project. The Anarchs sounds like a Cunning
Plan that Cannot Fail. However, i do have one question: Scott, do you
know/can you tell us anything about the artwork? In particular, will
reprints of old cards have old artwork, or new? The collector in me
kinda hopes for the latter, but the MUCH more dominant player doesn't
give a dog-poo.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Marty
I concur. They are in the 'Guide to the Sabbat'. As are the other
Antitribu, Serpents of Light, Harbinger of Skulls and Bloodbrothers...
Sheesh, don't you people know anything? Next you'll be saying that
the Ravnos Antediluvian is dead :)
Martin
Tobias Loehr
> are the Sabbat Ravnos. The designations was necessary to distinguish
> them from their independant brethren, with whom they ain't sharing
> much love.
The "antitribu" designation was simply to help the players to be able
to distinguish that there were some Ravnos who affiliated themselves
with the Sabbat and who chose different paths than Paradox, but they
are not a separate or sub-set of the Ravnos clan. They are still
Ravnos.
freakdrivr
Perhaps they have just made different versions of current Camarilla
vampires...
ie. Sir walter nash is STILL NAMED Sir WALter Nash but has a different
set of skills - to represent a different period of time for WAlter -
perhaps he even has a different title as well... but for contesting's
sake, he's just plain old sir walter nash...
i'm really making this up, but it would be really frikkin cool to have
a different Ozmo or whatever, with a slightly differnt set of skills
but it's still OZmo...
never mind.
jds
Eric Simon
> > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in
> > favor of Camarilla.
> > Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in
> > the set...
>
> I wouldn't think they'll be that many odd discipline combos (unlike
> Ancient Hearts), especially among the lower capacity vampires. This
> is supposed to be a new base set, therefore the majority of the
> vampires for each clan should focus around the core disciplines to
> enable new players without access to vampires from previous
> sets/expansions to play those clans effectively. Of course, some of
> the the higher cap vampires will have out of clan discpilines, but I'm
> hoping we won't see too many low caps with out of clan disciplines
> (e.g. Regilio), and especially not non-Cam disciplines. One or two
> would be fine, but as this is supposed to be a new base set, I hope we
> don't see to many for the sake of players entering the game with this
> set. Of course, having some (especially higher-caps) might encourage
> the new players to go back and get some cards from earlier
> sets/expansions to use those vamps, but too many would be a bad idea I
> feel.
Well, keep in mind that one clan has gone through a major discipline
change: the Malkavians. As we saw with Anatole, Camarilla Malks
should now have Dementation instead of Dominate. That means that
Dementation should definitely be included in this set, and (dare I
dream?) maybe even a Path for it. What I would love to see them do
(though they could only do it with the Malks), is to actually re-use a
bunch of the Jyhad/V:TES Malks, but give them equivalent levels of Dem
instead of Dom, then make a rule that they contest with each other.
Maybe that's silly, but I think it would be a good way to accurately
portray the change.
> > > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be
> > > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs.
> >
> > Hmm... really curious about that one just hearing this... an expansion that
> > will include one full-fledged clan, as well as, well, hmm, time for
> > speculation, ey?
>
> Given the 'defection' of a significant number of Anarchs to the New
> Promise Mandarinate in the RPG, perhaps we'll see some Cathayan
> allies?
>
> - Rafe
As long as that's ALL they appear as. Allies (and some Master cards)
are really the only appropriate place to represent crossovers to other
WW systems. I would hate to see an attempt to incorporate Cathayans
as actual Vampire cards.
My best realistic guess for Anarchs? A lot of Cali-specific
locations.
- Volya42
LSJ
> However, i do have one question: Scott, do you
> know/can you tell us anything about the artwork? In particular, will
> reprints of old cards have old artwork, or new? The collector in me
> kinda hopes for the latter, but the MUCH more dominant player doesn't
> give a dog-poo.
Some of the reprints will have new art, yes.
I don't know what the exact ratio is, though, for new-art reprints
vs. "standard" reprints.
Reyda
"freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> wrote in message
news:fc6a5b20.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ?
>
> Perhaps they have just made different versions of current Camarilla
> vampires...
I'd Like to see Appolonius, Justicar of the Brujah =)
all those years waiting in the shadows, now back with POT CEL PRE FOR =D
vermillian
> vermillian wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > vermillian wrote:
> In regards to the press release?
>
> Whatever word you have that matches "most recent applicable data
> available" is fine.
Convenient sounds good. :)
~SV
vermillian
>
> > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> > the boosters) and several new library cards.
>
> Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in
> favor of Camarilla.
> Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in
> the set...
>
> > In addition, six
> > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started
> > quickly.
>
> Great move - no one will have to complain their favorite clan wasn't featured
> in a starter. I think this is a good move in terms of trying to attract
> storyteller players to the CCG.
Except the Gangrel, but they're featured in another set, which won't
have a precon for it I bet. :)
~SV
Robert Goudie
>
> > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need
> > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in
> > the boosters) and several new library cards.
>
> Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> balance in favor of Camarilla.
What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new
Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in
and of itself, perfectly balanced?
> Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in
> the set...
Splain Lucy.
-Curious Robert
rob...@vtesinla.org
Sacha
> I would think the paper quality would be better than that.
>
> > the upper part is Ventrue, the lower part is toreador ?
>
> ???
>
> You think the Tzimisce would create new Camarilla vampires?
Sweet, it's my pet the torritrue!! *snicker* The make better foot
stools than the standard Torridor
LOL
Chris Berger
> legbiter wrote:
> > However, i do have one question: Scott, do you
> > know/can you tell us anything about the artwork? In particular, will
> > reprints of old cards have old artwork, or new? The collector in me
> > kinda hopes for the latter, but the MUCH more dominant player doesn't
> > give a dog-poo.
>
> Some of the reprints will have new art, yes.
>
> I don't know what the exact ratio is, though, for new-art reprints
> vs. "standard" reprints.
>
the top ten in retail sales.
Chris Berger
"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:246a2977.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these
will
> > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> > balance in favor of Camarilla.
>
> What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new
> Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in
> and of itself, perfectly balanced?
>
unbalancing:
Koku
Nosferatu
2 pot
Kuko
Nosferatu
2 pot
KuKu
Nosferatu
2 pot
Duck-fu
Nosferatu
3 pot obf
Printing a dozen new Ventrue would be unbalancing if they were all 3 caps with
superior Presence, for example.
Chris Arthur
>
> Yes, plus as someone else mentioned it will add spice to sealed deck
> tournaments, and WW will sell more precons (each precon has cards not
> available in the boosters or any of the other precons? THEY MUST BE
> MINE!!!).
From the press release it seems that all of the cards will be
available from the boosters. therefore a collector will not
necessarily need to buy any of the pre-cons. LSJ, can you verify this?
[snip]
> Given the 'defection' of a significant number of Anarchs to the New
> Promise Mandarinate in the RPG, perhaps we'll see some Cathayan
> allies?
>
I don't think they'll make the same mistake they made with the
Gargoyle Slave Ally. I have a feeling they will try to incorporate the
Eastern vamps into the game as more than just allies. I wouldn't have
said that a while ago but now that we have salubri, harbingers,
baali...anything is possible.
Chris.
GreySeer
I do like that idea. Some new vampires but also some of our oldies with
updated sets of disciplines, or even a change/removal of title, possibly
even with specials for some who didn't have one before. Might make Clio's
Kiss @ <TEM> more useful.
GreySeer
news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>...
> > LSJ wrote:
> >
> > > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster
> > > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they
need
> > > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found
in
> > > the boosters) and several new library cards.
> >
> > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these
will
> > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> > balance in favor of Camarilla.
>
> What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new
> Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in
> and of itself, perfectly balanced?
He means that it'll be easier to build certain deck types because there will
be more access to vampires of particular capacities with particular
discipline mixes. Weenie presence vote is a good example. It's already a
viable ( and unplesant ) deck but if you give the Ventrue more weenies with
pre or PRE then you'll see a mono-clan weenie presence vote deck which will
be even worse, if only because they're going to call Consag Boon Ventrue
instead of Autarkis Persecution and you're not going to get any pool when it
passes.
Chris Harmon
> interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> balance in favor of Camarilla.
They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to
have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who
cares?
It works the same way as for rare cards. Rare cards give you more
choices but that doesn't unbalance the game. It makes no difference
w.r.t. BALANCE whether I get to choose from a 20 malks or a dozen
malks to build my deck. Maybe it's more interesting to have more
choice but its not unbalanced.
C. Harmon
`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-
Got Malk?
Thomas Pichler
> Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>...
> > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> > balance in favor of Camarilla.
>
> What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new
> Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in
> and of itself, perfectly balanced?
>
Simple: take any one deck that is fairly strong at the moment, and remove the the need to
double up on key vampires by printing vampires with near-identical statistics.
No more risk of a poor crypt draw removes a balancing factor for this deck, particulalry as
compared to non-Camarilla decks.
And there's quite a few examples:
(Ventrue) Weenie presence has already been mentioned twice; I'll add to this that Ye Olde
Big Ventrue Political gets a lot better if you don't have to douple up on Nash and Emerson
because you get yet more cap 7-8 princes.
Weenie potence has already been mentioned.
The one we don't need to worry about is various Malkavian decks, because vampires will have
a discipline mismatch... but to illustrate the point: protomalks would love Anders
Gregorson, 7-cap Prince of Kopenhagen, with pro dom AUS OBF.
Me, I could go for another Nosferatu prince with fortitude or two.
Et cetera.
Thomas
Thomas Pichler
> Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>...
> > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set
> > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit
> > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will
> > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> > balance in favor of Camarilla.
>
> They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to
> have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who
> cares?
>
> It works the same way as for rare cards.
No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of context,
Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an exact clone
of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by substantially
reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw?
It works the same for any existing Camarilla deck that doubles or triples up on key
vampires, if clones of these are printed.
The risk of a poor crypt draw will still exist for many non-Camarilla decks; if it is
indeed largely eliminated for Camarilla decks, this is a definite swing in game balance.
Thomas
Halcyan 2
>context,
>Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an
>exact clone
>of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by
>substantially
>reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw?
Actually, the Daughters of Cacophony would be TREMENDOUSLY more powerful if
there were 5 new clone Daughters.
Right now, 'cept using weird CI/Sanguine Instruction, or Infernal
Familiars/Pacts, etc. there are only 5 Daughters who can play Choir, meaning
you can only do 8 pool of damage due to NRA. However, with another 5 Daughters
(most of who are weenies), you can easily do *A LOT* more choir damage.
Others have already discussed how it can be beneficial by not needing
duplicates of certain vampires anymore. So instead of 2 x Crowley and 2 x
Walter, you can have 1 Crowley, 1 Crowley Clone, 1 Walter, and 1 Walter Clone.
In addition, a larger selection also means you can sub out some older vampires
if you can have a newer younger vampire who's a better fit. Why waste an extra
pool on Emerson's potence when you can add a Walter Clone (along with Walter
who's already in your deck). If another 3-cap with PRE comes out, people might
start "upgrading" Violette with the Gideon-clone. It allows greater efficiency.
Take a look at some of the smaller clans/bloodlines. Because there are fewer
vampires, they are *forced* to use vampires, often paying a lot more for
out-of-clan disciplines they'd never use. Etc, etc.
Halcyan 2
Ravnos Antediluvian
> Sheesh, don't you people know anything? Next you'll be saying that the
> Ravnos Antediluvian is dead :)
>
> Martin
I'm not quite dead.
Ravnos
Rafe
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes, plus as someone else mentioned it will add spice to sealed deck
> > tournaments, and WW will sell more precons (each precon has cards not
> > available in the boosters or any of the other precons? THEY MUST BE
> > MINE!!!).
>
> From the press release it seems that all of the cards will be
> available from the boosters. therefore a collector will not
> necessarily need to buy any of the pre-cons. LSJ, can you verify this?
Note that the press release does not say that all the cards in the set
can be found in the boosters; it only states that "the set includes
100 new vampires (all of which can be found in the boosters)". The
wording of this press release therefore allows exclusive cards to
appear in the precons, which could include
New library cards
Reprinted library cards (possibly with new art?)
Reprinted vampires
- Rafe
Tony
Yes they are, in the same way that Toreador Antitribu are still
Toreador. The Ravnos Antitribu are as separate a clan as any of the
Antitribu clans. The "True" Ravnos simply aren't in the Camarilla. The
same applies to the Assamites. The "True" clan is independant, the
"Anti" clan is Sabbat.
No don't make me explain it again;)
Tony
Literary Thug
Reyda
"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message
news:ubv3evk...@news.supernews.com...
(snip)
> I do like that idea. Some new vampires but also some of our oldies with
> updated sets of disciplines, or even a change/removal of title, possibly
> even with specials for some who didn't have one before. Might make Clio's
> Kiss @ <TEM> more useful.
My Democritus from the future (11 cap, ventrue IC) does not contest your
Ancient Democritus (10 ventrue Justicar) anymore thanks to clio's kiss =)
funny, ain't it ?
Miller Delmardigan
"freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
fc6a5b20.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ?
>
> Perhaps they have just made different versions of current Camarilla
> vampires...
> ie. Sir walter nash is STILL NAMED Sir WALter Nash but has a different
> set of skills - to represent a different period of time for WAlter -
> perhaps he even has a different title as well... but for contesting's
> sake, he's just plain old sir walter nash...
Just like the experienced versions of Characters in the Legend of the Five
Rings CCG =)
I really like this idea !
Miller delmardigan
Sabbat Priscus
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
Thomas Pichler
> >No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of
> >context,
> >Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an
> >exact clone
> >of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by
> >substantially
> >reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw?
>
> Actually, the Daughters of Cacophony would be TREMENDOUSLY more powerful if there
> were 5 new clone Daughters.
>
My point exactly. It might not be quite as extreme with the Camarilla clans, but
I'm positive 100 new vampires, probably mostly for the 6 remaining Camarilla clans,
will have an impact.
> Others have already discussed how it can be beneficial by not needing
> duplicates of certain vampires anymore. So instead of 2 x Crowley and 2 x
> Walter, you can have 1 Crowley, 1 Crowley Clone, 1 Walter, and 1 Walter Clone.
>
That was actually the very first thing I though of when reading 100 new vampires...
scary thought, is it not?
Thomas
Noal McDonald
> Others have already discussed how it can be beneficial by not needing
> duplicates of certain vampires anymore. So instead of 2 x Crowley and 2 x
> Walter, you can have 1 Crowley, 1 Crowley Clone, 1 Walter, and 1 Walter Clone.
What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set
vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set?
Legbiter's Betrayer deck would certainly suffer, but it would solve
the issue of Weenie madness (potential result from more 2-4 caps) and
"clone" vampires. There are some vampires from the older sets that may
have specials that would make you want to use that set rather than the
new one, Anson for example. Whereas the new Camarilla vampires would
have a better concentration of disciplines from a current cost scheme
point of view.
I wasn't involved in playtesting at all, so this is nothing more than
pondering on my part, but the idea certainly has potential. I also
have a gut feeling there may be negative consequences, but I can't
really put my finger on any.
What do y'all think?
Regards,
Noal
Halcyan 2
>vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set?
>
I don't know. It sounds too much like approaching the Type II thing, where
eventually the game gets schismed. If the new cards are good enough, there
won't be any incentive to play with the old cards, and Jyhad/VTES has always
been good with integrating the old with the new.
In addition, I like the contesting issues. With this scheme, it may be heading
towards the point where each player is essentially playing their own game.
Isn't it kind of like that if you play Mythos but the different players are
each using cards from a different "dimension?" There's not as much room for
interaction.
In addition, it may set a bad precedent. A starting player might wonder if it's
worth buying old cards (DS or AH) if he can't use them with new ones. They may
even wonder if it's worth buying SW or FN because some hypothetical future
expansion might preclude combining with those cards. And finally, everytime an
old player picks up his cards again and asks "if his old cards are compatible
with the new ones" instead of a simple "yes" we'll have to go through a
long-winded explanation of "yes but..."
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
Santiago
vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote:
>Well, keep in mind that one clan has gone through a major discipline
>change: the Malkavians. As we saw with Anatole, Camarilla Malks
>should now have Dementation instead of Dominate.
I would classify that as a potentially erroneous conclusion.
Anatole is a signature character from the novels, and as such has a
defined existence outside the card game with stats and all. The VtES
version has to reflect that, and has the Dementation that his
revised-edition-compliant self has. To conclude that all new Malks in
the card game will have Demenation instead of Dominate is hasty, though
certainly possible. I do recall a statement to the effect that they
wouldn't be changing standard clan disciplines in VtES to avoid screwing
the clan in question, though a justification could maybe be made in this
case, due to the largish number of new vampires being produced, allowing
for a critical mass even without bringing their antitribu brethren into
the deck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the East,
and Juliet is AAAHHH THE SUN!!!" *PHOOM!* -- Romeo the Vampire
Brian
> towards the point where each player is essentially playing their own game.
> Isn't it kind of like that if you play Mythos but the different players are
> each using cards from a different "dimension?" There's not as much room for
> interaction.
Hey, somebody else played Mythos before!
Actually, Mythos didn't really have enough interaction to begin
with...the dimension thing didn't change much. You could still attack
each other and play events on each other, but Mythos was usually just
a race, really, to see whose deck went off first. A really pretty
race with surreal creatures and colorful borders, but a race,
nonetheless.
Back to contestion, though...how much interaction through contesting
vampires do you generally see? I see it as a minor interaction,
serving more to prevent one guy from bringing out multiples of Gideon
Fontaine or Information Highway than to keep two players from having
similar decks.
> In addition, it may set a bad precedent. A starting player might wonder if
> it's worth buying old cards (DS or AH) if he can't use them with new ones.
> They may even wonder if it's worth buying SW or FN because some hypothetical
> future expansion might preclude combining with those cards.
Magic's Type II is basically a some-thousand-card banned list...and
that just sucks, I think.
Brian
> > > balance in favor of Camarilla.
I would say it's more of evening the score a bit. Sabbat vampires
were, say, 70% all good vampires. Original set was loaded up with
Appolonius etc. for more like 40%. (These are off the top of my head,
BTW, so I may be wrong.) Still, compare the Nos to the !Nos to see
how much better the Sabbat can be...I think this set may just print
the first GREAT 3-6 cap nossies. Besides Duck and the very recent
Calebros, that is.
> > They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to
> > have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who
> > cares?
> >
> > It works the same way as for rare cards.
>
> No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of
> context, Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of
> Cacaphony, each an exact clone of one of the existing ones, instantly make a
> DoC deck more powerful by substantially reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw?
>
> It works the same for any existing Camarilla deck that doubles or triples up
> on key vampires, if clones of these are printed.
No, it works similarly. The fewer of a vampire in print, the bigger a
difference a duplicate would make. Another 8-cap with everything at
basic, for example, would be HUGE, whereas another 3 cap aus obf to
add to Dollface, Dan Murdock, Regilio, Lena Rowe, and Zoe would not
really matter so much. In fact, once a certain vamp reaches 12
copies, another one doesn't matter at all, such as 4 cap dom. There
are already enough to make a winning deck without any duplicates at
all.
This is why another Daughter would be a big deal, but another 100 Cam
vampires may only be fair.
As to weenies, I wouldn't mind if they printed as many weenies with
balanced disciplines as they want, so long as there are more effects
to counter that (Justine etc.) They only come with one discipline,
that's a drawback as is. If there were KoKu, KuKo, KuKu etc, you
would still need Hector Sosa, Agatha etc. to not bog down your master
phase with POT skill cards.
--Brian
The Bard of Crete
"Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > The "antitribu" designation was simply to help the players to be able
> > to distinguish that there were some Ravnos who affiliated themselves
> > with the Sabbat and who chose different paths than Paradox, but they
> > are not a separate or sub-set of the Ravnos clan. They are still
> > Ravnos.
>
> Yes they are, in the same way that Toreador Antitribu are still
> Toreador.
Nope sorry. The !Toreador have decided to throw off everything thier
"parent" clan stands for. To take all the ideals of the main clan and to
twist them into perverted reflections of that. This is the same with nearly
all the Antitribu clans.
The !Ravnos have not done that. They did not say "We are going the Sabbat
because we wish to bring down the main clan!" No they join the Sabbat to be
with like minded individuals or simply to experience something they haven't.
The Ravnos will not hunt them down, will not act against them once they stop
associating with the Sabbat (if they do of course), will not treat them then
nothing less or more than just another Ravnos.
Can that be said of the !Toreador and Toreador? Individuals perhaps, as a
whole not in the slightest.
> The Ravnos Antitribu are as separate a clan as any of the
> Antitribu clans. The "True" Ravnos simply aren't in the Camarilla. The
> same applies to the Assamites. The "True" clan is independant, the
> "Anti" clan is Sabbat.
They are separate only by ideals and circumstance. If you asked a !Ravnos
and a Ravnos if they were in the same clan they would say "yes". If you
asked a !Toreador and Toreador if they were in the same clan they would say
"no". This applies to the Assimites as well.
This does NOT apply to the Serpents of the Light. They made a conscious
choice to hate the parent clan and work directly against their goals. This
cannot be said of the other two.
> No don't make me explain it again;)
*sigh* I was the one who had to explain it again... ;)
The Bard of Crete
> > I do like that idea. Some new vampires but also some of our oldies with
> > updated sets of disciplines, or even a change/removal of title, possibly
> > even with specials for some who didn't have one before. Might make
Clio's
> > Kiss @ <TEM> more useful.
>
> My Democritus from the future (11 cap, ventrue IC) does not contest your
> Ancient Democritus (10 ventrue Justicar) anymore thanks to clio's kiss =)
>
> funny, ain't it ?
>
anything details in the text of the card....
Chris Berger
"The Bard of Crete" <tlo...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xXjw8.19792$oj5.8...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> The !Toreador have decided to throw off everything thier
> "parent" clan stands for. To take all the ideals of the main clan and to
> twist them into perverted reflections of that. This is the same with nearly
> all the Antitribu clans.
>
> The !Ravnos have not done that. They did not say "We are going the Sabbat
> because we wish to bring down the main clan!" No they join the Sabbat to be
> with like minded individuals or simply to experience something they haven't.
> The Ravnos will not hunt them down, will not act against them once they stop
> associating with the Sabbat (if they do of course), will not treat them then
> nothing less or more than just another Ravnos.
>
> Can that be said of the !Toreador and Toreador? Individuals perhaps, as a
> whole not in the slightest.
>
Reyda
you didn not get the point ;)
(read clios kiss text, maybe ? =) )
Emile Bosman
> > > > balance in favor of Camarilla.
>
> I would say it's more of evening the score a bit. Sabbat vampires
> were, say, 70% all good vampires. Original set was loaded up with
> Appolonius etc. for more like 40%. (These are off the top of my head,
> BTW, so I may be wrong.) Still, compare the Nos to the !Nos to see
> how much better the Sabbat can be...I think this set may just print
> the first GREAT 3-6 cap nossies. Besides Duck and the very recent
> Calebros, that is.
I've discussed this in a post some time ago.
The Cam really is in need of new and better vampires but you do risk
having an overpowered sect ecspecially the traditions pose a problem.
With the origional vtes and jyhad it's dificult too make any weenie
princes deck albeit weenie torreador or ventrue since they have an
abundance of pre which makes them able to push any vote through using
awe.
but if we get any more weenie pre or pot or dom vampires WW would have
undone all the fattie promotion they have been doing the past 2 sets.
> > > They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to
> > > have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who
> > > cares?
I know most people hate multi discipline cards (well atleast in my
meta game they do)but they are rather usefull nose of the hound for
example becomes really usefull because of the minor Auspex
version(Tzimische love it)
> > > It works the same way as for rare cards.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of
> > context, Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of
> > Cacaphony, each an exact clone of one of the existing ones, instantly make a
> > DoC deck more powerful by substantially reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw?
So they won't print anymore bloodlines why would we need any more
daughters anyway they're quiet playable as it stands I would like to
see the entire scarce mechanic dropped though now that would be sweet!
> > It works the same for any existing Camarilla deck that doubles or triples up
> > on key vampires, if clones of these are printed.
well they're going to print 100 new vampires in a 300 card set that
won't leave much or any room for reprinted old vampires or else we're
going to get like 100 liberary cards. So I guess we can rule out
reprints of old vampires.
All in all I think it's save to say that the Cammarilla edition has
had to be a really tough set to make for WW not only did they had to
consider the fact that this set should do for vtes as SW has done for
it that is envite new players but they also had to make sure the set
doesn't shift the complete balance of the game I for one am more
curious about the new vampires then I am of the new cards.
Perhaps they could bring out the 7th traditions it could be something
too do with a fire fighter or a mortal lover an ally that couldn't be
blocked by Cammarilla vampires some weird Book of Nod stuff :P
Chris Berger
"Emile Bosman" <ebo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbf416fb.02042...@posting.google.com...
>
> well they're going to print 100 new vampires in a 300 card set that
> won't leave much or any room for reprinted old vampires or else we're
> going to get like 100 liberary cards. So I guess we can rule out
> reprints of old vampires.
>
vampires and 0-2 new vampires. I assume that all vampires in the boosters will
be new. Hopefully there will be along the lines of 40-50 new library cards as
well, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
CurtAdams
>I think it's likely that the starter decks will contain 10-12 reprinted
>vampires and 0-2 new vampires. I assume that all vampires in the boosters
will
>be new. Hopefully there will be along the lines of 40-50 new library cards as
>well, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Since a large portion of WW's goal is to bring new players into the game
they would be better off if the starters were overwhelmingly reprints.
That way new players could get their old cards from WW, and get them
easily from retailers, etc. If new players can't get old cards in the
starters,
then they will have a powerful incentive to spend money on Jyhad/V:tES
boxes, which will be money that doesn't go to WW. Yeah, we would be
better off if there's a lot of new cards in the starters, but as long as they
have a reasonable number of the old high-rarity semi-power cards I'll
be content. The current starters are pretty good that way; cards which
I really want to have for an X deck are frequently in the starters.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Ulugh Beg
HEHEHEHHEHE, this maybe MY card in the EXP: 11 cap, Tremere IC, Ulugh
Beg pay a less blood for play THAU cards :-)
play U had now 8
Great idea!! I wanna see the olds vamps with his/her new set of Titles
& disciplines . I will be COOL!
MOST REGARDS!!
ULUGH BEG (happy possible TREMERE IC!
GreySeer
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421004806...@mb-fx.aol.com...
WW have done a good job in the past with the post Jyhad starters and I
believe they'll do it again. I'd stopped just before the first expansion
came out and started again when Sabbat War came out. I bought 8 Tzimisce
starters because I wanted Horrid Form, Breath of the Dragon and a few other
cards which only came in the starters. I bought several Giovanni starters
for the Dreams, vampires and a couple of other goodies that were only in the
startes.
Eric Simon
> In article <6f81fa2c.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote:
>
> >Well, keep in mind that one clan has gone through a major discipline
> >change: the Malkavians. As we saw with Anatole, Camarilla Malks
> >should now have Dementation instead of Dominate.
>
> I would classify that as a potentially erroneous conclusion.
> Anatole is a signature character from the novels, and as such has a
> defined existence outside the card game with stats and all. The VtES
> version has to reflect that, and has the Dementation that his
> revised-edition-compliant self has. To conclude that all new Malks in
> the card game will have Demenation instead of Dominate is hasty, though
> certainly possible. I do recall a statement to the effect that they
> wouldn't be changing standard clan disciplines in VtES to avoid screwing
> the clan in question, though a justification could maybe be made in this
> case, due to the largish number of new vampires being produced, allowing
> for a critical mass even without bringing their antitribu brethren into
> the deck.
Okay, perhaps Anatole was just an exception, but I don't think that a
switch would necessarily screw the Malks, as long as there are enough
of them in the expansion. I'd be curious when that statement of
non-change was issued, and what exactly it said. Can you or anyone
else scrounge that up? I do see that, at least with the Assamites as
an example, they HAVE avoided some wholesale incorporation of
revised-edition updates, so I suppose I could see them doing that
again. The Assamites have Tajdid, though. Would the Malks have a
Master that converts all ready Malks with Dom over to equivalent
levels of Dementation? How hard would it be to build a deck around
that?
So, I see your point about not taking Anatole necessarily as an
indicator, but I really do hope they go ahead and make the conversion.
Do we really need any more DOM/AUS/OBF vampires?
Volya42
The Bard of Crete
> >
Like I said "nearly" all....
The official party lines of the Cam and the Sabbat will say that the Nos and
!Nos are separate, but the Nos and !Nos will tell you otherwise. To them
clan is more important than sect. And I suppose that is the point I was
making for the Ravnos et al.
And my thinking has actually been backed up by the cards so far. There has
been a Ravnos who is actually Sabbat but still has the normal Ravnos clan
symbol...
Shaun McIsaac
> > > > > this might cause a heavy swing of vampire
> > > > > balance in favor of Camarilla.
> > I would say it's more of evening the score a bit. Sabbat vampires
> > were, say, 70% all good vampires. Original set was loaded up with
> > Appolonius etc. for more like 40%. (These are off the top of my head,
> > BTW, so I may be wrong.) Still, compare the Nos to the !Nos to see
> > how much better the Sabbat can be...I think this set may just print
> > the first GREAT 3-6 cap nossies. Besides Duck and the very recent
> > Calebros, that is.
> I've discussed this in a post some time ago.
> The Cam really is in need of new and better vampires but you do risk
> having an overpowered sect ecspecially the traditions pose a problem.
> With the origional vtes and jyhad it's dificult too make any weenie
> princes deck albeit weenie torreador or ventrue since they have an
> abundance of pre which makes them able to push any vote through using
> awe.
> but if we get any more weenie pre or pot or dom vampires WW would have
> undone all the fattie promotion they have been doing the past 2 sets.
Nah.
There are enough potence weenies to make a deck as you want anyways,
with the exception of a 3 cap with POT. 2 1 caps, 4 2 caps*, and 11 3
caps have pot. More than enough selection.
Weenie dom is bit different. Currently you have to either duplicate
or go up to 4 cap to get 12 dom/DOM vampires. More 2/3 caps with dom
would mess things up, but more 4 caps wouldn't.
Presence weenies, if you are doing the praxis-presence thing, it all
depends. Sure, another Gideon Fontaine is nice. At most, there would
be 3 more Gideon Clones, and that's a stretch as one of them would
have to be a Brujah with PRE @ 3... seems unlikely. But if you're
going to try and avoid needing to tool up your vampires with pre
masters, you still need to go up to 6 cap to avoid doubling. A deck
that uses masters could be a bit more efficient with those new
vampires in replacing Mariana Gilbert, Violette Prentise and maybe one
other vampire. But it's not the end of the world. If you're just
bleeding with pre weenies, there's 14 with capacity at or below 3..
not a huge deal in any case.
* - Marciana doesn't count
Shaun McIsaac
> What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set
> vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set?
<snip>
> I wasn't involved in playtesting at all, so this is nothing more than
> pondering on my part, but the idea certainly has potential. I also
> have a gut feeling there may be negative consequences, but I can't
> really put my finger on any.
This is a hideous idea. Magic *needed* type II because the costs of
competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting
insane. If you bought all the cards to a brand new type II deck (at
the time this was happening) it might cost you a few hundred dollars.
This was much prefered over the few thousands type I was heading
towards.
Vtes has no real equivalence here. There is really nothing quite like
a mox where you must have (exactly) five of this card in your deck and
the card books at over a hundred dollars a pop. There is really
nothing quite like a lotus, walk, twist, ancestral, etc. etc.. Jyhad
and Vtes have cards that are powerful and hard to find, but nothing
even remotely approaching say a Library.
So, from a strictly monetary standpoint, there's no need. A new
player can trade for an AI, Gideon Fontaine, or 2nd trad if he really
thinks he needs it. Most of the people reading this would gladly give
a newbie a copy of gideon they have in some musty old box, collecting
dust. We've all got plenty. The play balance issue is slightly
different.
I'll come right out now and say that this won't lead to a 'balancing'
effect many have desired. Because you have to think of it like this.
There is this new set of Camarilla vampires, let's call them Camarilla
II, and the other camarilla vampires, Camarilla I. There are only 16
or 17 members of each clan of camarilla II. There are 24 or 25 of
each clan of Camarilla I. You're going to have to include sub-par
vampires into your mono-clan-camarilla II deck... your capacity is
going to be all over the place too. So in addition to having to
balance Camarilla I and any new library cards they get vs the
Independants and the Sabbat, you have to separately balance Camarilla
II vs the Independants, Sabbat, and Camarilla I.
Now, when the anarchs come out, are we going to have Independants I
and Independants II?
Furthermore, do people really care that much about the balance of the
sects, especially if it is going to be done in such a superficial way
as banning entire sets of vampires? What about blood lines? I mean,
the Baali aren't as going to rack up wins at the same rate as the
(!)Malks. Is this a big deal? Do we need to print the Cam II
vampires so that they are on the same power level as the !Salubri?
Sure, having Ventrue prince #7 and #8 makes them a bit stronger, but
unless they've got some obf (and avoid being Suhailah, discipline
wise), they're still going to have a lack of stealth and will fall to
the same strats as before. More OBF/DOM Malks would be a bad thing at
lower capacity because there isn't much in the way of superior DOM
with any level of obf until the higher capacities. Bringing this down
would mean stealth bleed insanity. But it's not so much a balancing
Malks thing as it is balancing obf and dom.
There needs to be some incentive for older players, who will make up
the *vast* majority of potential customers for this set, to buy the
cards. Well, if this set can't be played with my existing cards, why
buy it? Some bloodlines might be a stretch to work into an existing
deck, but at least you can try. Forget about working the new vamps
into existing decks, they're illegal! Well screw that then whats the
point of even bothering? I've got enough reprints of torn signpost to
last me; I don't need the new artwork version, and it'll just be more
indistinguishable Shy work anyways.
Noal McDonald
>>What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES
set
>>vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set?
>
> game gets schismed.
I don't know anything about the Type I/Type II thing since I have
probably never played more than a score of M:TCH games in my life and
have yet to spend a penny on the cursed thing.
I understand that schism is a real concern. I'm just not sure whether
a schism or a flood of weenies is the bigger threat. If you just use
the new set to fill holes, it won't meet the intended goal of being a
set that can stand on its own merits. However, meeting that goal may
have other balance issues. Maybe they'll go the route of Sabbat War,
mixing existing vampires with new ones.
> In addition, it may set a bad precedent. A starting player might wonder if
> it's worth buying old cards (DS or AH) if he can't use them with new ones.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was referring only to
Jyhad/V:TES. I had meant to infer, but probably should have stated,
that the Camarilla vampires from the expansions (DS,AH,FN) could be
used with either set.
> They may even wonder if it's worth buying SW or FN because some hypothetical
> future expansion might preclude combining with those cards.
True...the worst effect would be to undermine consumer confidence.
> And finally, everytime an old player picks up his cards again and asks "if
> his old cards are compatible with the new ones" instead of a simple "yes"
> we'll have to go through a long-winded explanation of "yes but..."
Ugh. You may be right. It might make it more painful for newbies to
mix the stuff they buy with the donations of old card stock from older
players.
Regards,
Noal
The Bard of Crete
"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> I don't know anything about the Type I/Type II thing since I have
> probably never played more than a score of M:TCH games in my life and
> have yet to spend a penny on the cursed thing.
Consider yourself lucky and ahead monitarily. Type II is the worst
scam/farse I have ever witnessed. Basically it is tournament where only the
last 3 expansions are leagal to play with. But what about all those cards
before that? Too bad. It is basically a money making scheme because anyone
who wants to play has to keep buying new cards.
vermillian
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> > >No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of
> > >context,
> > >Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an
> > >exact clone
> > >of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by
> > >substantially
> > >reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw?
> >
> > Actually, the Daughters of Cacophony would be TREMENDOUSLY more powerful if there
> > were 5 new clone Daughters.
> >
>
> My point exactly. It might not be quite as extreme with the Camarilla clans, but
> I'm positive 100 new vampires, probably mostly for the 6 remaining Camarilla clans,
> will have an impact.
Sure an impact, but I've heard somewhere that a lot of these new
vampires are going to be having a lot more specials... so you might
have that PRE vampire, but he'll be a four cap cause he'll have
something stupid like +1 hand damage. Course, that was just from what
I heard.
So assume that of the 33% of the new vampires will be 4-6 cap
vampires. Then assume 75% of them have only inclan disc. Now assume
75% of them have no special. That's still 18 new vampires, but only 3
for each clan... hmm... that's still pretty good.
OK. I concede to your point. Camerilla rocks.
~SV
Andrew Rowanbranch
> and a Ravnos if they were in the same clan they would say "yes". If you
> asked a !Toreador and Toreador if they were in the same clan they would
say
> "no". This applies to the Assimites as well.
Which can apply to the Nosferatu, the Malkavians and possibly the Gangrel
too. Considering that being "seperate only by ideals and circumstance" is
what founded the Sabbat in the first place, I am loathe to claim that they
are the same clan. If we look to the RPG, even the rulebook states that the
"antitribu" are a seperate bloodline, even if it is only by preference of
ideology and no distinct change in the Vitae.
Antitribu designates that there is a bloodline that diverges from the main
clan by sect-affiliation. In the Ravnos case, it means they ain't
Independant, but Sabbat. In the Lasombra case, it means they're Camarilla,
not Sabbat.
These are of course generalisations, Lucita is an example to the contrary,
showing simply that Antitribu can mean diversion by sect-affiliation (or the
loss of such a thing), even if she's not Antitribu anymore...
Regards
- Andrew
Michael (Shadowdragon)
>
> "Marko Saari" <DONTSENDmar...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<a9i8vk$p6k$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>...
> > Cool!
> >
> > But few questions will arise.
> >
> > What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have
> > camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck
> > tournaments?
>
> Of course... !Tremere are all dead, and they can have titles.
> Assamites have eliminated their blood curse but still can't diablerize
> in the card game, etc...
>
If the !Tremere are all dead then why are there two in the Final Nights
set? Maybe there will be !Tremere in the Anarchs set?
Shadowdragon
vermillian
OK, not ALL dead. !Tremere were pretty much all killed off, as a clan,
in the Clanbook series released way back in the day. This was also
when the Gangrel (stupidly) left the Camerilla (I say stupidly because
it was a LAME reason they left... damn lazy WW writers... think of
something better than that, jeez...), and also when the Assmites could
diablerie.
So they're not all dead, but pretty much. Besides, we know the
!Tremere was included just to get people to buy that set. :)
~SV
Frederick Scott
> This was also
> when the Gangrel (stupidly) left the Camerilla (I say stupidly because
> it was a LAME reason they left... damn lazy WW writers... think of
> something better than that, jeez...),
You know, I wondered if anyone else felt that way. I totally agree.
I don't think clans could be leaving the Camarilla just because they
got into *one* big fight with something they couldn't beat and went
to *one* ragtag strategy meeting of a handful of not-all-that-important
vampires currently working on a completely different and rather
challenging problem themselves and failed to cause a panic and so
petulantly decided to leave and take their ball and go home. If
*that's* as committed to the Camarilla as the Gangrel were, one would
have assumed they would have left it about 2.7 seconds after they joined
it.
I hate it when fiction just seems so,....you know...fictional. Yuck.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> josh writes:
>
> >Sadly this
> >analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed
> >X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them.
>
> What's sad about that? The frequency gaps between the rarites
> are large, and X2 helps put in spots for cards too good for X
> and too poor for the next lower rarity.
I think it depends on which rarity sheet it is. If it's the uncommon
sheet, it's really likely to be completely harmless. If it's the
rare sheet and it has a few R1s and a lot of R2s, we can probably pull
the Final Nights a-moanin'-and-a-wailin' record out and stick it back
on the turntable for another play. That would be sad. If it's the
common sheet, it might be kind of annoying if we wind up with C2s
that are far too common for their utility but it's unlikely to be
a completely horrible thing.
Fred
vermillian
Hopefully when the anarchs book is released they'll give the gangrel
other reasons for leaving that weren't explained in the clan books...
~SV
Frederick Scott
>
> Magic *needed* type II because the costs of
> competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting
> insane. If you bought all the cards to a brand new type II deck (at
> the time this was happening) it might cost you a few hundred dollars.
> This was much prefered over the few thousands type I was heading
> towards.
That's not really the whole story. Another part of it was the same thing
WotC/the DCI absolutely refused to do with V:tES also: ban cards. Due
to the fact that the Magic designers didn't understand the concept of card
balance very well (remind you of something they did in V:tES? the original
Mind Rape anybody? How 'bout ToRIII?) and the fact that they changed their
ideas about it significantly from the original card set to what they decided
was fair to print two or three years later, the first 4-6 expansions and the
first four main sets had a *lot* of cards that were so powerful they wouldn't
print such cards in later sets. Type I needn't have contained such cards.
They could have been banned, resulting in a Type I that doesn't require a
"few thousands". But the DCI just has this total blind spot about banning
cards. I think the DCI, when it was a small child, must have gotten bit by
large dog that used to ban cards. In any event, the DCI went through Type I,
Type 1.5, and Extended, all of which were necessary because the previous Type
didn't ban the correct cards and only the correct cards. Extended bans WHOLE
EXPANSIONS and ----->***STILL***<----- doesn't ban all the correct cards,
because the DCI apparently never gets the point.
Anyway, my point is that if you took all of the cards ever printed in Magic,
banned the correct overpowered/undercosted group of them, you could have a
decent "Type I" that didn't cost a "few thousands" to play in competitively.
Card variety might still be an advantage and having a "Type II" might still
be a reasonable second option for tournaments. But Type II doesn't have to
be normal default game as it is now, owing to there be no other halfway fair
alternative. (Ah well, slash-rant and all that...)
Fred
CurtAdams
>If it's the
>rare sheet and it has a few R1s and a lot of R2s, we can probably pull
>the Final Nights a-moanin'-and-a-wailin' record out and stick it back
>on the turntable for another play. That would be sad.
I missed that record and it completely eludes me why R2's in
FN are a problem. It's a relatively specialized set; given
what most people would want to buy R2's are perfect. To have
enough for a set of R1's and some extras to play/trade with
you'd have to buy a huge number of boxes. I like the independents,
but two boxes is about enough. I could stand a third, but more
would be material for the circular file. To have to buy 4 or 5
boxes - yuck. R1's in SW are OK since it's effectively a base
set and supports 8 clans and 11 disciplines rather than 4 clans
and 4 disciplines. There, 4+ boxes isn't torture. In general
I think FN did the best job with the rare sheet of all the WW
expansions.
Frederick Scott
>
> Fred writes:
>
> >If it's the
> >rare sheet and it has a few R1s and a lot of R2s, we can probably pull
> >the Final Nights a-moanin'-and-a-wailin' record out and stick it back
> >on the turntable for another play. That would be sad.
>
> I missed that record and it completely eludes me why R2's in
> FN are a problem. It's a relatively specialized set; given
> what most people would want to buy R2's are perfect.
I'm sorry, but these sentences really make no sense to me. Please
restate what you're trying to say.
Sets where the rarest cards is 1) highly unusual - that is to say, there
are only 8 R1s in the entire set; and 2) extremely rare in comparison to
the most common card, in this case a C2 which is 14 times as common - the
highest ratio in VtES up to that point (and sadly, matched in Bloodlines
as well), is very awkward to collect, either for play purposes or for
set collecting. It helps somewhat that none of the cards are that sought
after for play purposes but only somewhat. It is my hope that they stick
to all R2s in future for the smaller sets (200 cards or less) or print 100
rares on their 100-card cardsheets or fairly near to it on the larger
sets. That way, if you want an R1, most of the packs you buy will contain
an R1 that you'll have a chance of trading for the one you want. Trying to
trade up and down rarity levels is hard.
> In general I think FN did the best job with the rare sheet of all the WW
> expansions.
I don't know why you think that. For me, it was probably the worst
job of any VtES expansion, possibly excepting The Sabbat for a different
reason. The rare scheme in The Sabbat was much better, but WotC did a
horribly bad job of avoiding good rares.
Fred
Frederick Scott
seeing this way of wording a card before.
The outferior version, Thaumaturgy, says: "Put this card on a
slave Gargoyle you control". That's clear enough. But the
Visceratika versions state, "As (the thaumaturgy version) version
above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle." Is that
intended as an explicit Gargoyle clan requirement ALONG WITH
the Visceratika requirement for the acting minion to play the
card? Does a non-Gargoyle have to play clan impersonation as
well as finding some way of coming up with Visceratika in order
to put AoT on himself?
I was also wondering if Spirit Summoning Chamber allows one to
get Armor of Terra (and all the other Thaumaturgy outferior
cards)? In short, does a "minion card that requires Thaumaturgy"
mean, "a card which requires ONLY Thaumaturgy" or "a card that
Thaumaturgy is one of the possible requirements".
Fred
LSJ
>
> I have a question about Armor of Terra, since I can't recall
> seeing this way of wording a card before.
>
> The outferior version, Thaumaturgy, says: "Put this card on a
> slave Gargoyle you control". That's clear enough. But the
> Visceratika versions state, "As (the thaumaturgy version) version
> above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle." Is that
> intended as an explicit Gargoyle clan requirement ALONG WITH
> the Visceratika requirement for the acting minion to play the
> card? Does a non-Gargoyle have to play clan impersonation as
> well as finding some way of coming up with Visceratika in order
> to put AoT on himself?
Yes. See also Taste of Vitae's "this vampire" requirement (rendering
it unplayable by an ally).
> I was also wondering if Spirit Summoning Chamber allows one to
> get Armor of Terra (and all the other Thaumaturgy outferior
> cards)? In short, does a "minion card that requires Thaumaturgy"
> mean, "a card which requires ONLY Thaumaturgy" or "a card that
> Thaumaturgy is one of the possible requirements".
From the Bloodlines preview (Daughters):
When played, the card counts as
requiring the discipline being used
(for effects that enhance or
restrict cards that require certain
disciplines). In the hand (or library
or ash heap), the card can be
considered to require either
discipline (for effects that retrieve
cards that require certain
disciplines).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > I have a question about Armor of Terra, since I can't recall
> > seeing this way of wording a card before.
> >
> > The outferior version, Thaumaturgy, says: "Put this card on a
> > slave Gargoyle you control". That's clear enough. But the
> > Visceratika versions state, "As (the thaumaturgy version) version
> > above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle." Is that
> > intended as an explicit Gargoyle clan requirement ALONG WITH
> > the Visceratika requirement for the acting minion to play the
> > card? Does a non-Gargoyle have to play clan impersonation as
> > well as finding some way of coming up with Visceratika in order
> > to put AoT on himself?
>
> Yes. See also Taste of Vitae's "this vampire" requirement (rendering
> it unplayable by an ally).
Ack. Didn't think of this last night. The outferior version refers
to, "Slave Gargoyle". So since the Viseratika versions use the wording,
"As above", is the Viseratika versions restricted to only _slave_
Gargoyles, as opposed to non-slave Gargoyles?
Fred
LSJ
No. Card text:
"but put this card on this acting Gargoyle".
--
CurtAdams
>I'm sorry, but these sentences really make no sense to me. Please
>restate what you're trying to say.
>Sets where the rarest cards is 1) highly unusual - that is to say, there
>are only 8 R1s in the entire set; and 2) extremely rare in comparison to
>the most common card, in this case a C2 which is 14 times as common - the
>highest ratio in VtES up to that point (and sadly, matched in Bloodlines
>as well), is very awkward to collect, either for play purposes or for
>set collecting. It helps somewhat that none of the cards are that sought
>after for play purposes but only somewhat. It is my hope that they stick
>to all R2s in future for the smaller sets (200 cards or less)
I've seen comments that WW got grief for having so many R2's in FN
and that's why BL has so many R1s. If the complaint was that there
*were* R1s in FN, I don't understand WW's reaction with BL. Anyway,
you're not saying the R1-R2 distinction causes trouble, you're saying
the R1-C2 coexistance causes trouble, and that has nothing to do with
whether there are R2s.
>> In general I think FN did the best job with the rare sheet of all the WW
>> expansions.
>I don't know why you think that. For me, it was probably the worst
>job of any VtES expansion, possibly excepting The Sabbat for a different
>reason. The rare scheme in The Sabbat was much better, but WotC did a
>horribly bad job of avoiding good rares.
FN did a good job of avoiding great rares. I haven't seen any rares
where I went "That's Rare!?" - which I have with BL and SW. So Sutekh
is a chase card. So? I can live without him. Yes, the set is as difficult
to collect as a full expansion would be, but I don't see any particular
reason why collecting should be easier with FN.
Frederick Scott
>
> I've seen comments that WW got grief for having so many R2's in FN
> and that's why BL has so many R1s. If the complaint was that there
> *were* R1s in FN, I don't understand WW's reaction with BL. Anyway,
> you're not saying the R1-R2 distinction causes trouble, you're saying
> the R1-C2 coexistance causes trouble, and that has nothing to do with
> whether there are R2s.
Actually, the trouble was having a few R1s amongst a lot of R2s.
The problem is that the R1s become more difficult to get than if they
were R1s amongst a whole set full of R1s. My take on the problem is that
White Wolf is stuck with 100-card cardsheets. They apparently decided
that the correct balance between rare, uncommon, and common was 1 to 1 to
1 so they divided their 162 new cards into 54 rares, 54 uncommons, and
54 commons. Unfortunately, this worked out rather badly, since they had
just a few cards more than the 50 that would have resulted in 50 R2s. So
we wind up with 8 "super-rares", cards that are hard to find in packs, not
worth buying more packs for (because 92% of the time you get R2s that you
already have enough of), and of extremely uncertain trade value. I think
the whole issue would have worked much more smoothly if they had just
given up 4 rares to the uncommons and printed 16 U1s and 42 U2s. They
would have sold a few less boxes but caused a great deal less irritation
to their customers.
> FN did a good job of avoiding great rares.
Yea, I'll second that. Now that I've had the benefit of most of year's
experience with the expansion, I have to say that it hasn't been too bad
of a problem. Which makes it pretty good - this being one of those things
that you only notice what's wrong, not what's right. I'm also noticing
that the cards I have unquenchable appetite for don't necessarily seem to
be everybody's else's favorite Final Nights card, which is a good sign.
Fred
CurtAdams
>Actually, the trouble was having a few R1s amongst a lot of R2s.
>The problem is that the R1s become more difficult to get than if they
>were R1s amongst a whole set full of R1s.
You still have to buy 100 packs to get an R1, whether there's
100 R1s or 2. The others Rs are a disincentive to buy more if
they're too common and an incentive if they're too rare. But if
the Rs are drawing me to buy more there's a power rare
problem. Without a power rare problem, the rarity of the
other rares has no effect on the desirability of pack #90.
It will be expected to contain 1 reasonably good rare, 3
reasonably good uncommons, etc.
Also, with one of these supporting sets, few are going to want to
buy far in excess of what's needed to collect one set. So, if you're
a player/collector, you'll basically be unable to play with any
R1s, unless you're a serious suitcase. Having R1s and R2s means
a player/collector can buy enough for one set and still have some
rares to play with. It's *better* than all R1s, albeit not necessarily
better than all R2s. More R2s mean more to play with.
>Unfortunately, this worked out rather badly, since they had
>just a few cards more than the 50 that would have resulted in 50 R2s. So
>we wind up with 8 "super-rares", cards that are hard to find in packs, not
>worth buying more packs for (because 92% of the time you get R2s that you
>already have enough of), and of extremely uncertain trade value.
Collectors still need 100 packs for a set, with 100 R1s or 8. If R2
is too common for a card, that's a problem, but in principle no rarity
is wrong for every card. If some FN R2s should have been R1, then
that's something of a problem, but you can't expect every rarity to
be perfect. Buying more packs is only a problem if the play cards
lack the variety and desirability to support a 100-pack purchase, which
I would agree makes R1's annoying for players. But, if such is the
case, moving cards from U1 or C1 to R1 won't help.
>I think
>the whole issue would have worked much more smoothly if they had just
>given up 4 rares to the uncommons and printed 16 U1s and 42 U2s. They
>would have sold a few less boxes but caused a great deal less irritation
>to their customers.
Yeah, no R1s whatsoever is a different ballgame. I would agree with
you on supporting sets like FN and BL. But chase cards do
seem to help sell games, and if they don't impair game balance I've no
problem with them. I'm content with a reason to want megaboxes without
a requirement. 8 interesting non-killer not-in-quantity chase cards is
IMO an extremely fair way to create demand for megaboxes without
requirements.
Frederick Scott
>
> freds64_at_...@removethis.com writes:
>
> >Actually, the trouble was having a few R1s amongst a lot of R2s.
> >The problem is that the R1s become more difficult to get than if they
> >were R1s amongst a whole set full of R1s.
>
> You still have to buy 100 packs to get an R1, whether there's
> 100 R1s or 2. The others Rs are a disincentive to buy more if
> they're too common and an incentive if they're too rare. But if
> the Rs are drawing me to buy more there's a power rare
> problem. Without a power rare problem, the rarity of the
> other rares has no effect on the desirability of pack #90.
Maybe. But the rarity of the other rares have an effect on how *often*
pack #90 gets purchased, and *that* is why a few R1s in a set with many
R2s are harder to get than R1s in a set with all R1s.
> Collectors still need 100 packs for a set, with 100 R1s or 8. If R2
> is too common for a card, that's a problem, but in principle no rarity
> is wrong for every card. If some FN R2s should have been R1, then
> that's something of a problem, but you can't expect every rarity to
> be perfect.
I'm making the assumption that all rarities are equally useful. Or at
least, all rare cards, be they R1 or R2, are equally useful. If you
have knowledge that the R1s were specifically selected to be less useful
by a factor of exactly 2 in the game overall (ignoring the effect of collecting,
which in truth is impossible to do) than the R2s on average, then I would
agree that there's no problem. I don't see any reason to believe the R1s
were more or less useful than the R2s on average in Final Nights, therefore
I automatically see the difference as a problem.
I think this aspect of rarity is extremely confusing but I think my
generalization of the problem is the correct one. It's true that there's
good evidence that rarity choices have been made to direct the cards needed
in greater number towards the more common rarity levels. Unfortunately,
such evidence is extremely crude and it's hard to say or see much beyond
this extremely generalized statement. So while the more common cards do
tend to be more useful in greater numbers than rarer cards, we can't really
count on it. And in the vast majority of cases, not so much more useful that
it justifies their extreme commonality in the set. (Which is to say, that
rarity is generally a bad deal for CCG consumers, strictly speaking. Which
we already knew.) By the time we get out to R1s and R2s, I just don't see
any use in assuming there's a difference in utility unless there's really
some extremely obvious, hard-to-dispute evidence. Which I don't think there
is in Final Nights.
> >I think
> >the whole issue would have worked much more smoothly if they had just
> >given up 4 rares to the uncommons and printed 16 U1s and 42 U2s. They
> >would have sold a few less boxes but caused a great deal less irritation
> >to their customers.
>
> Yeah, no R1s whatsoever is a different ballgame. I would agree with
> you on supporting sets like FN and BL. But chase cards do
> seem to help sell games, and if they don't impair game balance I've no
> problem with them.
Chase cards help sell games by creating the incentive to buy more unnecessary,
unwanted additional cards people will get trying to get lucky and get the chase
cards. This is actually extremely comparable to simply raising the price of
a pack: it will generate more profit per pack for the manufacturer at the
expense of the consumer. In this case, the manufacturer must provide the same
amount of physical product for the same price. However, the nature of copying
cards and producing packs being what it is, the manufacturer still winds up
getting much better profit from its overhead which is probably much more
important: game design and development, the development of the backstory (the
years of work on its fiction and RPG lines), art, typesetting, and other types
of overhead. And the players get less usable product on average in the end from
each pack of cards.
> 8 interesting non-killer not-in-quantity chase cards is
> IMO an extremely fair way to create demand for megaboxes without
> requirements.
I'm sorry, I disagree. I think chase cards that are functionally different from
all other existing cards are a very poor choice for generating revenue in the end.
They only frustrate and annoy players even if they're only moderately useful. And
in CCGs, it's very hard to guarantee in the design phase of a set that they don't
turn out to be power rares once they're in the hands of players struggling to
invent the best decks. This is a very dangerous thing to play around with, IMHO.
Fred
Curevei
>where I went "That's Rare!?" - which I have with BL and SW. So Sutekh
>is a chase card. So? I can live without him. Yes, the set is as difficult
>to collect as a full expansion would be, but I don't see any particular
>reason why collecting should be easier with FN.
I don't think trying to collect any set (ignoring such things as collecting
foil versions of cards for games with foils) should be hard. But, certainly
collecting a small expansion, which I consider FN to be, shouldn't be difficult
at all.
Problem isn't FN or any one small expansion. Problem is that it becomes very
tiresome to constantly have to get a bunch of cards you aren't interested in
just to try and get a set or just to compete.
And, while it's certainly possible for WW to make R1s (for a set that has both
R1s and R2s) that aren't particularly good so people don't have to have them, I
wouldn't put any vampire in that category.
For FN, I calculated 4 boxes was the right number to try for a set sans
significant trading. After 4 boxes, I was one R1 short, as I recall. Rather
than be happy that I was on target, I was annoyed that it was as bad as I
expected. For some reason, I consider expecting to need 4 boxes for a set with
54 rares a bad thing. As for the R1 I was missing, next to no chance I could
trade for it, not to say someone in a different situation couldn't have.
For a set with ~50 rares, I should expect 3 boxes (108 rares) to be a good
amount. But, with the R1s, I consider a good amount of FN to be 5 boxes.
Should WW be happy about this? Short run, sure. But, long run, you end up
turning off people who think preordering 4+ boxes is a big deal. You might
even turn off people who don't as they just get tired of the R1 gimmick.
Chris Berger
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message
news:20020513141301...@mb-cg.aol.com...
>
> For a set with ~50 rares, I should expect 3 boxes (108 rares) to be a good
> amount. But, with the R1s, I consider a good amount of FN to be 5 boxes.
> Should WW be happy about this? Short run, sure. But, long run, you end up
> turning off people who think preordering 4+ boxes is a big deal. You might
> even turn off people who don't as they just get tired of the R1 gimmick.
>
to get cards to use in decks. I don't buy them for 1 card, I buy a pack for 11
cards (or however many might be in a particular pack... the more the better
;) ). The biggest problem with FN is that the commons, in general, suck.
Sure, I could use 6 Ecstasy's and 4 Zillah's Valleys, but once I've got that, I
don't need to be buying more packs. I certainly don't need 10 Banners of
Neutrality, or *any* Extortions. If I'm buying packs to get enough rares, 4+
boxes would be a good amount, but since the commons get old after 1/2 a box,
that's all I'm buying. If, on the contrary, 1-2 boxes would be good to have
enough rares, I might continue buying cards after the 1/2 box where commons are
useful - there's a goal in sight, and it's not ridiculously far away. But
there's no way I'm buying a couple hundred cards at $3 a piece. That's just
ludicrous.
Maybe some people are silly enough to go ahead and buy the 4 boxes of FN and
give WW what it wants in the "short run" (and hopefully they are upset and
frustrated with their purchase). But I hope that there are considerably more
people who have despaired of having a "play set" of all the rares and just quit
early, as it became clear that they couldn't achieve their goal.
Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just the
last card? Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to
at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you
already have too many copies of, right? If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like
Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what that
card is?
Curevei
>last card? Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect
>to
>at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you
>already have too many copies of, right? If packs were a buck, or 50 cents
>like
>Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what
>that
>card is?
I lament how worthless commons are (dollarwise). But, the industry, in
general, has adopted a sales approach that only makes "the last card" (whether
it/they in the case of rare+foil is/are last or not) important. Because people
will buy lots of boxes to get the rares (ultrarares, foils, autographs, etc.)
they want.
If you can really ignore the existence of rares, you're set up pretty well.
I'd love to unload 1000s of extra commons for CCGs (the ones with card limits
for the most part, though some of the more worthless in multiples cards in this
game can go too). More useful to someone looking for these sorts of cards, as
I'm not going to pay to ship the crap, common and uncommon sets on eBay or
common/uncommon singles are cheap and not difficult to get.
HD
> > For a set with ~50 rares, I should expect 3 boxes (108 rares) to be a good
> > amount. But, with the R1s, I consider a good amount of FN to be 5 boxes.
> > Should WW be happy about this? Short run, sure. But, long run, you end up
> > turning off people who think preordering 4+ boxes is a big deal. You might
> > even turn off people who don't as they just get tired of the R1 gimmick.
> >
> You're ignoring a much more important aspect of this... I buy packs in order
> to get cards to use in decks. I don't buy them for 1 card, I buy a pack for 11
> cards (or however many might be in a particular pack... the more the better
> ;) ). The biggest problem with FN is that the commons, in general, suck.
> Sure, I could use 6 Ecstasy's and 4 Zillah's Valleys, but once I've got that, I
> don't need to be buying more packs. I certainly don't need 10 Banners of
> Neutrality, or *any* Extortions. If I'm buying packs to get enough rares, 4+
> boxes would be a good amount, but since the commons get old after 1/2 a box,
> that's all I'm buying. If, on the contrary, 1-2 boxes would be good to have
> enough rares, I might continue buying cards after the 1/2 box where commons are
> useful - there's a goal in sight, and it's not ridiculously far away. But
> there's no way I'm buying a couple hundred cards at $3 a piece. That's just
> ludicrous.
Finally someone is talking about the importance of having useful
commons and uncommons. This one of the most important aspects to
creating a good expansion set or a 'base set' like the Camarilla
Edition. Unfortunately, this concept seems to be ignored by many
people. If most of the commons are lame and the uncommons aren't much
better, then only the hard core players are going to waste a bunch of
money on more cards.
Getting a few good rare cards isn't worth buying several boxes.
Anyone who disagrees with this either has much more disposable income
than the average person, or they are kind of obsessed with the game
(and those people don't count).
What we are talking about here is whether or not most people are going
to be happy with their purchase every time they buy a few packs of
cards (new players and long-term players alike). An expansion set
that gets old or boring after someone buys 1/2 a box of cards is a
poorly constructed expansion. Every single pack of cards should have
several cards that are great.... period. Good commons, even better
uncommons, and amazing rares.
Personally, I would like White Wolf to come out with a "greatest hits"
expansion. This would include all the best cards on each of the three
main levels (common, uncommon, rare) from all the older expansions.
However, I also think this might be boring for long-term players.
That's why I suggested that White Wolf start publishing new cards in
place of some of the old ones that are still useful. Who needs
another Bastard Sword? Why not create something else instead?? How
about a Hunting Knife or Switch Blade that is similar to a Bastard
Sword, but has a small distinguishing feature (ex. cold steel weapon,
breaks when used against Skin of Steel, can only be used twice in one
combat, etc.) Why not apply this kind of logic to other cards as
well?
I realize that making new cards with similar mechanics as other cards
may be a little weak, but it's much better than creating more "throw
away" cards or simply reprinting the same old stuff.
I believe that every new expansion is a great opportunity to fill in
the gaps that currently exist in the game while also creating new
dynamics and strategies. I am hoping that White Wolf will continue to
make better and better expansion sets so the game will continually
improve.
Here are some suggestions:
- Find out which cards people are actually using in the game
- Create more cards that are truly useful
(without throwing off the balance)
- Develop the role playing aspect of the game a bit more
(more options)
- Include more objects, locations, and characters that are a common
part of life (cars, buses, toll booths, coffee shops, health clubs,
bums, prostitutes, lawyers, firemen, swat team, helicopters, private
jets, limos, kitchen knives, lead pipes, baseball bats, etc)
The main problem I see with various expansion sets is how quickly they
become boring. The real trick is finding the balance between a truly
useful card and a card that is too powerful. White Wolf has
occasionally created cards that cost a little too much (blood or
pool), aren't quite powerful enough, or apply to very limited
circumstances, and they end up being completely useless.
And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to
spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it.
Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players
alike.
Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs
too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of
the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had
a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood
counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one
of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their
wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly
interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them
thought it was kind of fun.
But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it takes
to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a
lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of my
frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow
the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give each
of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still have
to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares to
make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make more
money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify getting
any of them into something that takes so much money to play... it's
like a financial black hole.
If the Camarilla Edition is a truly good set of cards, I may buy a box
of the clan decks and give them to my friends. But if it turns out
that the packs of cards are full of lame reprints or other cards that
are relatively useless, then I'm not going to even buy the cards for
myself. I may eventually walk away from this game if White Wolf
doesn't make it more accessible to the average person.
Frustrated in Houston,
Howard
PS Here are some of the cards I am hoping to see in future
expansions. Either these specific cards or something else that is
similar:
Blood Dolls
Wakes
Taste of vitae
Psyche
Immortal grapple
Torn signpost
Apportation
Awe
Entrancement
Majesty
Precognition
Telepathic misdirection
Eagles sight
Rolling with the punches
Freak drive
Disarm
Spying mission
Behind you
Forgotten labyrinth
Govern the unaligned
Obedience
Body flare
Breath of the dragon
Second tradition
Shroud of night
Shroud of absence
Eyes of the night
Carrion crows
Shadow step
The fifth tradition
Temptation of a greater power
Derange
Magic of the smith
Dog pack
Recruiting party
Gang tactics
Raptor
Judgement: Camarilla Segregation
The Hungry Coyote
Powerbase Montreal
KRCG
Rumor Mill
Sudden Reversal
Smiling Jack
Giants Blood
Rottshreck
Ivory Bow
What do you guys think? Which of these cards are worth reprinting?
What cards did I leave out?
And more importantly, how could White Wolf make new cards with similar
attributes and effects?
> Maybe some people are silly enough to go ahead and buy the 4 boxes of FN and
> give WW what it wants in the "short run" (and hopefully they are upset and
> frustrated with their purchase). But I hope that there are considerably more
> people who have despaired of having a "play set" of all the rares and just quit
> early, as it became clear that they couldn't achieve their goal.
>
> Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just the
> last card?
No, you're not alone on that one.
Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to
> at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you
> already have too many copies of, right?
Exactly. Although I hope that even the commons are useful. If they
aren't, then it is just a waste of time and money.
If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like
> Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what that
> card is?
I totally agree. You've hit the nail on the head.